Wednesday, October 31, 2007

No pop bands for schools!!!

Have you ever wondered why peasants sometimes can be so politically apathetic? I think I have found the reason.

Recently there is a big hoo ha over at PLMGSS as students are unhappy that the principal has rejected a surprise visit by a pop band that the students have won in a contest for the school. Looking at the reply from PLMGSS, I had a sense of deja vu

Accusation 1: Are schools in Singapore so inflexible that students are not allowed to join contests using the school name?

"It is not a question of flexibility or inflexibility, but of choice. There are all kinds of contests and a choice has to be made to decide which ones to take part in and which to decline”

Not a question of flexibility or not, it is about choice, of which you have none.

"This is not true. Pupils have a lot of say in the school. There are various platforms to hear the pupils. Pupils can request to speak to the school leaders and have often done so.

"There is also the pupil suggestion box, focus group discussions, climate survey and pupil needs survey carried out throughout the year.

Having pupil suggestion box, focus group discussions, climate survey and pupil needs survey shows the pupils have a lot of say in the school plus they also have various platforms to hear the pupils, it’s just that no one is listening to what they have to say.

"Pupils are constantly taught that there is always a right place, right time and right way to say what they want to say. This is part of educating a generation of people who will have the right social and emotional competencies to contribute positively to the stability and progress of our
community and country. "

“Pupils are constantly taught that there is always a right place, right time and right way to say what they want to say.” And the time is not now.

So having a pop band visit your school is going to erode the right social values and emotional competencies and will lead students to contribute negatively to the stability and progress of our community and country.

Hmm… This is getting all too familiar.

Monday, October 29, 2007

ERP again

ERP rates going up again for third time this year
By Margaret Perry, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 29 October 2007 2045 hrs

SINGAPORE: Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) rates are going up again for the third time this year.

There will also be new gantries erected.

The highest amount will be charged at the Pan Island Expressway (PIE). The gantry affected is the one at the slip road into the Central Expressway (CTE).

From November 5, motorists will pay $3.50 from 7:30am to 8:00am. The amount charged goes up to $5.00 between 8:30am and 9:00am. This is a $1.50 increase in the 8:30am to 9:00am period since February this year.

The latest hike comes just days after the opening of the Kallang-Payar Lebar Expressway (KPE) Tunnel.

The KPE is expected to ease congestion on the CTE when it opens fully late next year.

ERP rates will also go up by 50 cents at six other gantries.

The CTE gantry north of Braddell Road will cost $2.50 between 7:30am and 8:00am.

Three CTE gantries south of Braddell Road will cost $4.00 between 8:30am and 9:00am.

Those travelling along Bendemeer Road will have to pay $1.50 from 8:30am to 9:00am, instead of the current $1.

Drivers on Thomson Road will also have to pay $1.50 between 8:30am and 9:00am.

New ERP gantries will also start operating on November 5.

There will be one on the north-bound CTE just before the PIE exit, and two along the east-bound ECP before the Rochor Road exit and Ophir Road slip road.

There is also another one on the south-bound Bukit Timah Expressway after the Dairy Farm exit before it joins the PIE. - CNA /ls

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/308462/1/.html

The latest hike comes just days after the opening of the Kallang-Payar Lebar Expressway (KPE) Tunnel.

The KPE is expected to ease congestion on the CTE when it opens fully late next year.

Hmm… sometimes, I feel that I am stupid too. We have a new expressway opening up to ease traffic congestion so the rationale of the rise in ERP is??? To further ease the traffic congestion? That must be the case and this shows how efficient our government is and the foresight that they have. It has been pointed out by Lucky Tan that the rise in charge coincides with the start of the school holidays, where traffic is lighter due to the school holidays. Our government is thinking for their citizens. In November, when there is lighter traffic, they can do more experimenting and find solutions to problems should they arise. E.g. if in November, the traffic conditions don’t change, they will do another revision.

Don’t you know that ERP has resulted in an increase in car ownership? Haven’t you learnt the lesson that when prices go up, they tend not to come down? So to maintain the status quo, ERP charges have to go up to make up for the shortfall in the COE revenue. Bearing in mind we are peasants, we shouldn’t be allowed to own so many cars.

Sometimes I wonder whether this is a ploy to increase the productivity of peasants. The only way to avoid the charges is to go to work early and leave work late. This way, we get to work longer hours and avoid the charges altogether, a good way to contribute to the economy. Peasantland FTW!




Saturday, October 27, 2007

The poison that Traditional Chinese Medicine can be

On the topic of TCM again, many people tend to assume that the herbs used in chinese medicine, of which many are plants, are safe. Many tend to associate natural products as safe and that man-made chemicals are always bad. Nothing can be further away from the truth. The only way to know if these herbs are safe is to test them. Some may think that since many others have taken these herbs previously, the safety of these herbs should be apparent. However, I would like to quote Dr Ng Eng Hen "The relationship is not so simple".

There are many reasons why toxicity associated with plants often escape, well, association with the plant. For example, the effects of toxicity may be cumulative and only show up after prolonged usage of the causative agent. Or the effects are delayed, resulting in clinical signs showing up after many months have passed. Or it can be that the timing of the exposure plays an important role. It could also be that the toxic agents originate from parasites infecting the plant in question, so the plant will be toxin free most of the time but not all the time. With all these factors coming into play, it is very difficult to link toxicity to the causative agent.

So what are some examples of poisonous plants and the effects they cause?
Nerium oleander


This plant here is deadly. Chewing on just one leave can kill you.

Acacia georgineae


This tree here is deadly too. It produces fluoroacetate which shuts down the metabolic pathways in your body (TCA cycle), killing you in the process.

Gastrolobium



This pretty looking plant produces fluroacetate too.

Lolium perenne




This plant alone is non-toxic. However when it is infected by the fungus Neotyphodium lolii, the fungus produces toxins like ergovaline (causes hyperthermia syndrome and gangrene of your limbs) or other toxins that cause diarrhoea in animals at least.

Veratrum californicum


This plants here is amazing. The classic example of how the timing of ingestion affects the outcome. If ingested by a pregnant sheep at day 14 of pregnancy, this is what you get

Cyclopia

Yes. Cyclops do exist. By extrapolating this onto humans, you might get this



Not that I'm trying to scare you. But the fact is that drugs used in "western" medicine are all tested for safety and efficacy. It is a legal requirement. TCM herbs on the other hand...... well let's just say I have not been able to find data on safety and efficacy for most of those herbs. Given the difficulty in associating the clinical signs of toxicity with the herbs, and the fact that alot of chinese herbs are not tested for safety let alone efficacy, I would say it's better to stick with your "western" doctor. At least "western" drugs have been tested rigorously on lab mice, rabbits and Guinea pigs as well as humans, so that we know how safe and efficacious they are. Furthermore, you can sue your doctor if he gave you a sugar pill instead of anti-neoplastic drugs (for treating cancer) to treat your cancer. As previously pointed out by Angrydr here and here, it's hard to sue a geomancer or a priest conducting exorcisms since fengshui and ghosts are not proven to exist you can't say that they are negligent. Cancer treatment with TCM is not supported by any research studies. So how would you know if your TCM practitioner gave you the "correct" treament? Let's leave the toxic herbs out of the equation first. Can you even sue your TCM practitioner for giving you a sugar pill in the first place? "Western" doctors will be in a legal fix if they did that.
Given the prevalance of poisonous herbs (no real suprise since plants evolve defence mehanisms to protect themselves), the diffculting in establishing a link with toxicity and causative agent and the lack of data on safety as well as efficacy it would be unwise to turn to TCM.
So why are there so many people who swear by TCM?
1) Dead patients can't tell you that TCM didn't work for them.
2) Group think (mutual influence in a group of people)
3) The placebo effect
4) Many diseases are self limiting, giving the illusion of a cure
5) Concurrent "western" medical treatment that was actually doing the good work, also giving the illusion of cure by TCM

Friday, October 26, 2007

ST forum letter promoting Quackery? Decide for yourself

Letter from ST forum

TCM centre at SGH a boon to cancer patients

THE news on '$2.8m TCM centre at SGH from Nov'' and 'Meeting of East and West in research'' (ST, Oct 20), moved me to tears.

