Animal Cruelty: Who Will Cry For The Abuser?

How do you feel when one takes joy in animal cruelty? [Pic]

Why wouldn't I be upset? He killed a cat and bragged about it.

Joseph Carlo Candare, a 21-year old Philippine student tortured and killed a cat and then talked-big about it in his blog. This is what he wrote in April 2009:

"I pulled it on its tail and threw it. Then like some pro wrestler I jumped on it and my feet landed on it's (sic) torso. Slam! Felt good! But the cat didn't die, well not yet,"

For that gruesome act, the Manila court found him guilty (on 12 May 2011). He was to pay a fine of P2,000 (US$46) and do community work for 2 months. Ironically, he is ordered to take care of maltreated or abandoned animals for the Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) as punishment. (see news report)

What is considered an appropriate punishment
for animal abusers? [Pic]

Landmark case

Candare's case is not the first conviction for animal cruelty in the Philippines. Earlier ones involved mass animal abuses, including the transport and sale of dog meat. Nonetheless, this is a landmark case where a person is punished for inflicting cruelty on a single animal.

While Candare may not be a mass animal abuser, he admited that he has killed more than one cat. This is what he wrote:

"I didn't see it die but Myles (his friend) said it coughed up blood or at least something like that.... This isn't the first time I've killed a cat but this time it's different,"

Everyone is responsible for animal abuse. [Pic]

Who is wrong?

His blog post in 2009 outraged the animal lovers community. Online comments were unkind to him, understandably. I was upset initially. But when my concerns shifted from the cats to Candare, I have many other thoughts.

Was Candare born like this or was he a case of misguidance? In any case, he is a psychologically troubled person showing signs of zoosadism. He seems to have drawn extreme pleasure from acts of inflicting cruelty on animals. If left untreated, persons with such emotional disorders may redirect their targets on human beings.

It appears that Candare's behaviors were not a simple case of mischief. When he explained his 'unexplainable' acts in his blog, he seemed to be somewhat disturbed psychologically:

"Now everyone knows I hate cats. It's an unexplainable feeling towards them. Like some internal hatred. I just don't know why but I just cannot overcome my hatred for cats."

Will mutilating little insects an acceptable form of
animal cruelty? Where do you draw the line? [Pic]

I am not familiar with the relevant laws in the Philippines. If there are no technical difficulties, I think it is more helpful to let Candare receive therapeutical and psychological treatments.

I fail to see how he can become a better person after clearing cat litters for two months. In fact, I am concerned that he might direct his frustrations on those animals under his care. I sure hope that his community work will be carried out under close supervision.

I do not know anything about Candare's childhood. However, psychologists suggest that some of the children who are cruel to animals have witnessed animal or child abuse. They may also have been victims of abuse themselves.

Parent can do much to guide children from young. Not all adults are animal lovers. However, that does not mean that they can afford to let their juniors engage in any acts of cruelty. If you think that pulling out wings of little insects to derive joy is trivial or even amusing, you may be in for something more troublesome. Don't wait till your children exhibit behaviors that defy social norms.

Animal abusers need help too. [Pic]

They need help

I am not writing this to vent my anger on animal abusers. Rather, I hope there is a higher level of awareness that animal abusers need psychological help and not just a straightforward punishment.

Animal abusers usually receive lighter punishment than those who inflict bodily harm on human beings. What is lesser known is that animal abusers are potentially dangerous to people. The law should not be such that they are lightly punished and then let go. They need help.

"It is much easier to show compassions to animals.
They are never wicked." ~Haile Selassie~. [Pic]

Last month, in a separate incident, a woman killed and mutilated a cat to use as part of an outfit to wear to Lady Gaga concert. She was charged and she was also receiving treatment for psychological illness. (See news report)

The next time you come across an animal abuse case, spare some thoughts for the abuser and his potential human victims as well.

Think compassion.

"Human it is to have compassion on the unhappy." ~Giovanni Boccaccio~

I Want to Quit Smoking

Do you know what you inhale from the air? [Pic]

I think I have just smoked a cigarette or two, unwillingly.

