Okay, I really should be working on Happy Halls now, but I was reading the news and am itching to comment on this.
Somehow I feel that the NSF in question should be defended, with the SAF/maid saga still fresh in the media.
Firstly, age wise, he's now 19, his girlfriend is 14 (yes, o.m.g., I think so too). However, as mentioned in the article, he was 17 when he entered into a relationship with this girl. She was 12 then (seriously, ?!?!). This happened before he enlisted. There was no need for the writer to emphasise that he's an NSF (now) by having these 3 letters in the title of this article.
Secondly, we must look at both sides of the story. While it is obvious that the guy, being older, is expected to be wiser and hence make more rational decisions, external factors must also be considered. I'm not trying to play detective here, neither do I have all the information, just trying to be objective. It is possible that prior to the relationship (if it's even considered one), the girls' actions led him to believe that she was mature enough or worth the risk-taking associated with dating her. The only kind of action on the girl's side I can think of now is seduction, though the very thought of a 12-year-old doing so is downright absurd. Still, !!! It is also possible that both parties were under some other influence, such as peer pressure and the lack of familial support. As we have seen from the violence demonstrated by the girl's family, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out.
Thirdly, I would say that the time allowed for the break up was insufficient. According to the article, "the girl's father, uncle and four other men took away Lee's cellphone and abducted him to a cemetery at midnight. The group then threw physical punches at Lee who was 17 then, and threatened to kill him with a samurai sword" all within the same year that the girl's family objected to the relationship. Surely, wouldn't more emotional support and time allowed enable a more 'effective' separation the separation to fully take place? I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to break up within the same year if the bond between them was tight. Also, there was no need for them to take the guy's possessions, neither was there a need to take him to a deserted location (here it would be reasonable to imply and assume that any cemetery would be almost, if not totally, deserted at midnight). These acts, together with the threat and physical action taken, were completely uncalled for, considering that the time between the day "objections from the girl's family" was first made and the day the assaults started was insufficient time allowed to expect a break up from the couple in question.
I think I'm starting to get confused by my own words.
Bottom line is, the media should not be so quick to imply or demonstrate that the guy is totally at fault. Though I know the issue here is whether the girl's relatives should have done what they did (obviously, NO).
Sigh.. wassup with the world today man?
No comments:
Post a Comment