During “national” crises, the nation-building ST tends to publish the best letters. Molly replies to them again.
1. Shocked over bakery's condom gift for teenager
MY 17-YEAR-OLD son bought a macaroon from Bakerzin on Valentine's Day and got a gift - a condom.
On top of that, he was given a chocolate showing a couple in the act of copulation.
The gifts were definitely inappropriate. The company should have been socially more responsible and its staff more discerning.
Lim Soo Hoon (Ms)
Dear Ms. Lim,
You’ve objected to the condom gift and to the copulating chocolate. Let’s deal with these one by one.
Firstly, your son is seventeen years old. Molly can legally go to bed with him with his consent. If such a situation arises, surely he would find a condom useful? (Of course, this situation is purely hypothetical. Your son will probably only
have sex copulate after marriage—and only marriage to a proper Christian woman who doesn’t have a history of being subversive and who commit adultery via hypothesizing.)
Think about this: When your son was thirteen and in Secondary 1, he had probably learned about condoms and their use. Surely having being given a real condom contributes to his education?
It was not as though your son was given an M18 DVD, a packet of cigarettes or a bottle of beer. That would have been terrible for your son is old enough to have sex, but not old enough to look at fleeting appearances of breasts on film.
In any case, just because I give your son a condom, it doesn’t mean that I’m telling him to use it. He could . . . well, maybe give it to his parents or use it as a balloon.
Next, the copulating chocolate. Think of it as a painting or any work of art that your son must have encountered in his many years of education in our world-class education system. There is nothing wrong with it unless the chocolate couple was homosexual. We know that curious teen boys who think of having sex with girls should never be shown . . . other possibilities – lest they start to explore these illegal possibilities and begin to live objectionable alternative lifestyles. But Molly believes that the chocolate couple was heterosexual. (Commercial Valentine’s Day is very heteronormative.)
The gifts were not inappropriate. After all, what’s wrong with sex? Of course, perhaps you belong to the camp that believes that condoms promote promiscuity and are full of holes that facilitate HIV transmission. But that’s another story. Why don’t you share your precious insights with us in the great ST forum?
2. Let's be rational, escape is a setback for all
THE escape of Mas Selamat Kastari from Whitley Road Detention Centre because of a security lapse has put us in the international spotlight again.
It came at a time when we were just celebrating the joyful news of winning the bid to host the first Olympic Games for the young of the world in 2010.
I can understand the current sentiment, especially with regard to our law enforcement agencies.
How could this have happened to a nation that boasts of a 'world-class' security force?
An escape like Mas Selamat's seems unthinkable in Singapore.
But while I agree the mistake is costly, I feel we should be rational in voicing our discontentment.
I do not think it is fair to exploit this opportunity to castigate unfairly our law enforcement agencies, which have done an excellent job in keeping us safe.
To err is human and let's move on from here.
We should be mindful of the efforts made by law enforcement agencies which are doing their best to salvage the situation.
This is a setback for all of us.
Mohammed Imran Mohammed Saleh
Are you suggesting that all the criticisms of our state agencies following Mas Selamat’s escape are done not really with the purpose of critiquing, but with the hidden agenda (political or otherwise) of discrediting the state agencies? (Otherwise, could you please explain why you use the particular phrase, “exploit this opportunity”?)
May I also know what is SO rational about not criticizing these agencies and being appreciative, instead, of them doing what they should after an apparent fiasco?
Finally, could you tell me why it seems that certain people always have the prerogative (or so it seems) to move on after making mistakes while others (such as a certain James Gomez) did not?