I'm always thankful to kind people on the MRT, proud to reciprocate

Being kind is inherent. Kindness never fade in people. Kindness can only mature to be realistic and sophisticated. The latter quality is important to prevent from being taken advantage of. 

MRT passengers are kind. Forget about those who aren't. Focus on the positive people.

Most are willing to let go of their seats for needy passengers. Ladies who are moms themselves are more empathetic and they are frequently seen giving up their seats to pregnant/expectant moms (with the "I know how you feel" look).

Guys, who have got wives are willing to give up their seats to expectant moms. They are empathetic too. 

If SMRT and SBS are willing to start a campaign to introduce "care bands" (or other identifiers) for MRT users, so that needy passengers will be able to identify who are willing to give up their seats, I believe there will be a lot of takers. These good Samaritans will be "beacon" for needy people. A beacon of care. A beacon that is contagiously good. 

We have been exposed to the bad/ugliness of MRT passengers in Singapore, mostly thanks to Stomps, Blogs, and YouTube for the negative portrayal. What is lacking is to show to Singapore and the world that there are good, majority, but silent apples too in any society.

I slap you you know oh, ugly uncle at mrt

This uncle physically pushed a female passenger, verbally threatened to slap her. Then when he realised someone took his video, he changed his tone and started and repeatedly explained what was going on.

His famous word was,  "I slap you you know ah/oh".

Oh ya, he also pushed the female passenger at the buttock area (from what I gather). It's interesting to see that most other passengers were not getting involved. They were probably waiting for the quarrel to get really ugly before intervention/help (from what I gather).

I couldn't find the video link to share (by Emilianay Eng). Just got the snapshots. 

I thought only thieves and burglars would poison dogs, but in Malaysia, it's different a bit

Ten dogs poisoned in Bukit Bintang car park (reported in Yahoo.Sg). I guess these dogs must have been an eye (and ear) sore for the city, and hence they had to be eliminated this way (either by irate neighbours or someone else). I don't think the culprit will ever admit to the poisoning. I don't think anyone will be prosecuted for this act. That's human nature at work (either ignorant or with ill-intent).

We are fortunate that these kind of people are not daring to the extent that they start poisoning people on the street (or the homeless). If these people can poison lives, it's unimaginable what else they are capable of doing next.

From my experience, I have seen restaurant owners/workers poured hot water on stray dogs in their vicinity, just to drive off these "pests". Some resorted to using bat/stick to chase away these dogs. However, I have not seen or heard any cases where these dogs were poisoned (like rodents). I guess anything is possible in society.

Not long ago, I have heard about the "Robin Hood" of Malaysia who shot a stray dog with bow and arrow. He claimed that the dog was a danger to his family. Well, in my opinion, he should have called his municipal council to dispose of the stray instead of trying to kill the animal himself. Furthermore, if you intend to kill an animal, do it correctly by killing it right away instead of injuring the animal and allowing it to wander and die in the longest agony. Note that the dog died during the rescue due to succumbing to tick fever. The man who shot the animal won't be charged with animal abuse, but he will be charged with using lethal weapon in public.

Talking about municipal councils, some are incompetent in handling strays and could be deemed cruel at times (see "brutality" of dog catchers from Kajang Municipal Council, catch, kill, and get paid, and strays allegedly caught and shot in full view of children). In society, cats and dogs are pets (aka part of family members), and to see strays being treated this way really pain pet lovers and other normal people. If you want to dispose of animals, do it humanely or swift and deadly as nature intended. Dog catchers should be trained before being hired.

For the above poisoning case, I can only hope that the poison acted quickly and painlessly in killing these dogs. I also hope that the poisoning incident is not a prelude to a burglary attempt.

Tan Pin Pin's "To Singapore, with Love", my thought

Singapore banned local documentary "To Singapore, with love" by Tan Pin Pin. This documentary is about former activists and student leaders who fled Singapore in the 60s to 80s. I guess the film was banned because this documentary failed to include inputs from Singapore government. This is perplexing considering that the documentary was clearly about historical fact and hence, to omit the view from the Singapore government (or at least the National Heritage Board of Singapore), would usually be seen as a biased approach to produce a documentary. Or, am I wrong and Tan Pin Pin did indeed approach the Singapore government/agencies to procure the materials?

