American History X's Disturbing Message / Singapore's Funky Criminal Code

American History X was a good movie, but I'm wondering if I'm the only one who got the vibe that denouncing affirmative action, expecting people to take personal responsibility for their actions instead of blaming it on poverty and bringing up the fact that Rodney King attacked the police officers first (ie Going against the PC Squad's consensus) are blithely equated to racism.

I searched for "commercial sex" (sans apostrophes) in the Singapore Statutes and got the Geneva Convention. Wth.

I think next time for NUS module feedback I'm going to leave everything blank, since everyone knows it's not anonymous. If I really have something to say, I'll send it via anonymous email. They would really improve the credibility of the "anonymous" feedback system if it was only operated *after* exam results were released.

The Dutch government asked us to fill in a survey about our perceptions of the country. Among other things it asked if we thought the country was too crowded, if we disagreed with the drugs policy, whether the country was a significant player on the world stage (and if we agreed with its foreign policy), if we'd recommend that people come here to live/study/set up a business and if the weather was bad. I said the worst thing about the place was the food.

***

Our criminal code is so funky:

CHAPTER XVI - OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY

"Criminal force and assault.
Criminal force.

Illustrations

(b) Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z’s horses, and thereby causes them to quicken their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to change their motion. A has therefore used force to Z; and if A has done this without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has committed criminal force to Z.

(c) Z is riding in a carriage. A, intending to rob Z, seizes the horse and stops the carriage. Here A has caused cessation of motion to Z, and he has done this by his own bodily power. A has therefore used force to Z; and as A has acted thus intentionally without Z’s consent, in order to cause the commission of an offence, A has used criminal force to Z.

(f) A intentionally pulls up a woman’s veil. Here A intentionally uses force to her; and if he does so without her consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy her, he has used criminal force to her. [Ed: Damn.]

(i) A, a schoolmaster, in the reasonable exercise of his discretion as master, flogs Z, one of his scholars. A does not use criminal force to Z because, although A intends to cause fear and annoyance, he does not use force illegally.


Also:

"Offences against the President’s person.
121A. Whoever compasses, imagines, invents, devises, or intends the death of or hurt to or imprisonment or restraint of the President, shall be punished with death, and shall also be liable to fine."

Someone: there's one in there about thinking a bad thought about the president
i wonder how they'll ever catch you