Singapore government does not support sexual equality
-
Hi fellow forumers,You'll are getting to no where by arguing with a feminist movement promoter jojo beach-the truth is that she comes from a broken family herself,and yet seems to think highly of herself thinking that her suggestions are the optimum ways to solve all marital disputes. In divorce both parties are at fault.But in most countries not only in S'pore the Law seems to be biased towards men-a fact even MPS and govrnment officials even acknowledge.The evil is that women (apply to even the highly educated ones) are using the afforded protection to wreak havoc and financially bankrupt the ex-husbands.Look at our outmoded Women's Charter which was promolugated in the 1960s to protect traditional housewives but in modern SG,women have even surpassed men in terms of education and jobs.Yes I agree men must continue to provide for his family in event of divorce but many women,I suspect jojobeach herself is one of those bitter ones to champion the women's rights at the expense of men.No point harping and only see or side the women's position but be open and objective in yr discussion and offer constructive suggestions and not insults. Hell has no fury but a woman's scorn aptly describes a scorned woman out to seek venegenace but later only to cause herself harm and irreparable damage.Poisoned Ivy or not,the mercenary and vicious women will usually end in a deporable state. We male folks welcome jojobeach in yr constructive comments but not jeering and sarcastic insults plus be > flexible to accommodate our pple's views instead of being an adamant,old maid.God bless U
-
say so much, u oso insult others what.. pui..
-
Originally posted by 787180:
Hi fellow forumers,You’ll are getting to no where by arguing with a feminist movement promoter jojo beach-the truth is that she comes from a broken family herself,and yet seems to think highly of herself thinking that her suggestions are the optimum ways to solve all marital disputes.
In divorce both parties are at fault.But in most countries not only in S’pore the Law seems to be biased towards men-a fact even MPS and govrnment officials even acknowledge.The evil is that women (apply to even the highly educated ones) are using the afforded protection to wreak havoc and financially bankrupt the ex-husbands.Look at our outmoded Women’s Charter which was promolugated in the 1960s to protect traditional housewives but in modern SG,women have even surpassed men in terms of education and jobs.Yes I agree men must continue to provide for his family in event of divorce but many women,I suspect jojobeach herself is one of those bitter ones to champion the women’s rights at the expense of men.No point harping and only see or side the women’s position but be open and objective in yr discussion and offer constructive suggestions and not insults.
Hell has no fury but a woman’s scorn aptly describes a scorned woman out to seek venegenace but later only to cause herself harm and irreparable damage.Poisoned Ivy or not,the mercenary and vicious women will usually end in a deporable state.
We male folks welcome jojobeach in yr constructive comments but not jeering and sarcastic insults plus be > flexible to accommodate our pple’s views instead of being an adamant,old maid.God bless U
Hey dude, have you recently asked yourself why you are still a bachelor at 40(or more) ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Hey dude, have you recently asked yourself why you are still a bachelor at 40(or more) ?
what's wrong with being a bachelor? its a personal choice to make. maybe he's deterred from marriage by the attitude of s'pore women.likewise, are you married? if you are, good for you. if you are not, you are no better than him.
and he did raise a valid point that the women's charter is outdated.
quoting purpledragon84:
"they do not understand that for everything in this world, there are rotten apples everywhere.. if today the law makes it equal, guess what, men will start abusing the law and cause women to suffer again.."
so, you admitted that there are rotten apples everywhere. if it applies for men, it certainly too apply to women also.
and today's women are not as dumb as one think, i assumed everyone here would agree. if men do abuse the law, making women suffer, (again, base on your assumption that everyone is equal before the law), women can too strike back, using the law.
why must the law be favourable to women, so that they can have a supposed "equal" stand? i believe that today's women are much more capable than that.
it is precisely because of this bias towards women in the law, (note: different from the social bias 787180 may have implied), coupled with increased knowledge, women now has a legal edge over men, allowing many of the "rotten apples" among women to exploit this bias, wreaking their veagence on their ex.
i'm not saying that all women are bad, but there should be official legal safeguards a man could invoke to prevent their ex from overstepping their boundary.
thus, there is a real need for men and women to stand as equals before the law. either remove the women's charter or set up a men's charter.
btw, have u watch tv? in singapore, in 60% of cases of spousal abuse, the victims are men. 20% more men are abused compared to women. so who's the weaker [legal] party here?
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
what's wrong with being a bachelor? its a personal choice to make. maybe he's deterred from marriage by the attitude of s'pore women.likewise, are you married? if you are, good for you. if you are not, you are no better than him.
and he did raise a valid point that the women's charter is outdated.
quoting purpledragon84:
"they do not understand that for everything in this world, there are rotten apples everywhere.. if today the law makes it equal, guess what, men will start abusing the law and cause women to suffer again.."
so, you admitted that there are rotten apples everywhere. if it applies for men, it certainly too apply to women also.
and today's women are not as dumb as one think, i assumed everyone here would agree. if men do abuse the law, making women suffer, (again, base on your assumption that everyone is equal before the law), women can too strike back, using the law.
why must the law be favourable to women, so that they can have a supposed "equal" stand? i believe that today's women are much more capable than that.
it is precisely because of this bias towards women in the law, (note: different from the social bias 787180 may have implied), coupled with increased knowledge, women now has a legal edge over men, allowing many of the "rotten apples" among women to exploit this bias, wreaking their veagence on their ex.
i'm not saying that all women are bad, but there should be official legal safeguards a man could invoke to prevent their ex from overstepping their boundary.
thus, there is a real need for men and women to stand as equals before the law. either remove the women's charter or set up a men's charter.
btw, have u watch tv? in singapore, in 60% of cases of spousal abuse, the victims are men. 20% more men are abused compared to women. so who's the weaker [legal] party here?
