From ‘feminism, (open) marriage and fucking’ , at Bitch Ph.D:

So, better sex and better relationships through entitlement: this, at least, is true for me, and it is what I’m exploring right now with by fucking around. With someone who I am not married to, who I do not have to deal with next week, next month, next year, I can feel free to try something embarrassing; I can feel free to be, frankly, as whorish as I like; I can feel free to be entitled, goddamnit. This includes entitled to say no: no, I won’t do that, no, I won’t pretend to believe that your wife is just frigid. With my partner, I am afraid–not to say no, I am halfway to feminist perfection–but to say yes. What if I do something that he thinks is freaky, or that he finds so very titillating and erotic that I have to do it from here on out, forever? So, sticking strictly to sex, what one gets out of it is a chance to explore things in a less-fraught environment; ideally, one then processes that shit and brings it home and expands one’s sex life with one’s partner.

and by the way, happy national day

during my teens, my mom would never ever hesitate to criticise the way i dressed or the friends i made or the things i did. most of the time it was about the way i looked – she detested my wardrobe for its ‘immodesty’. being all spaghetti straps and skin-tight tops my mom saw it as signs of my imminent future as a streetwalker.

and she told me so. everytime i was about to step out of the house to go somewhere fun and exciting, while justifying her harsh criticism with this:

it’s only because i love you and i care about you that i tell you the truth. do you think anyone else cares?

and so that was my introduction to a new aspect of my traditional harsh-love upbringing. the previous examples being caning, scaring by threats of being given away to [monsters/bad men/foreigners], expressions of affection conditional upon exam results, etc.

anyway, my upbringing isn’t the point. the point is this:

while i may be highly critical about singapore, its people, its society, its government, its politics, its policies, my criticism doesn’t stem from a superiority complex or a hatred of the country. instead it stems from my love of a place i know could be much better that it already is.

the changes i hope for Singapore are not for the purposes of making it up to par with other countries. i don’t really care about how Singapore compares to the rest of the world. i care about making Singapore better for Singaporeans. if it happens that in that process, the adoption of methods and policies already used by other countries is necessary, then so be it – what matters is that the people of Singapore benefit from it.

i feel that way because i care about the future of singapore and care about the future of singaporeans, because i’m a singaporean. and i’m sure many people feel the same way that i do. it’s never been about ‘us vs them’, ‘you’re with us or against us, or ‘if you’re not PAP you must be in the opposition’.

i do it because i love singapore and want to be proud of singapore and want to be proud to be singaporean. it’s always going to be where i call home. it’s my place of birth, where my childhood memories lie, where my instinctive language was formed. it’s where my loyalties lie, where my grandparents are buried, where my family still is and most of my friends are. and because of that, i can see the faults more clearly, feel the mistakes with greater depths, empathise with those that have fallen by the wayside in this race to the top.

and if trying to better this place i love makes me seem like a dissident, at least i’m not apathetic.

happy birthday singapore, here’s to our brilliant future.

so tell me, what’s the point in having a card centre that shares its number with FOUR OTHER SERVICES..

and telling the cardholder to call collect when its a machine operated phone-in system.

and having the SAME NUMBER for local and overseas calls.

and having a website that tells you nothing. nothing about transaction limits, nothing about the card in question, nothing nothing nothing.

i am so going to change banks when i get back to singapore.

This is why the internet must be free

Nick Cohen in the Observer on blogs and the Web 2.0 phenomenon:

“Anonymity may give free reign to spluttering buffoons to write without being held to account for their words, but it also allows police officers and NHS doctors to describe the faults of the public sector without the fear of their bosses firing them. The medium’s unlimited space allows millions to drone on in blogs that no one but their friends will read, but the same lack of constraint allows professors to bring their knowledge to a general audience without adhering to the stultifying styles of academia.”

ten steps to fascism

fascist america in ten easy steps.

in summary:

1. invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. create a prison system outside the rule of law

3. maintain a body of spies/thugs/mercenaries to terrify the population

4. set up an internal surveillance system

5. harass citizen’s groups

6. engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. target key individuals, threatening civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don’t toe the line

8. control the press

9. dissent equals treason

10. suspend the rule of law

whilst the article is discussing the state of America, what flashed through my mind while reading it was how much it applied to singapore as well.

just a few examples.

