There is said to be three circumstances under which meat may be eaten by a Buddhist without sharing in the fault of the killer, provided one:

1. has not seen,
2. has not heard, and
3. has no suspicion the animal in question has been killed for the purpose of one’s consumption.¹

According to Shabkar,²

In addition to being evil in itself, the act of killing, or causing another to kill, constitutes, for the sangha, a root violation that entails the destruction of monastic ordination. For monks and nuns, it is thus a matter of some importance whether the acceptance of a food offering containing meat involves complicity with the killer. The principle of threefold purity was thus intended to specify the occasions when the monks could eat meat—should it ever appear in their begging bowls—without damaging their ordination.

Curiously, many practising Buddhists today have been known to extrapolate these circumstances, also known as the threefold purity, to include meat bought from butchers, supermarkets, and those served by hawkers and restaurants—effectively sanctioning most, if not all, kinds of meat consumption.

These Buddhists argue they have neither seen nor heard of these animals being killed—both of which could be true since the slaughtering of animals in modern meat production are rarely witnessed by the consumer.

But in attempting to invoke Buddha’s directive to rationalise their own diet, various scenarios—often laughable—when meat should not be eaten have been thought of. It would, for instance, be wrong to eat crabs or frogs from a seafood restaurant where live crabs and frogs are often on the display. It would be okay, however, if these crabs and frogs were unseen and served in their dishes, as though the death of these animals would now be unconnected to them.

Taking advantage of the mass and large-scale production of meat today, these Buddhists would further rationalise that these seemingly faceless animals were not killed specifically for their consumption, but were killed for a presumably and equally faceless general public.

Even some highly accomplished Buddhist monks, such as Venerable Master Chin Kung, would argue today that “the tradition of Buddhism is to practice the three pure meat rule, not vegetarianism.”³

There is a distinction between monks who survive on alms and modern Buddhists who choose to buy meat for consumption—especially those who can clearly choose otherwise. Food given in alms were never specifically prepared for monks, but were portions of what the devoted lay people have prepared for their own consumption. These monks were “expected to eat mindfully the contents of their bowls, good or bad, delicious or revolting, accepting whatever comes their way in a spirit of detachment”;⁴ modern meat-eating Buddhists, however, make a conscious decision to assist in the killing of animals whenever they choose to buy food with meat.

There are, of course, conflicting views as to whether a Buddhist can, or should, eat meat. The source of this confusion stems from what appears to be contradicting teachings recorded in various Buddhist scriptures. Closer examination, however, would quickly reveal that Buddha’s teachings were hardly contradictory. Contradictions, if any, were more likely to be due to the reading of scriptures out of context by meat-eating Buddhists.

But however confused these Buddhists may be, one would have thought that the final teachings of Buddha as recorded in the Nirvana Sutra before his death would have been unequivocal and instructive enough as to Buddha’s attitude towards meat-eating, surmised by Buddhism scholar, Dr Tony Page:⁵

…the Buddha foresaw that a situation would arise in the future where those speaking in his name would pervert his doctrine and encourage meat consumption. So here, in this great Nirvana Sutra, he lays down his last will and testament on the matter: in no circumstances should one eat meat or fish-nor animal corpses, found in the jungle, for instance-nor even accept from a donor a meal which contains an abundance of flesh-foods.⁶ The very contact of other food with meat is deemed defiling and requires purification of the food by water.⁷ It is quite evident from all this that the Buddha in no way condoned the eating of meat and was keen for his monastic and lay followers to abjure the uncompassionate practice of meat eating and follow the pure path of vegetarian Mahayana. In this, we would be wise and benevolent to follow him.”

It is interesting to note that meat-eating Buddhists today would quote the threefold purity principle that Buddha had laid out for monks and nuns who survive on alms to justify their diet, and completely disregard the last words of Buddha as recorded in the Nirvana Sutra.

Such behaviour, Shabkar said, is not unusual:

…the use of scripture quoted out of context to justify the consumption of meat is part of a very human scenario. When people are constrained by weakness to act in a manner that is at variance with their ideals, it is natural for them, whether to save face or simply to alleviate the resulting psychological pressure, to try to rationalize their behaviour and justify it. In situations of genuine difficulty, it is also natural to follow the line of least resistance.