Excwees me deathmaster...
You got go read that thread your dear hero 787180 started ?
You got see what the wife of that "Adrian" was awarded anot har ?
That Adrian's case was only 3 years ago hor.
The wife is earning more than the Adrian hor.
The Adrian in the end only pay $400 for his child expense hor . And he insist he shouldn't have to pay wor.
The wife don't get the alimony hor.
The wife also didn't get the flat hor.
She also got Thalasimia hor. Now Adrian is living in the flat with is new wife hor.
But this 787180 still think the Women charter is unfair wor.
And mind you, Adrian filed for divorce when his dotter is only 1 year old hor.
Ofcors maybe Adrian think he should make his ex-wife pay alimony to him then is fair issit ? Looks like gold-diggers are not just limited to women wor, even men can be just as greedy leh.
FYI this 787180 can be my lao peh ok ?
If it is his own choice to remain single.. then why is he kao peh-ing about Women's Charter ? If he is deterred by Sg women.. he can find foreign bride wat, who is stopping him ? Maybe the foreign brides also find him too calculative or cheapskate leh ? Possible anot ?
Yes I also agree.. useless men should not be allowed to get married.
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
don't singapore men singapore men la.. they kaobei not my daiji.. they cant even understand the simple logic that if nature made men and women unequal, it will be retarded for the society to try to make them equal..
they do not understand that for everything in this world, there are rotten apples everywhere.. if today the law makes it equal, guess what, men will start abusing the law and cause women to suffer again.. it's so simple yet they cannot see it so pls jojobeach, u want to call them names, go ahead, stop saying singapore men..
Ok lah , not all Singaporean men are useless like them lah. Thank God !
-
787180: I appreciate your support for this thread but in an effort to keep our discussion neutral please refrain from making personal attacks on our other posters...
Also I don't think it's out in the newspapers yet, but as I was on my way home today I heard over the radio that an NSmen has died in training and that all physical training will be suspended for 3 days pending a review.
This is an example of how our men who are being put through NS are pushed so far to the limits that they are in actual mortal danger during their training. There have been several similar incidents. You can read more about the accidents that have occurred over the years at http://www.geocities.com/flashgalaxy/saf.htm.
Even after several reviews of safety procedures we still have so many incidents happening. I think this primarily is because the safety reviews are restricted to certain areas of the army only. Every time an accident occurs, only a small section of the army has their policies reviewed. I think the army needs to conduct REGULAR reviews instead of having them only when a death has occurred. Look, even most major medical institutions have M&Ms (morbidity and mortality) meetings every month, some even have them weekly, or even twice a week!
Our army is a larger institution than most of these hospitals. Our SAF covers the whole damned country. (Or half a damned country, at any rate.)
My bitterness regarding this issue is that the government appears to be more concerned about the wellbeing of women, to the point of exempting them from NS TOTALLY, while our men go in wondering if they'll ever come out again. Where is the justice in that!?
EDIT: Another issue is regarding the length of hair of students. Why is it that there are stricter rules regarding hair length for male students? Come on, these are schools people! It's supposed to be part of civilian life! Completely ridiculous.
The same goes for reservice NSmen.
Read this blog: http://singaporepeasants.blogspot.com/2007/07/non-replies-and-salaries.html
Apparently when men go in for reservice training their heads are also shaved bald. Some civilian jobs do require men to look good. What if someone was working as a model, and he had been picked by a fashion designer through his agency to model a certain look? Suddenly he is called off for reservice training and BAM just like that he may have lost a job. (Whether or not he retains his contract with his agency.)
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Excwees me deathmaster...
You got go read that thread your dear hero 787180 started ?
You got see what the wife of that "Adrian" was awarded anot har ?
That Adrian's case was only 3 years ago hor.
The wife is earning more than the Adrian hor.
The Adrian in the end only pay $400 for his child expense hor . And he insist he shouldn't have to pay wor.
The wife don't get the alimony hor.
The wife also didn't get the flat hor.
She also got Thalasimia hor. Now Adrian is living in the flat with is new wife hor.
But this 787180 still think the Women charter is unfair wor.
Ofcors maybe Adrian think he should make his ex-wife pay alimony to him then is fair issit ? Looks like gold-diggers are not just limited to women wor, even men can be just as greedy leh.
FYI this 787180 can be my lao peh ok ?
If it is his own choice to remain single.. then why is he kao peh-ing about Women's Charter ?
Yes I also agree.. useless men should not be allowed to get married.
