Marriage - It's a game of who wins more?!??!

Same sentiments, Mr Tham Zhi Ming ('In divorce, nobody wins', 29th Aug)! Generally, in a divorce, both parties lose out.

Maybe Mr Wong Hoong Hooi, who wrote 'Marriage? Laws are a raw deal for man.' (26 Aug), watch too many Hong Kong movies. His idea of women marrying for money sits in too deeply for him to realise that for an average couple, it's more about love/lust/duty that they walk into a marriage. Yes, there are bound to be cases of conspiracy/greed/revenge/etc... (whatever he can think of that he had seen on tv), but should we throw a net across the whole population (or the majority of the population) and accused every women of scheming to rob their husbands?

I also agree with Mr Tham on the recourse for men who married an indifferent wife. DIVORCE!!!! Taking a general outlook, after divorcing, men are still financially capable, cos he had already been working. Straight and easy. But for women, if she gave up her career prospects for the family, after divorcing, she has to relearn the ability to cope in the working world. Employers do not readily accet housewives who had lost touch with the world for a few years, if you are not aware of it.

So.... who looses out more?

Proof of a man who think with his dick?

To Wilson Wong who wrote 'Time to replace marriage with a cohabitation contract?' (Today, 23 Aug), did you think before you write?

First, salute to you! Brave of you to put your name to your essay after you wrote about seemingly the most solid proof so far on how man falls prey to his own dick!

Anyway, do you know that men, regardless of their age, will squeeze their brain dry just to find some stupid excuse to stray? Young men blame it on high sex drive, middle-age men blame it on the fading sexuaility of wives, old men blame it on ego. Why not face it? And admit that men just have bad sense of responsibilty and are led around by women/their dick.

Wives are the main course of factor why husbands stray (like what you said). Wives are women.
Young, pretty girls are the main course of factor why older men stray (like what you said). Girls are women.

Don't men have a brain capable of choosing and deciding for themselves?

Three cheers to Boon Chin Aun/Terence Leong (I'm not too sure who wrote which article cause Todayonline lumps a few letters under one single header). Wilson made men seem like they are no better than an animal who does not have the capability or intelligence to make a good deicision and choose his actions.

When one steps into a marriage, it comes with limitations and expectations. The men, as well as the women, know what's in it and fully commit to obey by the unwritten rules. I see no excuse for the men to blame it on the wives. If what Mr Wong says is true, that after childbirth, women lose their sexual drive and are more focus on the children, I see 3 things that Mr Wong may have overlooked just by his words.

1st, obviously he does not fully understood the marraige vow. Did it say in the vow that the man will take care of the woman he marries in sickness and in health, foresaking all others, BUT ONLY IF this woman is sexually compatible to him? No!!!! If you don't understand about the sickness & health part, please understand the 'foresaking all others' part.

2nd, he obviously does not appreciate the wife for her nine months of discomfort going through a pregnancy and belittle the amount of energy it took for the wife to go through labour and childbirth. In a normal marriage, was the man conned into having a child? If no, then why blame the wife for what happened after that due to childbirth? Does he mean that if any woman has the intention to keep her man, then she should not bear a child (for fearing that she may lose her sex appeal after childbirth, you never know if your figure will ever return, not everyone is as rich as Christine Chong to go to Marie France Bodyline, some may have no road of return due to genes. So why risk it!!!).

3rd, he sounded like a father who only cares about his own sexual desire more than about taking care of the upbringing of the kids.

I trully believes he means real when he suggest a cohabitation contract is much better than a marriage. Cos a cohabitation contract fulfills all three situation above. 1) No vows to foresake all others. 2) You don't need to be tied to a woman once YOU THINK she has no sex appeal. 3) And last of all, kids. What kids? They are responisbilities of the one whom I have salvaged, who has no more sex appeal. I'll go find another one who is sexier (and of course most likely the one who has not gone through childbirth). Anyway, my focus is not on the kids, nor on my wife, it's on my own sexual desire.

And please don't mention about the nature of men to want to sow his seeds. Sowing seeds normally comes with nurturing and care taking. The way you do it with your seeds, it's more appropriately termed with the word 'dispersing'!

'Disperse' - distribute loosely (http://wordwebonline.com/en/DISPERSE)

Ridiculously Japan!!