I am a smoker, or more accurately, a passive smoker. Everyday, without lighting up a single stick, I inhale what is left behind by smokers around me. Whenever I am near them, I would try to keep a distance and retreat into my self-defined safety zone. Being away from the choking tobacco stench. I want to believe that I would be safe from the secondhand smoke. But, I know too well that I am merely fooling myself.

Many non-smokers are happy to check the "I do not smoke" box in their health declaration forms. They gleefully think that they live a healthier lifestyle than their smoking counterparts. Do they really?

WHO (World Health Organization) defines passive (involuntary) smoking to mean 'the exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke which is a mixture of exhaled mainstream smoke and side stream smoke released from a smoldering cigarette or other smoking device and diluted with ambient air.'

Many children are victims of passive smoking. [Pic]

Every year 'passive smoking kills 600,000 worldwide' and one-third of those killed are children. Children who breathe secondhand smoke are at increased risk of health problems such as asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, ear infections, wheezing and coughing.

When a person smokes a cigarette, only 15% of that smoke is actually inhaled by the smoker. The other 85% goes into the air, and then into the lungs of those nearby. It is estimated that a non-smoker who spends two hours in a room where someone is smoking will inhale four cigarettes worth of smoke.

(Read media advisory issued by The Singapore General Hospital)

The deadliness of passive smoking has never been more certain. There are about 1.2 billion smokers around the world who constantly make billions others puff involuntarily. Year after year, thousands of passive smokers suffer health consequences but many remain ignorant about the seriousness of the matter.

'Passive smoking harms children more than adults' and the young ones are unable to protect themselves. They have no choice but to live with family members who feed them with dangerous chemicals. Secondhand smoke has at least 250 chemicals which are known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer causing). Cigarette smoke can stick on smokers and continue to harm young children who come into contact with them.

Smoking area clearly demarcated
with yellow lines. [Link]

The Singapore government is determined to make the city state tobacco-free. The National Environment Agency (NEA) spells out the 'List of Public Places and Public Service Vehicles Where Smoking is Banned'. Business outlets are required to clearly demarcate 'smoking areas' for smokers to be confined within (picture above).

The Singapore Customs impose a hefty sin tax on cigarettes at SGD $0.352 (aprox US$0.28) for every gram or part thereof of each stick of cigarette. SGD $877 million (Approx. US $687 mil) tax was collected from the smokers in 2010.

Brands such as Marlboro or Dunhill are going at around SGD $12 (Approx. US$9.40) in Singapore. In the neighboring Malaysia, you can get the same thing at only RM10 (Approx US$3.30). The huge price difference means lots of smuggling activities at the borders. In 2010, 2.3 million packets of contraband cigarettes were seized by the Singapore Customs.

Singapore is working towards a tobacco-free city.  [Pic]

The Singapore government is certainly not stopping here. Last year, the law was strengthened to ban more tobacco products and to step up public education in smoking cessation.

Yet, I think more can be done.

The harsh truth for passive smokers is that there is simply no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Passive smokers ought to learn to protect themselves and their loved ones. For example, they can teach the young ones to stay away from secondhand smoke.

(Read 'How to Protect Yourself and Your Loved Ones from Secondhand Smoke')

More can be done to keep
our air tobacco-free [Pic]

The law currently does not provide much protection for passive smokers. This is a big area to work on. A few days ago, an Australian court imposed a ban on a granny from smoking near her grandchildren. The move is very much welcome by those who know too well the danger of passive smoking.

The number of death caused by smoking is high, much higher than the number of death caused by AIDS, road accidents, drug abuse and murder put together.(See example of statistics)

To say that secondhand smoke kills is to make an understatement. Be informed.

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." ~Dalai Lama~

Blogtiquette. Get It Right.

I posted 'Truly Amazing Race' on 15 Jul 09.

It was about my thoughts shortly after learning that Dr William Tan was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Dr. Tan is someone who has given me a lot of motivation and inspiration. Being wheelchair-bound, he has shown many able-bodies that handicap is a matter of the mind and not of the body.


I am more than happy to share my article with anyone within the cyberspace. Stories of beautiful people often remind us that we are more blessed than we think we are. However, I was annoyed when my article was found duplicated in another blog.