You got go read that thread your dear hero 787180 started ?
yes. read ur subsequent post also.
You got see what the wife of that "Adrian" was awarded anot har ?
she almost did, not for the fact that the rule for HDB sole flat owner to be lowered to 35. and be logical. "ivy's" claim is crap. trying to claim $3.6k when husband is only earning $1.5k. its dam obvious that it doesn't add up.
and btw, assuming that she contributed zilch to the flat, i stand by my argument that it's right for her not to be awarded a share of the flat, since its paid by the guy and his families. though she has a name-stake in the property, how much did she actually contributed? nothing.
anyway, i believe that adrian was alr broke at the point of time, (after paying for the caesarian fee, $200k, and at the same time paying for flat.) i believe in 7's claim of $200k hospital bill. my grandparent was admitted to sgh for leg fracture. she stayed in class c ward for only 3 days, and the fee cost over $25k. $25k for a comparatively simpler procedure, and its not hard for me to believe the claim of $200k, in a case whereby there's multiple complication in the patient. ie. TM and caesarian.
That Adrian's case was only 3 years ago hor.
The wife is earning more than the Adrian hor.
The Adrian in the end only pay $400 for his child expense hor . And he insist he shouldn't have to pay wor.
why should he pay, when they don't even allow him to see his kid? against the court order somemore.
also, since you had also previously agreed that both mothers and fathers play an equally important role in the upbringing of a child, don't you think it is unreasonable of the mother and her mum to deny access to the father? since they are so unreasonable, why be reasonable with them, and pay $400/ mnth? if they are so reluctant against the child having any form of contact with her dad, they may jolly well stay off contact with his money. and since they didn't refuse the money, we can clearly see how selfish they are. its all for the money. and with the mother earning more than double the income of the husband, she can jolly well afford to bring up a child on her own, without assistance.
yes, i do agree that its a father responsibility to look after his child, and pay for his child upkeep too. but since the wife is obviously violating the court order, he should also play hardball, to force out access to his child (which is his right by the way)
The wife don't get the alimony hor.
as i said, she nearly did, but too bad that she exceed her boundary, asking for an unreasonable amount, asking for a sum which her spouse clearly couldn't afford. if she keep to her limit, there's no way the court wouldn't award her alimony.
and btw, it is also her who revealed her actual monthly wage of $3600, in the same court hearing. she should have been arrested by IRAS for mis-reporting on her wage instead, and somemore still dare to make false accusation against her husband to IRAS. how ironic.
The wife also didn't get the flat hor.
as mentioned above.
She also got Thalasimia hor. Now Adrian is living in the flat with is new wife hor.
so what if she got a disease? you didn't sympathise with the disabled man i mentioned in the previous thread, and why do you expect me to do otherwise? and since that you mention it, custody of a child should never be awarded to someone with a terminal condition. she can die anytime, as you mentioned in the other thread.
what if she die on the middle of the road, with her child beside her? you want the child to be knock down by a vehicle? yes, if she's healthy, and earns more than her husband, i don't see why she shouldn't have custody of her child. but, she is diseased, and living past her expected life expectancy, all the more likely she might collapse anytime.
and from what i read, she needs regular blood transfusion. in that case, will the child lead a lousier or better quality of life, as compared to living with her father? and furthermore, if a mother needs intensive care abt her own condition, is she fit to look after others?
the child needs a healthy caregiver, and i assume the father is healthy, since there's no mention of any illness. how about the mother paying maintenance fee to the husband for looking after her child?
But this 787180 still think the Women charter is unfair wor.
it is unfair. purpledragon84 has said that there's unequal treatment between men and women, as so implied in "if today the law makes it [men and women] equal"
Ofcors maybe Adrian think he should make his ex-wife pay alimony to him then is fair issit ? Looks like gold-diggers are not just limited to women wor, even men can be just as greedy leh.
so did he receive alimony? did he expect alimony? no.
yes, he may grumble about having to pay $400 per month, especially when his wife barred him from his child. in the end, did he pay? yes.
on the other hand, did the wife in the end allow him to see the child? no.
do you call this reasonable? the unilateral attempt to cruelly cut off the child's contact with her father, against the court order. that is what people call "contempt of the court". last heard, even the brother of the sultan of brunei was arrested for that charge. and why wasn't she?
FYI this 787180 can be my lao peh ok ?
If it is his own choice to remain single.. then why is he kao peh-ing about Women's Charter ?
maybe he's still single, because he is disgusted at the WC, and the abuse of the WC by gold diggers, vengence wives etc?
-
and to jojo, and let the issue abt adrian and ivy stop at here.
if you want to discuss abt that issue, you go reopen that old thread. do not let it spill over to this thread.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
You got go read that thread your dear hero 787180 started ?
yes. read ur subsequent post also.
