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.