Basket.

300 in Mongolian?

I've not looked forward to a movie this much since... well, Watchmen actually. Oops.

But anyway Mongol (yes, imaginative title) is slated to come out in Singapore on 6th August. It was made two years ago, and I saw the trailer then. At last my pleas have been answered. Already it bears shades of 300, but with less heavy metal, shiny chiselled torsos, war rhinos and evil men with swords as arms. It is also in Mongolian, so no danger of Leonidas briefly turning Scottish there. Xerxes' throne was still awesome though.

The subject of this movie is perhaps known better even than Leonidas, for he was the first to truly build a continent-spanning empire. At its greatest extent Genghis Khan's Mongolian empire stretched from Vietnam to Poland; from Korea to Iraq. It was an incredible achievement, and he built it all from nothing - from being fatherless and destitute on the empty steppes to the architect of what is still the largest contiguous land empire in history. It is an amazing story, though like most of history, thoroughly drenched in blood. They simply don't make men like that any more.

From what I've seen above, I think this movie might do a career like that some justice.

This latest letter nearly sneaked right by me. I blame the editors for giving it such an innocuous title. Then again, I blame the editors for even publishing it in the first place. I thought they had improved their standards because no truly out there letters had come in for some time, but then this happens.


Let's reinforce unity of purpose in fighting terrorism
ST Forum, 21 July

WE CAN never overemphasise the need to remain vigilant against the threat of terrorism, as warned by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in last Sunday's report, 'PM Lee warns of evolving terror threat'.

He warned that the recent bomb explosions at the Ritz-Carlton and JW Marriott hotels in Jakarta showed that terrorists continue to have 'new ways of doing evil, bad deeds'. Schools, religious organisations and the business community need to make a concerted effort to not only condemn the murderous acts of terrorism, but also set the boundaries that define good and evil in society.

Often, the human spirit needs to be rekindled to distinguish between right and wrong behaviour. Religions with good society and family values must take proactive steps to engage the public and schools by upholding godly values and renouncing the evil that destroys the fabric of society. Our children need to learn from religious leaders who demonstrate how their faith can build strong family bonds and create social stability, harmony and security. Where the fault lines of society are shaken, religious leaders are to super-glue the gaps.

Religious leaders in collaboration with the Government should openly reject socially irresponsible behaviour such as racism, religious intolerance, adultery as well as perverse sexual behaviour in society. Moral relativism has no place in a society that treasures and thrives on good, absolute values.

As part of civil defence, schools must be vigilant to teach children strong traditional family values through the covenant of marriage and fidelity to one's spouse.

Insidious and egregious practices such as abuse of human rights and extreme liberalism must be exposed and rejected for what they are. Drug trafficking, use of abortion as a form of contraceptive, polygamy and serial divorce will remain as wrongdoings. Our police force should be held in high regard as they enforce the rules against criminal behaviour.

Children must be encouraged to speak up against evil and not fear being rebuked for doing the right thing. The heathen attack religious people with the phrase: 'Get down from your high horse for we reject your holier-than-thou attitude.'

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew recently remarked that for 44 years, Singapore still has not yet achieved the ideals of nationhood. Perhaps the next step requires the conviction and partnership of religious and government leaders to take a firm stand against wicked deeds and support those who stand for the truth in nation building. It is time we took serious heed of the axiom: 'Righteousness exalts a nation.'


The only explanation I can give for the publication of this letter is that the ST editors only read the first two paragraphs, and maybe part of the third. Because up to there, it appears to be merely a run-of-the-mill, stating-the-obvious, formulaic admonition that so often appears in the ST Forum. Yes, terrorism is bad. Yes, we should remain vigila- ok, this one can go in. It shows that our citizens understand the value of battling such an insidious menace lalalala etc. Safe as houses.

But no. Beyond that point it takes a complete dive. The first clue of something untoward? This sentence:

"Religions with good society and family values must take proactive steps to engage the public and schools by upholding godly values and renouncing the evil that destroys the fabric of society."

