Over my experiences as a delegate at both YMA 2019 and FEF 2019, I’ve attained the Verbal Commendation – an award that I feel appreciative of but still remain insatiated by. Neither are novel ideas nor the writing of draft resolutions is sufficient. Perhaps I need to partake in the power dynamics, in the form of commanding attention in the room and lobbying and opening up to points of inquiry, to contribute to the direction of the Council. . “Before anything great is really achieved, your comfort zone must be disturbed.” – Ray Lewis

I’m spiritual. I’m sexual. I’m soulful. All at once. I can’t deny any one aspect of myself. Nothing is more debilitating than being seen as one-dimensional.

You ever think the universe fight for souls to be together? Maybe it deemed fit that the two of us; each a complex being with our thoughts set in cosmos – would share a chemistry – led the perfect arrangement of atoms fusing together to form a diatomic duo. Gravity keeps planets in orbit through entire galaxies. Miles apart, your love had an intensity that could pull opposite poles of the planet together. You gave me magic. But it was a potent one. Your love had a possessive intensity that cut the earth along the equator, subjecting us to the laws of nature. We can’t rewrite the stars. You looked at me like I was the moon, like I was made of wonder, like I was something not everyone knew how to love.

He mastered the extremes: the savage bite marks and the gentle forehead kisses. She liked a fucking fierce love. He said: “Screw poetry, I just want to taste you and devour you”. And that was when she knew, lust didn’t co-exist with love.

I saw you in the wild. You still had blood in your teeth and dirt in your hair. I didn’t care. I heard the moon and the stars howl with you. I witnessed the sunrise and the sunset run from you. Instead I wrote about you in rose gold. I still loved you; and I still prayed for you, yet still you tried to prey on me. Now I write you in black and white; you barely deserve the color that I saw in your eyes. Still I believe, chaotic friendship is worth the risk. For in this guarded world with everyone hunting for the next meal, I think I fall prey again and again for rare, raw love.

You know the feeling when someone hits the raw nerve and sets you questioning

Nothing is more beautiful than two people, in love, isolated from the world; muted from its noise and distractions. Options are good, but also the killer of romance. Life is too short to fall for people who don’t love you wildly, or for relationships that don’t set fire to your soul. Our time on this earth is fleeting, and in those years we must love fearlessly. Don’t settle for comfort. After all, everyone wants to be loved by a lover with exclusive eyes for you.

I appreciate my parents for teaching me how not to feel in this cold, cruel and competitive world. But like a dragon breathing fire stuck in a cage, I couldn’t repress my natural feelings no more. Vulnerability is not weakness. And that myth is profoundly dangerous. In our business culture, and society in general, the image or metaphor of the heart is often associated with yielding, kindness — or perhaps weakness. Yet, the heart is also strong and powerful, as well as the driving force of life. Science instructs that it is the beating heart that set the muscle going.

It was until he unveiled the tattoo of a beautiful archangel, Lucifer on his bare-skinned chest, that she understood the meaning of forbidden love.

A girl was saved by a warrior. She was intrigued because she found a fiery passion in his Spirit that she identified with. She allows him to teach her how to fight, how to dominate the battlefield… And all he says is “Beneath your soft exterior, lies a warrior” Years later, she arrives at the Stronghold, her sword at her side, a warrior to rival the Paladins themselves… And the first face she sees is his. He was the leader of the Paladin army – her own tribe’s biggest enemy. Light and dark are intertwining; standing here face to face. So the lion laid down with the lamb, and the predator fell in love with the prey? 

Name:【Ｔｒａｃｙ】

𝒪𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒾𝓃 : 𝓛𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓷

𝑀𝑒𝒶𝓃𝒾ng: 𝓦𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓻

Whose side am I on? If love’s a fight, then I’ll gladly be a warrior for peace. Am I a saint or a sinner? If love is the glory, then the soldier I will be.

What do Sun Tzu, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr have in common? They believe that to conquer an enemy, the single command is to love in a hateful world.

For a person who hasn’t had experience with sex, I would disqualify myself from opining on this subject matter. However, given that this is a well-regarded issue I have decided to stop being apathetic about it. In this article I will discuss both sides of the argument on whether sex must involve commitment. 

