I am not sure how applicable the skimpy dressing analogy is to all this — unless one perhaps introduces a third party, who decides whether people are sent out in public naked by default.

In short, we might wish to explore the role of the wireless router manufacturers, since they have specified an unsecured network as the default configuration.

Perhaps it is time for manufacturers (and industry consortia) to change their position on this?

I’ve tried to analyse the wireless access policy conundrum in an article on Singapore Angle, and it’d be great to hear from you on the matter…

Mooch Ado About Something: Illegal Wireless Access

As it is already stated elsewhere, wifi gives implicit sharing permission when unsecured. A person dressed skimpily, or naked, for that matters, has not implicitly consented to be violated.

That person may be looking for someone to share a good time, but still have the right to refuse. By securing your wifi, you are exercising the right to not give consent to share.

The cleric’s statement about skimpy women is just an age old excuse. A lady friend said, “females dress mostly not to impress males, but other females”. When a person is considering to violate another, clothes is not really an issue.

I would consider it equivalent to hacking into secured wifi, and then claiming that I did it because I think that I should not ever pay to use the internet.

My stand: this is a silly case. No one should have even been dragged to the police station because of this.

I am personally not going to take sides because I am new to blogging in Singapore and I dont really know the personalities of those involved.

I don’t really see anything interesting about the development of this sphere except perhaps conclude. One must really take responsibility for one’s actions. I think a large part of it has to do with ego and having delusions of being larger than life. The really confident people in my view, do not really need to project their influence. From what I have seen in the blogging comminity, the really confident people are those who dont even feel the need to defend themselves when others criticize them. Typically they dont go after everyone…sorry that is what I meant to say. They are also people who are not afraid to demonstrate their expressive side even if it requires them to be very honest by sharing with us the limits of their vulnerability and weaknesses. I enjoy reading about these things as it allows me to learn more about myself by being able to read other people’s confessions. Of course sometimes, I am a bit naive and tend to swallow everything hook, line and sinker, so this is one way to develop my street smartness.

I once asked my kong kong which was harder to do, to hate or ignore someone. He replied, if you hate someone, it just means you think about that person in a particular way. But if you choose to ignore someone, you would have to forget yourself, him, events, places, people etc and this naturally means ignoring someone or treating them like dead is 10 times harder to do. So I asked my kong what was the easiest thing to do, he just said, love them and when I asked why? He said, because it doesnt take any energy to love and understand someone.

The really confident people in the net and those who just give as good as they take

You are another clear example of my little experiment with this entry that most Singaporeans are not ready for freedom of expression and mature discussion. For some weird reason, Singaporeans cannot distinguish what constitutes a strongly worded entry and a “personal attack”. If Singaporeans cannot even see beneath the surface for the substance and choose instead to jump at the surface meaning, it’s small wonder why the government needs to control us so tightly.

I think you need to read in between the lines, rather than to take the words at face value. The context should also be examined. If it wasn’t a muslim cleric but say a respectable world leader who made that comment, would anyone jump? If the context was not referring to women and rape, would anyone jump? Why is it that people won’t get upset if there is no perceived threat to their ego, even though the premise of the argument is unchanged?

Lastly, I issue the apology because it was my own inadequate phrasing of the sentence that might have given the wrong impression, which is indeed true. However, as Dr Huang himself noted, the analogy he made and the analogy the muslim cleric made are “not dissimilar”. What then is your beef with people coming to my blog to deny the same thoughts I have? The issue isn’t even about the analogy. You are pointing your gun in the wrong direction.

I don’t really care what you think about me. If this is the level that Singaporeans can conduct free speech with, I think we are not ready for democracy. I have made it clear in my original entry that it’s my assumption and my extrapolation, and whether people choose to believe or not, that’s their problem. I have not stated for a fact that Dr Huang is of a certain character; I merely extended the argument with a similar analogy, which is a pretty normal way of arguing. In fact, I salute Dr Huang for being able to hold an argument so well, despite the little emotional response right at the start. As for you, I think you have a little more to learn from Dr Huang.

I feel that aaron thought of something, and wrote about it, and Dr Huang has every right to his feelings and reply. Not knowing Dr Huang, Aaron was ascribing such thoughts and views on Dr Huang – please, if Dr Huang does not come out strongly, what does it say about him? And to think that Aaron was ’surprised at his response’ – Aaron – grow up. Yuo wrote, and you got an appropriate response, and I think your apology – quite half f*cked lah…..quite like the Wee wees. Your last para in your apology again show you to be a smart ass and undid all your apology. Just apologise and keep it short. I don’t know – with this style of writing you can write all types of analogy about other people and everyone has to get on your blog to deny having the same thoughts that you have??