This week sees the now infamous “only-fans” creator, Titus Low Kaide being sentenced to a three-week jail term for breaching a police order and fined S$3,000 for transmitting obscene material. Low, who creates adult content online, first ran into trouble when someone made a police report against him.
In Low’s defence, I really fail to see what the big deal is. After all, “don’t like don’t subscribe la!” On a more serious note, however, how are the internet browsing habits of consenting adults worthy of state intervention? Low is a willing adult, and his subscribers are also consenting viewers. What’s the harm?
One might say, oh, a child might access it by accident. But if that is the concern, watch your child better! There are a million and one things online that your child shouldn’t be watching. Should we just scrap the internet then?
At the end of the day, I struggle to see what harm this whole saga has caused to merit incarceration! No one was forced to do anything they didn’t want to do. No one was physically harmed. Just adults indulging in some titillation.
Authorities in Singapore have long been bemoaning the declining birthrates in Singapore. But erm, do they realise that sex is required to make babies? And people do need to be somewhat turned on to perform the act of coitus. If you make everything so straightlaced even with jail terms for a “crime” where no ostensible damage has been done, who will be in the mood?
Singapore sure is a land of contradictions! Prostitution is legal, but showing some skin online between password-protected consenting adults merits a jail term? Go figure!
Further, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong faced the ire of netizens for what was being perceived as a lack of understanding on his part when he was quoted by CNA as having said ”We must make Singapore the best place for families – a society where young couples feel well-supported to start and raise a family, and can give their children the best possible start in life.”
Yet, isn’t part of “support” removing the stigma that comes with sex? No sex, no kids. It’s pretty simple.
This brings me to my next question, which is food for thought this week. Is a lack of titillation contributing on some level to repressed rage? In a post on the SingaporeRaw Reddit thread earlier this week, a netizen wrote about how bad employees in the food and beverage industry in Singapore have it. It is apparently so bad that the netizen called frontline F&B staff the punching bag of society.
I could well believe it. If we have no outlet for our anger, we will end up either becoming self-destructive, taking it out on others, or both. None of these is healthy patterns of behaviour, but then in a society that says no to anything even remotely “naughty” no matter how harmless, how do mere mortals unwind?
Of course, I am not reducing everything to sex – we are more than that. But the point is if someone is able to blow off some steam by looking at some naughty but consensual pictures online, why would you make that a shaming crime?
Is it better to shout at a hapless F&B staffer who is likely going to be low-paid, working long hours with a family to feed, or is it better to view some pictures in the privacy of your home where the subject is actually happy to post such pictures? The former has actual harm to well-being, while the latter is simply being judged by the moral police.
Last but not least, this week, former People’s Action Party (PAP) politician, George Yeo has become one in a line of ex-public sector workers who has published an autobiography of sorts. Ex-Senior Minister, S Jayakumar, also published his own tome, detailing his personal take on his time in Government.
Some of the anecdotes Professor Jayakumar shared were greatly personal – such as his wife’s illness and his experience of the marriage of the late Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew. The same can be said of Mr Yeo’s semi-autobiography, where he revealed some of his thoughts on incidents that occurred during the time of his political career.
Veteran writer, PN Balji praised Mr Yeo, calling him a “talent” despite having had previous misgivings about him over an incident where Mr Yeo had taken umbrage over an article that had criticised a PAP member of parliament. Yet, after reading the book, Mr Balji changed his mind.
“His references to India and the warmth in the words showed that the author is clearly and truly race-blind. His deep friendship with Indian politicians, businessmen, and thinkers tells a story of a man whose knowledge of India is unparalleled in a Chinese-majority Singapore.”
Nowadays, many of the PAP’s top brass have been criticised as being jettisoned to top jobs without private sector experience. Perhaps, this was not always true. Ending with a quote from Mr Balji on Mr Yeo:
“George Yeo is an exception in Singapore politics. His intellectual might, his understanding of and experience in geopolitical affairs and his sense of history are being missed. Once Lee Kuan Yew said the ministers had to be paid high salaries because the top banks are eyeing them. But not one of them has got a high-profile job overseas.”