You got see what the wife of that "Adrian" was awarded anot har ?
she almost did, not for the fact that the rule for HDB sole flat owner to be lowered to 35. and be logical. "ivy's" claim is crap. trying to claim $3.6k when husband is only earning $1.5k. its dam obvious that it doesn't add up.
and btw, assuming that she contributed zilch to the flat, i stand by my argument that it's right for her not to be awarded a share of the flat, since its paid by the guy and his families. though she has a name-stake in the property, how much did she actually contributed? nothing.
anyway, i believe that adrian was alr broke at the point of time, (after paying for the caesarian fee, $200k, and at the same time paying for flat.) i believe in 7's claim of $200k hospital bill. my grandparent was admitted to sgh for leg fracture. she stayed in class c ward for only 3 days, and the fee cost over $25k. $25k for a comparatively simpler procedure, and its not hard for me to believe the claim of $200k, in a case whereby there's multiple complication in the patient. ie. TM and caesarian.
That Adrian's case was only 3 years ago hor.
The wife is earning more than the Adrian hor.
The Adrian in the end only pay $400 for his child expense hor . And he insist he shouldn't have to pay wor.
why should he pay, when they don't even allow him to see his kid? against the court order somemore.
also, since you had also previously agreed that both mothers and fathers play an equally important role in the upbringing of a child, don't you think it is unreasonable of the mother and her mum to deny access to the father? since they are so unreasonable, why be reasonable with them, and pay $400/ mnth? if they are so reluctant against the child having any form of contact with her dad, they may jolly well stay off contact with his money. and since they didn't refuse the money, we can clearly see how selfish they are. its all for the money. and with the mother earning more than double the income of the husband, she can jolly well afford to bring up a child on her own, without assistance.
yes, i do agree that its a father responsibility to look after his child, and pay for his child upkeep too. but since the wife is obviously violating the court order, he should also play hardball, to force out access to his child (which is his right by the way)
The wife don't get the alimony hor.
as i said, she nearly did, but too bad that she exceed her boundary, asking for an unreasonable amount, asking for a sum which her spouse clearly couldn't afford. if she keep to her limit, there's no way the court wouldn't award her alimony.
and btw, it is also her who revealed her actual monthly wage of $3600, in the same court hearing. she should have been arrested by IRAS for mis-reporting on her wage instead, and somemore still dare to make false accusation against her husband to IRAS. how ironic.
The wife also didn't get the flat hor.
as mentioned above.
She also got Thalasimia hor. Now Adrian is living in the flat with is new wife hor.
so what if she got a disease? you didn't sympathise with the disabled man i mentioned in the previous thread, and why do you expect me to do otherwise? and since that you mention it, custody of a child should never be awarded to someone with a terminal condition. she can die anytime, as you mentioned in the other thread.
what if she die on the middle of the road, with her child beside her? you want the child to be knock down by a vehicle? yes, if she's healthy, and earns more than her husband, i don't see why she shouldn't have custody of her child. but, she is diseased, and living past her expected life expectancy, all the more likely she might collapse anytime.
and from what i read, she needs regular blood transfusion. in that case, will the child lead a lousier or better quality of life, as compared to living with her father? and furthermore, if a mother needs intensive care abt her own condition, is she fit to look after others?
the child needs a healthy caregiver, and i assume the father is healthy, since there's no mention of any illness. how about the mother paying maintenance fee to the husband for looking after her child?
But this 787180 still think the Women charter is unfair wor.
it is unfair. purpledragon84 has said that there's unequal treatment between men and women, as so implied in "if today the law makes it [men and women] equal"
Ofcors maybe Adrian think he should make his ex-wife pay alimony to him then is fair issit ? Looks like gold-diggers are not just limited to women wor, even men can be just as greedy leh.
so did he receive alimony? did he expect alimony? no.
yes, he may grumble about having to pay $400 per month, especially when his wife barred him from his child. in the end, did he pay? yes.
on the other hand, did the wife in the end allow him to see the child? no.
do you call this reasonable? the unilateral attempt to cruelly cut off the child's contact with her father, against the court order. that is what people call "contempt of the court". last heard, even the brother of the sultan of brunei was arrested for that charge. and why wasn't she?
FYI this 787180 can be my lao peh ok ?
If it is his own choice to remain single.. then why is he kao peh-ing about Women's Charter ?
maybe he's still single, because he is disgusted at the WC, and the abuse of the WC by gold diggers, vengence wives etc?
Well then , since Adrian is not disadvantaged after the whole ordeal. Can we still accuse WC/Family court as unfair ?
I will deem it unfair if the court actually award unfair payments to the wife.
So what are we really arguing about ?
You guys should be glad the court is a fair one.. that is what really matters.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
787180: I appreciate your support for this thread but in an effort to keep our discussion neutral please refrain from making personal attacks on our other posters...
Also I don't think it's out in the newspapers yet, but as I was on my way home today I heard over the radio that an NSmen has died in training and that all physical training will be suspended for 3 days pending a review.
This is an example of how our men who are being put through NS are pushed so far to the limits that they are in actual mortal danger during their training. There have been several similar incidents. You can read more about the accidents that have occurred over the years at http://www.geocities.com/flashgalaxy/saf.htm.
