"Purpose of Societies Act: Enacted in 1885 to help government cope with organisations of criminals who engaged in blackmail and extortion enforced by violence. 'Does anyone seriously pretend that a small, non-violent Christian congregation wanting to study the Bible and talk about it with their neighbours should be classified with these violent criminals?'"
From the Skeletal Argument of the Colin Chan v. PP case. The Jehovah's Witness debacle which I find terribly depressing. The part in bold is taken directly from the document; the rest of it is my valiant attempt at summarising (I can't summarise. It's a fact since secondary school). I'm too lazy to provide the context for non-law friends so um, Wikipedia it! Wikipedia is your second best friend, immediately after Google.
In other news, the studying is going excruciatingly slowly and if I actually did get round to planning an exam study timetable thingy or other, it'd be really apparent that I'm super behind time. But because I like to hide from the face of reality, I'm just keeping everything inside my head and planning the studying...like, mentally. I don't know, it works in ways only comprehensible to me because I'm weird so there you go.
In dire need of shopping. Ugh. Help me.
Edited to add at 1.29 a.m. on Tuesday April 17:
This is the most ridiculous shit I've read all night:
"Conscientious objection not a valid ground to avoid NS because 'no Singaporean can claim to have a conscientious objection to Singapore's survival and security'."
Guess where the bolded part is lifted from? Our beloved, oh-so-objective, oh-so-clever, oh-so-relevant newspaper, the Straits Times.
No, seriously, whoever wrote that stupid article must've had his head stuck all the way up his arse. Since bloody when did National Survival = National Service? NS is a subset of national security and whatever; it's not its sole determinant. Saying that you can't have a conscientious objection to serving NS because you must be so patriotic that you can't have such an objection to the country's security and whatever is like saying all females don't care about Singapore's security because females don't serve NS and they don't care enough to volunteer, or that the whole Total Defence thingy is useless because look, you're not enlisted in national service and FIGHTING FOR THE COUNTRY!
What the fuck. Plain ridiculous and illogical. That writer seemed to have no freaking mind of his own. He didn't even bother referring to Article 15 of the Constitution that guarantees a person's religious liberty. I'm sorry, but when you want to make an argument that supports a government policy that blatantly violates an individual's fundamental right, you better make sure you substantiate with proper and informed references to the Constitution why you support such a policy, and why I should be swayed by your editorial. Because I read your stupid article and I swear, my IQ dropped about fifty points. The arguments were superficial and they were the sort of crap I'd write in a JC General Pointlessness essay, there was no critical analysis of any kind, in fact it was just pure shit.
Generally I don't care about religion and religious groups, least of all religious groups that go around preaching their religion to people who honestly don't give the slightest fuck; but articles like this and decisions such as Colin Chan v. PP just make me feel really sad, sorry and outraged for those under direct Executive attack. And half the time, the kind of measures taken against them are really quite unnecessary and even unsubstantiated. Plainly put, it's a total case of What The Fuck?
The stupid article showed a grand total of ONE side of the entire picture. Like how more retarded can our useless newspaper get? How can you hear of someone getting arrested for his religious beliefs and brush it aside saying, "Oh, but national security mandates it" and then go to bed peacefully at night?
Colin Chan, my heart totally goes out to you. I don't understand your convictions, but...just...poor thing. Having the courage to fight the government to protect your religious beliefs, though? Totally admirable.
Right, enough ranting. I haven't done anything tudung-related and I'm supposed to finish Freedom of Religion before I sleep. Um, yeah, okay, talk about over-reaching yet again. Damn.
Edited to add at 3.50 a.m.:
This is absolutely disgusting:
"The appellant's interpretation of the pledge and anthem ceremony as a religious ceremony was a distortion of secular fact into religious belief. It is not accepted as a religious belief and is not entitled to protection under the Constitution of Singapore."
Taken from a judgment by the former Chief Justice.
Where do I even begin?
Pedestrianly, I would say: Can I please get out of this country? It's ridiculous to the highest level when you have a JUDGE telling you that your interpretation of your religion is wrong, a "distortion". Especially when the said judge used to be a banker.
I just...don't even know what to say anymore. This country? Totally sad.