The copied article is largely the same except for some substituted words. The choice of replacement words somehow made the copied article odd. I am puzzled as to why the 'writer' bothered to even do that.


The oddities begin right at the start of the article.

In the original writing, I began with:

"If you have not already known this person, you would at the end of this article."

This was replaced by:

"If you be imbued not already known this in the flesh, you would at the close of this article."

Somewhere in the article, I wrote,

"It was not until he was ten that he was given an old pair of crutches...As a kid, he was laughed at and that was to be the reason why he was expelled from Kindergarten while attempting to defend himself."

The 'writer' chose to say it this way:

"It was not until he was ten that he was arranged an old-time combine of crutches. As a kid, he was laughed at and that was to be the rationale why he was expelled from Kindergarten while attempting to parry himself."

I wrapped up my article by saying:

"Besides his impressive sports records, Dr Tan is also no stranger to many charitable organizations. He has done a great deal for various charities, raised millions of dollars here and abroad. Watch this video which shows some of the events in his life."

The 'writer' turned it into:

"Besides his exciting sports records, Dr Tan is also no company to diverse unsparing organizations. He has done a egregious arrangement in buttress of divers charities, raised millions of dollars here and about. Watch this video which shows some of the events in his flair."

?????

I have no idea why the 'writer' had to translate my article from English to 'Odd English'. It is totally bizarre. I tried to contact the 'writer' but the site is largely in French and I could not make much headway.

It is perfectly fine with me if there is anyone out there who wish to re-post my article. However, I do expect the most basic netiquette to be observed: You will give due credit to the originator of the article.


Most bloggers are aware of the basic golden rules in the blogosphere. For completeness, here are some useful ones for those who wish to do a recap.

Rule #1. Everyone is Reading

You are in a public domain and your readers include everyone and anyone in the cyberspace. Posted articles are like spoken words, you cannot ever take them back again. You will be silly to post something which will get you fired.

Rule #2. The Record is Permanent

A young blogger may say something he would regret when he is older. Unfortunately, such records can become permanent. Before he can erase the marks, someone may have already re-posted it somewhere in the cyberspace. Potential employers who have taken note of some unintentional puerile comments may dismiss him as a suitable candidate for a a job. Whatever you choose to publish, be mindful of possible consequences.

Rule #3. Give Credit

If you are citing studies or researches, let others know where you get your facts from. If you see something you like and want to recreate it in your blog, do not 'blogjack'. You would need to give due credit to the original writer. Sometimes, you may even need to get prior consent. Being honest and trustworthy is always desirable.


Rule #4. Shhh...Do Not Shout

Do not write in ALL CAPS. NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR YOU SHOUT! Neither should you write everything in small caps or mixed-caps. Be nice to your readers, do punctuate and go easy on long paragraphs.

Rule #5. Be Civilized

Although the blogosphere is a free space, we ought to be responsible for our words and actions. Feel free to disagree and leave comments but leaving a negative comment anonymously is a cowardly act. When you receive a comment, do reply appropriately. Flaming and mounting personal attacks are unacceptable behaviors.

The above 5 rules are not exhaustive. Essentially, basic mannerism inside and outside the cyberspace remains the same. Everyone wants to be treated with due respect. Period.

Remember, writing in a blog is like walking down a busy street. Everyone is 'watching' you and you should get your Blogtiquette right.


Lastly, if there is anyone who can make some sense out of this bizarre copycat act, please enlighten me. It would even be better if you can figure out the contact info of the blog owner. (knowing some French would be helpful)

"I stay true to myself and my style,
and I am always pushing myself
to be aware of that and be original."
~Aaliyah~

An Urgent Appeal... For Our Friends

This is an urgent appeal to stop a mass culling of dogs in China. You can help.

The city of Qinhuangdao (秦皇岛), Hebei (河北) Province, is killing unregistered and stray dogs as well as registered family dogs that are over 14 inches (35cm) tall. Even dog owners are being told to kill their own dogs or else their dogs will be beaten to death by the police and the owners will be fined for not killing their pets.


Can you imagine how it is like to kill your own dog only to save it from a more brutal slaughter? How more helpless can it be?

The killing is going on even as I am penning this.