To include just a sided view of historical event is dangerous and unjust. Can you imagine what will happen if the justice court/system starts hearing only sided testimony before passing sentence? Would it be just? Similarly, a documentary with sided testimony is considered unjust.

If Tan Pin Pin had instead produced National Geography-type of animal documentary, she wouldn't have encountered any problem by any way she intended to narrate the story, especially considering that animals can't talk. Hence, her work wouldn't have been banned in Singapore.

In my opinion, a documentary about historical events should be "neutral" and the narrator (in this case, Tan Pin Pin) should be covering testimonies and facts/material from all sides instead of taking on side. A documentary with contradictory testimonies (from different sources) is more credible and mature than inclusion of just one side of the story.

Having said that, I guess that to have a documentary that is provocative and controversial is considered more appealing and successful than "safer" alternatives.

Just a thought.

Re: Half of teens here (Singapore) exposed to pornography - Survey

The poll (or survey) was conducted by Touch Cyber Wellness. The survey suggested half of teens are exposed to pornography early. Experts worried about "pornography content" (in my opinion, it is context-dependent) affecting young people's attitudes and behaviour towards love and sex, and may lead to sexual crimes.

Teens access pornography through smartphones (I think we should thank mummy and daddy for the "oversight"). The visits are either deliberately or accidentally (problem with no open discussion about sex education and pornography). Also, not to mention that pornography spread through peers the fastest and most effectively.

Bad things associated with pornography are disrespect towards women (are mums included?), altered behaviour and function in society, and worst, sexual crime.

In today's Strait Times, the above article was placed on similar page as this article about "Youth got girl to have sex by using threats and force". Many thanks to the parents in the mentioned case. Sometimes, I think that some people must be treated like stray animals and be neutered. They are not meant to be parents and shouldn't be given the opportunity to reproduce and raise "beasts and monsters" in society. I remembered the failed Eugenic movement in Singapore (which was thought to be distasteful back then, but sometimes when I read such article about bad parents, I wished we could at least neuter these people). I can't believe that girls (or boys) at 13 years old can be allowed to go out at night unsupervised/unchaperoned. The 20 years old youth got his victims (three of them were reported, and there could be unreported cases) aged 13 to 14 years old from unchaperoned outings. The latest one was when he met the girl during a night out hanging with friends and subsequently tricked her to his empty house (how convenient that the parents were not at home), and tried to buy sex from her (failed), then verbally and physically threatened her (succeeded) in order to rape the victim (how I appreciated statutory rape and how I would break the bones of people who opposes the implementation of statutory rape act).

Okay, back to the topic. I wanted to write this article to voice my thoughts and opinion.

First, knowing about sex early (pre-puberty) is not unhealthy (we have seen animals do it in TV). Knowing about the function of our sex organs (that is to say, in addition to pee pee for boys (a tube sharing two functions), whereas girls have a more specialized pee pee organ) early is not to be ashamed of. Knowing how babies are born (through the same place where sex is performed) is very crucial to sex education (and should be directed to boys especially in order for them to know that they were conceived and born from the same place from their moms. So please show some respect). What is even better would be to show them how babies are delivered (it will be bloody fun; some useless fathers should be made to see this too). Next, pornography is not bad, and good pornography (without violence, perversion, or "unnatural") can help in and complement sex education. These pornography materials should be categorized into age-suitable levels. While we are at it, to have sex education about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) with visual cues will be of great help (similar to cigarettes and cancer; hence casual unprotected sex goes hand in hand with pregnancy/STDs). Children should be given the unrestricted information about how viruses are transmitted (not through toilet seats), and how scarily virulent viral infection can be (titer count for some infection can be low, meaning that few viruses are sufficient to cause infection and how the virus will stay dormant and come back to haunt you in the future, repeatedly in your lifetime). Children should be given information about the real effective rate of protection, such as condom (it's not 100%, and very much dependent on batch effect and defects).