Ultimately the case for not eating meat lies less in what Buddha said, than in the fundamental teachings and beliefs of Buddhism: karma (cause and effect) and samsara (the cycle of reincarnation).

Buddhists believe that until one becomes enlightened, one remains in the cycle of birth and death, which can include being reborn into an animal. If animals are sentient beings like humans, and would have been related to us in our past rebirths, having animals for food appears to be every bit as un-Buddhist as it can be.

There should only be one reason why one would want to become a vegetarian—compassion. If one becomes a vegetarian because of “religion”, then clearly one has missed Buddha’s teachings completely.

There is little doubt that a vegetarian diet would not appeal to most practising Buddhists. But however unappealing or difficult such a lifestyle might be, it would be wrong to distort and misrepresent the teachings of Buddha to rationalise their inability, or unwillingness, to follow the teachings of Buddha.

It is one thing to be unable to lead a life as a Buddhist should; another to give others the impression that such a lifestyle is detrimental, especially when one does not even try to eat healthfully.

I am by no means an accomplished Buddhist and do not pretend to be one, but self-serving rationalisations by meat-eating monks and Buddhists irks me.

SAF would do well to protect whistle-blowers Straits Times, July 17, 2007

Sir/Mdm,

In the report, ‘PM Lee’s son in NS reprimanded by SAF’ (ST, July 13), Mindef spokesman Colonel Benedict Lim was quoted as saying that ‘all SAF servicemen with complaints or grievances should take them up through proper channels for redress’.

The SAF Act described these ‘proper channels’ as lodging a complaint to an officer next senior in rank to the offender – which was what 2nd Lt Li Hongyi did initially by complaining to his supervising officers, though no disciplinary action was taken against the offender.

Although 2nd Lt Li’s act of ‘broadcasting his letter’ was improper, it highlights a frustration shared by many servicemen with the current system of providing feedback – more often than not, it is not taken seriously.

If a second lieutenant’s lodging of a complaint with supervising officers was met with nonchalance, I shudder to think how they would react to a similar complaint by a non-officer.

Instead of reiterating the importance of following the proper protocol for complaints and grievances, the SAF should look into providing a more effective and less bureaucratic means for soldiers to provide feedback, lest even more disgruntled soldiers start ‘broadcasting’ their grievances.

For one thing, the SAF can institute proper whistle-blower protection so that candid and useful feedback and complaints can be made by servicemen of all ranks without fear of reprisal, as anonymity, according to Col Lim, is not a privilege enjoyed by them.

I have an obsession with solitude. At times, I am reminded and reinforced of this obsession, albeit I have largely been unaware of how, why and when such “socially-unacceptable” mindset crept into my soul. I am unsure if being a middle-child or having a room to my own for the most part of my life has anything to do with it, but I never believed in subordinating anyone’s needs to anyone else’s.

For that matter, I never enjoyed having anyone to accommodate to my needs. I believe it is nigh impossible to accommodate to everyone’s needs sufficiently enough. It gets worse in large social events, like gatherings and what not, which is perhaps the reason why I am uncomfortable with the idea of socialising and why I never think of myself as a social creature.

It seems that I have further isolated myself in the past four years after making the decision not to have animals as food. Becoming a vegetarian did not lead to my unsociable tendencies, it simply reinforces why I prefer solitude to company. My ex-room mate would never eat alone for fear of being labelled as a “loner”, a “loser” or what not. I have met many who share his sentiments and would prefer to skip a meal than to be caught eating alone in public.

I am, however, the loner and loser in the society’s eyes. In fact, I enjoy eating alone. Eating alone means I won’t spoil someone’s day by requiring to eat at a place with vegetarian options and in the process, causing someone to miss out on a particular favourite food that is not available there for that particular meal. Eating alone means I won’t need to subordinate my own needs to others either.

There are places that I could never find food for myself and there are places that offers only vegetarian food. But the difference is of course, a non-vegetarian could consume vegetarian food but a vegetarian could never have a proper meal at KFC. Either way, this seems like a huge compromise on all parties, thus a good alternative may seem to be choosing a predominantly non-vegetarian location with vegetarian options.