The great moment - my hope for the day when our local public medical institutions/hospitals can support the use of both Chinese and Western medicine in the treatment of cancer is likely to come true.

As the founder of Cancerstory.com, a volunteers' initiative, I strongly feel that cancer patients should not be deprived of a chance to survive if medical science cannot help them.

In reality, there are some patients who are already 'sentenced to death' by their medical doctors but who have survived cancer after receiving some form of safe and reliable complementary treatment such as TCM.

TCM treatments have been shown to help relieve symptoms and improve the quality of life by lessening the side effects of conventional treatments and providing psychological and physical benefits to the patients.

Many cancer patients feel that no doctor will be pleased to learn of alternative life-saving antidotes that may threaten the 'supremacy' of Western medicine. When things go wrong, the doctors are also likely to put the blame on any form of complementary methods that their patients might be receiving alongside conventional treatment.

As a result, some patients decided to hide the fact that they were taking Chinese medicine even in instances when they were coping and progressing well during conventional treatment. Some doctors were amazed at the good results, but failed to discover the truth - that is, the efficacy of Chinese medicine.

However, I always encourage cancer patients to be truthful to their doctors. Lack of communication about TCM treatment and dietary supplements creates an information gap between doctors and patients that may result in poor cancer management.

Let's hope that the collaboration goes smoothly. To me, it will be the greatest gift to people living with cancer in the Remaking of Singapore - receiving true comprehensive cancer care and equal opportunities to fight cancer in their own stride.

If this happens, cancer patients no longer need to be concerned if TCM clashes with conventional treatment when treated by the 'East Meet West'' specialists in SGH.

Many cancer patients will no longer need to fork out hefty sums to consume expensive 'healing mushrooms'' such as lingzhi, yunzhi, maitake and agaricus.

A competent TCM practitioner/specialist is unlikely to treat cancer using an expensive single herb prescription.

Lee Soh Hong (Miss)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In reality, there are some patients who are already 'sentenced to death' by their medical doctors but who have survived cancer after receiving some form of safe and reliable complementary treatment such as TCM. "

Erm...... claiming credit for the efficacy of real medical treatment for cancer? How did you know it was the TCM herbs that sent the cancer into remission and not real medical treatment that was doing the job?

"TCM treatments have been shown to help relieve symptoms and improve the quality of life by lessening the side effects of conventional treatments and providing psychological and physical benefits to the patients. "

That's a pretty big claim. But I wondered why you did not cite the research studies that suggests that TCM treatments can do all of those.

"Many cancer patients feel that no doctor will be pleased to learn of alternative life-saving antidotes that may threaten the 'supremacy' of Western medicine. When things go wrong, the doctors are also likely to put the blame on any form of complementary methods that their patients might be receiving alongside conventional treatment.
As a result, some patients decided to hide the fact that they were taking Chinese medicine even in instances when they were coping and progressing well during conventional treatment. Some doctors were amazed at the good results, but failed to discover the truth - that is, the efficacy of Chinese medicine. "

Doctors would be delighted if Chinese medicine were really efficacious for this would mean that the active ingredient in the herbs can be isolated, adding to the repertoire of anti-neoplastic drugs they have. The question is where is the evidence that demonstrate the efficacy of Chinese medicine?

This was what one study published by the Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology said:
In conclusion, Chinese cancer patients, willingly, rampantly and non-selectively seek out and consume alternative medications, with almost total ignorance of the medication consumed, oblivious to any potential side effects, and with little subjective benefit.

Personally, I feel it is absolutely irresponsible of ST to publish such a letter that might skew the decision of a cancer patient towards using TCM rather than real medicine. All this letter is, is really an advertisement for TCM with misleading/dangerous/unsubstantiated claims. I mean where the hell are the studies that demonstrates the efficacy of TCM for cancer?

Heterosexual sex to be banned in the future

Many years from now, after S377A has exerted its deterrent effect on homosexual sex , the homosexual population will have a lower rate of HIV infection than the heterosexual population. Which means that the heterosexual population will have a higher rate of HIV infection than the heterosexual population. Once we reach that stage, we should have an NMP make such a speech during a parliamentary debate:

"Sir, public health and safety is a legitimate purpose served by a ban on heterosexual, anal and oral sex. All these practices are efficient methods of transmitting sexual diseases and AIDs / HIV which are public health problems. These are not victimless crimes as the whole community has to foot the costs of these diseases.

Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like rectal prolapse, anal cancer and cervical cancer. ‘Acts of gross indecency’ under the ban also covers unhygienic practices like “rimming” where the mouth comes into contact with the anus. Consent to harmful acts is no defence – otherwise, our strong anti-drug laws must fall as it cannot co-exist with letting in recreational drugs as a matter of personal lifestyle choice

Same-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that opposite-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels. The New York Times reported that even informed heterosexuals return to unsafe practices like bare-backing and heterosexual bug-chasing after a health crisis wanes. A British Study showed that the legalization of heterosexual sodomy correlated with an upsurge of STDs among heterosexuals. Common sense tells us that with more acceptance, any form of consensual sexual behaviour increases. Anti-heterosexual sex laws have some deterrent effect."

So how can Singaporeans procreate? Artificial insemination, duh! Yes, this is how retarded it is.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

S377A again: The sky is falling!

Lately, some of my readers think that I've been resorting to ad hominem attacks on NMP Thio. Some think that I am rude. Or disrespectful of a highly regarded person. Or merely trying hard to deconstruct NMP Thio's arguments without backing it up with substantive arguments (ie. NMP Thio is wrong therefore I am right). So without further ado, let's clear this shit up.

I am rude

Yes I am rude :(

Ad hominem attacks on NMP Thio

There is a difference between ad hominem and calling a spade a spade.

An ad hominem has this basic form:


Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false


It is different when Person A first points out the flaws and silliness in Person B's argument before calling Person B a twit. At most it may be considered rude.

Lack of respect for authority

It doesn't matter if one has PhD in law. Or became a full professor at 38 years of age. You can be a Nobel prize winner, but once you engage in cow dung thinking/logic, you are fair game for criticism and ridicule. The esteemed Einstein had refused to accept quantum theory despite the accuracy of it just because of "aesthetic" reasons (the non-deterministic nature of it). As a result, he was ostracised by the scientific community late in his career. Remember, you are right only if your logic and evidence is sound and not because of how authoritative you are. .

Not backing up my arguments

As for this point, I do admit that I've only engaged in debunking the lame arguments against repealing S377A. And I do know that just because your opponent is wrong doesn't make you right.

So here's my version of why S377A should be repealed.