The bad thing about pornography is that we can be addicted to it. Addiction to pornography is bad (similar to other types of addictions that alters behaviour). The crave for new pornography materials will promote infidelity and affect wrong behaviour towards love and sex (but we need to realize that infidelity and casual sex have been there in society all along and even before television was invented, so for those experts opinion I have this to say, "YOU ARE WRONG TO BLAME IT ON PORNOGRAPHY. IT'S HUMAN NATURE."). Addiction to pornography (or sex) will hamper proper functioning in society is true. We will be distracted from study or other social interactions, healthy relationship, and closeness with family members (it could be the other way around, i.e. no family closeness predispose "pornography abuse"). Disrespect for women due to pornography? I beg your pardon, PORNOGRAPHY did not invent sex slavery or other means to subjugate and debase women. Since ancient times, women have been subjected to "ill-treatment" by certain society. During Japanese occupation, sex slavery sure wasn't caused by pornography, but rather by Japanese men in uniform (I wonder what Japanese women were thinking then when their Japanese males were doing "atrocities" to other women, but I can't blame these women especially considering how chauvinistic/patriarchy Japan was then). How about the kidnapping of school girls by Boko Haram in which I can only imagine and cringe knowing their fate. How about the unabated human trafficking problem in certain country? That's human nature at work and not pornography. Similarly, violent movies don't promote violence, but rather it reflects the violent nature of humans on the screen for entertainment purposes.

It is difficult to stem pornography in the world today. Rather than ban pornography, more work should be done to promote healthy sex education and pornography (age-suitable levels/restrictions). FYI, children will be exposed to pornography nowadays, even with or without sex education. If romantic novels with description about sex is pornography, it will be inappropriate and ridiculous to eliminate these books from the libraries. In addition, there are other ready resources about sex, e.g. friends talked about sex, friends who visited prostitutes, friends showing explicit pictures about sex, friends sharing nude/sexual pictures/videos of their girlfriends/boyfriends, friends taught friends to masturbate, friends the sex education "specialists", and then finally, friends the adult movies supplier. What is worst would be the friend having sex with the friend type (DIY the wrong way) or sexual predators targeting children.

Pornography deemed distasteful are those that debase women. Other types are the "unnatural" sex (but not so as according to the Kamasutra, which is more than thousand years old). What is natural and unnatural then, especially considering that some sexual act or behaviour predate even written history?

The only obstacle we have right now concerning sex education is HOW ARE WE GOING TO INCLUDE HOMOSEXUALITY? The debate of whether it's behavioural problem or genetic problem is irrelevant. Are we going to allow homosexuals to live in the shadows (and in the deepest and darkest cracks in society) suffering from similar problems of straight couples, especially on matter pertaining to unprotected sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and infidelity? When marriage concept is not applicable to a certain group of society, it will be impossible to have healthy and happy family unit. Depriving homosexual couples of healthy family unit do promote unhealthy "promiscuity" problem.

Other topics that sex education can cover are pedophilia (psychological disorder) and its threat to children, prostitution (instead of debasing/insulting these women, a healthy perspective of this topic will help promote respect/empathy), human trafficking/sex slavery (historical perspective and how such threat is still in existence in the world today), pregnancy/abortion, masturbation (the act should not be perceived as shameful and unhealthy; to masturbate is many fold healthier/socially-acceptable than casual/unprotected sex), rape/sexual assault/molestation (prevention to minimize risk, and where to go for help, responsibility in reporting to prevent recurrence, and to prevent the same people from harming/exploiting other victims; note that date-rape and rape by someone known to the victims make significant number of cases), drug/date-rape drug (precaution and tell tale sign, how to prevent and where to report), help counselors (where to get help early), and finally statutory rape/rape law and punitive/deterrence measures (jail and whip).

Just a thought.

Mosquito fogging in private properties

I can never understand the rationale of frequent mosquito fogging at private properties. Don't they know that it is useless considering that the toxic fog was only effective within their compound and that the mosquitoes will come back to repopulate their estate after a period of time has lapsed (unless the chemical used are those environmentally unfriendly type that cannot deteriorate/degrade and hence might pose a health long term hazard to people)?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be fogging mosquitoes. I'm just saying that fogging frequency should be moderate so that we don't overdo it. Constant fogging will only increase the resistance of mosquitoes towards the chemicals used (similar to the effect of overusing antibiotics that caused bacterial resistance to antibiotics). Furthermore, we might also be killing slower flying/moving insects, an unintended casualties.