Even after several reviews of safety procedures we still have so many incidents happening. I think this primarily is because the safety reviews are restricted to certain areas of the army only. Every time an accident occurs, only a small section of the army has their policies reviewed. I think the army needs to conduct REGULAR reviews instead of having them only when a death has occurred. Look, even most major medical institutions have M&Ms (morbidity and mortality) meetings every month, some even have them weekly, or even twice a week!
Our army is a larger institution than most of these hospitals. Our SAF covers the whole damned country. (Or half a damned country, at any rate.)
My bitterness regarding this issue is that the government appears to be more concerned about the wellbeing of women, to the point of exempting them from NS TOTALLY, while our men go in wondering if they'll ever come out again. Where is the justice in that!?
EDIT: Another issue is regarding the length of hair of students. Why is it that there are stricter rules regarding hair length for male students? Come on, these are schools people! It's supposed to be part of civilian life! Completely ridiculous.
The same goes for reservice NSmen.
Read this blog: http://singaporepeasants.blogspot.com/2007/07/non-replies-and-salaries.html
Apparently when men go in for reservice training their heads are also shaved bald. Some civilian jobs do require men to look good. What if someone was working as a model, and he had been picked by a fashion designer through his agency to model a certain look? Suddenly he is called off for reservice training and BAM just like that he may have lost a job. (Whether or not he retains his contract with his agency.)
Also I don't think it's out in the newspapers yet, but as I was on my way home today I heard over the radio that an NSmen has died in training and that all physical training will be suspended for 3 days pending a review.yep, 2nd death in 2 days, in increasing rank somemore. first a recruit, on his 5th day of physical training phase, and a officer cadet pilot, no doubt still in his first few months of ns.
Every time an accident occurs, only a small section of the army has their policies reviewed. I think the army needs to conduct REGULAR reviews instead of having them only when a death has occurred. Look, even most major medical institutions have M&Ms (morbidity and mortality) meetings every month, some even have them weekly, or even twice a week!
the saf, like most governmental institution, is more 被动 than 自动. that's all i can say. btw, this issue is currently being discussed in the singapore armed forces forums.
EDIT: Another issue is regarding the length of hair of students. Why is it that there are stricter rules regarding hair length for male students? Come on, these are schools people! It's supposed to be part of civilian life! Completely ridiculous.
agreed. its a crappy rule. even taiwan had already scrap the rule.
The same goes for reservice NSmen.
Read this blog: http://singaporepeasants.blogspot.com/2007/07/non-replies-and-salaries.html
Apparently when men go in for reservice training their heads are also shaved bald. Some civilian jobs do require men to look good. What if someone was working as a model, and he had been picked by a fashion designer through his agency to model a certain look? Suddenly he is called off for reservice training and BAM just like that he may have lost a job. (Whether or not he retains his contract with his agency.)
agreed. why do they have to cut their hair short, when they are only going back for a few days? full time ns, perhaps its still ok to have compulsory crew cuts. but reservists are basically working folks, and are above 21 yr of age, attaining what we call as "universal suffrage". but in the end, these men are still forced to cut their hair short.
and btw, mr sean, reservists do not need to cut crewcuts like nsf. they only need to cut their hair short.
and also, if the man is an entertainer, someone who depends on his hair for a living, eg actress, model, he is given permission to keep it long.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Well then , since Adrian is not disadvantaged after the whole ordeal. Can we still accuse WC/Family court as unfair ?
I will deem it unfair if the court actually award unfair payments to the wife.
So what are we really arguing about ?
You guys should be glad the court is a fair one.. that is what really matters.
it is just a close shave that he manage to retain his assets. the housing policies and the protection order save his ass.without those, he may actually have to sell his flat (with it being illegal for him to own a flat on his own).
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
it is just a close shave that he manage to retain his assets. the housing policies and the protection order save his ass.without those, he may actually have to sell his flat (with it being illegal for him to own a flat on his own).
Dude.. there is no such thing as a close shave lah. You think the family court will punish over claimers ?? Pffttt..
It's either you get it or you don't. And it's up to the court to decide not you.
No, he don't have to sell his flat. he can put his parent's name in it to qualify if he is has not met the age minimum yet.
Dude. if you think a dying mom should have no right to take care of her own child. You are really sick in your head.
If I am the judge I also will let the mom enjoy as much time as she can with her own child, knowing she may die anyday.
Housing policy and protection order saved his day ?? LOL.. in what sense ? You will say anything to discredit the WC and family court eh ? Good show !
And so you believe if she had claimed a reasonable amount she would have gotit ? Is this YOUR speculation ???? So what IS a reasonable amount in alimony ? 25% of his pay ? $375 per month for alimony ?
So in the end.. a man should pay $375 + $400= $775 to be fair ? Yah. If you do it this way.. then ok lor.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
And so you believe if she had claimed a reasonable amount she would have gotit ? Is this YOUR speculation ???? So what IS a reasonable amount in alimony ? 25% of his pay ? $375 per month for alimony ?
So in the end.. a man should pay $375 + $400= $775 to be fair ? Yah. If you do it this way.. then ok lor.
ya.$775 is more than reasonable enough, when u put to consideration that the guy earn so little. -
Originally posted by deathmaster:
and to jojo, and let the issue abt adrian and ivy stop at here.
if you want to discuss abt that issue, you go reopen that old thread. do not let it spill over to this thread.