It's a long debated issue, and till now, it still is... And why doesn't it end? Cos Japanese just can't live with the fact that their history has a stain.

As the saying goes, 'life's not about never to fall, it's about once you fall, you'll pull yourself up again and don't make the same mistake'!

Germany fell with Hitler's tyranny act against the Jews, but they are back up on their feet, putting the past behind them and striving on. This is what made them well-respected.

Japan fell, with the Second World War II's terrible massacre & ill-treament & dictatorship. But since then, they had never been able to put the past behind them, neither do the other nationals who had suffered. If ignoring to acknowledge is a wrong, then skewing history facts in attempt to right the wrong is ultimate sin.

The author of 'Atrocities that just can't be lied away' (Today, 22 Aug '05) has indeed hit the nail on the head. 'Japan will have to live with the ghost of it's inglorious past until it is prepared to let it rest, with the due recognition that history cannot be rewritten.' They are the exact ones who will not let the matter rest, because they do not have the courage to admit that they had indeed faulted.

Does this mean that they still have a strong belief that whatever they did was right? In this democratic, civilised and humane century (at least until 3 years ago, ignore the bit about the Iraq war by US & terrorism on the rise), their steadfast denial of the dark part of history will send chills down the bones of some. It seemed that they are implying that if they could rewind the clock, they would still do exactly what they had done before, and not regret it any bit lesser. And if they ever meet with a situation similar to those days now, they will still be doing exactly what they had done then too.

This further proves Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's speech at the United Nations Security Council. 'Only a country that respects history, takes responsbilities of the past and wins over the trust of the people in Asia and the world at large can take greater responsibilities in the international community.' If Japan doesn't see a humane behaviour the same degree as what the world sees it now, it's most risky to put big responisiblities in their hands and just pray hard that they know what they are doing.

It is unfair for the young Japan population to be kept in the dark, and lied to, by the older generation just because the older generation refuse to admit the stain in their history. More atrocities as such, how can a minister, an Education and Culture Minister, make such irresponsible and insensitive remark that he was deeply moved by a Japanese woman studying in Canada who wrote an email saying 'the victimised women in Asia should be proud of being comfort women'. If so, please do your own mother and countrymen proud too, you are capable of it, you are a woman as well.

It's no wonder there were outrages going on in all parts of the world when Japan decides to change its history textbooks to cover their darkest past. From the civilians to the ministers, they don't seem to talk sense.

And is prostitution the most honourable trade in Japan? It makes me think!!!

Confused woman, email me if you need help!!!

Mrs Lam who wrote 'Don't blame the other woman if he strays' (Today, 22nd Aug), I think you may need help!

I read in total disgust of what you wrote in response to Mrs Tan's article 'Stay away from my husband, you hear' (Today, 19th Aug).

Frankly speaking, from the first point you made regarding the husband who may turn to prostitution even if he had not commited adultery is already littered with ignorance. Have you ever been on the receiving end of a cheat? If no, I can tell you that facing with a husband who went prostituting and a husband who two-timed will hurt the wife basically, but it's a different feeling of hurt. If yes, please do think twice again, your logic seemed to be flawed!

When a man goes for prostitution, it's purely for sex, there's no intention to take care of her lifelihood or be a part of her life!
But if a man is two-timing, he puts attention and care into another woman's life! I should say that if pushed to the limit, a woman would rather live with a husband who does prostituion rather than a two-timer. When a man does prostitution, the wife can easily understand it's about sex that the man wants. When a man two-times, it's a matter far more complicated than sex. I should think that two-timing will emotionally affect the wife more!

Your next point says that 'Don't blame others. If you are capable of keeping your belongings, they are less likely to get stolen.' Of course, all humans have much more control of keeping their belongings which does not have a brain and could not even move an inch for nuts. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HUMANS!!! Unless your husband is like an object which will stay in the drawer where you put it, or a stool which will let you put your feet on whenever you pleases, and have no feelings like a punchbag who couldn't even run when you hit it, then you are absolutely right, blame yourself if you can't keep it! But I seriously dont' think Mrs Lam's husband is so capable as yours as to be an object which can't even lift a corner of his body for his life!!