Are sex and morality interconnected, or are they divorced from each other? If you believe that morality is defined by culture, then the principles governing sex are derived from traditional thought of ancient and medieval times. In contrast, the modern and scientific view is that humans have no special metaphysical or supernatural standing above animals. Consider an analogy. Eating habits are also considered to be part of our nature, but traditionalists would remind us that we have to eat the correct foods from a nutritional standpoint. We have to direct our habits to nutritional guidelines. Sexual intercourse is more than just physical, requiring the use of self-control and reason. 

The liberal view is that sexual desire is desire for contact with another person’s body and for the pleasure which such contact processes produces; sexual activity is activity which tends to fulfill such desire of the agent. Whereas Aristotle and (others) were correct in that pleasure is normally a by-product rather than a goal of purposeful action, in the case of sex it is not so clear. Orgasm is ultimately viewed as the goal of genital as a norm of sexual activity, also known as “plain sex”. Given this singular definition of sex in terms of desire of physical contact, the only criterion is that sexual attractiveness of the bodies have to be mutual. Voyuerism, as highlighted by the Monica Baey incident or viewing a pornographic movie qualifies as a sexual activity, but only as an imaginative substitute for the real thing. The same is true of masturbation as a sexual activity without a partner. It is a bodily desire for the body of another that dominates our mental life for more or less brief periods. Traditional philosophers were correct to emphasise the purely animal aspect of sex; they were wrong only in condemning it. They held a narrow view that sex is exclusively an expression of love. I find this a repressive or restrictive sexual ethic. Moreover, fleeting sexual desire cannot be mistaken for permanent love, necessitating a clear distinction between love and sex. Sex offers society with paradigm of pleasure, but not a cornerstone of value. For most of us, it is not only a needed outlet for desire but also the most enjoyable form of recreation we know. 

On the other hand, sex is also a means through which parties obtain intimacy. There is reason for seeking permanence in the relationship of sexual partners. There is a logical difference between the question “Will you play tennis with me?” and “Will you have sex with me?” Men and women increasingly find themselves involved in many different relationships, as buyer-seller, employer-employee, teacher-student, lawyer-client and partners or competitors. Take this example. A man pays a woman to act as his secretary. Then why does it turn into a court case when sexual relations are involved? This can lead us to conclude that the relationship between a prostitute and her client versus a professional relationship is that “services” differ. However, it is the acquisitive character of our society that has blinded our distinction between the two activities. Unlike the man who plays tennis with the woman, the man who has sexual relations with a woman has literally entered her. Their union is not simply a union of organs, but it is as intimate and as total a physical union of two selves as is possible of achievement. Yet, sexuality has come to play so large a role in our commercial lives. It is thus not unsurprising that such a reductionistic outlook should pervade our thinking on sexual matters. From sex toys to robots to exploitation of children/women in porn production, sex is consistently treated as a commodity governed by the rules of economic transaction. Once sexual intercourse is put into a holistic, wholesome context, we realise that both men and women can come together in the sexual act in the fullness of their selfhood. Doctor Mary Calderone put it: “ How many times, and how casually, are you willing to invest a portion of your total self, to be the custodian of a like investment from another person, without the sureness of knowing that these investments are being made for keeps?” In short, I ask myself: how eager I am to give away my virginity knowing that my soul will be bound to this person by a tie that he may break anytime? People who disengage from such commitment have sex involving a “depersonalization” of their bodily existence; an attempt to cut off the most intimate physical expression of their respective selves from their very selfhood. 

Nonetheless, I am also wary of the patriarchal nature of how a woman’s value in the marriage market is defined by her virginity. It is morally sensible for two people who are totally committed to each other and have made all arrangements to live by this commitment engage in sexual intercourse before the marriage ceremony, in the “heat of the moment”. After all, marriage is a covenant, not an aisle. Admittedly, this position can be abused by those who have made a purely verbal commitment, a commitment which will be carried out in some vague and ill-defined future. Rather, by making their commitment a matter of public record, by solemnly expressing it before the law and in the presence of their families and friends; and, if they are religious people, in the presence of God and one of His ministers, they sink the roots of their commitment more deeply and extensively in the world in which they live. 