FYI. That thread was closed because your hero uses vulgarities ok ? Since I don't own that thread I cannot re-open it hor .
Incase you forget, 787180 came in here and start his insults and reminded us of his previous fued with me ok ? So how come you so double standard har ? Why you never go chide him ah ??? Why har ? So you think he is right in doing what he did meh ????
So unfair leh...... since you so unfair.. are you in any place to talk about fairness ??? No right ?
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
ya.$775 is more than reasonable enough, when u put to consideration that the guy earn so little.So what happens if she contributes to the flat in terms of utilities ?
The husband pays for the mortgage.. and the wife pays for the utilities ?
In our modern day practise.. most of the working wife do this. How much do you think should be a fair claim on the matrimonial asset ?
Anyway.. I just had a short chat with my SIL about that 25% thing.
I asked her.. if she knows from the start that she is only allowed up to 25% of my brother's asset, how will she react to this ?
Her reply.
She will continue working and will refuse to become a stay at home mom.
She will also not have so many children. She will probably stop at one.
She will ensure my brother plays a bigger role in maintenance of the family instead of sacrificing her own life for the family.
She will not have given up pursuing her dream of achieving higher education when her child came along.
She will also not be so supportive of his business venture since she will not be benefitting from it anyway.
Then she also tell me to forget about Singaporean men... LOL...
-
@Deathmaster: See the blog. That's the official line the army tags but in practice we can see that there are people being forced to have their hair shaved off like recruits. Even though the army official who replied to the blog vehemently denied it being a recruit's hair cut. (What, they saved an extra strand of hair?)
If I am the judge I also will let the mom enjoy as much time as she can with her own child, knowing she may die anyday.
Jojobeach: Yes, it is true that a child should be able to spend more family time with a mother who is about to pass away. Yet deathmaster's point is valid: she may not be capable of taking care of the child.
A more sensible solution would be to give the father custody rights and the mother visitation rights. That way she would still be able to spend quality time with the mother in her remaining days while the father is able to adequately provide for her safety and other needs.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
@Deathmaster: See the blog. That's the official line the army tags but in practice we can see that there are people being forced to have their hair shaved off like recruits. Even though the army official who replied to the blog vehemently denied it being a recruit's hair cut. (What, they saved an extra strand of hair?)
Jojobeach: Yes, it is true that a child should be able to spend more family time with a mother who is about to pass away. Yet deathmaster's point is valid: she may not be capable of taking care of the child.
A more sensible solution would be to give the father custody rights and the mother visitation rights. That way she would still be able to spend quality time with the mother in her remaining days while the father is able to adequately provide for her safety and other needs.
I'm sure the judge will not let the mother have the child if she is bed ridden lah. You think the judge is stupid meh ? Please lah.
Thalassemia sufferers are able to lead a very normal life like anyone else. They are like diabetics.
Some more she is earning a higher pay leh.
Since you guys insist that the higher income earner is in a betta position to house the child... why do you contradict yourself with IVY's case ?
You just want to win issit ? You say it is dog , then now you say it is cat.. can make up your mind anot ? Anything to benefit your cause issit ?
If you go look at the judgement..you can tell that the father is not very suitable as the sole care giver lah.
If he is truly capable of taking care of the child himself.. the judge will not bother prescribing SUPERVISED visitation lah.
Anyway.. I never liked the way divorce are played out in the family court lah.
The system forced the couples to dig up everything ugly about each other. Finger pointing and blaming, can make it very ugly and uncivilised.
Now back to the women's charter... I repeat...
Just because it says the woman can claim 50%, does not means she will GET 50% . As had been proven in Adrian vs Ivy.. my stewardess friend.. and other cases whereby the man only pays child support.
It is up to the judge to decide what is just and fair.
So can we now stop arguing about the fairness of Women's Charter ? It is a guideline when it comes to a messy divorce.
If you really think your wife only deserves 25% of your asset. then argue it to the judge and prove it to him based on her contribution. Let him know you married a stupid and useless wife who leeches on you.
If you cannot even convince the judge, then who is to blame ? Yourself right ?
If your argument is just and fair.. she prolly wouldn't get what she claimed either.
You know you guys in Singapore already has it good.
In the USA and many other countries.. the asset is divided 50/50 irregardless of who contributed more or who cheated on who. OK ? Good.
-
I am unfamiliar with the specific history and case of the thalassemia patient. I don't even know what type of thalassemia it is. I was making my post based on the assumption that she was a "dying mom", and this I quote directly from your post. It is you are contradicting yourself.
Even if you claim to have made a mistake earlier, and the woman, was not in fact dying, thalassemia is a genetic disease and as such, for now, is mostly chronic. This means she will most likely require long term treatment which can be expensive and she may be unable to provide her child with proper financial support despite her higher salary. More importantly, if she is in and out of hospital regularly, can she care for her child long term not only financially, but also emotionally, and in many other ways as well?
Also, if she wasn't dying but at the same time will have difficulty taking care of her child, all the more it would make sense for the father to have custody of the child and for her to have visitation rights.