The dog killing squads have been stalking the streets, mercilessly beating dogs to death with sticks and rocks. I can never understand such acts of cruelty. No explanation can ever satisfy me.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has pleaded with the Chinese government officials to stop the killing. They are appealing for more to help them stop the massive cruel slaughters once and for all.


Picture this...

"Several small and fluffy white dogs, which are probably used to snuggling on the laps of their loving owners, are trapped in a makeshift cage. One by one, these dogs are pulled out with a pair of long metal tongs, and brutally beaten with a stick. And then, even though it appears that some of the dogs may still be alive, they are tossed into a pit to be burned."

Is this acceptable to you? I will be cruel to you if I make this post more graphic than it already is.


I am sure the Chinese authorities have their reasons for doing what they are doing. They have cited the fight against rabies to be the main reason. Instead of rabies prevention programs, dog ownership education and consistent dog population control, they have chosen to take the easy way out to fight the problem. In the absence of any law to prevent cruelty to animals, this quick fix is just too tempting to be missed.

Why now?

This is not the first time the Chinese authorities implement massive dog killing. It will not be the last either unless something is done to stop them. Since 2006, dogs in China have been subject to senseless mass slaughter campaigns. In May last year, a similar one took place and 40,000 dogs were killed.


There is no 'better time' to embark on another round of killing now, rabies or not. The officials of Qinhuangdao is probably hoping to 'clean the streets and put on a good show' for the upcoming National Day on the 1st of October.

Mass killing ahead of such a meaningful day which seeks to remind everyone of harmonious living. Ah! How satirical!

IFAW is urging that you send your message of protest to the Chinese Ambassador in your country.

IFAW is also working with the Chinese central government to pass animal welfare legislation that will ensure the humane treatment of all animals. They are also creating an emergency rabies vaccination fund so that they can offer rural communities in China an alternative to mass slaughters. You can make a donation to the fund.


Just last week, I was taken aback when I read in the news that a Chinese millionaire has spent four million yuen (S$835,000) to purchase a Tibetan mastiff named Yangtze No.2. As if that was not shocking enough, she had a fleet of 30 black Mercedes-Benzes, led by two sports utility vehicles to go to the airport to pick them up.


On one extreme, I ponder at the unusual fate of the 18-month-old Yangtze No. 2. On the other, I am deeply saddened by the untimely death of thousands of dogs, many of them are pets well loved by their owners.

I am not a dog owner and for that matter, I am naturally afraid of going near an unfamiliar dog. Even then, it takes me no effort to imagine the slow and painful death suffered by the dogs.

Dogs should not be given less respect just because they are not our kind. Help to put more senses to this matter.

“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.”

Further Update:

City brings in licenses for dogs before culling (21 Sep 09)

The dog cull in Qinhuangdao has been averted (22 Sep 09)

The Bottled Up Facts of Bottled Water

Water, water, in the bottle. Oh! What a bother...

Earlier this month, it was reported that the people from a small Australian town of Bundanoon, south of Sydney, have voted to ban bottled water. It is thought to be the first place in the world to do so.

Two conflicting thoughts came to my mind:
(1) What took you people so long to ban bottled water?
(2) Are you people over-reacting?


My thoughts are not uncommon. It is easy to understand why people hold such conflicting views as water issues have all along been contentious. We live on this planet with more than 70% surface area covered with water. Out of this huge amount of water, only 0.036% is found in lakes and rivers and can be consumed quite readily.

Water is important to us ever since we existed. Ancient civilization is known to have evolved along major rivers. Up till today, water issues continue to be a touchy one.


Just one example near home: In 1961/1962, Malaysia and Singapore entered into agreements for the supply of water from Malaysia to Singapore. For a long time, the two countries have been having disputes and they frequently revisited the agreements, which are not due for review until 2061.

Fortunately, water from Malaysia is just one of the four main sources of water under Singapore's "Four Tap" strategy. Besides importation, water in Singapore also comes from rainwater, recycling and desalination.


If you ask the Singapore Public Utility Board (PUB), they will assure you the high quality of Singapore water. That's right. Singapore tap water is potable, which means that you can drink it straight from the taps. Notwithstanding that, many of us still stick to the safer routine of have our drinking water boiled first.