If you’ve watched at least one criminal action movie starring hitmen or assassins – whatever they call it – why are killer agents like John Wick, Jason Bourne or James Bond so alluring in popular media, despite their savage vices?

The answer is simple: they take justice into their own hands where the law is ineffective or inadequate to inflict the retribution that society and the family to which the victim belongs.

“Recent changes to the Penal Code have introduced tougher penalties against those who abuse domestic workers, children and people with disabilities, and identified new groups of vulnerable persons.” – Straits Times, 21 May

In this article, I will explore the value of restitution in punishing the offender through the lens of the victim. Amendments in the legislation have affirmed the above value, but will tougher laws truly make a difference to those at risk?

Take a look at the foreign domestic workers in our midst. The number of maid abuse cases charged in court has gone up in the last 3 years, despite a legal provision in place since 1998 that provides for enhanced sentencing against employers who mistreat their domestic helpers. Under the new laws, offenders can be given twice the maximun penalties, up from 1.5 times, for all penal code crimes against maids. Of course, the move is necessary and recognises the vulnerability of domestic workers, as the abuse also includes deprivation of food and rest.

However, the law alone is not enough to prevent maid abuse, pointed out by Mr John Gee, who chairs the research committee at Transient Workers Count Too. He said what is really needed to reform the system that ties domestic workers to their employers because it causes them to be isolated from the outside world and potential sources of help and advice. I question the efficacy of draconian laws existing idly at the downstream of the historically under-reporting of abuse at the upstream.

The same line of reasoning applies for people with disabilities. They are reluctant to report cases of abuse by their caregivers as they fear the repercussions said Ms Teo Pek Wan, from SPD , charity that supports the disabled.

What about the dilemma for kids when their abuser is kin?

The number of children who were abused by a family member spiked by 30 per cent last year with sharp increases in physical and sexual abuse cases. Those in intimate or close relationships with their abusers can soon find some relief under new laws granting them added protections. The abusers can be given twice the maximum punishment for crimes such as, but not limited to, rape, wrongful confinement and causing physical hurt. Before this, there was limited recourse for victims not related or legally bound to their abusers, said social service groups, noting the pressing need to recognise the two groups. This is important as societal norms have changed, with couples getting married later and people co-inhabiting. Groups of people who do not fall in the common family construct of living arrangements include the divorced and homosexuals. There are no official figures for violence in close relationships, but social service agencies have seen cases involving rental flat roommates or children abused by a parent’s live-in partner. These changes encourages society’s increasing abhorrence of such acts of abuse in intimate relationships.

On the other hand, I also consider the consequences of overinflating an offender’s guilt. A person found guilty is branded a convict, and typically deprived of his/her liberty. Those are the direct consequences but there are collateral ones too. A father put in jail won’t be at home to support his family. He’ll lose any job he had and it’ll be all the more difficult to get one when he returns to society. People will brand him a convict and his reputation will forever be affected. In short, there is a lot at stake. Doesn’t it make sense to put heavy proof requirements on the government before subjecting an accused to such punishments?

Remember that saying “pick on someone your own size”? That too matters in the criminal system. Imagine a system where you’re allowed to defend yourself but only nominally. You’re given far too little money to actually mount a successful defense. Is this any better than being denied a defense entirely? It’s akin to an adult beating up a five year old. It’s a patently unfair fight. How could you expect the five year old to win? You can’t. So what’s the significance of the fight in the first place?

My point to all of this is that a defense attorney has not only a proper but also an important role in the justice system. If you take away the defense attorney, you make the process of convicting someone hollow. I, for one, would like to know that when a person goes to jail it’s not because of a flawed system but because he actually committed the crime.

My representation of a guilty defendant does not constitute an endorsement of his behavior or a desire to keep criminals on the street. Most are fallible humans who make mistakes. Often times, these mistakes are the result of poverty, addiction, and mental health issues. It is a defendant’s attorney who is in the best position to assist in getting the needed help. The holistic approach to dealing with a criminal is one I believe strongly in. If we as society can help address the problems our offenders have at the individual level, we can reduce crime on an overall level.

Today, we live in a system that claims punishment is about rehabilitation and deterrence when it’s actually about retribution and retaliation. I propose that we would have a solid inner core of legislation, but with the gentle external demeanour of forgiveness towards those who have gone astray from society.