Singapore Politics (Opposition)

I'm very heartened to read this article:

WP chief: 377A debate shows more openness

where Workers Party chief Mr. Low Thia Khiang enhances the good impression I have always had of him: A mature, reasonable and wise opposition politician.

I cannot understand why many people (who do not agree with the Government) tend to oppose every single thing the government does, particularly people in opposition politics. The PAP, for all its faults (and I feel they have many), have in general done a good job running Singapore.

At the same time, (and I have yet to observe behavior to the contrary) many PAP supporters and PAP politicians themselves cannot seem to restrain their instinct to dismiss ideas coming from opposition politicians or from people who do not agree with them. To them, it seems, people who disagree are "troublemakers" or "dangerous" people. A mature discussion of issues and problems do not appear to be on the cards as far as they are concerned.

In any case, while I hope the Worker's Party will eventually mature into a political group with the potential to form a government, I must say I do not fully agree with its manifesto. I do think, however, that it is important that they, along with the SDA reach such a stage and the political situation becomes more conducive for peaceful, amiable transitions of power.

Then, I think, the governance of Singapore would have reached a stable and sustainable stage. It currently relies too much on the competence and incorruptibility of one party and as we know from history, just because you had a good emperor does not mean his successor will remain just as good. Without appropriate checks and balances, the potential for things to go wrong is high. My observation is this: the PAP continues to try to stunt the competence and capability of opposition parties. The bad effect of this is, if the PAP becomes corrupt or incompetent and Singaporeans wished to vote them out (as is the idea of a democratic system), it becomes a no-win situation if the opposition is equally bad if not worse. The thinking in the PAP that "We can do no wrong" is, I think, the primary reason why the PAP is so high-handed and is also the potential path to such a scenario. Some humility, along with a sense of competitiveness (ie. The opposition can come up with great ideas, but we think we can come up with even better ones!) would I think serve the PAP and Singapore better in the long run.

Politics

I think this article:

NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause by Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

is a reflection of the sad state of affairs in Singapore politics. She considers the "homosexual agenda" a "political group".

Details about NMPs or Nominated Members of Parliament in Singapore may be found on this wikipedia article.

Anyway, according to Ms Chua, these individuals are supposed to be "non-partisan" and by that extension, are not supposed to represent any "political group". Which leads me to think ... so what does she expect these people to do? Fight for issues on behalf of all Singaporeans? What about the poor homosexual people who do not have rights equal to other Singaporeans? Should the NMPs then ignore issues that only affect groups/subgroups of people?

I'll admit, I do not know the precise definition of the "role" that NMPs are supposed to fulfill (rather, I cannot seem to find those details anywhere). Seems a tad restrictive if what Ms Chua believes is also what the government wants of NMPs. In any case, it's a moot issue since the ruling party basically has the right not to reappoint particularly annoying NMPs (in fact, it looks like over the last 5 years, only 1 NMP ever got reappointed).

What troubles me is people (well, actually I believe most people ... I think I'm in the minority here) would believe this. Kinda defeats the purpose of having NMPs if they are meant to just sit pretty. I missed the good old days of NMP Walter Woon who would fight for issues and now I see people dissing the efforts of another NMP who wishes to make a change he feels is for the improvement of overall justice and fairness in society.

Marital Rape (2)

Wow, it seems the previous opinion is shared by more people (well, at least a second vocal person):

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_167271.html

I do not buy the crap that just because a woman enters into "Holy Matrimony" with a man, it means she has to subject herself to her husband's sexual desires anytime he wants it. I'm generalizing here, but it sure sounds like theological crap from over-zealous Christian thinking that I've seen so much in Singapore Christian youth.

Also, he starts to criticize the report on trauma, obviously cherry-picking and choosing to nitpick on the word "violence". I cannot pretend to know the emotions one goes through when one is having sex forced on himself or herself (whether or not there is violence involved) but I do not believe it is pleasant. At the very least, the woman would have to "fake it", which I think is mildly annoying at the least. How the husband can enjoy sex with his wife who is not reciprocating, I do not understand ... might as well masturbate with some porno ... oh wait, there's no porno available in Singapore ... sucks to be a Singaporean male living in Singapore then ...

Which brings me to my next topic, which is the author's sweeping (implied) generalization that because a woman denies her husband sex (Remember, I consider consistent denial grounds for divorce) when she's not in the mood, the husband will invariably visit a prostitute and conduct unsafe sex. That is, again, a typical leap of logic that my countrymen (including the government when they wish to make people afraid) really enjoy making.

I'm starting to feel afraid for the fine womenhood of my country ... sigh. Be strong and kick our men in the butt!

Marital Rape ...

... this is a highly disturbing opinion-piece posted on the Straits Times forum website:

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_166104.html

In my opinion, the author twists logic to arrive at his conclusion, showing little if any of the simple empathy that should help most civilized individuals come to the conclusion that a lack of consent should be respected in the case where it infringes on personal integrity.

If a spouse says he or she is not interested in sex, then that's that. If this turns out to be a long-term problem, then divorce is the proper and justified option.

I think the law exempting marital rape is outdated and archaic.

It is however, I must admit, a different problem in practice. Unlike the traditional idea of rape, it is extremely hard to prove or disprove marital rape considering the couple are (well, expected to be) regular sex partners. If accusations are made, then what happens? Perhaps a court-order requiring separation? Afterall, the bond of trust has already been broken in such a case, whether or not the crime was in fact committed.