However, these four years have taught me that when it comes to food, most people are rather particular and do not enjoy compromising for that one or two meals in their entire life time. I have never dared to recommend any vegetarian-only places to anyone unless they specifically asked me to or they are close friends or family members that I feel can respect me and my choice of diet.

But most of the time, really, when I’m dining with a group of friends, I find it extremely uncomfortable to remind them of my diet and just go with them to wherever they choose and keep my fingers cross about the availability of any food for myself. Subordinating one person’s needs to many is infinitely better than many accommodating one person after all.

I realised I have told many more lies, white ones I guess, after becoming a vegetarian. “Why are you only eating fruits,” to which I could only reply “Oh I’m not hungry” despite being famished. Of course, telling the truth is seldom an option lest the atmosphere becomes awkward for everybody. Just imagine saying things like “Oh because I’m a vegetarian and there’s no food here for me.”

Eating alone spares me from questions and judgement. There is always a standard repertoire of questions after knowing that one is a vegetarian. I am not complaining about the questions, but I am uncomfortable with the judgements that usually follow. Sometimes, I feel the urge to just reply that my whole family are vegetarians and that I have been one from birth. This would save me from most of the judgement, since people seldom question things that one has no control over. But telling the truth usually invites scepticism, amusement or even scorn.

Vegetarians don’t eat eggs, plants also have lives, eggs are also living, God made animals as food for humans, God made man to eat animals, you’re not a pure vegetarian because …, how can vegetarians eat mock meat, I also liked animals …

Of course, I could justify against each and every of their claim and accusation, of course I could prove the ignorance of some of these statements, but I don’t. There are simply some issues in life that aren’t worth arguing over. People will not understand simply because you won a argument. Instead, people further judge you because you argued with them.

The worse of all judgement seems to stem from the Chinese mindset of vegetarianism. Elderly Chinese, at the risk of stereotyping, can be extremely inflexible and uninformed about vegetarianism. In Chinese, vegetarianism is usually associated with religion. In the West, however, vegetarianism is almost often a way of life out of compassion for animals. I did not choose to become a vegetarian because of religion, at least not completely. I chose to become one because I did not think it was right for animals, living animals that could feel like we all do, to become food on my platter.

Chinese, however, like to think of vegetarianism as some holy thing, which I disagree. They seem to think that some divine punishment would befall upon those that do not adhere to the “traditional” means of Chinese vegetarianism, or those that break their “promise” as a vegetarian. But what traditional means? What promise and to whom?

There is no correct way of being a vegetarian, except for those who consume fish and still claim to be one. Vegetarians that abstain from eggs and dairy products are called vegans, which I never claimed to be one. I chose not to eat animals for food but still do consume derivatives such as eggs and dairy products that do not involve the killing of animals. Granted, I am aware of the cruelty involved in some of these trades and I should try to abstain from these products as much as possible. The Chinese vegetarian usually do not consume onion and garlic for religious reasons, which I also avoid but simply because I am not used to their strong taste and smell after eating at Chinese vegetarian stalls for many years.

Lately, however, I have began taking more onions and garlic to be more accommodating and less of a liability to friends who do dine with me. The recent trip to Timor-Leste, for instance, reminded me of the reason why I chose to become a vegetarian. It was not religious and the reasons for avoiding onion and garlic was never quite in line with my primary reason for becoming a vegetarian. Avoiding them was only a personal preference that I could and should forgo if it was beneficial to others around me. Becoming a vegetarian was never a “holy” thing for me, it was merely my way of respecting animals.

However, such compromises are usually seen as becoming an “impure” vegetarian in the eyes of the Chinese, not that I am bothered by it. However, such judgements lead to presumptions that I could further compromise, which I don’t. The line is clearly drawn for me that I would never eat from food that is cooked with meat. On the last day before returning to Singapore on my Timor-Leste trip, we stopped by at Bali and the team went for dinner at a Malay restaurant. There was clearly no food that I could really consume and even the potatoes seem to have meat within. I just finished the plain white rice and had a drink. That is my resolve and something which I would never compromise.