We always want to be sure. When we are in doubt, we prefer bottled water. Just last year, more than 135,000 tonnes of bottled drinking water, worth more than $100 million, was imported to quench the thirst of this tiny country of of 4 million people, blessed with piped-in water which is save for drinking. Is this a case of insanity or ignorance?

Bottled water is 850 times more expensive than tap water. I do not need any research to tell me that the benefits of bottled water is not 850 times more than tap water. In fact, if there is any, it far less and probably negligible. Curiously, many people still hold on to the belief that bottled water is better and much better.


Bottled water should be consumed in places where safer and cheaper alternatives are not available. Singapore is definitely not one of those places. Each time we consume bottled water, we hurt our pockets and we hurt our environment by adding carbon emissions. Overall, I think bottled water brings us more harm than benefits.

It seems that consumers are attracted to the health benefits promised by bottled water. Numerous minerals and in some products, vitamins, are said be have been added. We feel good each time we gulp the water thinking that we have done our bodies good. The thing is, you do not and will not get sufficient nutrients by drinking mineral water. You get those things from the food you eat. I hate to say this but it is true that the benefits of mineral water is way over-sold.

A recent study on 10 top-selling brands of bottled water was carried out in the United States. It was found that the drinks contained a total of 38 pollutants, including fertilisers, industrial chemicals, bacteria and the residue of drugs such as Tylenol (a pain relief drug). On an average, the bottled water showed 8 pollutants in each sample.

Not convinced? Well, I don't blame you.


Each time we are presented with bottled water advertisements, we are made to believe that the drinks originated from unpolluted mountain springs. It is no surprise that we have been brain-washed to think that bottled water is pure and unadulterated. The truth is, tap water is much better regulated than bottled water and I leave it to you to deduce on which is the safer choice.

I think most of the consumers are sane but just plain naive. It is no wonder that I see "NAIVE" in EVIAN". Do you?


If I compare between the consumers of beer and bottled water, I find beer drinkers a better informed group. People who drink beer either enjoy the beverage or think that it is a symbol of a certain lifestyle that they would like to depict. They know the fact that, if taken excessively, beer will certainly harm their bodies. It is more an issue of self-control rather than product knowledge.

In the case of bottled water, many consumers know more myths than facts and their naivety leads them to think that they are being health conscious. For those who are aware of its lack of usefulness, they may still continue to do so because, just like the beer drinkers, they think it is a lifestyle.


Before you drink your next bottled water, be well-informed beforehand of the facts. Consider the cost (even if you can afford it), the health benefits (or the lack of it) and most importantly, the environmental issues. Weigh the overall cost against the (only?) benefit it has, that is, the convenience it brings. Ask yourself honestly, "Do I have an alternative?"

For those of you with young children, take note of the fact that drinking bottled water may increase the risk of tooth decay. On the other hand, drinking tap water, which contains fluoride, helps to improve dental health.

Be a savvy consumer and make a wise and responsible choice.

Further reading: Bottled Up and Tapped Out

Afternote:
The Ban Takes Effect Today (26 Sep 09)

"We never know the worth of water till the well is dry.
~Thomas Fuller~
(English Writer, 1608 - 1661)

Blending The Gender Polarity

Most of us have a sibling or two and some have more.

If you were born in the 1970s, chances are your parents might have been persuaded by the "population disincentives" policy at that time. Also known as "Stop At Two", the population control policy back then resulted in many 2-child families. Given that, you would have grown up with a sister or a brother.


However, if your family was not affected by the "Stop At Two" policy or your parents had decided not to comply, chances are, you might have been blessed with more than one siblings.

Some of us only have sisters or brothers. At one time or another, we might have quietly wished that we have a sister or a brother instead, as the case may be. Not that anyone of us was given a choice on this matter in the first place. But, it does not stop us from making that secret wish.


I have never really given a thought to my preference between having sisters or brothers. Interestingly, a recent study found that those who grew up with sisters were more likely to be happy and balanced. The researchers said that having daughters made a family more open and willing to discuss feelings. The girls tend to encourage more open communication and thus encourage more cohesion in family. It is believed that emotional expression is fundamental to good psychological health and having sisters promotes this in families.