This rests mainly on the innocent till proven guilty principle. If the pro377A camp can get S377A to be retained by accusing homosexuals to be a hazard to society and then shift the burden of proof onto them to show they pose no harm to society, think about the kind of precedent we are setting. Perhaps it may be justifiable to do this if the potential for harm is really that great to society. Perhaps it may be justifiable if repealing S377A will lead the end of Singapore. Then again, Denmark has had same-sex unions for almost 20 years. Did their society crumble? A case of Chicken Licken running around shouting "The sky is falling!"?

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Thank you PAP for giving Singaporeans more chances to own cars

ERP helps more S'poreans to own cars: Minister




THE use of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) has made it possible for more Singaporeans to own cars.

Responding to a question for written reply in Parliament on Monday, Transport Minister Raymond Lim said this is reflected in the growth of Singapore's car population from 680,000 in 1997 to 800,000 in 2006.

Dr Fatimah Lateef, MP for Marine Parade GRC, had asked the Minister if the ERP scheme has met the objectives that it was meant to achieve and if it has improved the traffic flow on expressways especially during peak hours.

In his reply, Mr Lim said since its implementation in 1998, ERP has been effective in maintaining average travel speeds on priced roads within the optimal speed range through regular reviews and rate adjustments. For example, average speeds on the expressways have remained at above 45km/h during peak hours.

"The use of ERP to manage traffic has made it possible for more Singaporeans to own cars than we otherwise could, and our vehicle population has grown from 680,000 in 1997 to 800,000 in 2006," he added.

"It has also allowed the Government to rely more on car usage charges and less on car ownership taxes to manage traffic demand, and as a result, vehicle ownership taxes have been reduced."

The Ministers said the government will continue with a holistic and integrated approach using all the tools available to keep the roads smooth-flowing. These include building more roads, regulating vehicle growth, implementing traffic engineering solutions, managing traffic demand through ERP and promoting the use of public transport


We should be thankful to our million dollar ministers for allowing us to own more cars. It is to their credit that we are now able to drive to work instead of taking the public transport.

I just realised that only Singaporeans buy cars as
"The use of ERP to manage traffic has made it possible for more Singaporeans to own cars than we otherwise could, and our vehicle population has grown from 680,000 in 1997 to 800,000 in 2006," he added." This means that the vehicle population is directly attributed to Singaporeans. But as we all know, Singaporeans is such an all inclusive term nowadays that anyone can call themselves Singaporeans. This is necessary as we seek to benefit from "Globalisation" and reap the "economic benefits" from it

ERP is such an effective system that they should have implemented it long ago. They charge you a fee for using the expressway so that it won't be congested and we can have "average speeds on the expressways have remained at above 45km/h during peak hours." For use of the term "express" in transportation today, we have to pay a premium because it is necessary. Like the Express buses that SBS provides us, we should pay a premium because it brings us to areas that no other buses are able to bring us there in that amount of time even though it uses roughly the same routes as other buses.
Then when they find that peasants get used to the thought of paying a few dollars to use the expressway, they increase review the fees so that they realized they are peasants and should not be using the expressway they can manage the traffic flow of the expressway better.


If you are wondering what the link between ERP and vehicle ownership, the link is that instead of charging you a lump sum fee for buying a vehicle, you get to pay a lower lump sum and be charge small amounts each time you use your vehicle. This makes it more affordable for you to own a vehicle.






Tuesday, October 23, 2007

NMP Thio Li-Ann and her intellectually inferior arguments against repealing S377A

Einstein once said

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

While i still harbour some hope that humans are not as stupid as Einstein thought they were, it seems like any last shred of hope that i have is obliterated. All thanks to NMP Thio Li-Ann. After reading the transcript of her speech in parliament whatever doubt i have regarding Einstein's statement above has finally vanished. Sigh :(

Time for a point by point rebuttal of her speech. (Her speech in blue)

"Two camps championing two distinct criminal law philosophies are polarised over whether to retain or repeal s377A which criminalizes public or private acts of gross indecency between two men, such as sodomy.
The ‘liberal’ camp wants 377A repealed. They offer an ‘argument from consent’ –government should not police the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty or ‘privacy’. They ask, ‘Why criminalize something which does not “harm” anyone; if homosexuals are “born that way”, isn’t it unkind to ‘discriminate’ against their sexual practices?
These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake – repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties."

So what exactly is that political agenda, what are the exact mechanisms which by it will subvert social morality, how exactly will the common good and our liberties be undermine? Fear mongering? Baseless statements? Similarly, I can argue that religious groups want S377A to be retained as " radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties." Pot calling kettle black?


"The ‘communitarian’ camp argues from ‘community values’ – these social conservatives want 377A retained, to protect public health, morality, decency and order. A Keep 377A online petition attracted over 15,000 signatures after a few days.
Like many, I applaud the government’s wisdom in keeping 377A which conserves what upholds the national interest. ‘Conservative’ here is not a dirty word connoting backwardness; environmental conservation protects our habitat; the moral ecology must be conserved to protect what is precious and sustains a dynamic, free and good society.
The welfare of future generations depends on basing law on sound public philosophy. We should reject the ‘argument from consent’ as its philosophy is intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt. "

15,000 signatures from a website that allows multiple spamming of signatures? And that "conservative is not a dirty word" analogy is really bad. Habitat = link with moral ecology? HUH?!

"Sir, the arguments to retain 377A are overwhelmingly compelling and should be fully articulated, to enable legislators to make informed decisions and not be bewitched by the empty rhetoric and emotional sloganeering employed by many radical liberals, which generate more heat than light. "

Empty rhetoric and emotional sloganeering like "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SICKNESS. GO SEE A PSYCHIATRIST ! DONT CONTAMINATE OUR CIVILIZED WORLD" and "What's next? Allow pedophile to roam freely just because they cannot control their urge or they are "born" with it?" ? Is that what you were referring to NMP Thio?

"The real question today is not “if” we should repeal 377A now, or wait until people are ready to move. This assumes too much, as though we need an adjustment period before the inevitable. The real question is not “if” but “should” we ever repeal 377A. It is not inevitable; it is not desirable to repeal it in any event. Not only is retaining s377A sound public policy, it is legally and constitutionally beyond reproach. Responsible legislators must grapple with the facts, figures and principles involved; they cannot discount the noxious social consequences repeal will bring.
Debate must be based on substance not sound-bites. Let me red-flag four red herrings. "

That's 112 words of irony! (I counted the number of words! I did! I did!)

"First, to say a law is archaic is merely chronological snobbery."

No one is arguing that S377A should be repealed on grounds that it is in line with modern times. Did you even read the arguments from the repeal S377A side?

"Second, you cannot say a law is ‘regressive’ unless you first identify your ultimate goal. If we seek to copy the sexual libertine ethos of the wild wild West, then repealing s377A is progressive. But that is not our final destination. The onus is on those seeking repeal to prove this will not harm society. "

Ah! What a fallacy! The burden of proof lies with you to prove how repealing S377A will harm society. Haven't you heard of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"? Ever thought of how ridiculous it would be if someone planted drugs on you, tipped off the police and then you find yourself at risk of being hanged unless you could prove your innocence? How ironic!

"Third, to say a law which criminalizes homosexual acts because many find it offensive is merely imposing a “prejudice” or “bias” assumes with justification that no reasonable contrary view exists. This evades debate. The liberal argument which says sodomy is a personal choice, private matter and ‘victimless crime’ merely asserts this. It rests precariously on an idiosyncratic notion of “harm” – but “harm” can be both physical and intangible; victims include both the immediate parties and third parties. What is done in ‘private’ can have public repercussions. "

As pointed out earlier, the burden of proof lies with you.

