N Korea compares Bush to Hitler

I so agree with this. What makes George W. Bush (II) so different from Hitler?


Today
23 November 2005

N KOREA COMPARES BUSH TO HITLER
-------------------------------
SEOUL - North Korea's foreign ministry has threatened to multiply its defences a "thousand times" in an angry response to a United Nations vote which expressed serious concern about Pyongyang's human rights record.

The ministry dismissed the UN General Assembly vote as an "absurd attempt" by Washington to topple the Stalinist regime, and compared US President George W Bush to dictator Adolf Hitler.

The UN resolution expressed concern about reports on torture, public executions and the imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, as well as the extensive use of forced labour in communist North Korea.

The ministry statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said the UN move was "no more than the barking of a dog at the moon."

The state-run KCNA also lashed out at the United States, which prepared the UN report, and called Mr Bush "a wicked man whom the world compares to fascist fanatic Hitler."

The news agency said Mr Bush's advocacy of democracy was a pretext for invading other countries.

"The US admonition for 'freedom' and 'democracy' is to invent pretexts for violating sovereignty of other countries ... and establishing its unchallenged domination over the world," it said.

KCNA also called Mr Bush a "warlike president" who "took the lead in advocating state-sponsored terrorism" and "openly defended murderous torture in prisons" - which it claimed were reminiscent of the Auschwitz concentration camp.

It was referring to the scandal that broke after the Washington Post reported that the US had secret prisons in various parts of the world, including Thailand and Europe. - AGENCIES

Conservative?

This article really shows that sex education for teenagers is really a must for us. Why is it the 'conservative' and the gahmen believes that just because we teach teenagers sex, they will immediately go out and have sex? Research has shown that with the correct information (both celibacy and also safe sex) teenages do make the right decisions. This would allow them to be informed of STDs and pregnancy.

Why is it the gahmen believe that they don't need sex education for teenages? They should stand firm on this issue instead of trying to please the conservatives.


SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE: 46% OF TEENS SAY YES
------------------------------------------
SEX before marriage is fine with us, say 56 per cent of the young Singaporeans in a recent survey.

And with this paper's readers recently debating whether students are getting adequate sex education, a more disturbing fact is that 46 per cent of those aged 15 to 19 said they would agree to pre-marital sex.

The percent of those who would say yes is highest among those aged 20 to 24, at 73 per cent.

Another surprising thing: More female respondents than males seem to be in favour of it. Out of 100 young people aged between 15 and 29 years old surveyed, 51 per cent of the males would agree to pre-marital sex, while 61 per cent of the females would give their consent.

The survey project is a collaboration between MediaCorp News and Singapore Polytechnic's School of Business, in support of a new news programme, the Channel U Weekend News Club.

Quotations

Some quotes from famous people in history, which still applies to today's political climate.

For the religious fanatics, fundamentalist Christians (or religious wrongs as I call them) :
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal
French mathematician, physicist (1623 - 1662)

For all good people in the world who are silent :
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

For all who discrimiate, whether by sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc :
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

Sad to say, the world will never learn from its mistakes.

Remembrance Day

Yesterday (11 Nov) was remembrance day in Australia and, it seems, a number of countries in the world. It was the day they (we) remembered the people who died in the world wars. At 11am, a moment of silence was given to these great heroes.

It is wonderful that as a Singaporean male, who has to go to war and die for my country when and if the time arrives, I'm still considered a 2nd class citizen and a criminal in the eyes of the law. Nice to know that I'm good enough to die of our "beliefs" but is a criminal when not.

Oppression?

I was having a chat with my Australian colleague and she asked me, "Isn't Singapore oppressive?". Now I was taken aback by that question because she has never been to Singapore before. So I wondered where she got her information from. It seems that the reports by the paper and even the net doesn't place Singapore in a good light. Her impression was formed by what she has been reading over the years. And she wasn’t the only one, my German colleague also echoed the sentiments.