dissent equals treason. obviously, since if you’re not with them you’re against them. i mean, no one in their right mind could ever possibly think that the PAP is wrong, and if you do, then you must be a traitor. because PAP is singapore, and if you’re not in complete support of the PAP, then ergo you are not in complete support of singapore, and consequentially, must be annihilated, humiliated, exiled, jailed, etc. because there cannot be more than one way of doing things, and the PAP way is the only way. capisce?

our terrifying internal and external enemy? internally –> terrorists, racial/religious riots, economic slowdown/crash, non-PAP government. externally –> just about every neighbouring country that singapore has the (mis)fortune of sharing the seabed/airspace/waterpipes with.

control of the press? enough said.

harass citizens’ groups, and threatening key individuals. well. to fully explore this would require a week-long exposition, and there’s enough out there to google. let’s just say that it’s clear these things happen in singapore, and no one could dare deny it. if in doubt, please remove the wool over your eyes and take a look around the real world. i bet THE MAN himself would probably gleefully admit it to the public, and probably say something like ‘of course we do, how else do you think we have been able to stay in power for so long?’’

so, is singapore a fascist state? or about to be a fascist state?

i would say that it might have been, but currently it isn’t and it probably won’t descend into a fascist state in the near future. i think, deficient as it is, there is still some substance (however lip-service only it may be) to the democratic processes in singapore. on the other hand, it is obvious that there is still a very long way to go before singapore enjoys the open and civil society that it ought to be aiming for.

it’s already got the skeleton of a democracy in place, now all it needs is the fleshing out of the body.

“this political situation is man-made” – said zahari

i’ve just watched Martyn See’s film Zahari’s 17 Years, and i had/have so many things to say about it and Said Zahari and Martyn See. but then again, the whole thing makes me very sad and very angry, and more than a bit empty inside.

Said Zahari says of Lee Kuan Yew, that whoever is not with him is his enemy.

and somewhere in the middle of the film, Said Zahari says “i’m still a singapore citizen. i was born in singapore, i grew up in singapore. i love singapore, singapore is my country“.

and perhaps that is what the government has to understand. i might not agree with everything that they do, and i will continue to critically assess their actions. but this is not because i’m communist or i’m anti-singapore. in fact, it’s because i love singapore so damn bloody much that i’m doing it. who else, if not singaporeans, have a right to question the way in which we are governed? who else, if not singaporeans, have a vested interest in the governance of singapore? who else, if not singaporeans, should speak up?

it’s not about the government, it’s about singaporeans.

but y’know, i don’t think they care. they’re in power, and they’ll do whatever it takes to stay in power, and reap all the benefits that come with it.

the other day kim and i were talking, and we were saying what makes a successful politician: is it one who does what he/she says in his/her mandate that got he/she elected, or one who is in power term after term. obviously, if you ask the electorate they’d say the former, but if you ask a politician, it’s the latter. and never the twain shall meet.

anyway, it all makes me feel so very pathetic and wishing that i had the guts to do something. really really do something. but instead, here are pictures of pretty things.

so i have this friend who is utterly bohemian and free-spirited.

she’s quite a lot older than i am, and a trained architect, but she floats around doing crafty things and going for dance classes and living out of a big box that she takes along with her each time she moves to another one of her many friends’ living room.

some days i think, i want to be just like that. carefree, to some extent, doing whatever i want to do, who cares if i don’t have a permanent job or a toilet i can call my own.

but then, on other days, it just seems so pointless. i’m sure she sees some larger picture that i can’t, but from my perch i see a lost girl trying to find her way still. i guess in some ways, it’s very difficult to escape from the very long shadows of an extremely successful and filthy rich mother who can and will provide you houses in london and paris, amongst other things. how does one differentiate themselves from their parents except by rebellion, in a multitude of subtle and/or evident ways?

maybe that’s the point, though. perhaps the process of trying to be different is courageous. it would be so easy, and it IS so easy, to continue in the footsteps of those that have gone before. and it doesn’t matter why, the fact of making that effort is enough. strength in adversity, etc. it would be so boring if we all listened to our parents and depended upon them for everything.

and perhaps after i’ve chalked up enough experience points, when i’ve squirrelled away enough money, i can be however and wherever i want to be as well. i hear consultancy work is very very lucrative.

rice is nice

being gluten- and lactose-intolerant, eating and drinking and grocery shopping is complicated.

most people don’t understand what gluten is, and so i simplify matters by telling them that i can’t eat wheat or flour. then they sort of blink really slowly and ask me to repeat myself.

