Amos Yee getting a tight slap in the face

From ‘Amos Yee assaulted on way to court, now in remand’, 30 April 2015, article by Eileen Poh, CNA

There was drama at the courtroom as blogger Amos Yee was struck in the face as he walked to the State Courts for a pre-trial conference on Thursday (Apr 30). As Yee walked to the court house, a middle-aged man in a red shirt, ran up to him and hit him, while shouting. The man then ran off. The teenager’s left eye looked slightly bruised after the attack.

…Yee was remanded after the pre-trial conference, as he refused to set his blog posts to private. He had earlier flouted bail conditions by publishing two posts on his blog. His lawyer Alfred Dodwell said the teen feels very strongly that he has not done anything wrong with his posts.

It was a slap that was heard all around the internet. The assault was vicious, but awkward at the same time, and it appears that both Amos and his assailant both need psychiatric assessment in IMH, one for oppositional defiant disorder and the other for psychosis. Maybe the boy should have defended himself with a half-eaten banana, and give the attacker the slip. Or you could say the attacker was preparing Amos for the hard life to come behind bars if he persists in disobeying the law, hence doing him an actual favour.

Contrast the treatment of Amos outside the courts to how others flocked to support and shield a certain millionaire pastor some years back, protecting the man from anyone wanting to strike him in the face for unleashing ‘China Wine’ into the world. Amos had nobody to stave off random attacks. Not his compassionate bailor, not his pro-bono lawyers, not the reporters blissfully recording the entire scene on their phones, not even his own parents. Random slapper, have you no shame? Are you the kind of guy who goes around flashing and massaging your genitals in front of women and then scurry away? If you go up and kick a Mediacorp reporter in the butt, will he turn around and film the entire ordeal in place while you skip away giggling?

Law Minister Shanmugam has clarified that the charge of making disparaging remarks against the late LKY were to be ‘stood down’, meaning that Amos will be judged firstly for his Christianity rant and obscene posting of LKY and Margaret Thatcher in a cartoon tryst. If the boy were to write an autobiography, it would probably be called ‘Breaking Bail’, and I have no doubt that it would be a bestseller, either by his closet fans, or extremist Christians who’ll purchase them in bulk just so that can burn it. Amos, try penning your thoughts in a draft for a future book rather by publishing them on a blog for a change. It’ll probably work better than begging kind hearted strangers for money through ‘crowdfunding’. People are bound to feel cheated if they had donated to your legal funds only for you to screw things up, so no surprise if someone vents his frustration on you in the most bizarre way possible.

Slapping the face isn’t going to wake Amos up, that’s for sure, even if many commentators felt it was ‘long overdue’. Others condemn it as child violence. You can’t take either side without sounding like a hypocrite though; for example, one may cringe in horror at the child-beating scene in Ilo Ilo, but get a Schadenfreude orgasm just watching a stranger smack the shit out of the foul-mouthed, Jesus-mocking twerp that is Amos Yee Pang Sang. Or you could be the sort who would call the police if your kid’s teacher physically drags him out of class, yet cry foul when Amos is beaten around like a ragdoll. Imagine how LKY would feel witnessing this media circus from above, shaking his head at how Singaporeans are fixated with the antics of a very naughty boy, rather than going to the National Museum to stare at his red box.

Let’s hope the slapper gets hauled in nonetheless. If you can get charged for spitting at people, I’m sure you’re not getting away with random slapping. Let this also serve as a warning to anyone looking to infiltrate the state courts grounds with a pair of garden shears. Yes, I’m talking to you, Cookie Tan. (Ironically a police report has been filed against Cookie for threatening to emasculate Amos…a now Famous Amos).

UPDATE 1May 2015: Amos’ attacker was arrested on May Day. At 49, the guy is almost as old as Singapore #SG50.

TRS creators charged with sedition

From ‘The Real Singapore duo slapped with 7 charges under Sedition Act’, 15 April 2015, article in CNA

The couple behind socio-political website The Real Singapore (TRS) – a 26-year-old Singaporean man and a 22-year-old Australian woman – were on Tuesday (Apr 14) each charged with seven counts of sedition.

Yang Kaiheng and Ai Takagi allegedly published seditious articles on the website between October 2013 and February 2015. One of these articles falsely claimed that an incident between police and some members of the public during a Thaipusam procession on Feb 3 had been sparked by a Filipino family’s complaint that the drums played during the procession upset their child. The contributor of the article posted on another website that the allegations made in the TRS piece were untrue.