"Fourth, some argue that legislators should be ‘open-minded’ and decriminalize sodomy. However, like an open mouth, an open mind must eventually close on something solid. They urge legislators to be ‘objective’ and to leave their personal subjective beliefs at home, especially if they hold religious views which consider homosexuality aberrant.
This demand for objectivity is intellectually disingenuous as there is no neutral ground, no ‘Switzerland of ambivalence’ when we consider the moral issues related to 377A which require moral judgment of what is right and wrong - not to take a stand, is to take a stand! As law has a moral basis, we need to consider which morality to legislate. Neither the majority or minority is always right – but there are fundamental values beyond fashion and politics which serve the common good. Religious views are part of our common morality. We separate ‘religion’ from ‘politics,’ but not ‘religion’ from ‘public policy’. That would be undemocratic. All citizens may propose views in public debate, whether influenced by religious or secular convictions or both; only the government can impose a view by law. "


Well, so when it comes to being a homosexual, it can only be right or wrong? Fallacy of false dilemma. What's so "right" about being heterosexual? You just happened to be born as a heterosexual. How do you define "right" and "wrong"? Let's face it. It's subjective. By the way, religious views are not part of our common morality. Altruism is evolved through millions of years of natural selection and moral behaviour is really a logical and beneficial strategy in the game of life. Get a fact check before asserting such baseless nonsense. How is keeping religion out of public policy undemocratic? Was religion ever voted in to play a role in the formulation of public policies?

"Incidentally, one does not have to be religious to consider homosexuality contrary to biological design and immoral; secular philosopher Immanuel Kant considered homosexuality “immoral acts against our animal nature” which did not preserve the species and dishonoured humanity.
The issues surrounding s377A are about morality, not modernity or being cosmopolitan. What will foreigners think if we retain 377A? Depends on which foreigner you ask. Many would applaud us! Such issues divide other societies as well! The debate is not closed. A group of Canadians1 were grieved enough to issue an online apology to the world “for harm done through Canada’s legalization of homosexual marriage”, urging us not to repeat their mistakes.
Singapore is an independent state and we can decide the 377A issue ourselves; we have no need of foreign or neo-colonial moral imperialism in matters of fundamental morality. "

A lame appeal to authority using a 18th century philosopher? During the 18th century DNA was not even discovered yet. Waston and Crick discovered DNA only in 1953. At least appeal to someone who's more relevant!

"There are no constitutional objections to s377A
Sir, there are no constitutional objections to retaining 377A while de-criminalising heterosexual oral and anal sex. Three legal points are worth making.
First, there is no constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. It is not a facet of personal liberty under article 9. Nor is there a human right to homosexual sodomy though some like to slip this in under the umbrella of ‘privacy.’ Human rights are universal, like prohibitions against genocide. Demands for ‘homosexual rights’ are the political claims of a narrow interest group masquerading as legal entitlements. Homosexual activists often try to infiltrate and hijack human rights initiatives to serve their political agenda, discrediting an otherwise noble cause to protect the weak and poor. You cannot make a human wrong a human right. "

Get a fact check once again! Sexuality is very much in-born as previously pointed out here. As such, homosexual sodomy is a facet of personal liberty.

"Second, while homosexuals are a numerical minority, there is no such thing as ‘sexual minorities’ at law. Activists have coined this term to draw a beguiling but fallacious association between homosexuals and legally recognized minorities like racial groups. Race is a fixed trait. It remains controversial whether homosexual orientation is genetic or environmental, perhaps both. There are no ex-Blacks but there are ex-gays. The analogy between race and sexual orientation or preferred sexual preferences, is false. Activists repeat the slogan ‘sexual minority’ ad nausem as a deceptive political ploy to get sympathy from people who don’t think through issues carefully. Repetition does not cure fallacy."

For the umpteen time, GET A FACT CHECK! Race is very much a non-existent thing in terms of genetics. No ex-blacks? What about Michael Jackson? Skin colour can be changed you twit. Anecdotal evidence of ex-gays should not be considered evidence. Otherwise UFOs, psychics and ghosts will be considered real, going by your logic. Learn how to scrutinize evidence the proper way before sprouting gibberish.

"Science has become so politicized that the issue of whether gays are ‘born that way’ depends on which scientist you ask. You cannot base sound public philosophy on poor politicized pseudo ‘science’. "

Haha. Are you sure you weren't talking to creation scientists or intelligent design scientists?
See the irony in the phrase "poor politicized pseudo 'science'"? LOL . Anyway scientists are right only if their data and analysis are right. So do your own analysis on the data available to strike out the reliance on pseudo scientists.

"Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this. Just this year, two high profile US activists left the homosexual lifestyle, the publisher of Venus, a lesbian magazine, and an editor of Young Gay America. Their stories are available on the net. An article by an ex-gay in the New Statesmen this July identified the roots of his emotional hurts, like a distant father, overbearing mother and sexual abuse by a family friend; after working through his pain, his unwanted same-sex attractions left. While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfill their heterosexual potential. There is hope. "

Are you sure homosexuals can be converted to heterosexuals? Read the American Psychiatric Association's position statement that says "APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups."

"Singapore law only recognizes racial and religious minorities. Special protection is reserved for the poor and disadvantaged; the average homosexual person in Singapore is both well educated, with higher income – that’s why upscale condo developers target them! Homosexuals do not deserve special rights, just the rights we all have. "

?????????

"‘Sexual minorities’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are vague terms – covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest, paedophilia – do all these minority sexual practices merit protection? "

Strawman spotted! I have previously pointed out why the bestiality, incest and paedophilia comparisons are strawmen.

"Third, 377A does not breach the article 12 guarantee of equality. While all human persons are of equal worth, not all human behaviour is equally worthy. We separate the actor from the act. In criminalizing acts, we consider the wrongfulness of the act, the harm caused and how it affects the good of society. "

Repetition. I have pointed out above that since homosexuality is innate, homosexual sex cannot be separated from homosexuals.

"Parliament has the power to classify; this involves a choice, like distinguishing murder and manslaughter. Classifications which satisfy the constitutional test of validity are called “differentiation”; only invalid classifications are called “discrimination.” Criminalising same-sex sodomy but not opposite-sex sodomy is valid “differentiation.” S377A does not target any specific actor; it would cover a heterosexual male experimenting with male sodomy.
Valid classifications must have a clear basis and be rationally related to a legitimate purpose. In serving public health and public morality, 377A passes constitutional muster with flying colours. "


As above. It is discrimination.

"Public Health Argument
Sir, public health and safety is a legitimate purpose served by the 377A ban on homosexual anal and oral sex. Both these practices are efficient methods of transmitting sexual diseases and AIDs / HIV which are public health problems. These are not victimless crimes as the whole community has to foot the costs of these diseases.
Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like ‘gay bowel syndrome’, anal cancer. ‘Acts of gross indecency’ under 377A also covers unhygienic practices like “rimming” where the mouth comes into contact with the anus. Consent to harmful acts is no defence – otherwise, our strong anti-drug laws must fall as it cannot co-exist with letting in recreational drugs as a matter of personal lifestyle choice. "

Heterosexual sex is also an efficient method of transmitting sexual diseases. So what's your point? Wanna ban it as well? Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body? How about considering the damage that can be caused by smoking? How about consuming alcohol?

"Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels. The New York Times reported that even informed homosexuals return to unsafe practices like bare-backing and bug-chasing after a health crisis wanes. A British Study showed that the legalization of homosexual sodomy correlated with an upsurge of STDs among gays. Common sense tells us that with more acceptance, any form of consensual sexual behaviour increases. Sodomy laws have some deterrent effect. "

Correlation does not imply causation. How about the correlation between religiosity and suicide bombing? Wanna ban religion? Any form of consensual sexual behaviour increases STDs? How about banning pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex? Oh that's probably what you will want as well.

"It is rational for the state to target the most acute aspect of a problem. The legal issue is not whether the state should be concerned with heterosexual sodomy but whether it is reasonable to believe same-sex sodomy poses a distinct problem. Medical literature indicates that gays have disproportionately higher STDs rates, which puts them in a different category from the general public, warranting different treatment. "

Religiousity is correalated to murders of Doctors who perform abortion. Wanna ban religion as well?

"The onus rests on opponents of 377A to negate every conceivable basis for treating homosexual and heterosexual sodomy differently. They cannot, because classifications do not need to be perfect and can be under-inclusive; valid classifications only need to “go some way” to serve the legislative goal, which 377A clearly does. "

Shifiting burden of proof again.

"Public Morality
Sir, the power to legislate morality is not limited to preventing demonstrable harm. The Penal Code now criminalizes the wounding of both religious and racial feelings (s498).
S377A serves public morality; the argument from community reminds us we share a way of life which gives legal expression to the moral repugnancy of homosexuality. Heterosexual sodomy unlike homosexual sodomy does not undermine the understanding of heterosexuality as the preferred social norm. To those who say that 377A penalizes only gays not lesbians, note there have been calls to criminalize lesbianism too."

False permise. Laws are not nor should be based on morality. Wounding of religious and racial feelings is criminalized precisely because of the harm that might occur when religious and racial groups go beserk.

"Public sexual morality must buttress strong families based on faithful union between man and wife, the best model for raising children. The state should not promote promiscuity nor condone sexual exploitation. New section 376D criminalizes the organisation of child sex tours. Bravo.
The ‘argument from consent’ says the state should keep out of the bedroom, to safeguard ‘sexual autonomy’. While we cherish racial and religious diversity, sexual diversity is a different kettle of fish. Diversity is not license for perversity. This radical liberal argument is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits to consent. "

Think adultery, divorce, unwed mothers and so on and so forth. Then think about your intellectual inconsistency.

"Radical individualism would demand decriminalising consensual adult incest; but the Penal Code is not based on consent as s376F reflects. The state has always retained an interest in regulating conduct in the bedroom – the issue is which type? "

Strawman. Pointed out previously.

"Radical egalitarianism applied to sexual morality says the state should not morally distinguish between types of consensual sex. It exudes a false neutrality but actually sneaks in a substantive philosophy: Hedonism which breeds narcissism. This extols satisfying desire without restraint as a matter of autonomy. But some desires are undesirable, harming self and society. "

Strawman again.

The argument from consent ultimately celebrates sexual libertine values, the fruit of which is sexual licentiousness, a culture of lust, which takes, rather than love, which gives. This social decline will provoke more headlines like a 2004 Her World article called: “Gay guy confesses: I slept with 100 men…one of them could be your hubby.” What about the broken-hearts involved?

Strawman yet again. Don't you get sick of it?

"If you argue from consent, how can you condemn any form of sexual self-expression, no matter how selfish or hurtful? But, no man is an island. Ideas, embodied in laws, have consequences. Don’t send the wrong message.
The issues raised in the Petition fall apart on rigorous analysis. "

With so many strawmen in a row, still not sick of it yet? Your speech is falling apart on rigourous analysis.

"Rule of Law vs. Rule of Good Law
Sir, government policy is not to pro-actively enforce 377A. Some argue that just keeping this law on the books will erode the rule of law. I disagree. It is not turning a blind eye on the existence of homosexuals here; it is refusing to celebrate homosexuality while allowing gays to live quiet lives. This is prudent, as it is difficult to enforce ‘bedroom’ offences; such intrusive powers should be judiciously used anyway. "

No one is telling you to celebrate homosexuality, just like no one is celebrating adultery.

"We have other hard-to-police laws which embody communal standards of public decency, such as laws against nudity visible to the public eye, even if you are at home. Law is a Moral teacher and makes a moral statement; 6 years ago, Singapore symbolically blocked access to 100 porn sites, as a ‘statement of our values.’ We value our values, while remaining realistic.
A non pro-active policy does not mean 377A will never be enforced – who knows what another season may require? Policies can change. "

What's with your hang up with morals? As for nudity at home, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Alternatively, it may be construed as sexual harrasement. STRAWMAN.

"Sir, citizens are not just concerned with the rule of law but with the rule of good law. Laws which violate core moral values will alienate many and bring the system into disrepute. Indeed, many citizens see keeping 377A as evidence the government is defending the right moral values, which lends legitimacy. "

What a vacuous statement.

"Criminalising Moral Wrongs – which?
Sir, it is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalized; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterors know they done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right. "


Lame excuse for intellectual inconsistency.

"Homosexual Agenda and Social Consequences
Conversely, homosexual activists lobby hard for a radical sexual revolution, waging a liberal fundamentalist crusade against traditional morality. They adopt a ‘step by step’ approach to hide how radical the agenda is. Liberals never ask: what happens next if you repeal 377A. Responsible legislators must see the Big Picture.
Pro-gay academics identify 5 main steps in this agenda in their study of foreign jurisdictions.
Step 1: repeal laws criminalizing homosexual sex. They consider this “pivotal” to advancing the homosexual agenda. Why? Without this, they cannot advance in the public sphere or push for government funding and support for special programmes, such as the New York Gay High School. Governments don’t promote criminal activities. You need to change the criminal law before changing civil law.
But decriminalizing sodomy is only the tip of the iceberg which is 1/8 of an ice mass – we must see what lies beneath the water to avoid a Titanic fate.
Step 2 is to equalize the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex; in some countries, this is as low as 13. Do we want to expose Sec 1 boys to adult sexual predators? To be sexually creative?
Step 3 is to prohibit discrimination based on ‘sexual orientation’. But would this not include all sexual behaviour? “Sex before 8 or else it’s too late” is the motto of the North American Man Boy Love Association. Should we judge pedophilia or be relativist and promote “anything goes” sexual experimentation?
Sir, to protect homosexuals, some countries have criminalized not sodomy but opposition to sodomy, making it a ‘hate crime’ to criticize homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally deviant, like the Bible and Koran, be criminalized? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional liberties cannot be tolerated.
Steps 4 and 5 relate to legalizing same-sex marriage or partnerships, child adoption rights. This subverts both marriage and family, which are institutions homosexuals seek to redefine beyond recognition. Will MOE then commission a book copying the US “Heather has 2 mummies” called “Ah Beng has 2 daddies?” What if parents disagree with their kids studying homosexual propaganda?
Is legalizing same-sex marriage progressive? It is if you want a genderless planet where “husband” and “wife” are considered discriminatory terms, to be replaced by “spouse”.
We want to be able to say, Majullah Singapura, not Mundur Singapura!
Repealing 377A will further batter the institution of ‘marriage’ which we must bolster! This is because the arguments raised to challenge a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, equally apply to challenge legal distinctions between lawful heterosexual marriage between man and wife and unlawful homosexual unions.
To reinforce the moral foundations of a pro-family policy that permits only heterosexuals to marry, it is permissible to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. To say that 377A discriminates is effectively to say that marriage laws discriminate and are unconstitutional.
Legalising sodomy would set a bad example; by signaling approval, it may change both attitude and conduct; coupled with sexual hedonism, it makes a mockery of strong family values. 377A helps to protect against this harm.
Academic supporters of the homosexual agenda like my colleague Michael Hor argued online that even if 377A was not enforced, discriminatory policies against homosexuals could be built on the logic of its existence. But taking his logic, repealing 377A would mean the government would be less able to resist claims for homosexual marriage or for promoting homosexuality as a desirable lifestyle in schools, as this would be ‘discriminatory’.These foreign developments warn us that the advance of the homosexual agenda here is not remote.
To slouch back to Sodom is to return to the Bad Old Days in ancient Greece or even China where sex was utterly wild and unrestrained, and homosexuality was considered superior to man-women relations. Women’s groups should note that where homosexuality was celebrated, women were relegated to low social roles; when homosexuality was idealized in Greece, women were objects not partners, who ran homes and bore babies. Back then, whether a man had sex with another man, woman or child was a matter of indifference, like one’s eating preferences. The only relevant category was penetrator and penetrated; sex was not seen as interactive intimacy, but a doing of something to someone. How degrading.
It was only when marriage was invented by the Jewish Torah that the genie of sexual impulses was forced into the marital bottle, so that sex no longer dominated society – this discipline provided the social base for the development of western civilization.
Homosexuals as fellow citizens have the right to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour. We should not be subject to the tyranny of the undemocratic minority who want to violate our consciences, trample on our cherished moral virtues and threaten our collective welfare by imposing homosexual dogma on right-thinking people. Keep 377A. "

