Words: Muslim Patrol?

Muslims today seem to have forgotten why Syariah Law exists, for it has been convoluted and sometimes practiced or enforced as actual “laws”. Religious laws often are more morals than laws, they are aspired behaviours and not prescribed behaviours.

For starters, simply, the Muslim patrol is a group of vigilantes patrolling the streets of East London and basically harassing individuals whom are perceived to be not abiding by Islamic law. You can view the stream article here.

Why this is fucked up

The Muslim Patrol has one clear objective, to create “Muslim Zones” in different areas. What does this achieve really? Lets take it to the extreme. If it is successful, it creates areas within a country where certain behaviours will be punished/deterred; i.e. Behaviours that are not “Islamic” in nature.

Notwithstanding, Islam is a religion, and Syariah Law or Islamic Law is a law that arose from the religion. It is uncalled for to basically hold free individuals to such law, whether or not they are of Islamic faith. Even if they are Muslims, no such individual should be held up to the law of the religion.

Why should individuals not be held to the law of religion?

Secular laws are passed after going through many rounds of checking and refining, through parliament or other channels that do represent the basic or lowest level of ethical behaviour, basically, fall below that expected line and you’re punished. It may not be 100% democratic and put to vote, but it still more or less represents the moderates.

Religious law/Syariah Law are laws that are taken and re-adapted from a book that is well, basically put it this way, centuries old. Laws need to be updated from time to time. Further more, religious laws represent a standard of behaviour that is to be aspired, not prescribed. Again, religious laws often are more morals than laws, they are often very dutiful in nature and they are basically set as a moral benchmark; for one to aspire to be a better human being.

I hope that in the coming days, Muslims that have been tarnishing the image and name of Islam would realize the err in their ways and help to instead create and flourish a community that is beautiful and supportive.



Words: India’s Rape Culture

Well, recently I’ve been hearing and reading many articles (too many to mention) regarding the paternalistic culture of India being one of the main reasons that rape is so rampant in the country. Perhaps that may have its roots in argument.

Though, over lunch today with a friend of mine (who is Indian, not from India, but yeah) and she pointed out a very important point. she asked me “the chinese also have a paternalistic culture, why don’t they have as many rapes in china?”.

I thought about it very long (well the chinese part of me did), and i realized, it cannot simply be labelled as paternalistic culture. The cause and effect of it is wrong. It is true that the stats of rape in china is less than in india (checking from google and general articles). But again, we would never know the REAL statistics and numbers. We are operating on reported cases and projections of non-reported cases. 

My first reply to her was. “Chinese men go to prostitutes when they get horny, they’d rather just pay their problem to go away” and it is true, sometimes, it is within the chinese culture to emphasize power and prestige by womanizing and gambling. There are many videos and stories of chinese businessmen sharing prostitutes with their associates.

So then she asked me, what do the poor ones do then do they rape? I thought about it harder, again no. They simply work hard as shit, feed their wives and children less and set aside their budget for prostitutes. (there are many low end brothels in China, you can go to to see like picture sets of these brothels and prostitutes)

So why this stark contrast, even though people draw so many similarities between China and India? I would think, it would boil down to two simple things.

Firstly the Chinese are not as well known for drinking as the Indians are. If any of you have Chinese friends, we get really REALLY hammered after a few rounds of drinks and often are unable to “ahem” get it up y’know? It may not apply to all Chinese people, but i think it applies to quite a great majority (based on the assumption that Singaporean chinese are genetically related to their China counterparts). The Indians on the other hand, often get a little bit more roused from drinking, they tend to get less hammered, just buzzed enough to remove their inhibitions even after the same number of drinks and well, basically they tend to drink harder liquors, “todi” ( some kind of indian moonshine, even the smell of it gets me hammered )

Next point, the sexuality of the culture, classical Chinese culture often depicts women as shy, fragile beings, although, they do also acknowledge that women are not all that weak, hey Wing Chun ( IP MAN MOVIE !!! ) was developed by a woman, and there are women in Chinese culture that are in positions of power and domination, ( the empress dowager ) kinda thing. In the Indian culture, women are seen as perhaps maybe less of man (correct me if i’m wrong as i’m not that well versed in indian culture) and they are often seen as objects or possessions (in some traditional chinese cultures this is also the case especially for women whom are mistresses, although mistresses are still treated with respect). There is very little SERIOUS exemplification of a powerful Indian woman. 

So yeah. India has a really serious rape culture going on.

Words: Is Sex Really That Big of An Issue?

In The Temasek Times Article: ASEAN scholar from NUS Law posts videos of him having sex with girlfriend on blog.

Along came many sarcastic remarks, The New Paper described the pair as “narcissistic” apparently it was a psychologist who said so.

Andrea Fonseka apparently is VERY disapproving of it as well,

Well firstly, look at it this way, they are enjoying what they are doing. Not many people can really claim to enjoy what they are doing.  Perhaps yes, having sex in a public toilet is kind of breaking the law, but come on, I am sure many people have tried that, just that they do not publicize it. Also, if they would want to post up their sexual escapades for all to see, it is up to them, who are we to judge another human being and moralize their actions for them? Secondly, it is a form of expression, they want to show the world how they are enjoying themselves. So? what is wrong with that? Are we so backward that we still consider sex as a taboo? It is simply a two (Or sometimes more people) having intercourse and other acts of sexual nature. Many people would experience sex, if not as many people experienced sex, You and I will not be walking around today.