During the Freshmen Orientation Camp at my school earlier this year, one of the game involved playing Captain’s Ball with a dead chicken. I was extremely uncomfortable and even disgusted by such an idea. I never knew the supposedly bright and matured minds of the country could come up with such an insensitive idea. I took some courage to approach the orientation group leader (OGL) to voice out my concern from participating in the game at the risk of being ridiculed or ostracised. Even more disconcerting was that after voicing out my concern, the OGL was noticeably perplexed despite knowing about my dietary needs and encouraged me to play on. He did however relent in the end. Perhaps, it was divine intervention when a huge downpour cancelled this “game” of theirs to my relief.

Events that I have taken part in in the past four years have made me more aware and sensitive to the needs of others, which I thought was grossly lacking in the sensitivity department in the organising and planning of many of these events. I wonder if the “dietary requirements” section in every registration form was included for formality sake. I wonder if the organisers ever knew that Halal is not vegetarian, although it could very much be argued that all vegetarian food is Halal. I wonder if the organisers knew that not every vegetarian is comfortable with eating from vegetable dishes cooked with meat.

But ultimately, what is more agonising, or perhaps amusing, is the fact that people of the mainstream culture often accuses people of minority culture of impinging on their way of life when the reverse is usually true. Many vegetarians would have heard things like “Oh I can never live without meat” when we never said anything beyond stating that we are vegetarians. Other seemingly more righteous individuals may argue that vegetarians are a deluded and hypocritical bunch by eating mock meat. Most of those who just started on a vegetarian diet may feel extremely defensive upon hearing such remarks and an uncontrollable urge to rebuke such remarks, but really, sometimes it is easier to laugh them away than to engage in meaningless quibbling with the more antagonistic sceptics.

A while ago, I chanced upon a Singapore gay and lesbian group website, People Like Us (PLU) while doing research for my papers on alternative media. While I confessed that the notion of homosexuality has eluded me for the most part, reading about their history, their futile attempts at gaining societal acceptance and the response from government leaders had made me understand these people a little more. While everyone has heard horror stories of gays actively hitting on their friends as well as stories about aggressive and often antagonistic animal rights adherent criticising meat consumption, the vast majority of people in minority social communities, gays, lesbians and vegetarians-alike, are just minding their own businesses.

At the Pre-University Seminar, Minister of State Lim Swee Say replied to queries from a student about the denial of permit for a gay forum by PLU with the following remarks (as cited in PLU’s article):

“….. As for the gay forum, I do not believe that a single group of people in Singapore has the right to publicise its lifestyle and impose it on others. I am an avid golfer, but I do not hold a forum on golfing to say how much I love golf and convince others it is good.”

It took me, one with mainstream attitude towards sexual orientation, quite some time to see the irony in this. PLU aptly described the government as being “confused about who was imposing upon whom” (PLU, 2003).

The mainstream society is always impinging on the minority by imposing their own arbitrary yardstick to determine what is right, natural or aberrant. It took many lives, brave men, brave women, Martin Luther King Jr. and his “I Have a Dream” speech to challenge mainstream perceptions against his race. While I may be a member of only one minority social community, I am glad I woke up in time to accept and understand many others who may be ostracised in other minority social communities, voluntarily or involuntarily.

This post started out as a comment to Yiren’s entry on ‘Vulgarities’ but quickly snowballed into a mini-commentary instead.Hokkien expletives are generally not my cup of tea because they’re largely genitalia-related, but I’m absolutely fine with the word ‘fuck’.

Sometimes it’s not the word per se that is vulgar but the way that the ‘expletive’ is put across. For instance, I used to take offence at ‘lucky bastard’, which literally carries an extremely derogatory meaning. But then again, nobody really means that one’s an illegitimate child when they lash that out. I just learn to be more sensitive with such words the next time.

Back to the f-word, I used to refrain myself from using it. But then I realised ‘fuck’ per se is just an expression, much like an innocuous ‘shucks’ or a slightly less refined ‘shit’. My primary school English teacher used to share with us how her son would substitute ‘shucks’ for ‘shit’ or ‘fish’ for ‘fuck’, but does that make the ‘expression’ any more refined?

Inherently, ‘fuck’ is just a slang for ‘having sex’. I wonder then why aren’t the words ‘having sex’ as profane as ‘fuck’ is? In that respect, shouldn’t ‘lucky bastard/bitch’, ‘bloody retard’ or even ‘spastic’ be much more hurtful than a natural and inherently innocuous act of, having sex?