Replace the word "homosexuals" with "religious groups" followed by a wonderful conspiracy theory on how the religious groups plan to gain power in singapore insidiously and then have all homosexuals stoned to death. That's how silly this argument is.

"Democracy and Debate
Sir, we Singaporeans will continue to debate and disagree over controversial moral issues as they arise. We should make substantive arguments and not think with our feelings; the media should present both sides fairly, without bias.
However, I have noted a disturbing phenomenon over the 377A debate– the argument by insult. Instead of reasoning, some have resorted to name-calling to intimidate and silence their opponents. People with principled moral objections to the homosexual agenda are tarred and feathered ‘homophobes’, ‘bigots’, to shut them up. This strategy is unoriginally imported from foreign gay activists, which stifles creative thinking and intellectual enquiry. "

Pot calling kettle black once again. Not to mention the irony.

"When you shout, full of sound and fury, and call your opponents nasty names, this terminates public debate. No one wants to be called a bigot. But think about it – if I oppose incest, am I an incestophobe? If I oppose alcoholism, am I a winophobe? If having an opinion means you are bigoted, then we are all bigots! What is your phobia?
Where certain liberals accuse their opponents of being intolerant, they demonstrate their own intolerance towards their opponents! They are hoist on their own petard, guilty of everything they accuse their detractors of!
One of my colleagues, a young professor, suffered these vicious tactics when the Straits Times published an article this May where Yvonne Lee argued against repealing 377A. This well-researched, cogent article so incensed homosexual activists that they flooded her with a torrent of abusive, lewd emails and wrote to her head of department calling for her to be removed from her job. This appeared to be a co-ordinated campaign. "

So? Proponents of S377A are certainly no angels as well. Try not to claim moral superiority. Makes you look hypocritical.

"We academics are used to disagreement, but why write to her employer and threaten her livelihood? Why vilify someone and seek to assassinate their personal and professional reputation? I hope the House joins me in deploring these malicious attacks which also assault academic freedom. She is owed an apology. I would be ashamed to belong to any academic institution that cravenly bowed down to such disgraceful bully-boy tactics.
This August, I had my own experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed. "

Now you know how it feels to be vilified.

"I believe in free debate but this oversteps the line. I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a police report. Does a normal person go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?
Smear tactics indicate the poor quality of debate and also, of character. Let us have rational debate, not diatribe, free from abusive rhetoric and tantrum-throwing. As Singapore approaches her Jubilee, My hope for the post-65 generation is that we will not become an uncivil civil society borne from an immature culture of vulgarity which celebrates the base, not the noble. "

Irony to the max really.

"I speak, at the risk of being burned at the stake by militant activists. But if we don’t stand for something, we will fall for anything. I was raised to believe in speaking out for what is right, good and true, no matter the cost. It is important in life not only to have a Brain, but a Spine.
One of my favourite speeches by PM Lee, which I force my students to read, is his Harvard Club speech 2 years ago where he urged citizens not to be “passive bystanders” in their own fate but to debate issues with reason and conviction. I took this to heart. To forge good policy, we need to do our homework and engage in honest debate on the issues. Let us also speak with civility, which cannot be legislated, but draws deep from our character and upbringing. Before government can govern man, man must be able to govern himself.
Sir, let speaking in the public square with reason, passion, honesty, civility, even grace, be the mark of a Citizen of Singapore."

Yea. I'm sure. I too speak up at the risk of having my IP address traced to my home address by some loony who might run towards me with blocks of C4 strapped to his body.

As for speaking in the public square with reason, passion, honesty, civility and what the hell has grace got to do with this, RUN A FACT CHECK FIRST for once your facts are wrong, your argument collapses!


Monday, October 22, 2007

Is a medical degree a worthwhile investment?

Often, we hear about how our million dollar doctor ministers sacrifice their previous multi-million dollar salary as a doctor in private practice. So the question is: Is it really a worthwhile investment to get an overseas medical degree if you can't get into medical school in NUS?


Here's some quick facts on the costs of getting a medical degree in Australia

1) A medical degree costs about AUD$328,000

2) Living expenses and rent amount to about AUD$20,000 a year

3) A medical degree takes 6 years to complete

4) It costs SGD $1.31 to buy AUD $1


It illustrate the total cost of getting such a medical degree, let's consider two persons A and B, both of the same intellect and talent.

A decides to study medicine in Australia while B decides to study some business-related course that takes 3 years to complete in NUS costing SGD$6,110 a year.


Here's some reasonable assumptions we make before comparing A and B financially.

1) Both start off with SGD$586,880 (that's the total tuition fee of the medical course plus living expenses and rent converted to SGD)

2) A will be spending almost all of his free time studying in order to pass his exams

3) B will have 30 hours of free time a week to work since he does not need to spend as much time as A studying

4) In addition B learns how to invest and is able to do so reasonably well (15% return on investment per annum) since he has the time to learn as well as the intellect (he could have made it to medical school after all!)


So let's begin to crunch some numbers!

Upon graduating from medical school in 6 year's time, A's net worth is a big fat ZERO

B's net worth is abit harder to calculate. To make a fairer comparison, B will only get the SGD$586,880 over a 6 year period (in equal parts) since A pays his school fees and gets his living expenses from mum and dad annually. On top of being able to invest, B spends 30 hours a week working as a $6 an hour waiter during his university days and upon graduation, he starts work drawing a starting salary of SGD$2,500 a month.

At the end of 6 years, B's net worth would approximately be SGD$1,000,000. Most of this comes from the savings by not pursuing an overseas medical degree plus the returns in his investments.