Now whenever I see or hear the phrase "family values" the alarm bells go off in my head. These days it seems this phrase is used largely by those seeking to justify their own prejudices, or to impose their own values on others. Because who can argue against something like "family values"? Families are such a huge part of so many people's lives, and the importance of the family is virtually unquestioned in our society. Not many people are going to be willing to go against the grain and expose the ugly prejudices that are so often cloaked by the (over) usage of these two words.

So it begins. And then it gets worse:

"Religious leaders in collaboration with the Government should openly reject socially irresponsible behaviour such as racism, religious intolerance, adultery as well as perverse sexual behaviour in society. Moral relativism has no place in a society that treasures and thrives on good, absolute values."

There is absolutely no attempt to draw a link between any of the things listed in this paragraph, and the very real and present danger of international terrorism. And in most of them, the link is not there at all. Religious intolerance can cause acts of terror, yes - but adultery? So-called "perverse" sexual behaviour (we can assume homosexuality is meant). What do such things have to do with terrorism? Adultery may be a social problem and people do get hurt by it, but in what way does being vigilant against adultery help us fight terrorism? Will terrorists cease attacking Singapore if we hanged all adulterers? Not likely, I should think.

But having got warmed up, our writer is certainly not about to stop:

As part of civil defence, schools must be vigilant to teach children strong traditional family values through the covenant of marriage and fidelity to one's spouse.

Insidious and egregious practices such as abuse of human rights and extreme liberalism must be exposed and rejected for what they are. Drug trafficking, use of abortion as a form of contraceptive, polygamy and serial divorce will remain as wrongdoings. Our police force should be held in high regard as they enforce the rules against criminal behaviour.

Better and better. Vigilance against terrorism must now include criminalization of adultery, rejection of "extreme liberalism", and even abortion. How...? I mean, what, seriously - hang all adulterers, shoot all abortion doctors, ban divorce, contraception and polygamy and suddenly this magic protective force-field will materialize around Singapore and prevent us from ever being penetrated by terror networks? What is the reasoning here? What does any of this have to do with terrorism? There is entirely no effort to explain.

Yet this lack of clarity of thought does not halt our moral crusader. He goes for the irreligious next (or so I assume, because I don't think anyone prays to Baal or a Golden Calf anymore):

"Children must be encouraged to speak up against evil and not fear being rebuked for doing the right thing. The heathen attack religious people with the phrase: 'Get down from your high horse for we reject your holier-than-thou attitude.'"

He is right about one thing here, however. I certainly reject his holier-than-thou attitude, and I believe he should get down from his high horse.

This letter is incredible. It's like the writer decided to sit down and write a relatively formulaic admonition to all Singaporeans to be on their guard against terrorism, which would be boring but sensible, but somehow got carried away after the first two paragraphs and inserted a huge moralistic religious rant in the middle before coming back to end on a relatively commonsensical note. And then the ST Forum editors looked at it, and decided it was worthy of publication despite its serious failings. No one comes off looking good when a letter like that makes it into the press.

I mean, I don't think I even need to say much. This letter pretty much speaks for itself. Don't hide behind the facade of a very real and pertinent global danger in order to promote your own agenda. Don't seek to demonize what you consider vices by associating them with such a relevant problem. If you have an opinion - express it, and engage with the people who disagree in an open and aboveboard manner. There is no need to try to sneak your opinions through like that.

Before we go on to the latest blinkered letter, a couple of things:

1. Pine cone.

2. Yes, I had dog meat in China. No, it was in no way accidental. It was delicious, and I would have it again in a heartbeat. Now you may proceed to call me "murderer", "gross" or simply scrunch up you face and keep saying "eeee" over and over. Or all of the above, but the third reaction is my favourite.

Seriously, though, I see no good reason why dogs are special. Most of us eat pork, chicken, beef, fish or squid without a second thought. But when it comes to consuming canines it seems child molesters might get a freer pass from many people.