When things screw (yet another slang for ‘having sex’) up, many people would curse ‘Shit’. ‘Shit’ per se is senseless. I mean, what has one’s excrement got to do with anything? One can thus conclude that ‘shit’ is little different from the Hokkien expletives worshipping the human genitalia. But the fact that ‘shit’ is considered mildy offensive while ‘vagina’ and ‘penis’ (in Hokkien) is considered extremely offensive is food for thought.

English is a living language. Words are constantly being added (think ‘blog’) and revised. The widespread acceptance and usage of common expletives such as ‘screw’, ‘shit’ and ‘fuck’ had prompted lexicographers to revise and add on to the original meanings of these words. ‘Screw’ is no longer just that innocent-looking metal pin with helical thread but also an act of sexual intercourse. Similarly, ‘fuck’ is no longer just an act of sexual intercourse but also an exclamation for anger, annoyance or contempt. In fact, ‘fuck’ is so versatile that it can be used as a verb, noun, adjective, adverb or interjection.

You know you really need the f-word when you need to use more than one adjective to describe something. “The movie’s damn bloody freaking good!!” will never do as much justice as “The movie’s fucking good!!” When “Get lost!” doesn’t work, “Fuck off!” definitely sends a more unequivocal message.

I’d say we use our wisdom to embrace some of these changes but should also be more mindful to our peers who may be less tolerant of expletives than we are.

Today saw me having my first ever tuition stint; incidentally and ironically, it was also the last, for this student at least. Oh in case you’re wondering, I was sacked right after the tuition through the person who referred me.

I always think of myself as a perfectionist when it comes to teaching. I spend an obscene amount of time (by typical student-tutor’s standards) on the lesson preparation beforehand. It was like this when I attempted to help Sharon with her Computing; it was like this when I helped my cousin with her English; and it is the same exact effort that I’ve put in for this student.

I went ahead to purchase three rather specific guidebooks (being combined sciences instead of the pure ones) and the TYS (five year series, to be more exact) yesterday to prepare for the lesson. I studied the guide, I wrote some notes, I did some questions and picked some for her.

By the time I finished going through the notes on Arithmetic with her, I could sense bewilderment in her.

“But these are Sec 2 stuff right,” she half exclaimed.

“Yes, they are what you’ve learnt in lower secondary, but you’ll still be tested on arithmetics,” I explained while flipping the 19-pages worth of the supposedly “Secondary 2” questions in the past five years of ‘O’ Levels.

Reluctantly, she did 3 Paper One questions which took her quite a bit of time. When she have finished, I noticed half of them was not attempted and the rest was largely wrong. I had initially thought that she might have been pretty good with her maths hence her reluctance to revise on a ‘Sec 2’ topic.

I was pretty freaked before the lesson because I kept thinking what to do after we are done with arithmetics. But an hour and a half later, she was still struggling with the concepts of the three questions. I had to revise on how to do the working for division of decimals, highest common factors, lowest common multiples and significant figures. She went out to refill her water but I knew she was also going to tell her mum something. The moment she stepped out, I thought I heard her mumbled ‘Shit’ under her breath.

“Shit,” I thought to myself. Did I do something so wrong? Well, when she came back to finish her last 30 minutes of lesson, I gave her similar questions to reinforce her knowledge. She still had problems getting them right at first go, but I thought it was better than the first three.

When the tuition had finally ended, I went outside and spoke with the mother before leaving. The mother told me that her daughter is confused by my teaching and that she’ll “see how” for the next lesson. So yes, I am right, she did tell her mum something. But on the other hand, I thought both of us got more warmed up during the last 30 mins and she might change her mind.

Well, yes, she did told her mum something after I left. The mother called up the person who referred me and told him that I should not come for the next lesson. The mother says that I was teaching Secondary 2 work which was irrelevant.

So, that was 2 hours of work that she did not believe in. I felt sad, but not really for myself, but more for her. Why live in self-delusions? If it’s really Secondary 2 work and that she doesn’t need any revision, why did she had problems with them? I felt sad, I took thrice to help Sharon with her computing and didn’t really manage to help my cousin with her English. I felt sad, because I felt I could help her, but I am no longer given the chance to. Do I really make such a bad teacher?