Please decide on which variables you wish to use in the case and keep them constant. You're the one shifting them around and yet you claim we are the ones calling dogs cats etc.
The higher income earner IS in a better position to take care of a child, but only if all the other variables are kept constant. In this case, it is clearly not so. The mother, for one, did not wish to allow the father visitation rights against court orders, suggesting that she is not working in the best interests of her child because she does not care for her emotional needs. Secondly, again, she is a thalassemia patient, which means that it is likely she will be in and out of the hospital for blood transfusions, not only increasing costs and eliminating the advantage of being a high-income earner but also meaning she will have less time for her child.
-
Now then u noticed the shape shifting ah...
reminds me of the story of the bat. Or was it X-men .
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
I am unfamiliar with the specific history and case of the thalassemia patient. I don't even know what type of thalassemia it is. I was making my post based on the assumption that she was a "dying mom", and this I quote directly from your post. It is you are contradicting yourself.
Even if you claim to have made a mistake earlier, and the woman, was not in fact dying, thalassemia is a genetic disease and as such, for now, is mostly chronic. This means she will most likely require long term treatment which can be expensive and she may be unable to provide her child with proper financial support despite her higher salary. More importantly, if she is in and out of hospital regularly, can she care for her child long term not only financially, but also emotionally, and in many other ways as well?
Also, if she wasn't dying but at the same time will have difficulty taking care of her child, all the more it would make sense for the father to have custody of the child and for her to have visitation rights.
Please decide on which variables you wish to use in the case and keep them constant. You're the one shifting them around and yet you claim we are the ones calling dogs cats etc.
The higher income earner IS in a better position to take care of a child, but only if all the other variables are kept constant. In this case, it is clearly not so. The mother, for one, did not wish to allow the father visitation rights against court orders, suggesting that she is not working in the best interests of her child because she does not care for her emotional needs. Secondly, again, she is a thalassemia patient, which means that it is likely she will be in and out of the hospital for blood transfusions, not only increasing costs and eliminating the advantage of being a high-income earner but also meaning she will have less time for her child.
LOL..
If she is really so financially unable.. she wouldn't be able to buy a condo with her own money while getting treatment for herself now.. yes ?
The person who is financially unable was the father. Go back and read how much his income was and how much is the monthly installment. And he also admitted having to BORROW money from his relatives to pay for instalment.. now what do you think is his financial standing at that time ?
For a sick person to be able to afford her own condo and earn much more than the man she married... is she really so uncapable ? Compared to the father who is healthy and who claims to have a degree and yet cannot even sustain his income ????? Is there something wrong somewhere ?? Now where's Wally ??
FYI: Adrian couldn't even tell his wife is a sick person before and after he married her.. You tell me.. is she really THAT sickly ??.. pwees lah... and she had been sick for a LONG time alrady leh...
C'mon guys.. use some common sense lah.....
If the father is unstable mentally.. would you as a mother be willing to let your child be anywhere near that person ?
Supervised visitations at a family center ??... You know there's something wrong alrady lah.
Here's a link about the treatment
http://www.thalassemia.com.pk/index.php?p=treatment
You can go call up the hospital to find out how much it cost for Thal treatment.
It may also qualify for medishield/medisave. So go figure.
Anyway.. what was presented was a one sided story your hero Mr 787180 came up with.. you dare say it is not biased ???? There's so much information he omitted. Yet when we ask him about it.. he refused to answer. WHY ?
How much of it is true or false.. can you tell ? If he merely pulled this story out of his arse.. are you going to simply slurp it up like a bowl of hot Udon ? LOL
My take on the custody issue was never who earned more get more. Rather which parent is better at doing it, gets the job.
Like for my case, my dad is very rich.. but he sucks at being a primary care giver. Naturally I get to stay with my mom while he pays for my expenses.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Now then u noticed the shape shifting ah...
reminds me of the story of the bat. Or was it X-men .
Yes I am Mystic.. are you jealous ?
-
first off.. to the guys that want it equal.. u protect ur gf or ur gf protect u?
ur father protect ur mother or ur mother protect ur father?
man protect woman or woman protect man?
are u giving ur woman money every month or are ur woman giving u money every month?
this is not gentleman or what, this is what our society does.. and what our society believes.. that men lan lan suck thumb have to lose out one.. WHY? coz we got something dangling between our balls.. from start is like that one..
and please, if a society believes in protecting the women, how acceptable is a law that says otherwise?
I told u, and although u twisted my words ard, i will re-iterate it, that today, with the women's charter, already got so many jialat things happening to the women.. there are still abuses to wives..
Can u imagine what will happen if there is NO such ruling?
today with the women's charter, how many men are physically abused? u talk abt monetary problems how pathetic.. u talk abt women earning more than men, and then divorcing them and sucking their money dry, how much of a percentage is that? every woman?
u are a very selfish person, u think about the men that are being disadvantaged by such a ruling, but u do not think further than what u see, u do not realise that many more women will be in jeopardy because of ur selfishness to try to be equal..
pls la, as a guy, i implore u.. dun be so selfish can? u do what u must do, u do it nicely, good women will come to u.. and u wun feel that men are being disadvantaged.. if u are a non-smoker, cigarettes costing 15billion per stick will not give u a problem one..