Yang is Singaporean, while Ai Takagi is Australian. According to the charge sheets, the particular articles have the “tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different groups of people in Singapore, name, between ethnic Indians in Singapore and Philippine nationals in Singapore”.

…Under the Sedition Act, the duo are liable, on conviction for a first offence, to a fine of up to S$5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of up to three years, or to both. As for the charge under the Penal Code, they are punishable with imprisonment of a maximum of one month, or a maximum fine of S$1,500, or both.

From St article 15 April 15, Couple behind TRS website face sedition charges

From St article 15 April 15, Couple behind TRS website face sedition charges

The ‘seditious’ articles are still online as we speak. In the Thaipusam article, it is alleged that the provocative but flawed eye-witness account ‘asserts’ that a Filipino family CAUSED the clash. Since instruments are banned during the festival, I would imagine the police confronting the musicians anyway, with or without a crying Pinoy child. But if anyone tries to push the argument of cause vs correlation they may just find themselves at the receiving end of a contempt of court charge.

If it weren’t a Pinoy family but say an Indian family of another caste, would that constitute ‘sedition’? What about the xenophobic backlash against the celebration of Philippine Independence Day in Orchard? Shouldn’t those Singaporean bigots who fumed against the event get slapped with sedition charges as well? Or the PRC family who complained about the smell of curry from their Indian neighbours. When does a symptom of xenophobia become deadly ‘seditious’?

In the other offending article on Filipino employers, Pinoys are described as ‘relentless backstabbers’ and generally ‘share the same traits’. This guy was basically stereotyping a particular race/nationality, just like how some Facebooker complained about the smell of a certain race on the MRT, or some ex-presidential candidate thought he was in Bombay while on a bus. If I say ‘those damned Americans are a bunch of redneck hillbillies’, would I be accused of inciting hostility among groups? When Amos Yee derided Christians, he was ‘causing distress’ and ‘harassment’ but not ‘promoting ill-will’. If he had insulted another religion would he be slapped with sedition? We were all even called ‘dogs’ once by PRC scholar Sun Xu. I doubt he was bitten by a single charge. Anton Casey flew to Perth before anyone thought about whether his remarks were deemed seditious because some Singaporeans got so insulted they wanted him to pay dearly with his life.

Does hiding racial stereotypes behind ‘stand-up comedy’ protect you from sedition charges, like if you mimic an Indian accent for example? If Kumar says ‘You Chinese buggers all only know how to gamble’, do I have a case against him?  The acronym ‘PRC’ is particularly offensive. In the ‘pee in a bottle’ article, the writer simply assumed that the woman who let her grandson drop his pants and wee in public was a ‘PRC’. Nothing else was mentioned about how she wanted to sabotage all hotpots in Geylang and blow up all the PRCs eating from it. PRC is the ‘n**ger’ of Chinese nationals. Just like when Edz Ello called us ‘stinkaporeans’, we couldn’t take it and demanded that he join the Sedition Squad.

Likewise, the PRC stripper article was about how ‘the majority’ of Chinese women come here on bogus work permits to steal other people’s husbands. Nothing new here. People have been harbouring negative stereotypes about ‘China women’ for more than a decade. Do we see people rounding them up and hanging them from trees and poke them with hot skewers? No. Do people make wild empty threats against the entire community on Facebook? Of course. Do we need to bother with what they say? I guess it depends. The Sedition laws seem to guard against the possibility that people take such comments so seriously they would brandish a flaming pitchfork over it. In the past, ‘seditious literature’ was serious business. They were documents specifically designed to instigate a mutiny against British imperialists, not some rant about why you think people from a certain country suck.

If the TRS offends you, you have the moral obligation not to read or share its articles. If you experience discrimination at work, you can take formal action with the authorities without dehumanising the entire race online. Let’s not kid ourselves that racial/foreigner tensions don’t exist. We are an island of tribes and little cosy enclaves getting the job done in spite of our differences, not a ‘It’s a Small World After All’ theme ride.

Duo arrested outside Istana for illegal assembly

From ‘Duo arrested for organising public assembly without permit’, 4 April 2015, Today

Two men between the age of 24 and 25 were arrested by the police this afternoon (Apr 4).