I wouldn't say much about what I said to them but I did tell them that Singapore wasn't as oppressive as what they think and that it wasn't a "police state" (in fact we get away with quite a lot :P). Even though Singapore doesn't have the ‘freedom of responsible speech’ as Australia, German or even Korea, things have changed in the past 10 years and Singaporeans have started to voice their opinions about policies and even started questioning the gahmen. Not only did the gahmen not clamp down on these people, the actually encouraged it but there are still limits... for now. I told her that things would change and in time to come Singapore would have Australia's responsible speech too.

They were very satisfied with my answer but it did get me thinking. The gahmen wants Singapore to become a city like New York and London but with impressions like this about Singapore hanging around, it cannot. What makes a city cosmopolitan like New York and London is not the gahmen but the people, locals and foreigners. People flock to these cities because they have been know to be open minded, non-discriminatory and accepting of all people (including the dreaded GLBT community). People go there knowing that they are safe and whatever they do or say wouldn’t get them thrown into prison or deported from the country. This isn’t the impression foreigners have about Singapore. I’m talking about the citizens of these countries, the ones that make a city cosmopolitan not the gahmens. If we don’t change our image as a “oppressive” and “police state”, becoming like London or New York will not be possible.

I sometimes wonder if the Singapore gahmen knows this.

Have I said too much?

After ranting for the past few days, I wonder if the gahmen is going to come down on me for writing things like that, "unpatriotic" things. I wonder if I have crossed their line or are these comments allowed now? Maybe the gahmen just going to ignore me because this blog (and maybe me) is insignificant. Yup, Singaporeans are still worried that the gahmen will come down on them when they speak their minds.

If I do get clamped down, it would show that the gahmen has read this blog and I have touched on topics that are too sensitive. Which would be sad. Meaning that be are back to the dark ages. What would be nice (a dream I know) that they would take the comments of all of us GLBT into consideration and maybe decriminalise us. It would be one of the steps for Singapore to be a cosmopolitan city.

Just a dream.

Battered husbands

There have been a report and number of letters about battered husbands in Singapore in Today. So I was right in my accessment that 'equality and justice' is NOT for all. Mr Aidan is a battered husband in Singapore.

BULLIED BY 42KG WIFE
--------------------
Women's Charter abused to 'punish' man; time to enshrine protection and
uphold equality

Letter from Aidan L*

--- snap ---

The outmoded Women's Charter, promulgated in the 1960s to protect housewives left high and dry by their spouses in the event of a divorce, should be changed.

Many modern women are educated and their income may equal or even surpass their husbands', but the Act opens a loophole for abuse where a women just has to make a police complaint and the latter will have to act - even if the complaint is frivolous and unsubstantiated.

The men are made to support their spouses even when their wives' earnings exceed theirs. The Women's Charter has been increasingly used to "punish" the man for the marriage breakup - even though, in most cases, both parties are responsible.

We have in recent years witnessed more men seeking PPOs. But are men really protected? Probably, women know that they are unlikely to be punished, or at least punished heavily - hence they continue to launch their verbal or physical assaults.

The Women's Charter should be pro-family instead of skewed in favour of the female gender. It should be viewed as the Family Charter, to take into account changing modern values, and to uphold equity and equality for both sexes. It's time that men's protection be enshrined too.


Why is the Women's Charter not amended? It would seem that our ministers don't believe that this can happen to men. It is a rather chauvinistic point of view but sad to say it seems that is the point of view of a number of our gahmen.

Check out this post which shows up the ministers.

With discriminating attitudes there are in parliment, would we ever see real equality and justice for all Singaporeans?

I don't understand the Singapore pledge

We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation


What democracy? What justice and equality?

I don't see it for the GLBT community. If it really is based on justice and equality then things should be done and laws to be changed so that everyone is equal. Not where one sexuality is not more superior than another or women having more advantages than men in a marriage (women's charter).