I believe there should be only two criteria for refusing to consume an edible animal, assuming it is prepared in a hygienic and humane manner:

1) You do not like the taste, or are prohibited by your personal and religious beliefs from consuming that animal

2) That animal is rare and must be preserved.

Eating dog meat is not prohibited for most major religions, and dogs are most definitely not rare. So is there any rational reason at all not to treat dogs like pigs, which are slaughtered and consumed by the vast majority of the world and Singapore population without a second thought? Because dogs are smarter? No, they aren't - pigs are very intelligent as well. Heck, some fish are capable of recognising their owners, and octopi are amongst the smartest animals in nature. However they get served up at Japanese restaurants and no one appears to object.

So ultimately it's an emotive response, which is understandable given how many people keep dogs as pets. In that case I will say that no one is about to hold a metaphorical gun to anybody's metaphorical heads and force them to consume dog flesh. If you personally won't eat it, fine, it's your choice. But if anyone who isn't a vegetarian tries to stop the consumption of dog meat or rails against it, that person is a hypocrite. Pure and simple.

Your pork chops are equal to my spicy braised dog, and don't try to use your heart to rule my head.


Right, let's get to the latest gem from the ST Forum, then.

Horrified by many profanities in matinee show on NS life (ST Forum, 14 July)

I ATTENDED the matinee show Own Time Own Target at the Drama Centre in the National Library building over the weekend. One magazine lauded it as a 'laugh out loud, rediscovery of zany side of national service'. I presumed this meant it was a family-type show and took my two teenage sons, aged 16 and 14, to the show on the premise of a MediaCorp-owned magazine review.

To my horror, I was cringing uncomfortably in my seat the whole show, highly disturbed by the language used. I do not have a problem that the language was coarse and in dialects. But it was offensive when every sentence and curse uttered by the officers (rightly or wrongly, provoked or otherwise) at the NS boys in the drama was a profanity of the female genitals.

The show was a full house, with young and old, males and females equally represented. I am sure I was not the only one who was disturbed by the excessive cursing and swearing by the officers at the recruits. My observation was that people laughed out loud not at the clumsiness of the recruits but mostly because they felt uncomfortable with the profanities.

As a mother, I find it hard to imagine that after years of sheltered school life where students are taught values, to be gentlemanly and polite and respect their elders, these boys have to do NS run by officers who do not blink an eye when they curse their mother, sister, girlfriend and the whole female population by way of conversation.

My boys were shocked to realise that NS is a rite of passage where they will be officially subjected to bullying, shouting and cursing - nothing gentlemanly at all.

If this is a light-hearted look at life of NS boys during basic military training, I fear to know what my boys will face in their real-life situation when they enlist. Please, someone, assure me this is not so.


I don't think this is a necessarily terrible letter. It's more of an incredibly blinkered opinion. It is perfectly natural for mothers to want to protect and shield their children from some of the more unsavoury aspects of life, but - and this is not exactly a new lesson, is it - they can't do that forever.

The first thing everyone has to understand is that there is an enormous amount of swearing in the SAF. Depending on your unit, anywhere between an overwhelming percentage to a slightly less overwhelming percentage of it will be in Hokkien and will refer to the private bits of female human beings. It's inescapable, and trying to pretend beyond a certain point that this word does not exist and is not used in the military is just foolish.

I would be more understanding, for instance, if the sons in question were 4 and 6 years old respectively. But they are 14 and 16. Not exactly all that young, and certainly old enough, I think, to be exposed to this fact of military life. It might be letting them down easier if they know to expect being sworn at, or coming across such profanity, in their term of service. The alternative is entering the SAF completely ignorant of the sort of people you might meet and the sort of things they might say. Not a good idea, is that? It's not like you can ask the more earthy members of society you will inevitably meet in the armed forces to keep quiet or change the way they talk.

NS is not full of gentlemen. Your sons' schools might have been, but NS is a completely different ball game. It is better for you and your children to realise that now, rather than on Tekong after the parents leave.