A will take another 10 years before becoming a consultant with high earning power. And until he gets to that stage, he will be exploited as a resident and then as a registrar with low pay (around AUD$15 an hour). By that time, B's net worth would already be SGD$4 million.

Unless A really gets to become a top doctor like our multi-million ministers, I don't see how A can ever catch up with B in terms of net worth even if we leave B's day job salary out of the equation.

So why are there even any Singaporeans going to Australia to study medicine? It doesn't really make financial sense. I guess they are already millionaires-to-be to begin with.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Virology news: Discovery of new virus

A new virus has been discovered recently. Information on the pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical signs and control/treatment is as follows:

Family: Rhabdoviridae

Genus: Lyssavirus

Virus still unnamed. Suggestions for name of virus is welcome.

Pathogenesis: Following infection via optical and auditory routes, the virus localises in the optic and/or cochlear nerve(s) before retroaxonal transport moves the virus to the CNS via cranial nerves II and/or VIII. Subsequently the virus localises in the prefrontal cortex of the frontal lobe, occipital and temporal lobes before replicating, damaging the neurons in the process. Secondary haematogenous spread occurs with transient viraemia before infecting the salivary glands.

Clinical Signs: Following damage to the prefrontal cortex, occipital and temporal lobes, the affected patient manifests signs associated with damage to those areas of the brain such as irrationality, auditory and visual hallucinations with frequent indulgence in delusional thinking . Excessive incoherent speech is a typical sign which is one of the primary means of virus excretion via saliva. Loosely associated with lower IQ. Other clinical signs included suicidal tendencies (especially by means of explosives), homophobia, realitophobia, necrophobia, excessive hypocrisy and imposing their views on others.

Epidemiology: Strangely, this virus only affect humans, as opposed to the closely related Rabies Virus which can affect all homeothermic animals. Is found in all continents but serotype distribution is mainly determined by geographic location. Currently, sertypes C and I are the most common serotypes. Epidemic in USA and western Asia and endemic in most other countries in the world. Japan and China are relatively free of infection. Humans are the only transmission host and excrete high titres of virus in saliva. The virus is extremely resistant to dessication and is most commonly found in formites such as books. Vertical transmission is an important route of transmission.

Control and treatment: Currently, the only vaccine available is a live-attenuated vaccine marketed as ScientiVac. Post-infection treatment is by injection hyper-immune serum with varying degrees of success. Difficult to treat as infected patients tend to refuse treatment and may turn hostile. Strangely in infected patients, the immune system does not respond with no antibodies produced even though antibody is protective. This suggests an in vivo mechanism that suppresses the adaptive immune system.

Religiosity, homophobia and intelligence

Recently, a survey conducted by NTU found that "'intrinsic religiosity' - viewing religion as the primary driving force in life - was the strongest predictor of anti-gay sentiment here. "

Ah.... a correlation between religiosity and homophobia is established. Nothing suprising at all judging by the amount of bible verses quoted by proponents of S377A in the ST forum discussion board.

I've also frequently heard that scientists are usually non-religious. Could there be a link between IQ, religiousity and homophobia?

Guess what? In a study titled "Religiousness, Spirituality, and IQ: Are They Linked?", it was found that

".....religious participants did have significantly lower QSAT scores than members of the other three relationship-to-God categories (spiritual, agnostic, and atheist). This result suggests that religious individuals are somewhat lower in quantitative ability, perhaps suggesting less rigor in certain kinds of reasoning. This pattern did not extend to the other relationship-to-God categories, suggesting that there is something special about the people who identified themselves as religious. "

Haha! I knew it. Intuition does work sometimes!

Friday, October 19, 2007

Arguments to keep S377A: An analysis

When proponents of S377A run out of logical and legal arguments against repealing that silly law, here's what they do: Flood the Straits Times forum with numerous equally silly letters.

Today, we have a bumper harvest of 4 letters that were against repealing S377A. The links to those letters can be found below

1) Not the right time to review Section 377A

2) Fallacy to talk of 'gay' discrimination

3) Wrong to compare S377A with S498 of the Penal Code

4) Why Govt is right to retain S377A of the Penal Code

A summary of their all their arguments is as follows

  1. A recent survey conducted by NTU showed that 7 out of 10 Singaporeans frowned upon homosexuality and that the will of the majority must be followed
  2. Repealing Section 377A would have an impact on families and that the family is a bedrock of our society
  3. Sexual behaviour/conduct is not a right
  4. Sexual orientation is not an immutable or fixed trait
  5. If we allow freedom of choice for sexual orientation, then we will have to legalise incest, bestiality and paedophilia as well
Once again, S377A proponents have conclusively demonstrated a 100% correlation between homophobia and stupidity and I will have to debunk their nonsense yet again.

On point 1

This is the equivalent of saying "Since the majority wants X to be done, X must be done"
Now it's bloody obvious that you can replace X with any rape, murder, war or genocide, the argument collapses immediately. Furthermore, the survey did not showed that the majority opposed the repeal of S377A. It merely showed that 7 out of 10 "frowned" upon homosexuality. I'm sure the majority of Singaporeans also frown upon adultery, divorce, pre-marital sex etc., so why aren't those acts illegal? If laws are based on what people frown upon, then you are going to find yourself in jail for farting in public. It's as ridiculous as that.

On point 2

This is the equivalent of saying "Allowing Y has an (negative) impact on families and a family is a bedrock of our society hence Y should not be allowed" Now replace Y with divorces, single parents, extra-marital affairs etc. and you wonder why all those are not criminalised as well. Furthermore, point 2 assumes that allowing homosexuality does indeed have a negative impact on families. Perhaps this article "Did gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia?" would shed some light on that assumption. Using intuition to conclude that repealing S377A has a negative impact on families is not a very bright idea. Many things in life are counter intuitive. Go look up some facts for once!

Point 3 & 4

These 2 points hinge upon the assumption that sexuality is influenced by social environment or that it is a choice out of free will. If proponents of S377A did a fact check first, they would realise that despite decades of the most extreme social conditioning to have males be attracted to other males, those males invariable remain attracted to females. So there's really no need to worry that your son will suddenly turn gay under the influence of other gays. It only makes you look ignorant.

Point 5

Finally something more challenging to debunk. Let's deal with the bestiality and paedophilia argument first, which is relatively easy to quash. For bestiality, animals cannot give consent to have sex. This is tantamount to rape or animal abuse. As for paedophilia, children are not deemed to be mature enough to be able to give consent. Still rape. For the case of incest, it holds many similarities to homosexual sex. Both are considered to be deviant, both concerns 2 consenting parties carrying out personal activities in the privacy of their own bedrooms. However, there is one important difference (in the case of an incestuous couple consisting of a male and a female) and that is a possible victim may arise. In-breeding increases the likelihood of bearing offsprings with genetic disorders. Secondly, the incest argument is really a well disguised strawman. There is no scientific evidence that suggests that there is a form of sexuality that consists of people only attracted to members of their family. Meaning, that incestuous couples could very well go seek partners who are not part of their family. Furthermore laws on incest apply equally to everyone, homosexuals or heterosexuals. Therefore, there is no question of inconsistency whatsoever.

Conclusion

Proponents of S377A ought to stop relying on strawman arguments. Stop giving silly analogies. No 2 cases are exactly alike and as such, any comparison will invariable breakdown at some point. If you want S377A to be retained, please back your arguments with sound logic and facts. Focus on S377A and don't try to confuse the issue by drawing in examples of bestiality, incest and paedophilia. Stop resorting to ad hominem tactics such as accusing the gay lobby of having an agenda for we do not resort to similar tactics like accusing S377A proponents of having religious agendas.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Peasants learn warped logic from ministers?