I can understand that being a small country, we have to be pro-family but if the family breaks up and throws a gay son or lesbian daughter out of the house, is that very pro-family? This is not something that hasn't happen, it is something that is continually happening, families disowning their children because of this. Misconceptions breeds mistrust and hate, wonderful elements for a family.

I can understand we need more babies but the number of couples getting married AND having babies has no relation to the GLBT community.

Just because gay men/lesbians are more visible doesn't mean that there will be more gay men/lesbians in Singapore. It has been shown (in all countries that citizens have equal status) that about 5% or less of the population is gay/lesbian. So regardless of how you try to hide it there will be gay and lesbians around. When a GLBT community is visible, young GLBT people will realise that they are not sick (normal) and are not the only one. Nobody, should have to go through what all I and all of my gay/lesbian friends had to go though in coming to terms with our homosexuality.

I'm don't think that we will get equal status as heterosexuals but knowing that at least we will not be criminalised or considered unwell or deviant would be nice. I’m talking about repelling section 377, is that too much to ask? From the looks of it, yes it is because fundamentalism and homophobia rules Singapore. The truth of being gay/lesbian has always been obscured (by censorship, anything showing homosexuality in a favourable or 'normal' light is not allowed) and because there is no avenue for Singaporeans to know the truth about being gay/lesbian, most Singaporeans will always have a misconception that we are "sick", we "choose" to be homosexual and we "recruit" young people into our "filthy" lifestyle to "increase our numbers" and thus be against us.

As much as I love my country, I'm really unhappy/angry that the gahmen is making me feel like an outcast and a 2nd class citizen. So if every citizen matters, isn’t it time to repel penal code 377? Who are we protecting with 377? Don't we have enough sex laws to protect all people without having 377?

Reference: My musings

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning



2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall



3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract



4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal



5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed



6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children



7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children



8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America



9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children



10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

Replace America with Singapore. Is there a difference? Aren't we suppose to be secular? Why would religion come into play for our laws? Isn't the religious beliefs against us against the law (in some way?), where one group's views are forced upon the population and minor group?

But then again, with the GLBT community are not people. We just pay tax and are 2nd class citizens because heterosexuality is more superior.

Hypocrites at work

I read with disbelief the article on Today (2 Nov 2005) stating that President George Bush is 'concerned' about 'human rights violations in Myanmar'. Gosh, has he looked at his own country. Let me also quote the bible Mr. Bush, "Take the log out of your eye before you take the speck out of your neighbour's eye". America is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to human rights. What rights do the GLBT community? Their rights have been denied them again and again because of religious reasons. If you are so concerned about human rights, then let the GLBT community marry or just grant them equal rights and status as a heterosexual marriage, then I'll say you can talk about human rights.


Today
2 November 2005

COURAGEOUS MS CHARM MEETS BUSH
------------------------------
WASHINGTON - United States President George W Bush, saying he was concerned over human rights violations in Myanmar, met 23-year-old Ms Charm Tong, who is campaigning for the rights of minority groups in the military-ruled state.

Ms Charm Tong, a founding member of the widely respected Shan Women's Action Network, is a "courageous and compassionate" critic of Myanmar's military rulers, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, adding that she "has dedicated her life to helping those who suffer under the military rule in Rangoon and to exposing the regime's abuses, particularly against women."

Ms Charm Tong was named among "Asia's heroes of 2005" by Time magazine this month. Her Swan group has documented the reported rape of hundreds of women and girls by Myanmar's soldiers.

A refugee from Myanmar's central Shan state, home to the country's biggest ethnic minority, Ms Charm Tong is based along the Thailand-Myanmar border where she runs a school for young Shan.

"I raised with the president our concerns on the human rights violations, especially the military's use of systematic rape of innocent girls and women as a weapon of war," told AFP after the White House meeting, which she said lasted about 50 minutes. "The president said he was very concerned and wanted to know what more can be done to help the people." - AFP