We have come pretty far from our parents’ stories about terrifying teachers who hammer their students with their fists when they misbehave. These days, students choose their teachers. They embarass, they tease, they irk, they provoke teachers that they do not like. What choice did our parents had when they had “bad” teachers? Not much.

I’m not saying that we should accept 2nd-grade teachers. But have we become less tolerant in a world of instant gratification? A person came to mind as thoughts ran through. I remember a Physics tutor back in JC whom practically no one would like to have as their tutor. I was told that he was really dedicated to his task and I truly believe so. Apparently, he just couldn’t manage to get his ideas through effectively to his students. A pity though, he’s no longer around.

I was also told by my “cleverer” peers in RI/RJ that teachers who are “incompetent” are readily challenged and humiliated in class. Have the society, in the blind pursuit of efficacy, lose some sense of their humanity as well?

---

About a month ago, a long-lost friend contacted me one evening for a chat. It was rather heartwarming to know that he still remembered me and took the initiative to contact me. We chatted for almost half an hour before he suggested that we meet up some time, to which I readily agreed, of course. The next time we chatted, he suggested that we should meet up at Raffles Place. Suddenly, the seemingly innocent conversation did not seem too innocent after all.

No person in the sane mind would want to catch up with your old friends at Raffles Place unless they’re trying to convince you to buy something. This chap is good, so good that I didn’t suspect anything at all during our first conversation. Or was I just too naive? I told him firmly that I’m not interested to buy anything, to which he readily defended that he wasn’t going to sell me anything and that what I’ve said had hurt him. Well, it seems that he has polished his sales pitch (albeit in disguise) so well that your average person would relent and fall for it. But I’ve heard all too much about people around me being whisked into seemingly posh offices in Raffles Place by their friends, only to be cornered by alot of sales person to convince you to buy something you do not really need.

“No”, I insisted. “I’m really glad that you contacted me and I’d be more than happy to meet you for a cup of coffee anywhere but Raffles Place.”

“Ok ok, I will call you again to arrange next time,” he promised but still hasn’t fulfiled.

It hurts even more to know that he had lied to me that he was at his friend’s place when he’s at his office in Raffles Place when he made those phone calls. It didn’t make sense when there were people singing birthday song in the background at his “friend’s place” while he was chatting away with someone else that he had not contacted for two years. It all came to light when he mentioned “Raffles Place”.

It seems that such MLM companies are bringing out the worst of many so-called friends. I don’t know why, but I would never be able to call up my friends to convince them to borrow exorbitant sums of money to purchase something that they really have no need for. Sharon just told me that one of our classmate was recently scammed $800 after much pressure from four of her friends. That classmate was definitely nowhere near well-to-do and she had to lie that her family is in dire need of money to about 10 of her friends to borrow that sum.

Perhaps you may think that she’s silly. Yes, I think she’s silly too. But I also know how much pressure these “friends” of yours can exert on you once you step into their offices. It takes much courage to decline their offer firmly and to walk out of that office. Being the blur and gullible one, it was easy to pressurise her into buying the products.

It was a painful lesson for her financially and a painful one for me emotionally, but at least we got to know our “friends” better.

Dear Sir/Mdm,

I am in opinion that the remarks on the NKF issue made by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in their newsletter are uncalled for. However, I could not help but wonder if the decision taken by the Prime Minister and Minister Mentor to litigate against the company that printed the newsletter would deter vendors from working with other law-abiding opposition parties in the future. It is noteworthy that the said company, Melodies Press Company, has ceased to do any further work for the SDP according to a letter of apology issued to both the PM and MM.

Whilst I concur with MM Lee that no government will help the opposition to displace itself, we must also be mindful not to penalise or stifle the voices of other law-abiding opposition parties through this incident lest we will never have a “first world opposition”.

Not published, by the way. Wrote this last week and got rejected by Today, again!

It is heartening to know that most people treat animal abuse with contempt, as evident from the plethora letters written in to the Straits Times Forum. If you have been like my friend, who is oblivious to anything beyond the scope of his medical text, a man was recently convicted of toturing a six-week-old kitten by rubbing its eyes and beating its head. Apparently, the injuries were so severe that the kitten had to be put to sleep (link, isn’t it sad that Singaporeans have to resort to India Times after the commercialisation of ST Online).