According to the police, the duo had turned up in front of the Istana with placards at about 4pm. Channel NewsAsia understands that duo were holding signs that read “You can’t silence the people” and “Injustice” for about half an hour. They were clad in red hoodies and dark-blue jeans.

Police also said that both of them had refused to stop the activity despite requests from the officers. As such, they were arrested for organising a public assembly without permit, under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

In 1986, a lone man was arrested by the police for carrying a placard outside the Istana asking Israeli President Chaim Herzog to go home.  His charge? Public obstruction. So is TWO the minimum number to organise an ‘assembly’, illegal or otherwise? One district judge debunked the general perception that you needed FIVE or more troublemakers to form an unlawful assembly, that the ‘intention’ was more important than the numbers. For example, it’s not illegal if you have at least 5 people gathering to sing Christian songs of worship without a permit, but a different matter altogether if you’re members of Falungong distributing leaflets or wearing shirts with slogans. Unless of course, the cell group gathering is causing ‘public obstruction’ by sitting on a busy MRT staircase, or singing in the void deck at midnight, thereby rightfully considered a public nuisance.

The ‘unlawful assembly’ law is more than a century old, and its original target was secret society ‘samsengs’  who got themselves into gang fights and riots killing each other. Today, in addition to any form of mob violence, the charge is extended to ‘peaceful demonstrations’, whether it’s expressing your disapproval of visiting foreign leaders, complaining about the CPF or demanding the release of people rounded up by the ISD without trial. You could go in front of the Istana gates, mouth gagged with masking tape and not utter a single word and still be escorted into a police car because of your symbolic act of defiance, whether or not you’re obstructing public property. You could even get charged in the designated protest venue Speakers’ Corner, for ‘public nuisance with common intention’, as Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui were when they gatecrashed a charity event last year.

It appears that the subject of your protest makes a difference. The police didn’t arrest anyone when THIRTY people turned up in brown outfits at City Hall station to protest the suspension of Mr Brown’s weekly satirical columns. Likewise, if I brought 4 friends to Bishan Park wearing pig noses to protest against the culling of wild boars, it’s likely that we’ll get off with nothing more than a stern warning. Or that once fashionable craze known as the ‘flash mob’, where you spontaneously ‘assemble’ in a public area and do goofy things like dance or propose to your girlfriend. How heartless must a cop be to handcuff you while you’re on your knees with a ring in your hand because you didn’t have a permit to conduct some mass orgy in public.

I wonder what the sign ‘You cannot silence the people’ refers to, because Singaporeans have been a god-awful noisy bunch, with the exception of any form of speech that may undermine the Supreme Court, race or religion, or dead dictators. Granted, the two hoodie guys defied police orders and asked for it, but I would imagine an entirely different outcome if the signs had read ‘Free Hugs for Everyone!’ or ‘SG50 is AWESOME!’ instead.

NUS: Saying ‘ow’ increases tolerance to pain

From ‘To raise your pain threshold, say ‘ow”, 20 March 2015, article in CNA

When they set out to study whether expressing pain vocally would help a person tolerate pain better, they did not anticipate that the study would create such an impression.

Findings from the study, conducted by National University of Singapore researchers with 56 local participants, was published in the Journal of Pain in February, and drew widespread media attention, with reports in The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom and United States-based The Huffington Post.

Speaking at an interview yesterday, National University of Singapore Associate Professor Annett Schirmer, from the Department of Psychology, said: “This is not my area of study and we’re newbies. So I was very surprised about the feedback. I’m very happy that even while we’re not very experienced on this, we were able to make it meaningful for people.”

The study is the first of its kind, presenting evidence that saying “ow” improves pain tolerance.

When our ancestors were out foraging alone and twisted their ankles after stumbling over some rock in the jungle, vocalisation would have been helpful to alert tribe members to rush to their assistance. In other words, making some kind of noise during acute injury is a survival mechanism. Those who chose to cry out, be it ‘ow’, ‘ouch’ or ‘AYAYAY’, lived to fight for another day. Those who decided to grit their teeth and bear it, were eliminated from the gene pool.