I think the best way to prevent "mosquito bloom" would be to remove their breeding grounds. It's really hard to do than thought. Mosquitoes can breed at places we can't even reach. They are resourceful and adaptable. These mosquitoes could also breed on unreachable tree (or plants) crevices with trapped water, and they could thrive especially during rainy days.

The claim that certain plants are natural mosquito repellants are not scientifically proven BUT have been used in earliest times, from which modern repellants were developed from (e.g. citronella). These plants could act as decoy to overwhelm mosquito senses.

Another useful plant to have around would be the pitcher plant (Nepenthes spp.). Although these plants have been shown to harbour mosquito larvae, a symbiotic relation of these plants with pitcher ant (Camponotus schmitzi) ensures that these mosquito larvae are eliminated early. Hence, it is crucial to have both of pitcher plant and ants in order to effectively control mosquitoes. Otherwise, pitcher plant could be a mosquito breeding place (although at very low frequency as compared to other types of breeding grounds)...

The use of electronic mosquito repellents are doubtful. The claim of efficacy of these devices are based on the believe that the frequencies produced mimicked predatory noise or annoying to mosquitoes. However, recent studies have debunked such claims. There was no effect of electronic repellents in repelling mosquitoes in one study, whereas in another independent study, such electronic devices could be increasing mosquito bites (akin to ringing the dinner bell). Also, the electronic zappers that are supposed to be zapping and killing mosquitoes have been found to be doing more harm to harmless insects than mosquitoes. For example, outdoor bug zappers actually killed 0.22% insects corresponding to biting insects whereas the rest was harmless and beneficial insects.

All in all, constant fogging is useless considering that mosquitoes will become resistant to the chemicals if overused. Controlling mosquito breeding grounds is more useful but it will be challenging to beat the resourceful and adaptable mosquitoes. Planting natural mosquito repellents could help alleviating bites by acting as decoys and messing up mosquito senses (however, some studies have found that the phytochemical level is too low to produce sufficient effect, e.g. citronella concentration too low in these plants to be effective). However, considering that these plants have been used in ancient times should provide credit that there could be benefit in them. Last, the use of electronic mosquito repellents are useless and could be detrimental. Similarly, outdoor zappers only zap beneficial insects while the percent kill for mosquitoes are extremely low.

P.S. Other claims such as increasing bat population will help minimize mosquito population is misleading. Although bats do consume mosquitoes as part of their diet, but they only eat mosquitoes when other food sources are unavailable. Similarly, although we do take bitter gourd, but we don't eat them regularly or make them as our main diet. Hence, bats won't be the natural predator that will help eliminate mosquito menace.

Singapore zoo Kidzworld Wetplay an incubator for infection

Nothing of real concern as kids will get sick frequently, especially once they are out playing and mixing with other kids, and especially true when they start schooling. For my kid, she was playing at the Kidzworld Wetplay last Saturday. The water was not clean and it was murky white (I have no idea what could have caused the discoloration). I can't imagine how dirty the water was. I can only bet that the water must have been the result of kids (or parents) passing water, spitting saliva, emptying runny nose, and other more (which is not unusual). I can bet that the water is just full of waste from kids or parents who were not feeling well. If the water is not properly sanitized (e.g. with salt or chlorine), you can bet that some kids will get sick after playing in it.

Sure enough, my daughter fell sick after two days playing in the water. She contracted fever and had ulceration in her mouth, suggesting that it could be viral infection. Her throat was not yet sore. Her temperature reached 38.6 degree Celsius. We couldn't do anything except to reduce the fever by medication. The rest would require her own immune system to acquire the immunity against whatever was/were assaulting her system. Poor kid. I guess it's part of her growing up process, i.e. to be exposed to as many pathogens as possible so that she will grow up to be stronger.

Anyway, I really hope that Singapore Zoo will be mindful of the poor quality of water at their Wetplay area and do something about it. Having viruses originated from other kids are not really bad (well except for the hand, foot and mouth, HFM caused by coxsackie A virus). I'm not sure if HFM virus is transmissible by dirty wetplay water or not (especially considering that viruses tend to die very quickly outside the host/vector).