Our ministers are indeed great leaders, often leading by example. So effective is their leadership by example that peasants are actually mimicking the actions of our ministers. Let's take a look at today's letter of the day from peasants published by The Straits Times.


Beware negative consequences if Govt accepts call to criminalise all forms of marital rape

WHILE columnist Andy Ho mentioned the marriage vows to honour, cherish and protect, he failed to mention about commitments and obligations of the marriage partners in his Review article, 'Rape is rape, so husbands should not have immunity' (ST, Oct 2) and upon which AWARE had written a letter appealing to the Government to criminalise all forms of marital rape in its letter, 'Abolish marital-rape exemption in its entirety' (Oct 6).

As sex is an integral part of a marriage understood by both partners before entering into holy matrimony, how could the wife honour her husband and fulfil her obligations by not consenting to sex with her husband while remaining married?

Dr Ho did not mention any reference when he wrote that 'sociologists have found marital rape to be even more traumatic than stranger rape', but a search on the Internet results in the under-mentioned link which stated the findings by Raquel Kennedy Bergen that, inter alia, 'marital rape victims reportedly suffer higher rates of anger and depression than women raped by strangers, perhaps because the violence was perpetrated by a person they had loved and trusted to not harm them' (
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/20...ITAL-RAPE.html)

My understanding of the last part of the quoted extract - 'the violence was perpetrated by a person they had loved and trust to not harm them' - is that it is the violence which caused (physical) harm rather than the sexual penetration by the husband that caused the long-term psychological trauma, and not that the wives felt betrayed because their husbands had non-consensual sex with them if no violence was used.

AWARE and proponents who call for the criminalisation of all forms of marital rape should be mindful of the unintended negative consequences if the Government accepts their call, for example, an increase in commercial sex resulting in higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases and less money for the families; higher divorce rates; broken families, et cetera.

Bin Hee Heng

Bin Hee Heng has certainly learnt well from his leader. He says

"violence which caused (physical) harm rather than the sexual penetration by the husband that caused the long-term psychological trauma, and not that the wives felt betrayed because their husbands had non-consensual sex with them if no violence was used. "

So he's saying that it is the physical abuse that causes the psychological trauma and not sexual penetration, as indicated by that study.

Firstly, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Secondly, even if we take it that there is no harm done whatsoever ever if a husband rapes his wife gently, whatever that means, we would be giving the green light to all potential rapists to use date-rape drugs (knocks out the victim and makes them unable to recall the rape) going by his logic.

Perhaps that's the straw man he's putting up. Certainly learned well from Ng Eng Hen

Next, Bin Hee Heng sprouts more rubbish. He says

"AWARE and proponents who call for the criminalisation of all forms of marital rape should be mindful of the unintended negative consequences if the Government accepts their call, for example, an increase in commercial sex resulting in higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases and less money for the families; higher divorce rates; broken families, et cetera. "

Is he saying that wives should suffer in silence just because their husbands would visit prostitutes and spread sexually transmitted diseases when it becomes illegal from them to rape their wives?

Is he saying that wives should suffer in silence just because if their husbands can't rape them for free, they will spend the money on prostitutes instead?

Is he saying that wives should suffer in silence just because husbands will divorce them if they cannot rape their wives?

Going by his logic, I would say that the government should give bank robbers $3 million each for otherwise bank robbers will be tempted to rob banks, shoot security guards and police officers who get in their way.

He probably learned this sort of warped logic when our ministers justified their salary hike in order to prevent corruption.

Then again by saying that, I might be committing the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I'm so confused. I must be stupid.

Monday, October 8, 2007

Transport Minister's Circular Argument: It Goes One Full Circle

ST Oct 8, 2007
Minister explains why bus fares cannot remain unchanged

By Yeo Ghim Lay

Transport Minister Raymond Lim yesterday commented for the first time on the bus fare hike this month, urging Singaporeans not to politicise the issue.

Doing so would over time, cause the service standard to suffer, he said at a dialogue.

A resident of Thomson Division suggested that fares be reviewed every four years before the general election.

He was highlighting the latest bus fare hike of 1 to 2 cents on Oct 1, just a year after the last increase when fares of buses and trains were raised by 1 to 3 cents.

Replying, Mr Lim said if fares were frozen for four years, people tend to ask for it to be extended again.

Other countries' experiences have shown that when governments succumb to such pressure, service standards would deteriorate.

The reason: bus companies, unable to afford new buses, will have a shrinking fleet, resulting in overcrowding.

As the situation worsens, people will complain to the government, which will feel compelled to raise fares.

'But the people say: 'How can you raise the fare if the buses are so crowded, so lousy the service?'

'It goes one full circle,' said the minister.

So while, politically, the freezing of fares would be a popular move, that would not be a responsible thing to do, he added.

The resident had also asked why public transport companies like SBS and SMRT are publicly listed, resulting in them looking out for the interests of their shareholders, not commuters.
Mr Lim said experience elsewhere shows that if government were to take over, costs will still rise eventually.

Fares then have to rise. But if commuters resist, fares have to subsidised and this subsidy has to be borne by taxpayers.

So, either the user or tax- payer pays, he noted.

The minister also defended the Public Transport Council (PTC), noting that its decision to disallow train fares to rise was ignored by people.

Arguing that fare charges was best left to the independent PTC, he said it was unfair to brand it pro-public transport operators.

'They are doing a very difficult job, (it is) very easy to say these things but they're already trying to take into account the public interest to ensure that at the end of the day, you have a public transport service that is good,' he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Bargain Hen's recent display of stupidity, Transport Minister Raymond Lim gets into the poultry act by talking cock.

"Replying, Mr Lim said if fares were frozen for four years, people tend to ask for it to be extended again. "

Using his twit-like logic, if the Public Transport Council allowed fares to be raised frequently, the bus companies will ask to raise their fares every year. Oh, isn't that already happening?

"Other countries' experiences have shown that when governments succumb to such pressure, service standards would deteriorate.

The reason: bus companies, unable to afford new buses, will have a shrinking fleet, resulting in overcrowding.

As the situation worsens, people will complain to the government, which will feel compelled to raise fares.

'But the people say: 'How can you raise the fare if the buses are so crowded, so lousy the service?'

'It goes one full circle,' said the minister. "

A summary of Mr Lim's explanation goes like this.

Government succumbs to pressure -> bus companies cannot afford new buses -> poor service -> people against raising of fares and pressues government not to raise fares

Since this is a circular argument, Mr Lim says that such grounds for the refusal to raise fares are invalid.

So let's make the circle go the other way round.

Government does not succumb to pressure -> bus companies can afford new buses -> good service -> people agree to raising of fares

Since this is also a circular argument (it's an anti-clockwise circle instead of clockwise circle.), I guess Mr Lim must then say that the government must refuse to raise fares, since such an argument is also circular.

So peasants, do tell your Transport Minister how good the bus services are. They will be unable to raise fares if you do so.

Bashing ministers aside, the public transport system in Singapore must be liberalised. A monopoly without competition is guaranteed to be inefficient for it allows businesses with inefficient business practises to get away with it. And when inefficient business practises erodes the profitability of such a company, they will simply raise prices (under the pretext of unable to afford new buses), leaving consumers (poor helpless peasants) to bear the brunt of it.