duh of the day

okay, i have been getting strange comments. i think some may have misunderstood what i was trying to say.

i actually DO NOT have a stand on public displays of affection. i am quite fine with PDA, not pro-PDA and DEFINITELY NOT ANTI-PDA.

my issue is with MS POH HUI JING. i am annoyed with her. mainly because she wrote to the national newspapers about something i consider very trivial. i am also annoyed because she adopted a very uncalled-for righteous attitude. basically, she was just being a prude.

my "reply" to her was drafted such that ON THE SURFACE, it would appear as if i was agreeing with her. however, if you read closer, you should notice i was being satirical. or sacarastic. thus, i was actually DISAGREEING with her. for example, in paragraph 5, i say that acts of PDA "rank very highly on their (police force) priorities". obviously, policemen have FAR MORE important things like homicides? and sexual assaults? to worry about than PDA. however, i PURPOSEFULLY say that such acts rank very highly. also, in paragraph 7, i say "sex is, after all, not part of real life, and is most unnatural...". obviously, sex is real and natural part of life because all of us are products of it. i PURPOSEFULLY mentioned to disagree with ms poh's belief that "real life" should be a break from "dubious influences via television". this is sacarsm/irony/satire. i was being amusing. you are supposed to laugh.

for those who misunderstood and thought i was being a prude, please re-read my article. i have highligted in purple certain words or phrases you should focus on and read in a sacarstic/satirical/ironic tone. hopefully, this makes what i am trying to communicate clearer.

thank you.





"Playgrounds not for passion". The Sunday Times. Forum. 1 May 2005.

HAVING a post-dinner stroll around the Lentor estate had always been an enjoyable affair in the past for me.

My family frequently visits the area's many playgrounds at the children's request.

On one occasion, however, we chanced upon two junior college students, in their school uniforms, engaging in heavy petting.

What was more, the young couple did not have the decency to halt their activity, even after threats by my mother to inform the police.

This is not the first time my family has observed acts of this kind around the estate. Such acts around the neighbourhood will only give children who witness them a twisted sense of moral responsibility.

Young children today are already bombarded with dubious influences via television daily. If real life does not provide a break from such influences, what will?

It is evident that moral education in schools has been futile in the face of the fiery passions of youth.

I suggest that the authorities make clear what is acceptable public and social behaviour for the sake of our future generations.

Poh Hui Jing (Ms)





MY REPLY TO MS POH:

Dear Ms Poh,

I was most distressed to hear of your unfortunate experience.

It must have been most unbearable witnessing a young couple in their throes of passion, perhaps since you haven't been getting very much yourself. From they way you write, i presume you are either very much of a spinster or you have an unfaithful husband who is more interested in his work and young mistress than you.

I have some trouble understanding the situation completely. Although there is no standard definition for different degrees of petting, convention decrees that "light petting" encompasses sexual fondling with clothes on; "medium petting" refers to sexual fondling with underclothes on only; and "heavy petting" refers to sexual fondling without clothes. Yet, you mentioned that the couple was petting heavily in their school uniforms. I cannot imagine how this is possible as this seems like somewhat of an oxymoron.

However, I agree with you completely. What they did was disgraceful and shameless. They should not have heavily petted in their school uniforms. Instead, they should have removed their school uniforms completely so as not to disgrace the school.

I applaud your mother's courage in dealing with the young delinquents. Of course, it was most appropriate of her to threaten to inform the police. Our police force has communicated very clearly that public displays of affection are not to be condoned and are regarded criminal offences, which rank very highly on their priorities.

However, your mother should have followed through on her threat to call the police. You must understand that it is difficult to station policemen everywhere a crime is expected to occur. Therefore, it is important that members of the public act as whistle-blowers/tip-offs/informants to assist the police force in arresting such criminals.

Sadly, I agree that such acts impact our children negatively. Because sex is all we watch on TV nowadays, real life should have none of that to offer a break to our young viewers. Sex is, after all, not part of real life and is most unnatural and immoral.

Apolegetically, I concur that moral education in schools has been rather ineffective. You see, the MOE has been very concerned about the low birth rate in Singapore. For us to have "future generations" to worry about , we need to have babies. Thus, we have been promoting family life and parenting to our students. Apparently, we have have forgotten that this also results in an increase in sexual activity.

There is a need for the MOE to rethink this and communicate our values more clearly. Firstly, young Singaporeans should increase the birth rate without having more sex. Secondly, if there is a need to have sex in public, they should not wear their school uniforms.

Rest assured that this is now the topmost priority of the MOE and the police force. This is because it has also come to our attention that public displays of affection are not just dangerous to society, they are also dangerous to participants.

I believe you would have read of the man who witnessed another young couple engaged in sexual acts, posed as a PI and took pictures of the girl's breasts and private parts.

Rest assured that such incidents will be prevented from reoccuring. However, they will not be prevented by arresting frauds and molesters as we believe it would be more effective to prevent kids from engaging in public displays of affection completely. Thus, there is a very strong incentive to eradicate this problem.

Thank you, Ms Poh for your insightful letter. We apologise for the poor state of social responsibility. It is entirely the fault of the MOE and the police force (not parents) that young people are engaging in public displays of affection. We will look into your complaint shortly and do our utmost to prevent this from happening again so as not to disrupt your post-dinner strolls.

Mr Far-Too-Polite
Ministry of Education
Singapore