And so you've wrote, about having the same experience. And that it wasn't right to bring in the other party's spouse? I beg to differ!!!! I believe it should be treated as a case by case basis. I also had the same experience, sad to say! And I'm absolutely, sincerely and truly glad that the other woman's husband had brought it up to me! Maybe the parents of the third party should not get involved, I'm in no position to judge though, cause as I said, it's a case by case situation. But I think the third party's husband did a very good job about alerting me to it, and actively seek help from me to end it. I had never treated his call as a form of revenge, but as an effective means of getting help. I felt his sincerity in wanting to solve the situation in the best way possible.

Do not think that your way is the best way for everybody, you never knew what Mrs Tan went through in her course of marriage. I'm noone to dictate what is right or wrong too. But I do not condemn Mrs Tan for what she had done to the third party, her husband and her mother. If you are not fully aware of what Mrs Tan had been through, don't assume that her experiences were the same as yours, she may have gone through much worse. And she is at any time in a better position to know what to do to save her marriage, at least better than you (who is only a reader). If she had not done what she had done, are you going to stand up and speak for her? Are you in any position to help her? No!!!

And I sense that Mrs Tan was also self-blaming when she talked about her husband's adultery. I think it's good that she is doing self-reviewing too. It takes two hands to clap. There may really be faults on her part which led to the events that happened. She did not point all the fingers at her husband. I think she is much more clear-headed now and can think better than Mrs Lam, who is still drowning in her own self-blamings.

They don't do what they preach.....

It's a long long way before the government can see a more liberal society in Singapore. They are not doing what they preach. So much for spending years trying to get Singaporeans to speak up, trying to get more talents to join politics, trying to give an impression that they are willing to listen to the people. Now, the open secret has become a spoken reality.

Salute to you, Mr Andrew Kuan!

You may not have gotten the presidency, but you had shown us what the government's vision is. It's still a much controlled, top-down, my-way-or-no-way policies. All the talks about the lack of interest in politics from the younger generation, the complains about Singaporeans keeping to themselves, the challenge put forward to Singaporeans to speak up, etc..... It doesn't equate!

Mr Andrew Kuan had the guts to stand up to the challenge of the president election. But what did the government do? They spend a huge amount of their efforts beating him back to his own seat, or even lower and much worse-off then what he was.

Honestly, I'm can't speak for his contributions as I did not follow closely on his credentials. But from an ordinary heartlander's view, I don't think he deserve that much bashings. If his performance in JTC as a group chief financial officer is 'unsatisfactory', I really wonder why he was still in office. And JTC will have to start explaining about his performance-based pay rise and bonuses as well.

Some forumers had said that it should be Sinaporeans' rights to dictate if the candidate is suitable enough for the post of President. I think filtering is still needed before the application is accepted. But even if the application is not approved, such bashings are not necessary, really. It's just an application! If the person is not suitable enough, then just disqualify him. I don't think such degree of reputation-battering helps in the government's pursue of a more outspoken and liberal society.

All previous efforts of protraying a more people-friendly government has become a theatric performance. I think the backfire effects hurts deeper than the benefits the government achieved from having a non-competited presidency. It's really not convincing enough for a non-elected elected president to serve 12 years in a democratic-proclaimed Singapore.

*Shake head* Bad publicity, PAP!

Londoners are getting paranoid!!!!

Read from Today's - New York elected officials said Arabs should be targeted for searches on city subways.

This is outrightly being racist. And this will create a bigger loop hole for the terrorists to attack. Just find someone who doesn't look like an Arab and lo and behold, another big news is on the way to the printing room of the press.

And they really are behaving like parionoias now. Not only that, they are beignning to make the terrorists grin with pride. Londoners are indeed living in fear of Arabs / Muslims. And that their everyday lives are revolving around Arabs / Muslims. Even officials are making stupid statements and ordering stupid rules to be observed because of them. Arabs / Muslims are now on the top most concerned issue and always on Londoners' minds.

Yes indeed that the trend is such that terrorists incidentally are all Arabs look-alike. And they have a somewhat similar background, but it still doesn't justify for an official to make sweeping statements. The officials still wanted to pass a legislation to enable police to do racial profiling. This is indeed openly showing racism across the Muslim community. For someone in that political position, shouldn't they be watching what they say instead of acting like a headless chicken or a barking blind dog?