To most of us crying out in pain seems like a perfectly natural reaction, a vocal equivalent of our innate mechanical reflex like how we shrink back after touching an open flame. In evolutionary terms, shouting to ‘increase the pain threshold’ seems counter-intuitive. Your hand shouldn’t be in ice water for longer than necessary, and going ‘ow, ow, ow’ to make the ordeal more tolerable is actually doing more harm to it than good. In the old days before anesthesia or chloroform, doctors required patients to bite on a piece of rag while amputating their abscessed thigh off. They should have just let them scream the house down, if what this study concludes is true.

It’s not the first time that someone has tested the effect of vocalisation on how well you can endure frostbite. Magicians Penn and Teller had volunteers curse and swear in the same setup, and found that unleashing obscenities extended the time spent with your hand in ice water by almost a minute, compared to not cussing like a filthy pirate.

The Mythbusters team did the same test, but limited the possible non-obscenity eructations to Apple Pie, Fish and Mutton. Unfortunately, the video below didn’t reveal if saying ‘fudge’ or ‘fish’ was just as effective as ‘fuck’.

In 2011, the Journal of Pain published the article titled: Swearing as a response to pain – Effect of daily swearing frequency, which suggests that cursing can be a safer alternative to painkillers. Imagine, no need for Yoko Yoko if you’ve got a bruised knee, just a litany of analgesic swear-words could do the trick. If your primary school teacher catches you F-bombing in class, you could explain that you accidentally stapled your thumb, and was merely ‘relieving the tension’ and increasing your ‘pain threshold’, as scientists have advised.

Here’s something for the NUS investigators to consider for their next study perhaps: Compare the universal ‘ow’ or ‘ouch’ to how some Singaporeans instinctively react when stubbing their toe against the bed (KNNBCCB!). I, for one, would gladly sign up in such a clinical trial. Ah, science.

Fifty Shades of Grey impeding true intimacy

From ‘The realities behind the Fifty Shades’, 14 Feb 2015, Voices, Today

(Elvira Tan, marriage specialist, Focus on the Family): The film, Fifty Shades Of Grey, based on an erotica novel by the same title, has been released here, just before Valentine’s Day.

…A study published in Journal of Women’s Health last year concluded that there are strong correlations between health risks in women’s lives, including violence victimisation, and consumption of Fifty Shades. Female readers were more likely than non-readers to have had a partner who abused them verbally and to report fasting, binge drinking, using diet aids and having five or more intercourse partners.

Despite this, the novel and the film’s trailer have been popular. This is understandable, since humans have a longing for intimacy. However, sexual intimacy is not the same as relational intimacy. A person’s felt need for gratification may not meet his/her real need for connection and lasting love. Relational intimacy transcends sexual experiences and is best sought out in wholesome ways for it to be truly fulfilling. Ironically, focusing on the body rather than the person lessens both emotional connection and sexual appetite.

The authors of the book, Pulling Back the Shades: Erotica, Intimacy, and the Longings of a Woman’s Heart, explain that erotica/pornography “teach you to be sexually aroused by looking away from your partner, not toward him”. “You may be engaging your body with him, but your imagination is with some fictional character. That’s not intimacy.

…The untold story behind Fifty Shades is that engaging in erotica and pornography drives a wedge in marital relationships, often impeding the true intimacy many couples long for, as recounted in many of the marital counselling cases we have seen.

As a Christian organisation, you would expect FoF to have some reservations about Fifty Shades being shown uncut in its full explicit glory. But short of calling for a ban like our libraries have banned the book, they have cited academic research that explains why BDSM, among other forms of gratuitous porn, is bad for marriage and your overall mental health. Another publication titled ‘“Double Crap!” Abuse and Harmed Identity in Fifty Shades of Grey’ has researchers reading the book to pick out signs of ‘intimate partner violence’.  A more recent paper concluded that the 50 Shades phenomenon drives women to watch porn. No one to date has examined if sales of cable ties and red rope have risen since the launch of the books.

The study cited by FoF even admitted that they could not draw a conclusion on CAUSALITY between 50 Shades and messed-up behaviour or a newfound lust for anal sex. Especially so since it’s only women (specifically women from Ohio State University) who were surveyed and not MEN who’re the ones more likely to imitate and initiate the protagonist’s sex acts. Furthermore, the reference quoted by Elvira (Pulling back the shades) was written by a couple of evangelical Christians themselves, one with a link to FoF. If there’s anyone pulling 50 shades of wool over our eyes it’s FoF for sneakily plugging a book with an obvious Christian agenda in the Today paper.