Also, focus on yourself before you focus on others. Many comments such as Andrea Fonseka’s , which are strongly against the couple, saying that they have  “no class” and they do not know how to think of their parents. Most of the people making the comments do not even know them personally, and how do you judge if a person thinks about his parents, for all you know, they may be very filial children. Also, it is pretty unkind to say such things of people, I mean if one wanted to prove that Alvin and Vivian are wrong, they could go about and argue and prove that what they are doing is wrong, instead of simply slamming them and calling them names, which is pretty common in today’s society. 

By saying so you are imposing your own morals and values on their actions and decisions. Who are you to judge them? The answer No One. Instead of judging them, focus on your own actions, why were you viewing their erotica in the first place and then making snide comments? you can choose not to bother with it in the first place, and this respects their autonomy as individuals. They are not hurting anybody with their erotica. Right?

I personally feel that there should be discretion in choosing to involve oneself. Battles should be chosen wisely and the autonomy of others should be respected as long as they are not affecting anybody else with their actions.

Words: Equality; Minister Shanmugam’s remarks on Amy Cheong

In the temasek times article. 

Minister Shanmugam was quoted as saying the following.

He described her comments as reflecting a deep-seated racist attitude:

“Her comments reflect a deep seated racist attitude coupled with contempt for those who are less well off, or who wish to spend less. I had said, in 2002, in Parliament, that we should look deep into our hearts and ask what the attitudes of non Malays are towards our Malay brothers and sisters. We will be a truly civilised society only when we deep in our hearts accept everyone as equal.”

Well, while his comments are politically right, and it seems to sit well with the times. I would question the last sentence “We will be a truly civilised society only when we deep in our hearts accept everyone as equal.” I will address the latter part of the sentence, and then the former.

Well, “only when we deep in our hearts accept everyone as equal”. There is no such thing as equal individuals, everyone is born into different circumstances and makes different choices. No two people would ever be “equal”. Deep seated cracks in our society, comes from trying to strive for that equality. Even if you take two chinese or two indian people, they would not be equal, there are rich chinese and their are blue collar chinese as well. How different is that from malay people. Personally I feel that it is a common misconception; perhaps there may be an underlying trend, i may not know because i have not seen the statistics. It is also a misconception to strive to deep in our hearts accept everyone as equal. Maybe i’m right maybe i’m wrong, but personally, it is better to accept everyone as different. Accepting the differences means accepting the inequality, and that sometimes there would be snobs who think they’re better than anyone else. But if you leave this snobs alone, they might make worse comments for awhile, but for how long? After a short while, they’d realize that its REALLY stupid to play your own game to pretend you’re winning.

“Truly civilised society” is another issue that I feel strongly about. Firstly I’ll state that my personal view is that there is no truly civilised society. However, lets for the sake of argument, assume that there is one. We cannot correlate accepting everyone as equal in our hearts to a civilised society. A civilised society is described as the following:

1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.
courtesy of ( <= because i’m poor i use a free dictionary.
Now, how does any of the above correlate to accepting everyone as equal in our hearts? I can prove however, that it can be linked to accepting differences and inequality “moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable”. A society that is morally and intellectually advanced, would all the more comprehend and deal with differences on a day to day basis. You cannot be a society that attempts to enforce concepts of equality; trying to hide away and sweep under the carpet all the ideas of inequality and still hope to be civilised. When there is light there is dark, when there is hope, there is despair, and where there is calm, there is chaos. Inequality should be accepted and treated as a norm, only then will society advance, to see what is the cause or reasons for the inequality, and if the consequences and the causes of the inequality are justifiable. There is a reason for the inequality symbols in maths. Its just that social value is a lot more difficult to quantify.

Words: Racist Remarks; why we should not be angry with Amy Cheong

Well, expanding from my previous post from yesterday. I guess the community should not have lashed out and blown the matter out of proportion. The strong reaction was just as disgraceful as the initial comments.

So there is no point shouting at a person whom is too silly to realize the consequences of their words, because there is only a thin line dividing them from those whom are mentally challenged.

If you leave them alone, they would feel stupid and perhaps change their minds about their situation or remark. I am sure many of you have ever made a silly comment on twitter or facebook and had no one like your comments or even comment on your posts. Then you sort of feel a little awkward and go for the delete button about 5 hours later. After that you live and learn from your mistake and post better shit. I sure went through a lot of that sort of learning! even in real life when speaking to my friends.

By fighting back or persecuting them, you are only validating their hatred. What is the point?

This is why:

Lets say, you were at your favourite kopi tiam (coffee shop) someone came up to you, pointed at you and started hurling insults and vulgarities in multiple languages. You initially feel shocked. upon further observation you realize that the individual is mentally challenged, perhaps a form of tourette’s syndrome or some-other. Would you start standing up and shouting back at him? or start hitting him with something?

Well the clear answer for most individuals would be no. If you answered yes, it is not wrong either.


So now, some lady online made a racist remark, upon further observation, she’s obviously not mentally challenged, due to her apparently high post in NTUC membership club. However, it can be taken that she must have a real lack of self discipline and tolerance, to be able to post such insensitive remarks online. Either that or an ignorance of consequences. When you contextualize it, does lashing back and shouting back or hitting back at her really do anything for you? No. It does not, perhaps you would just like to air your own views, but for those who lashed back in a nasty, angry and insulted manner, it is like hitting a handicapped person. Would you hit a handicapped person?