but it’s not just wheat. it’s oats and barley and rye and a great big number of other grains that are suspect. gluten is the protein in grains that make the dough springy and spongy, so highly tensile bread products like bagels are basically gluten factories. even when it’s not in bread or bread-products, gluten still gets into everything somehow or other. even corn flakes and soya sauce.

and even though being lactose-intolerant is a much easier concept for people to understand, apart from big coffee chains and/or more upmarket places that cater to a more upmarket crowd, non-dairy milk is hard to come by if i’m thinking of drinking some coffee. furthermore, i’m not too big a fan of soy milk anymore, which makes the hunt for a cup of coffee with rice milk not made by me and which i’d be willing to pay good money for even harder.

it also makes being invited to dinner parties a nightmare, because i have no idea what they’re going to make. pasta? pizza? cous cous? falafel? noodles? gravy? sauce? cake? biscuits? custard? cream? ice cream? and i don’t think it’s polite to refuse food that someone’s cooked for me. and it makes me feel like a twat calling someone up the day before and telling them that i’m gluten- and lactose-intolerant and expect a special meal for myself.

it’s hard enough at my dinner parties to make separate dishes for non-/meat-eating guests and it’s just one ingredient. can you imagine if someone was making pasta in a cream sauce, with a chocolate cake for dessert, for 7 other people and i was the only one who had to eat something else?

anyway, as hard as it is, i’m rather thankful that up till now i’m only still intolerant of gluten and lactose, and not allergic. i won’t die or break out in hives or have a severe physically manifested reaction if i do eat things that contain gluten or lactose. i indulge in ice-cream sometimes, and i eat sandwiches for lunch when there’s nothing else available, and i really love pasta. it also means that whilst i might not be doing the best thing to my body and my hosts toilets, i don’t absolutely have to eat a special meal by myself when i go to dinner parties.

and i’m really lucky to be chinese and have a natural tendency towards the eating of rice and non-creamy things. the things i can do with rice. i eat it steamed, cold, warm, in salads, with other dishes, baked, in soup, as porridge, etc. i can eat rice for all 3 meals in a day.

it’s also probably a good thing that supermarkets are realising the potential (financially) of gluten- and lactose-free foods, and so i can get things like rice spaghetti, rice milk and gluten-free breads and flour quite easily. the organic shop round the corner also has a wide range of things that are gluten-/lactose-free.

but probably the best thing that comes out of all this is the fact that with these special dietary requirements, almost all convenience foods are no longer attractive to me because whilst they may look real pretty on the box, the ingredients list just makes me go ‘eurgh’ at the wheat flour and ‘eurgh’ at the milk and then ‘eeeurgh’ at the nutritional information panel. as a result, out of necessity, i buy lots of fresh ingredients and cook most of my own meals and end up eating pretty healthily incidentally.

i’m still angry

also, with around 18 women out of the 85 members of parliament, you’d think that at least one of them might raise an objection to the continuing subjugation of women within marriage.

and another thing.

perhaps it’s just because i’m a law student and i’m anal about these things and therefore i like reading statutes and finding out weird and wonderful laws that still exist, and also criticising them.

other people who aren’t all that interested in law probably have no idea that such an exception exists. and the only people who’d know about it are the victims themselves, who aren’t exactly going to campaign to remove it due to the traumatic and adversarial way in which many rape trials are handled – if they even get to a trial.

i mean, a woman who has been raped by her husband might be turned away at the police station when she’s drummed up enough courage to actually go and report it because ‘oh, you can’t be raped by your husband. and anyway, it’s not rape. it’s your husband’s right to have sex with you, forced or not’.

she goes away feeling violated, not just by the husband, but the system. and it probably creates a psychological feeling of guilt, that she deserves it and that there is nothing wrong in her husband forcing her to have sex with him even if she really doesn’t want to.

i’m all for sexual equality and sexual freedom. if women want to have sex with various people, they shouldn’t feel disenfranchised or demeaned by their choice to do so. on the other hand, if women do not want to have sex, their decision should be respected and honoured and they shouldn’t be made to feel like prudes, much less be forced into sexual situations that they have no desire to be in.

and, just to go off on a slight tangent, i think that women are as capable of raping men and men are of raping women. to think otherwise is underestimating the female sex, as well as implicitly undermining our abilities and capabilities. we might not have a penis, but who said you need a penis to sexually assault someone?

i think both men and women in singapore need to start becoming more interested in feminist theory and realise that it’s less about bra-burning and unshaved legs than it is about self-realization and mutual respect between and amongst the sexes.

maybe then, then there may begin some real recognition of the changed status of women in singapore – that we’re not just female bodies, that we’re not just childbearing vessels, that we’re not merely this strange and other sex to be owned.

