For advertisement

Sample

4/01/2008

Cheaters and infidelity

Thomas Koshy continued the discussion on politicians who cheated. His main argument is that are we asking too much from politicians by expecting them to be pristinely clean and moral. In his article in Today, he believes that politicians are just like everyone else and have some personal flaws. He said, 'And let us not be so naive as to assume that no Singapore politician has engaged in illicit liaisons. Certainly, rumours of illicit liaisons involving politicians are not unheard of. The fact that they have not become tabloid fodder is probably more a reflection of press priorities than anything else.' Koshy went on to ask whether we should allow such indiscretion to go by and not to raise it as a smear against the politician. Now this is a moral and ethical issue and depending on one's own moral compass, many will object to it vehemently. So will the hypocrites. How can politicians be dishonest and indulged in cheating their spouses? There will be no end to it and either we live in our own make belief world that all is goodness or don't even think about it and let live. Perhaps it is better to accept the flaws of man and not to harp or nitpick at one another on every little indiscretion. Go and ransack somebody's cupboard and say, hey, there are so many skeletons and splash them across the media front page. Political assassination used to be a game played by those in power and in control of the msm. Today, the same dirty linens can be hanged and dried in cyberspace. A more even playing field maybe. Will people be more discrete in their indiscretion or in divulging people's well kept secrets?

4 comments:

Matilah_Singapura said...

> Now this is a moral and ethical issue and depending on one's own moral compass, many will object to it vehemently. So will the hypocrites. How can politicians be dishonest and indulged in cheating their spouses? <

There is only one "moral compass" here: the sanctity of contracts

Marriage is an EXPLICIT and IMPLICIT contract, made legal binding under the rule of law, and spiritually binding under the umbrella of religion - if the union was consecrated in a ceremony of worship.

Unless the "cheater" was given permission by the spouse to engage in extra-marital sexual and romantic activity, then the "cheater" has, simply put and objectively speaking broken a contract.

The reasons are irrelevant. The point is, if you want to re-negotiate a contract, you have to seek VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT with the other party. By "cheating", the errant spouse has used FORCE to break his/her part of the contract and therefore, IMO, can never be trusted to honour any form of agreement - private or one made from public office.

The press of course jump at the opportunity to report "juicy news" to a public hungry for "dirty" stories to spice up their own shallow, judgmental lives.

> Perhaps it is better to accept the flaws of man and not to harp or nitpick at one another on every little indiscretion. <

Nonsense. That is capitulation. All the cheating politician had to do was to ASK PERMISSION. At the worst if the answer was "no", he should have the balls to inform his spouse that he is going to sleep with another person, and his spouse will be FREE to act or not, accordingly.

In other words, if he is going to do it, at least be HONEST about it. He may look like a "bastard", but at least his honesty is not compromised.

Contracts are struck so that one party does not have an unjust and unfair advantage over the other party, i.e. you can't have your cake and eat it too

redbean said...

now what are you going to do if the guy breaks the contract?

as for the press hungry for greedy news, you must be careful who's news it is. don't anyhow publish.

Matilah_Singapura said...

All contracts are legally binding. Contracts are 2 party agreements. If one party breaks the contract, the other (injured) party has the right (but not the obligation) to take the case to a court of law, and seek damages.

It is no one else's legal business to do anything except the injured party.

In marital infidelity cases this is usually known as "divorce suit" - when a marriage contract is enforced by compensating the injured party. To reiterate, it is up to the injured spouse to take action, not the father, mother, sibling etc. of the injured spouse. (contract is between 2 parties).

The press will publish what they like. No one, except the editors, have control on that. People get "hantamed" in the press everyday. I have (in Aust). That's life. You just deal with it.

redbean said...

i agree, keep it between the two parties and as private as possible.