On the other hand, boys tend to internalise problems . Thus. in a family with lots of boys, open communication can be at risk.

(As a daughter, I hope I have contributed to my family in that sense.)


I find the result of this research fascinating as I have always wanted to grow up with sisters. Just to put the record right, I do have two elder sisters and two elder brothers. It seems like a perfect combo except that I never really grew up with them. For that, I guess I am not qualified to testify on the accuracy of the research.

Sisters or not, we all know too well that boys are still generally preferred by people in many countries.


The Chinese (PRC) government introduced the "One Child" policy in 1979 to address some of its social and economic problems. Since then, it is estimated that as many as 250 million births have been prevented. Traditionally, the Chinese have shown a bias preference towards male heirs. The "One Child" policy is known to have pushed many families to commit infanticide and gender-selective abortion in order to have a son. I have come to know many morbid stories on what some parents will do just to get the one son they so determined to have. Those stories are so sick that I do not wish to recap here.


The fundamental gender bias started since a long time ago among the Chinese. The idea was further strengthened philosophically through Confucius teaching which promotes the traditional patriarchal structures, ie. the male is expected to be the head of the family with the women having little or not status at all.

Demographically, China is experiencing an imbalanced gender ratio which is becoming more severe over time. Overall, the gender ratio in China is about 107 male to 100 female. This is high compared to the ratio of 101 for Singapore. (as at 2007)

However, if we scrutinize the ratio at birth, the ratio imbalance is a lot more alarming. In 1975, there were about 106 male births to every 100 female births. In 2005, the ratio has skewed to 120.

In the rural part of China, sons are still expected to provide fundamental support to their parents while daughters are to provide supplementary and emotional support. This traditional old-age support system is the main reason for the Chinese to be son-bias.


Traditionally, the Confucius idea of gender preference can also be found in the Chinese-dominant Singapore, albeit to a milder extent. Curiously, in the last one decade, more and more families are experiencing a social and cultural switch, as far as gender preference is concerned.

Just do a simple street poll with people around you and you will find that more married couples are opting to have their homes located nearer to their parents. This could be partly motivated by the Housing Grant for families who opt to buy an HDB flat near their parents.

I suspect that your street poll will also reveal that the young couples today are likely to live nearer to the maternal parents rather than the other way around. Increasingly, couples with children are seeking help from the maternal families, given a choice. As a result, daughters are seen to be visiting their parents more often than the sons. This social phenomenon is going against the traditional son-bias family concepts.


Parents today are generally better off than our forefathers. They do not expect their sons to be the main providers for their old age. Instead, they desire more emotional support during their golden years and it seems that daughters are more equipped to play that role.


Perhaps, we are living at a cross road where the deeply entrenched gender-bias idea is making an about turn. I am not suggesting that I prefer daughters to sons. Personally, no preference should be given to either. Each child is gifted in his/her own right and that is exactly how you would like to be regarded right from the beginning. Wouldn't you?

In the spirit of gender equality, gender ratio should just be left to nature.

Be Fairer To The Fairer Sex

We will get our first woman minister come 1st April, no kidding.

Tomorrow, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, will become a Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, as well as Second Minister in both the Finance and Transport ministries, where she has been Senior Minister of State since last year.

I am not sure how the women here are reacting to this milestone in the Singapore politics but personally, I have some thoughts.


We have waited for more than 43 years for this to happen. As a fellow womankind, I am naturally elated to witness this milestone. However, I am also somewhat downhearted at the same time.

As a relatively young nation, we did not have to go through the era when gender equality was almost non-existent. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua said she had benefited as a female Singaporean, with equal and easy access to opportunities in education and career. Many of us can agree to that. If that is so, why then did it take so long for this day to come?

When Singapore gained self-governing in 1959, the People's Action Party (PAP) had four female PAP candidates voted into the self-governing Assembly. Not all four stayed on with the PAP but they remained in politics. My point here is that, female politicians were here right from the start.


Curiously after that, for a full 14 years from 1970 to 1984, there was no female representative in the parliament. Since 1984, women candidates such as Dr. Dixie Tan, Dr.Aline Wong, Mrs. Yu-Foo Yu Shoon and Dr. Seet Ai Mee began to be fielded.

