so am i right to sum up that when u and ur other half
face a robbery, u wil not protect her?
and u noe as well as i do that u cant measure money with the
computer that im using now.. because i cant play solitaire and
pinball with money.. so please don't use that funny analogy..
and monetary issues by itself is of course of a substantial
issue.. but if u are to compare money with physical abuse, which
one comes in more impt? mind you your answer might just make u a
millionaire in the SM community..
of coz, i can see ur point, that minority of the men are being
stripped of their wealth, but, how can u ever satisfy everyone? how
can u ever solve an issue where EVERYONE wins?
u must come to understand this fact.. that EVERY single law in
the world cannot satisfy everybody.. that in our world, not only
singapore, minority is always sacrificed.. seriously name me a law
that can..
by ur standards, i can also say that the govt does not support
racial equality, why issit that mrt announcements are always
English, Chinese, Malay then Tamil? why issit that in a shopping
centre it's so hard to find halal food?
and a law which does not fit the majority of the ppl will only
result in more problems.. i dont practise law, but surely, the
women's charter is to protect the women that are abused by men, not
to help women rip men off, and yes there are the bad apples that u
claim there are, but if a men's charter is set up, to equal the
playing field, what will now happen to the women that are targets
of abuse or divorce due to husbands? their husbands will easily use
such a men's charter to defend himself..
of coz, i will not go to the extent to say not protect the men
who are targets themselves, but if ur thinking is that the women's
charter is a tool for women to rip men off and thus u are
challenging it, ur thinking is very selfish.. sometimes women needs
to be placed above men by lawful obligations because the men
themselves tried to climb above..
so am i right to sum up that when u and ur
other half face a robbery, u wil not protect her?
if you are able to protect yourself, you would be directly
protecting her. vice versa. the credit goes to anyone who can do
the job well.
if she's the weaker party, and if you (as a guy), is not any
much better, there's no point in rushing to "protect" her, just to
be stabbed and killed, before she gets killed too, as a unwanted
side effect of ur resistance.
and u noe as well as i do that u cant measure money with
the computer that im using now.. because i cant play solitaire and
pinball with money.. so please don't use that funny
analogy..
and monetary issues by itself is of course of a
substantial issue.. but if u are to compare money with physical
abuse, which one comes in more impt? mind you your answer might
just make u a millionaire in the SM community..
of coz, i can see ur point, that minority of the men are
being stripped of their wealth, but, how can u ever satisfy
everyone? how can u ever solve an issue where EVERYONE
wins?
u must come to understand this fact.. that EVERY single
law in the world cannot satisfy everybody.. that in our world, not
only singapore, minority is always sacrificed.. seriously name me a
law that can..
yes, you do sacrifice the minority, but not at the expense of
the innocence. place urself in the shoes of a henpecked husband.
after tolerating ur abusive wife for many yrs, you finally decided
that you can't take it anymore, and file for divorce.
when you managed to file for divorce, ur wife, ur abusive wife,
in revenge, want to suck you dry of ur assets, just to spite you.
how do you feel? what would you do? stand aside and meekly see your
savings part ways from you?
and there are in reality many of such cases around. the wife
always felt justified in their claims. but in actual, are they
deserving to claim for "compensation", when are they in fact,
the abusive party, who is the ultimate reason for the divorce?
also, spare some thought for the husband. assuming that the
couple was married for over 20 yrs , (for the sake of his kids, he
tolerate the marriage until they are independent). under the law,
the wife would be entitled to claim at least 50% of his assets or
more. but is she really deserving of that?
bear in mind that the man, who by the divorce, would be in his
40s or 50s, an age which make him prone to retrenchment. if you
have any retrenched relatives in their 40s, you would know how hard
it is for them to find a new job similar to that of their old job.
do you expect an admin officer of 20 yrs experience to downgrade
himself into a cab driver, a truck driver, or worst still, a plate
collector at the hawker center?
at this age, he would be an age where he will find it harder and
harder to earn and save. if he is to be cleanse of 50% of his
assets, will he have enough time to re-earn enough to last thru his
retirement? please also consider a person detioration of health as
one ages, and this would further reduce his income earning
capability.
isn't it cruel to make the man suffer further to bail out of his
torment?
by ur standards, i can also say that the govt does not
support racial equality, why issit that mrt announcements are
always English, Chinese, Malay then Tamil? why issit that in a
shopping centre it's so hard to find halal food?
in case you do notice, they list it according to the racial
percentage. english is the main language medium, so it is announced
first in eng, followed by chinese, malay and tamil.
rgding halal food, i dunoe what's the link to the issue. whether
or not there's halal food depends on whether there are muslim
tenants in the food court. as far as i know, there's at least 1
muslim stall in every food court, kopitiam, canteen, etc. some
stalls ie. western food are also halal.
it also depends on the practicality of having more halal food.
so far, i don't see any reason to have more halal food stalls.
there isn't really much variety in muslim food.
i don't think you can replace ur ba chor mee with beef or mutton
either. for beef: most singaporeans are still budhists, who don't
eat beef.
mutton: not many singaporeans adore mutton either, as oppose to
pork.
if you can come up with more interesting, delicious muslim food,
like roast kebabs, turkish crusine, i don't see why we should not
have more halal food. however, the problem now is that there's no
one willing to sell those crusine at the food court, hawker center
etc.
and a law which does not fit the majority of the ppl
will only result in more problems.. i dont practise law, but
surely, the women's charter is to protect the women that are abused
by men, not to help women rip men off, and yes there are the bad
apples that u claim there are, but if a men's charter is set up, to
equal the playing field, what will now happen to the women that are
targets of abuse or divorce due to husbands? their husbands will
easily use such a men's charter to defend
himself..
it is a common stereotype that singapore women are the main
target of marital abuse. in fact, as i had pointed out earlier, 60%
of victims of marital abuse are men, as oppose to women, who make
up 40%.
the difference of 20% clearly indicates that singapore women are
over protected by law, where it make it hard for men (who are in
real need), to get out of an abusive marriage.
whereas for women, due to WC, if they are abuse, they have more
ease than abused men in getting out of an abusive marriage.
i think that there should be a PO for men too. it certainly
shouldn't be restricted only to women.
of coz, i will not go to the extent to say not protect
the men who are targets themselves, but if ur thinking is that the
women's charter is a tool for women to rip men off and thus u are
challenging it, ur thinking is very selfish.. sometimes women needs
to be placed above men by lawful obligations because the men
themselves tried to climb above..
what makes you think that there are very few women who try to
climb over? there are also as many out there, you know.