This is the same group accused of promoting, ironically, ‘rape culture’ in schools. The organisation’s understanding of ‘true intimacy’ seems rather fairy-tale simplistic, more befitting of a Hallmark anniversary card than the real world, and from the previous pamphlet debacle they can’t seem to grasp basic BGR, not to mention BDSM.  50 Shades has become a convenient scapegoat, lumped together with the entire genre of erotica and porn, when they’re clearly another factors that lead to marriage breakdowns or domestic brutality, like access to dating apps, gambling, or the proverbial whipping boy ALCOHOL. Any mature adult would associate the 50 shades themes with kinky sex and role-play (one level of depravity below the use of sex toys) rather than its flaky extensions to partner violence. The difference is that Anastasia’s participation in Grey’s fun time seems mostly VOLUNTARY. This is made clear in the film. Grey doesn’t put her naked in a cage and throw away the key. It’s an erotic ‘romance’, not a horror film.

Curiously, the Bible itself is filled with commands for you to give up your free will and submit to an all-powerful, possessive being, one who doesn’t need a helicopter or glider to rule the skies, but watches your every move, tells you how to behave in front of Him, and asks you to sacrifice your own flesh and blood as a test of your devotion.

Ephesians 5:22 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Ephesians 6:5-8 – Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates

This isn’t even the first movie here to explore BDSM; In the 2000s Secretary, a bolder film for the adult set, was released quietly. The lesser known ‘Quills’ was an ode to the originator of BDSM Marquis de Sade himself. Guys from my generation would be familiar with the hints of BDSM from the sleazy, coming-of-age classic, Basic Instinct. Even our local movie Sex Violence and Family Values featured a story about parents engaging in kinky sex. We seem more tolerant of bedroom rough-and-tumble than a movie about gay marriage or even one featuring a threesome. The Passion of Christ probably had more brutal, bloody flogging than all these movies combined (not a hint of blood or even a bite mark in 50 shades), and that wasn’t even rated R21.

So BDSM has been around way before 50 Shades took it to ‘Twilight’ levels of mainstream popularity (the series about a ‘dominant’ vampire actually inspired EL James). Rihanna’s ‘S&M’ is still played on the airwaves (‘chains and whips excite me’). Some men who’ve never heard of 50 Shades pay dominatrices to flog them until they regress into a crying infantile mess. If you don’t have someone to punish you, you could suffocate yourself for kicks in a gay spa.  Yet, the pro-family fetishists will have none of it. A performance by Japanese girl-group Ebisu Muscats involving rope was banned because of its lewd suggestions of bondage. Now MDA, to everyone’s pleasant (or unpleasant) surprise, has given 50 Shades the green light to invade our pop culture consciousness unshackled, and here we have someone saying this is bad for marriage, while thousands of Singaporean couples are out there lining up at cinemas over V-day weekend hoping to spice up their dismal sex lives after watching it.

Most people, unless they have genuine fetish disorders, don’t take BDSM even remotely seriously  these days, with discussions on handcuffs, velvet rope, tight leather and ice cubes eliciting giggles and groans rather than uncomfortable squirming. We use ‘sadist’ and ‘masochist’ loosely, describing perfectly normal human beings like horrible bosses and ultramarathoners respectively, to the point that BDSM is no longer as ‘disturbing’ as it once was.  If Fifty Shades were harmful to ‘intimacy’, then the typical Nicholas Sparks’ book/film creates unrealistic, rose-tinted expectations of a romantic partner, which can do as much, if not worse, damage to emotions and intimacy than some gentle ass smacking.

I haven’t read 50 Shades myself, but having seen the movie, I doubt anyone would come out of the theatre rushing to the nearest sex shop to buy designer blindfolds and cable ties, or even less likely, go home and beat the living ‘double crap’ out of their spouses for pleasure, following the Dominant/Submissive contract right down to the letter like a BDSM Kama Sutra.

Xiaxue taking out Protection Order against SMRT Ltd (Feedback)

From ‘Xiaxue takes out Protection Order against SMRT Ltd (Feedback)’, 6 Feb 2015, article in CNA

Controversial blogger Wendy Cheng, better known as Xiaxue, has taken out a Protection Order against satirical group, SMRT Ltd (Feedback) for repeated harassment.  The Protection Order, which comes under the Protection from Harassment Act enacted in November last year, is meant to prevent the satirical group from publishing or continuing to publish offensive comments about Ms Cheng and her family.