Some, like Dawn, Director of Operations, Cat Welfare Society, noted that CWS is pleased with the sentence meted out to this sick man while others like Ms Tini Abdul thinks that the sentence is way too light. I think we’ve made some progress since 1997, when it took CJ Yong Pung How to overrule a magistrate court verdict and hand down a one-month jail term on a 31-year-old who beat his neighbour’s dog to death. The day where we are able to treat animal abuse with the same severity as human abuse is one where we can truly call ourselves a civilised society.

So most people disagree with animal abuse, but just what are animals? Are they just cute and fluffy domesticated creatures like cats and dogs? I don’t know why people get all uptight and disgusted about people eating dog and cat meat but are fine with feasting on chickens, ducks, pigs, cows, sharks and what not. It seemed as if some animals are made to be eaten while others are not. Why the distinction, I can’t comprehend.

Xiaxue wrote an entry a while back on how her mum “prepares” a crab for cooking. Most of us would have been familiar with this gruesome process, but try it on a cat and you are labelled an animal abuser and could be subjected to the wrath of our law. I vividly recall my first cooking lesson in Home Econs class back in Secondary 1 where we had to cut a piece of chicken meat. I was pretty traumatised by the whole event – having to hold a piece of slimey raw meat and slice it up into pieces. I thought all mothers must be pretty brave to be able to endure all that and cook for us. Perhaps, it was partly why I gave meat up 5 years later.

A few years ago, I sold flags for SPCA for my college’s compulsory community service. At the end of the 3-hour community service, we returned our donation cans back to SPCA volunteers who happened to be feasting on a cocktail of chicken, pork and sotongs. Ironically, SPCA’s motto was “Be Kind to Animals”. In my brief meeting with Dawn from CWS, I learnt that she gave up meat as well after realising how inane it sounds to call yourself an animal lover and feed on them (ok, that’s animal lover in another sense). The point is, most of us are already inured to the sufferings of most animals. A handful of them are lucky enough to be classified as non-edible while most of them just end up on our dinner tables.

Why the double standard, I can’t understand.

Singaporean educators sure have a tough job. I mean, they’ve got to conduct spot checks on handphones and endure through gruesome sex flicks of their students (she made it to Wikipedia?!), scruntinize their students’ blogs to see if they’re being flamed online (and send them for public flogging after that), conjure impromptu and bombastic tirades on sly, crafty old rats who refuse to hand up assignments (and tearing up the the subpar ones after that, of course).

I mean, can you imagine having to do all that all the time while trying to fulfill your main job as a teacher? And just when you thought that’s all our poor educators have to do, The New Paper ran a featured story (“Punishment strips students of dignity”, Saturday, March 4, 06) today on teachers who ordered school girls to take off their coloured bras (and attend the rest of the school day without any) as a punishment for wearing a non-white bra!

According to the school’s principal, the rationale was because they “were concerned with the development of good values in our youth” and “[The school] would like their students to develop a sense of decorum and modesty”!

Noble aspirations, dear Principal. I’m sure all our school girls will become decorous fair ladies under your insightful and wise leadership. I fully agree that protruding nipples through translucent white blouses are much less distracting than coloured bras. The male teachers and students will also be able to concentrate better in classes with your policy. Thank you very much for protecting our young and naive children’s modesty.

Hey, I also read that the bras that were confisticated were never returned to these students. Some schools even have their prefects stash those evil bras away in a box at the prefects’ room. I wonder what do they do with those bras? Auction them off over eBay or just for perfuming the room with the “aroma” of the owners’ perspiration? Whatever it is, I’m very sure my children will be in safe hands with a group of ever-vigilant and hardworking teachers in future.

The report noted that it is not identifying the school as “they do not want to embarass the girls any further”. I am not quite sure about that – about embarassing the girls or the school, that is. I mean, if I’m a girl at the school, I’ll be damn happy to let everyone (and MOE) know about my wonderful school and principal. Must reward our educators for their efforts in inculcating decorum and modesty in our young children, mah!