It's your 'duty' to procreate - What a load of rubbish

last SG · 2004-03-10T17:30:25+00:00

the last time lky raised the "graduate mother" eugenics program, it cost him plenty of votes... its never a good idea for the gov't to interfere in somethin...

reyes SG

we should vote for this "ong" out of the office.

he earn big bucks so talk big. think we singaporean are your PAP slave? even make baby also need to use law?
#$&^%^*^*. Dr Chee come my HongKah GRC, i vote for u better!!!

pikamaster SG

hehe...you could make a new party, after all after the mighty defamation campaigns PAP has flung against WP and SDP, i dun really think S'poreans will want or dare to vote for them...save a few like those here or at Sintercom... Mr. Green

the hopeful pikamaster

the pikamaster

Coco_Coco SG

you are absolutely right! WE MUST VOTE PAP OUT OF OFFICE! they are depriving us of our indv rights. last time got so indoctrinated that always vote for pap without thinking. but now things are different. really wanna thank the infamous load-of-rubbish aljunied mp for waking us up to the undesirable political sitation in singapore.

we need a change of govt.

even dr chee soon juan would seem more desirable and better than that aljunied mp and many others. at least he knows what's wrong with the singapore incumbent govt.

Coco_Coco SG

he looks darn idiotic.

laurence82 SG

I am sorry for his parents who gave birth to such an idiotic arse for a son. Talk about upholding Chinese tradition? This guy is bringing them down.

shibuya SG

even the way he looks and smiles pisses people off.

out with him!

[email protected] SG

really wad we call LJ bin

Coco_Coco SG

rubbish bin?

[email protected] SG

Lan J*** Bin

laurence82 SG

Meaning dick face.

Btw, according to Chinese culture, if someone in the family or community has done something bad or sinful, he will be 'chou ma' by his family, relatives and friends.

This is what we doing to Dr Dickface Ong now.

[email protected] SG

that bugger deserves it.

Xprobe SG

you know, i am the type of demographics that pap bank on their support...middle class, married w/ children, value stability upon everthing else...

screw them, dont want my son to live in this kind of environment and future...i am going to use my vote to make a statement against such an aggroant govt...

Sporeans, wake up, your streets dont have to be 100% clean, things dont have to be 100% in order if it is the price to pay for ousting this type of policy-makers whose are imposing their wills on the way you have to think and act as an individual

Get real man.

oldbreadstinks SG

i'm amazed that the STs even dared to continue the propaganda even after this crap , just how much do they think we can tolerate?

this guy needs a good smack in the face to make him wake up his Farking idea

then i think its time to have more malays and indians about , if this is what the chinese leadership can come up with

i hope so too, but i doubt that, STs only report "interesting" things like people thinking fann wong having a face only a mother can love
and not stuff that is against the govt

hope someone good is fielded this time, not like the last bunch

sorry pls, chee is not ok, i don't mind chia but chee is a big NO

i'm more like lower middle class, not married ,no children(of course) value my rights to an equal chance to life ........... sounds like i have nothing to lose if i vote against pap
anyway voting pap out doesn't mean our streets would be dirty and things were never 100% in order anyway

Atobe SG

This kind of crap thinking, coming from a PAP MP, is the result of the high handed methods in which LKY has been using since the PAP first ruled Singapore - from Self-Government in 1957, and since independence in 1965.

The past methods used by LKY, and its continued encouragement of the practices adopted by the current Cabinet, is a very close semblance of the same methods employed by closed societies such as Communist Russia and China.

Duty to the Nation, the Government, the Citizens.

Every INDIVIDUAL EFFORT is to serve a National Purpose.

Now the shadow of a Communist Type Political System is slowly revealing itself clearer - even when we are constantly fed with the false threats of Communist Cells, each time the Ruling Party has to deal with those threatening the Ruling Party's political interests.

tranquilice SG

I hope not!

mImItO_sVeNsK_mAn SG

oh well .... first , the topic of stayers and quitters .. oral sex,
and now, pro creation ... why is our personal privacy being
controlled here ?? oral sex ?? when did it become a crime ??
will they tell us how to have sex the next time ?? no doggy, only
missionary ..... now even telling us 2 make more babies n punish
the singles ... the process of making babies is not just instant push
button but months of expenses n time ... if people earning $5k
and above say that it isn't enough 2 have a family, wat about those
earning less ??? well, with all these stupid and insensitive mindsets,
no wonder there are a lot of quitters .. Me, for one, will never want
my children 2 grow up in this country .... wake up ur f*@king idea !!

Demosthenes SG

It is so enlightening to see such a balanced and educated retort in the ST Forum to Dr. Ong's mindless proposal. It is also heartening to know that even our derided "quitters" like Mr. Phua here, still retain such concern for their homeland.

MP may have crossed the line with proposal
I WRITE to express my shock and disapproval of Dr Ong Seh Hong's comments during the procreation debate ('It's your 'duty' to procreate'; ST, March 10).

The notion that the duty to procreate is rooted in 'traditional Asian values' is misconceived. Taken in its proper context, the Chinese philosopher Mencius' words on filial piety - 'bu xiao you san, wu hou wei da' - more accurately refer to the duty to have male descen-dants to carry on the family name, and not to an abstract duty to have as many children as possible.

If Dr Ong is correct, then China must be the most lacking in tradi-tional Asian values because of its one-child policy.

Dr Ong's contention that childless couples 'would become a liability to the society in the future' is in itself irresponsible as it ignores such couples' contri-butions to society during their most productive decades.

In its proposed form, the 'Preventive Eldercare Account' discriminates against childless married couples and therefore may be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Singapore Constitution.

In any case, the Preventive Eldercare Account is unnecessary as the current CPF scheme appears to provide adequate social security to those in their sunset years.

Lastly, taking the argument to its logical conclusion, why should the 'sticks' apply only to married couples? Surely, being single and child-less must also be just as irresponsible, according to Dr Ong's conception, because singles also do not produce any descendants.

[color=red]The 'duty' to pro-create has never been recognised as a legal duty in any modern society, and the proposal to pass laws to punish those who have failed to live up to this expectation may have crossed the line.

EUGENE PHUA WEH KWANG
New York, USA

www SG

i thought the punishing of singles has commenced long ago?

try applying flats as a single.

[email protected] SG

hmm...
very good point there....

socrates SG

Aiyoh… don’t get so agitated yet since up till this present moment it is still just a suggestion… They haven’t implement the “stick” yet lah… Some of you guys seems to be ready for a rebellion or something…

« Previous Page Next Page »