Making the announcement in a blog post today (Feb 6), Ms Cheng, 30, claimed that she has been harassed by the anonymous entity since 2012, ranging from snide comments on her looks and height to disparaging her character. Her family has not been spared from harassment as well, she wrote.

Speaking to TODAY, she said that the circulation of her home address online was among the reasons leading to her decision to take out the Protection Order. It was published by a netizen on the SMRT Ltd (Feedback)’s Facebook page.

…Should they flout the court order and persist in making insulting or abusive comments against Ms Cheng and her family, they could be fined up to S$5,000, jailed up to six months, or both.

There is one man out there who would be following this saga keenly, a man who scams Vietnamese tourists for a living and was forced to close shop because of online harassment. In fact, Xiaxue may be ‘influencing’ him to do the same to the self-proclaimed vigilante group as we speak. Jover Chew, time to unleash your own Protection Order bro. It costs about $300-500 to lodge a magistrate’s complaint, which is the amount you earn from a crappy second-hand iPhone sale. I don’t think they accept payment in bags of coins, though.

It wasn’t long after the legislation against cyberbullying was enacted last year before a Frenchman summoned a PO against a certain Dr Param, who uploaded a Youtube video with what I’d assume to be offensive and scathing captions about the foreigner after a spat in a petrol kiosk. Param was ordered to remove the captions, the contents of which remain a mystery. There was a time when PPOs or personal protection orders were filed against drunk, abusive wife-beating husbands. Today, if you have the money and the time, you could immunise yourself against disparaging insults and death threats by issuing orders against trolls who don’t physically camp outside your home stalking your ass, but talk trash about you behind a screen. The duress you suffer at the hands of these jerks may not even be a fraction of the trauma that Xiaxue professes to have gone through, and you can still get your PO filed.

It’s like defamation suit ‘lite’, for ordinary people who don’t expect to be awarded $29,000 for being flamed online.  In the no-holds-barred universe of social media, the intention of POs against online hooliganism is to make the Internet a place for shiny, happy people holding virtual hands, though it would certainly also make the web much less, well, FUN. There are ways around the viciousness without going to the courts. You could choose to block comments or followers, delete all your social media accounts, change your email and start your online life on a fresh slate, like how an abused wife would change the locks of her house to prevent a monster husband from barging in demanding for sex, money, or both. Seeking protection also doesn’t stop people from bitching about you openly in public, or sticking pins in a voodoo doll designed in your image. No legal summons in the world can do anything about the centuries-old force of human nature that is gossip.

Most people who aren’t celebrity bloggers, or rather INFLUENCERS,  may choose to simply ignore the bashing as long as nobody’s lurking outside their doorstep and their address and contacts remain secure. After all, haters gonna hate hate hate hate.  Alas, much of our gratification from social media is derived from people making fun of other people, and if today the victims of our collective Schadenfreude have at their disposal a legal tool to shut people up, well, there goes the entertainment. It’s the modern equivalent of pitting a gladiator with a sword vs another with a balloon sabre. No argument, no one-upmanship, no fight to the death, just one person using the code of law against the other over a reputation-slaying insult. That’s it. You can’t defame politicians without going bankrupt and now you have to think twice before telling Steven Lim that you’d rather stuff a used dildo in your ear than hear him sing.

Xiaxue is no angel by her own admission. Some years back she launched her own vendetta campaign against people who dissed her on Facebook, some who probably deserved it, but were deprived of the opportunity to file POs against the Tyre Queen herself. Mean blog posts aside, her Twitter feed is a candid resource of violent, vulgar insults against her critics, blog rivals and innocent human beings who happen to be brought here to take up jobs that Singaporeans spit upon. Even her neighbours’ babies are not spared.

To those who have been hurt or shamed by her before, or had their families unwittingly implicated over a ‘geylang chicken’ remark, SMRT Ltd’s antics are just a sweet case of ‘what goes around comes around’. After all, legal proceedings aside, Xiaxue has a loyal army of fans (at least 40,000 daily readers) ready to defend her honour. A good time to be a lawyer, nonetheless, now being open season for ‘hater’ hunting. Tyre Queen 1, SMRT Ltd Feedback 0.