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
first off.. to the guys that want it equal.. u protect ur gf or ur gf protect u?
ur father protect ur mother or ur mother protect ur father?
man protect woman or woman protect man?
are u giving ur woman money every month or are ur woman giving u money every month?
this is not gentleman or what, this is what our society does.. and what our society believes.. that men lan lan suck thumb have to lose out one.. WHY? coz we got something dangling between our balls.. from start is like that one..
and please, if a society believes in protecting the women, how acceptable is a law that says otherwise?
I told u, and although u twisted my words ard, i will re-iterate it, that today, with the women's charter, already got so many jialat things happening to the women.. there are still abuses to wives..
Can u imagine what will happen if there is NO such ruling?
today with the women's charter, how many men are physically abused? u talk abt monetary problems how pathetic.. u talk abt women earning more than men, and then divorcing them and sucking their money dry, how much of a percentage is that? every woman?
u are a very selfish person, u think about the men that are being disadvantaged by such a ruling, but u do not think further than what u see, u do not realise that many more women will be in jeopardy because of ur selfishness to try to be equal..
pls la, as a guy, i implore u.. dun be so selfish can? u do what u must do, u do it nicely, good women will come to u.. and u wun feel that men are being disadvantaged.. if u are a non-smoker, cigarettes costing 15billion per stick will not give u a problem one..
Again, I can very easily disprove your first point because I already am an example of a man who does not believe that we are obliged to serve women. I believe in such things being done out of personal will and not lawful obligation. You say that we have to do this because society believes we have to do it, isn't this just blindly following the rules without seeing the true moral reasons BEHIND it? Is it still relevant to our society TODAY? We need to be geared to the times. Right now our society places value on personal beliefs; This is my personal belief, and I will not conform to the beliefs of mainstream society and I therefore urge the government that our laws should not restrict me to! Why is it that I should blindly follow without understanding? Therein lies the great weakness in your arguement: You tell us to do it just because everyone else is doing it, without understanding or reason. You do not see the value behind reason; you say, just get on with it. Without understanding we will not put our best into it because we will have doubts if we are doing the right thing, if things could have been different, if things could have been better.Monetary problems... Pathetic? If you didn't need money, then you wouldn't be on a computer typing replies to my post right now because according to your logic you therefore could sell your computer and throw the money away, because money is worthless and your computer, being worth a certain amount of money, is correspondingly equally worthless. Face it: Money may not be everything, but it's still something. People tend to forget that.
Also, just because not every man on the street has had his pockets emptied by a woman doesn't mean the rights of the minority don't deserve to be protected.
And maybe you're right, I don't see at all how my efforts to secure equal rights for men will place the women in jeopardy. Care to tell me? I'm not even arguing against our women, I am arguing against the laws of our country which put women in a position above men. Maybe it isn't their fault that the system is like this, I don't really know. I just want the system to be corrected.
I genuinely don't think I'm being selfish here. I'm arguing for the rights of half our damned country, I might add, and I don't think that makes me a selfish person. I am demanding what we have a right to, nothing more. That doesn't make me a selfish person.
I'm not arguing that women should not be protected, conversely I am saying that men should receive equal protection. Therefore your arguement about a "law that says otherwise" doesn't stand because you are unable to comprehend my position on the topic in the first place.
I'm going out right now so I won't be able to reply for a while. I might check back tonight if I'm not too busy.
Have a good day everyone~
-
so am i right to sum up that when u and ur other half face a robbery, u wil not protect her?
and u noe as well as i do that u cant measure money with the computer that im using now.. because i cant play solitaire and pinball with money.. so please don't use that funny analogy..
and monetary issues by itself is of course of a substantial issue.. but if u are to compare money with physical abuse, which one comes in more impt? mind you your answer might just make u a millionaire in the SM community..
of coz, i can see ur point, that minority of the men are being stripped of their wealth, but, how can u ever satisfy everyone? how can u ever solve an issue where EVERYONE wins?
u must come to understand this fact.. that EVERY single law in the world cannot satisfy everybody.. that in our world, not only singapore, minority is always sacrificed.. seriously name me a law that can..
by ur standards, i can also say that the govt does not support racial equality, why issit that mrt announcements are always English, Chinese, Malay then Tamil? why issit that in a shopping centre it's so hard to find halal food?
and a law which does not fit the majority of the ppl will only result in more problems.. i dont practise law, but surely, the women's charter is to protect the women that are abused by men, not to help women rip men off, and yes there are the bad apples that u claim there are, but if a men's charter is set up, to equal the playing field, what will now happen to the women that are targets of abuse or divorce due to husbands? their husbands will easily use such a men's charter to defend himself..
of coz, i will not go to the extent to say not protect the men who are targets themselves, but if ur thinking is that the women's charter is a tool for women to rip men off and thus u are challenging it, ur thinking is very selfish.. sometimes women needs to be placed above men by lawful obligations because the men themselves tried to climb above..