Alice Cheong

Recently, I came to know that a friend of mine, signed a contract (Pg 1/2, Pg 2/2) 10 months ago, that is supposed to give him a 40% ROI in 5 months! Wow, that seems like a really good deal. The contract is signed through someone who seemed to be really credible (business person with real brick and mortar shop whom had been a friend for sometime with my friend), and the cash out time has passed.

What do you as a reader expect? Would my friend get back his principle and profit? Want to know more about this “lobang”?
Click here for the full account of the investment.
Click her for a quick summary of the investment.

For the time-constrained readers, the answer is, no, my friend did not get back a single cent to date, which is 5 months after the supposedly cash-out date. Readers, do beware of such investments plans. You must do your due diligent before parting with you money. No matter how well you know your friend, you money can perform disappearing act once it is gone from your pocket.

PS: Perhaps you or someone had came across this “lobang” or have heard of VR Global Metal Trading Pte Ltd, do contact me at the address specified at Contact Us. [Uncle Sam] [Alice In Wonderland] needs you.

Additional reading
Click here for the investment contract
Click here for the things to check while making investment
Click here for ‘101′ investment lesson by Vandalin

According to ST, an unidentified 92-year-old Saudi man proposed marriage to a poor 17-year-old Egyption village girl, offering a dowry of around S$38,000 as well as gold jewellery. The girl’s very poor parents, accepted the proposed marriage.

Hmm. Reading it, it reminds me of a cross between Madonna’s adoption of a Malawian boy, and the olden days arranged marriage. Money does make the world go round in a certain sense. And after all, which parents do not want their child to have a better life, be it being adopted or married to a rich partner. However, for the case of marriage, it is related to the right to choose your own partner.

I guess it is too late at 2am. I am unable to write a proper discussion.

In Apr 2008, there was an article on TNP. “SHE woke up with a start after sensing that someone was touching her private parts.” In this case, the molester was convicted of the crime.

However, let’s analyst how many think of molest. We got comment like the following.

“I wonder why the lady slept without locking her door at night? She was renting a room, so she should have been wise to lock the door.

Just curious about such a suspicious circumstance. She was like inviting trouble. No doubt the landlord should not have opened her door, but why she took such a risk to ruin a man and his family?”

As illustrated above, in the mind of a number, their view is that that it is the lady’s fault. They will claim that that it is just natural that a guy will want to satisfy his needs and that it is just a touch anyway. It is the lady’s fault for not locking the door, not veil-up like a mummy, and for not stopping the guy.

However, this exactly shows how the moral of the society has deteriorated.

1. (It is only natural.) I naturally want a car. Does it means that it is natural that I steal and it is the fault of the car owner for leaving the car in the car-park. So, I should not be convicted of stealing.
2. (It is just a touch only.) What about saying, I just borrowed the car for a few years only. I didn’t harm the owner in any way, so, I should not be convicted too.
3. (I was tempted.) It is the car owner who tempted me with such a nice car, which I have always eyed. Therefore, it is the car owner’s fault for tempting me. It is not my fault. I should not be convicted too.
4. (I was not stopped.) The car owner did not stop me from stealing the car. So, the car owner allowed me to steal the car. It is again not my fault. So, I should not be convicted too.

As such, laws are being written to make it an offence to molest (or for the illustration used, stealing is an offence.) It is never right to molest. Those who say that it is right, means that their moral has gone to dogs.

It is a sad thing, that according to AWARE (Association of Women for Action & Research), at least 3 cases of outrage of modesty is reported everyday in Singapore, and a silent majority does not report it.

And in addition, even though the law in Singapore does make outrage of modesty an offence in Singapore, it is not an offence under Singapore law, if molest occurred outside Singapore. The saddest thing is that there is local who [molested?] another local when they are oversea, and does get scot-free using this legal loop-hole.

I always remember a quote, “It takes a village to raise a child”. In a distance past, the society exists as villages, in which everyone knows each other, and every adult takes the share responsibility of teaching values, cultures and correcting any child of any wrong doings.

Fast forward to the society at current time.

We have parents letting their child run wild and shouting in libraries. We have parents scolding teachers in school for reprimanding their child. We have parents saying “why is table manners not taught in school?”. We have double-income family, where the child are latch-key kids. We have governing policies solved by pricing out.

So, in short, these parents failed in their duty totally. Not only do they allow the child to commit misdeeds while they are around (if they were even around), some even believe that they child can do no wrong. Other parents believe that the responsibility of educating the values of the child lies in school teachers and not themselves. Moreover, a meritocracy country lulls many parents into believing that it is the child’s ability that counts, and not the child’s character and values. It will be interesting to know how many bonds-breakers received their family blessing. In addition, since many government policies are solved by money, it is just money talk.

No wonder, we are having a new generation of neglected, spoiled and valueless generation. Maybe I am one of them?

Yesterday (Sat), while waiting for queue number, I end up watching a show that runs from 7pm to 9pm. The story was that the Prince was in love with this girl and wanted to marry the girl. However, the Empress objected due to political reasons, as a Master Bai, offered to weaken the fief in exchange for marriage with this girl. The Prince being very in loved with the girl, refused this deal. However, the Empress was very stubborn and used hunger strike to pressure the Prince.  In the end, in the law of filial piety, the Prince gave in.

Confucian. Confusion. How many couples have you ruin? Cupid have to work overtime, no thanks to suspected forgery sutra of buddha that made it way into Confucian. Quite irony that the true Buddhist had to reject all family ties, while Confucian embraces family ties with so many “laws”.

The day before, I walked passed someone watching this you-tube movie. The storyline was that there was a marriage ceremony going on. The ex-wife of the groom came by and rack chaos. This person who was watching the movie then commented that the hosts should gang up together and whack the ex-wife till she can only crawl out of the place.

Thinking in parallel, if the scenario instead is a public event, in which one of the host interprets one of the guest words as offensive and stomps off. Should other host or guest ask the guest to apologise to the host?

Firstly, does being the host means that the host has the responsibility to ensure that the public event is run merry-fully? If yes, stomping off will ruin the mood of the guests, who might perhaps be too polite to comment.

Secondly, as being a guest, does the guest have to be extremely mindful of the host, and have to lick the host boots? If yes, the mindset is to be socially-correct.

Thirdly, should any of the other hosts asked the guest to apologize? If yes, would they be seen as being too “family-like” (Family vs outsiders)?

Fourthly, should any of the other guests ask the guest to apologize? If yes, is this guest socially-correct?

Fifth, should any of the hosts ask the stomper host apologize to the guest? If yes, would the hosts be seen as gracious?

Sixth, should any of the guest ask the stomper host to apologize to the guest? If yes, is this guest socially-correct?

Thinking of another parallel scenario, if instead the event is a friend friend gathering, and a gal interprets another guy’s words as offensive and stomps off, how different would the public reaction be? Most likely, social context might expect the guy to coax the gal back.

Thinking of yet another parallel scenario, if instead the event is a friend friend gathering, and a guy interprets another gal’s words as offensive and stomps off, how different would the public reaction be? Most likely, the stomper guy will be labelled as not sufficiently gracious, and no one is expected to coax him back. It will be a let it be, small matter.

Is there equality in male vs female? And is there equality in host vs guest?

Anyway, a coin has 2 sides. An incident can be seen from many views. To each their views and stand. But, infringement of dignity had to be reacted and righteous required siding. No wonder there can be so much disagreements and wars. Just like the animosity between Catholic and Protestant. But, what is life? Don’t almost all Miss World hopes for world peace?