Public consumption of alcohol to be banned after 10.30pm

From ‘Stricter laws on public alcohol consumption proposed’, 19 Jan 2015, article in CNA

The public will not be able to purchase alcohol for take-away or consume alcohol in public places from 10.30pm to 7am daily when liquor control laws proposed in Parliament on Monday (Jan 19) kick in. The Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill was introduced on Monday.

The start time of 10.30pm is aligned with the closing time of most businesses in residential areas, and it is the time by which most community events, including getai, end, said the Ministry of Home Affairs in a media statement. The restriction will apply to all public places to avoid displacement of problems from one area to another, MHA said.

People will continue to be allowed to drink at home, at approved events and in licensed establishments such as bars and coffee shops outside of these hours, the MHA said.

Under the proposed law, Little India and Geylang will be designated Liquor Control Zones and come under stricter restrictions on alcohol consumption and retail hours of take-away alcohol, based on the police’s operational assessment. Such zones are where there is significant risk of public disorder associated with excessive drinking.

Under the new restrictions, you can’t bring booze to a BBQ in East Coast Park at night without applying for a ‘liquor consumption permit’. Likewise if you and your significant other intend to celebrate Valentine’s Day with champagne over a moonlit picnic. The punishment for your midnight revelry is a fine of up to $1000, and if you happen to be intoxicated within the Liquor Control Zone, the police have the right to tell you to ‘leave and DISPOSE of your liquor’, failure of which is a 6 months jail-time. All this doesn’t, however, address the problem of drunk-driving, which accumulated over any festive period may cause more deaths, injuries and blocked roads than your occasional Little India Riot, whether you drink in the day or night. You don’t even need a drop of alcohol to trigger disorderly behaviour. SMRT bans ALL forms of drinks on the train but people still fight over priority seats anyway.

To single out Geylang is no surprise, it being called a ‘powder keg’ and all, but this zonal extension is a ominous sign of ‘nanny-creep’, where you may have LCZs being slowly formed elsewhere for our ‘protection’, from Joo Chiat to goddamn Joo Koon.  Tekka hawker centre near Little India has already suffered from the migration of the drunken blight, with police banning beer bottles in the premises. So what’s a midnight outdoor drinker to do? Stock up your fridge, invite your friends over, get pissed drunk, and get into an indoor brawl over cricket. Well, at least it’s not a PUBLIC disgrace- that is until someone gets thrown out of the 8th storey window in the heat of battle.

What about those Robertson Quay teens, who now deprived of their fun beverage, decide to turn to another drug of choice, nicotine, or something more illicit perhaps? They sure as hell ain’t converting to detox juices. Worse, they may even drink MORE than their usual fill before the curfew clock strikes 10.30pm, after which the police won’t just be stalking people holding onto beer cans, but fishing out bodies from the river into which the intoxicated kids plunged to their deaths.

If the Government is serious about the alcohol scourge, they should ban outdoor consumption 24/7, or risk having public buses impeded by suicidal drunks in broad daylight. It seems like the only thing stopping us from banning alcohol altogether is sin taxes. But as if increasing the tax isn’t enough, now you’ll need to pay for a permit to bring a chiller stocked with Tiger beer to a beach party. Might as well make full use of that hard-earned permit by binging and destroying your livers too. Good luck with that, though, if you intend to hold a party for some Bangladeshi guest workers. You may have to pay the authorities extra for the chaperone riot police.

In fact, with the ban in place and you can no longer buy cheap beer from 7/11 in the middle of the night, alcoholics are being nudged towards the ‘licensed retailers’, meaning bars and kopitiams benefit, so hooray for more sin taxes, and if you have to drive just to get your fix, then you’re giving the traffic police, or the Grim Reaper, more work to do. If the objective is the maintenance of public order and safety, then a supplement Bill should be tabled along with the alcohol curbs. How about the banning of picking and throwing of projectiles, lighting fires, or use of makeshift bamboo poles as spears in public? Hell, even walking around with your face glued to your phone is a safety hazard. Why not ban public texting or watching Korean drama videos on phones too?

Ironically, the tagline for Singapore’s own Tiger beer is ‘UnCAGE’, but what we’re creating here, because we don’t trust people to behave responsibly in the presence of alcohol, are depressing cages of sobriety.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 349 other followers