Principal of top school under investigation for hiring prost

[Way2GO]

janet_lee88:

Here in Singapore, women are protected by charter.

Men cry out because they find it so unfair. In middle east countries or Pakistan for eg, their women are stoned to death when they commit adultery. Male members kill their female relatives like daughters, sisters and wives for this thing called 'honour killing'. But if men commit adultery, my guess is, it is ok. Is it fair ?

Me think dis example makes a sweeping statement n not quite factually accurate.
Muslims r not covered under WC, right?
Muslims r dealt with in Syariah court under Islamic Laws.
d punishment for BOTH man n woman is lashing,
not stoning to death unless offender is unrepentant n habitual.
Honour killing in d sub-continent n ME is a tribal thing, not legally sanction.
Can someone cfm dis?

janet_lee88:

Some women have affairs because their husbands neglect or abuse them. Women want love too. When husbands neglect, these women are lonely. They happen to find company and love. These women would have contributed to the household and marriage. Why are they denied protection?

Agree on protection part, but
I also see a double standard being applied here.
So it is OK, in ur view, to justify woman having EMA for d reasons u stated
but not OK for man to do likewise in similar circumstances?

[Imami]

Eh, don’t like that la, machiam men vs women…


I think what janet_lee88 is trying to say is, wives generally and normally do a lot for their family. They also need to feel respected and appreciated (that’s why the can buy car but must talk first. Not so much of "ask permission" but more of "we are partners, we talk.")

Let’s remind each other nicely not to make sweeping statements. Not all men are a@@holes, not all women are martyrs and I like to believe most of us are reasonable folks.

[janet88]

I never wanted to start a men Vs women debate...i am not saying all men are rascals...in general most men I have met are nice guys.


Hi Imami,
Thanks for speaking up for me. Appreciate.

[Imami]

janet_lee88:

I never wanted to start a men Vs women debate...i am not saying all men are rascals...in general most men I have met are nice guys.


Hi Imami,
Thanks for speaking up for me. Appreciate.

Most welcome. For some strange reason, I don't feel agitated at all by dad42's or your comments. And becos I don't feel agitated, I could think beyond what was written. In fact your comment and dad42s comments very 'wake up, imami'.

I have never think much of wc. I know it's existence but that's about it. I guess it was my naivety and blessings that I have never though i would need it one day. But I am glad I am under its protection but I hope I won't need to use it.

[janet88]

Shaw grandson returned to court again with the angmoh fella.

That scion has definitely ruined the name his grandfather worked so hard to establish.

[Way2GO]

janet_lee88:

Shaw grandson returned to court again with the angmoh fella.

That scion has definitely ruined the name his grandfather worked so hard to establish.

haha u don't know d grandfather also has a reputation?

[verykiasu2010]

Way2GO:

janet_lee88:

Shaw grandson returned to court again with the angmoh fella.

That scion has definitely ruined the name his grandfather worked so hard to establish.

haha u don't know d grandfather also has a reputation?

genetic

[janet88]

Way2GO:

janet_lee88:

Shaw grandson returned to court again with the angmoh fella.

That scion has definitely ruined the name his grandfather worked so hard to establish.

haha u don't know d grandfather also has a reputation?

I know the grandfather had a long time companion...or is it the brother?
Anyway, with such a rich background, it's expected. But the grandson might be bringing name to Changi.

[phtthp]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1208417/1/.html

[limlim]

phtthp:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1208417/1/.html

sometimes I wonder if the reporting got mistake or not..

\"This means that the accused would be deemed to have committed the offence - even though there's no intent.\"

This statement just seems so wrong.... how can one be convicted of an offence w/o intent? it is generally understood that under common law, intent and act must both be fulfilled before someone can be convicted.

Rather than say that \"there's no intent\", I believe, the actual law is \"intent is implied to be present, unless proved false\". i.e. burden of proof lies with defense, rather than prosecution as is the case for most offenses.