-+-+-+-+-+-

UPDATE

it’s not very well-written since i basically ctrl-ced and ctrl-ved parts of my last entry, and also it was done in a fit of anger.

but the important thing is that i’ve submitted my feedback to the ministry of home affairs:

the consultation paper on the proposed changes to the marital rape section of the penal code (S374 (4) and (5) of the amended penal code) purports to have made the amendments in response to the ‘changed status of women and the evolving nature of a marital relationship’.

if the status of women in singapore is such that a man can rape a women subject to those very limited exceptions, then women clearly have no rights over their body once they have entered into and remain in a marital relationship.

the amendments do nothing to reflect the changed status of women in singapore, and it does not truly reflect the reality of marital relationships.

i would urge you to abolish the marital rape exception instead of merely amending it, because no man who commits rape ought to feel as if he can get away with it, especially not within a marriage.

please make your thoughts known to them, lest they assume that the singaporean public are pleased as punch about what they’re doing. let your voice be heard, before you become silent through submission.

send them your comments about the amendments here.

i’m so angry i could die

here’s another reason why i’m afraid of going back to singapore permanently:

say i married this guy, and things are fine for a couple of years but are gradually going downhill. i’ve lost interest in him and think that i’m much better off being divorced or separated, we don’t really talk much, we don’t have sex much because i’m just no longer attracted to him.

he’s frustrated, obviously. but maybe he feels that the marriage is worth saving. or maybe he doesn’t. i’m just hypothesising here.

one day, maybe intoxicated maybe not, he comes home and initiates sexual intercourse because y’know sometimes we just do have sex. it’s a physical urge that needs to be dealt with, and who else better to do deal with it than someone you share a house with. anyway, i refuse, he gets angry and insists. i refuse some more, he forces himself on to me and has penetrative sexual intercourse with my body.

i haven’t consented at all, and the act of sexual intercourse was done under duress/threat/physical force. but still, i can’t be classified as a rape victim because he’s my husband.

-+-+-+-+-+-

the consultation paper on the proposed changes to the marital rape section of the penal code purports to have made the amendments in response to the ‘changed status of women and the evolving nature of a marital relationship’.

well, if the status of women in singapore is such that a man can rape a women because they are married and not separated or have protection orders existing or other injunctions pending, then this clearly shows that women have no rights over their body once they have entered into a marital relationship.

do i belong to my husband? am i a will-less chattel whose use is entirely up to my owner? just because i’m married and we have a marriage certificate does that mean i stop being myself and become part of my husband? do i not have rights and independence?

i refuse to be owned or belong to anyone. and i do not see how the act of marriage can imply a continuous consent to sexual intercourse because it clearly doesn’t – just because you agree to have sex with someone today, doesn’t mean you want to or agree to the next. if both parties consent, then go ahead; but if one party doesn’t give consent, then respect that decision and go wank off by yourself. any supposed implied consent is just a false construction of reality.

if they want to make rape within a marriage an exception to the general laws of rape, why don’t they just change all the other laws to do with women and their marital status and their inability to be independent contracting parties. from now on, why don’t they just legislate that women can’t own property unless their husbands are co-owners. and women can’t sign contracts without their husbands. and, oh yeah, women shouldn’t be able to vote either, because we have no mental capacity to think anything apart from what our husbands tell us to.

a very large number of women are raped by people they know or who are close to. and whether or not that person is the women’s husband shouldn’t even figure in the equation as long as there was penetrative sexual intercourse without consent. rape is rape is rape. there shouldn’t be any exceptions to the rule, and to go one step further, it really should be gender neutral.

how can i return to a place that doesn’t legally protect me from what would probably be the most traumatic experience as a woman? rape, not just by a stranger, but by someone you trust and love (in some way), and by someone who shares the same house as you, whom you see everyday, and who knows all your intimate habits. if the law refuses to protect me, who else can i seek protection from? the person who committed the rape?

how am i going to bring up daughters in singapore and teach them self-respect and self-worth, dignity and independence, when i have to tell them as well that the government and the law doesn’t give a rat’s ass about their welfare once they’re married.

-+-+-+-+-+-

perhaps the best alternative, as a woman, is to not get married and merely live with a partner. cohabitation gets a bad rep, but at least it’ll save you from being classified as a martial rape exception.