The number of women participating in politics has since been increasing but women remain significantly under-represented in government. There are currently 17 elected women parliamentarians out of a total of 84 elected members. We have some way to go towards equality.


When we were in school, we did not feel the presence of gender inequality. Boys and girls are ranked and rewarded purely on the basis of merit. However, when the girls come into work force, they do not fare so well especially at the top echelon.
What is the problem?

I do not think it is a case of unequal opportunity. Rather, the problem lies with the unequal expectation.

Women are expected to match the ability of their male counterparts before they can be considered for the same job. That is fair. However, women are also expected to continue to play their traditional role usually played by the housewives. That is where the problem starts.
In order to be worthy of consideration, a woman candidate for a job needs to fulfill two challenging tasks: match or exceed the ability of her male counterparts and remain committed and effective in discharging her traditional duties.
In short, a woman has to be more capable before she can be seen as an equal match of a male contender. To achieve that, she needs good brain power and a good support network from family and friends. At any one time, women who are so blessed couldn't have been so many, hence, the relatively smaller number of women candidates for big jobs.

Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua said that she hoped her appointment would motivate even more women to enter politics. With that, I take it that she agrees with the prevailing large gender gap in the government.

At an interview, she was asked how she would juggle her time between work and family life. Mrs Lim, who has three children, said that, "it will continue to be juggled."

I have not heard a similar comment when a man is promoted to a higher position, have you? For that matter, the man will not even be asked such a question.

No woman is spared of her dual-role, Minister or not.

Besides her brain power and her juggling skills, a woman politician is also scrutinized for her look, or the lack of it. This is where it gets really insulting.

The Spain's 20 Minitos newspapers has since December last year put up an online poll for netizens to vote for "the world's most beautiful women in politics and government".

Our nominated Member of Parliament, Miss Eunice Olsen was reported to be ranked top 10. There are a total of 65 shortlisted "'beautiful politicians" and the voting is still on-going. It is not clear when the voting deadline is and when and how the result will be made known. Well, not that it is all that important to me.

However, if you would like to have a say, cast your vote at the Spanish website (scroll down). Do let me know your basis: A. Beauty B. Brain Power C. Flag D. Color.
(I thought brain power should be the only reason why they get the job but I will leave you to decide for yourself.)

I checked the list of "contestants" and was startled not by their looks (not that they are not beautiful) but the wider representation of women politicians in other countries, many of these I would not consider more advanced than Singapore.

Some of these beautiful people are holding very senior political positions, such as the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yuliya Tymoshenko, who is ranked top 10 and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who is the President of Argentina.

Many are also from Asian countries/descent. They are Jiang Yu (姜瑜), the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson for the People's Republic of China, Angelina Sondakh from Indonesia, Yuri Fujikawa from Japan, Melissa Lee from New Zealand (born South Korean) and Penny Wong, Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water (born Malaysian Chinese).


Today, it is not uncommon to find women head of state/government. Besides Ukraine and Argentina, countries which are currently led by women include Philippines, Germany, Mozambique, Liberia, Chile, Moldova, Haiti, Bangladesh, Iceland, Ireland, Finland, Switzerland and India.

Other countries in the East have had women head of state/government in their recent political arena too: Megawati from Indonesia, Han Myung Sook from South Korea, Indira Gandhi from India, Sirimavo Bandaranaike from Sri Lanka and Benazir Bhutto from Pakistan.

Even the nearby Malaysia have had their first woman Minister right after independence (1957) and there were a few more who followed, including Rafidah Aziz who was appointed Minister of International Trade and Industry from 1987 to 2008.

After I look at the matter in perspective, I am left more perplex. If I were to use the level of women participation in politics as one of the ways to measure gender equality, we are disturbingly 'backward'.

Or perhaps, should I see this as the start of something bigger? Let's say we have taken the first step towards the first woman Prime Minister of Singapore. Who knows? That might really happen within my lifetime.
Meanwhile, let's unleash more women power.

"The journey of a thousand mile begins with the first step." - Ancient Chinese philosopher, Laozi (千里之行，始于足下)