Singaporeans’ national duty: buy women from abroad

Mark Lin has four women ready to be “matchmade”, for a price. I do not know what warranties his merchandise comes with. Here he is standing proudly with his wares in this cheesy video:

The Sunday Times knows him well. Virtually annually, they run a feature selling to its Singaporean readers the idea of buying foreign brides. They ran one again last Sunday, 25 July 2010, mentioning once again like in years past Mark Lin and his business, Vietnam Brides International Matchmaker.

As you can see, almost a full page was devoted to this campaign, and a nation-building campaign it must be for the newspaper to violate human rights and the laws of Vietnam so blatantly.

Barely six months ago, I noted that Vietnam — rightly — treats this kind of quickie “matchmaking” as human trafficking. As you can see from Should Singapore’s Home Minister be thrown into a Vietnamese jail? , four men were sentenced to a total of 25 years in jail. I also opined that the Sunday Times and the Singapore government abet this crime through their editorial and government policies.

Still, they persist. Apparently aware that there is a stigma — only losers buy women — the angle of the latest story is that younger men too are into buying life-long, living, breathing sex toys. Don’t be ashamed that you’re a human trafficker even if you’re young, the story seems to say. As bonus, you also get a free womb, housemaid and a caregiver for older folks in the family. For life.

All that for only S$5,000 to S$10,000. What a great deal it is; the housing subsidy you get from the government when you can wave a marriage certificate is much more than that amount!

The feature opens with the story of a “civil servant” named Low, aged 28.

He said that at 28, he reckoned he would need another two or three years to get to know a Singaporean girl before settling down, and even then, it might not work out.

Mr Low, who had girlfriends before, said he wanted a relationship which was “guaranteed” to end in marriage.

Here is a man who did not believe that the woman should have any choice in the matter. It should be up to him, not up to her. If he liked a girl, it should be “guaranteed”. I shudder to think what kind of husband he would make.

Sure, such people exist in this world. But should the newspaper be extolling this?

If you think I am reading too much into the above, look at what the feature article reported, again without demurral, further down. Speaking with another “matchmaker” named Ong,

Asked why young, educated men earning decent incomes would have trouble finding a partner, Mr Ong said: “Some feel that they pak tor (Cantonese for “date”) a few years, then the Singaporean girls will dump them.”

“They think it’s a waste of time. So they pay and they can choose a pretty wife.”

The “pretty wife” bit sent more chills down my spine.

Under the main article is a subsidiary story titled “Filipinas join marriage market”. It informs readers that Mark Lin also has in stock five women from the Philippines. It costs Mark Lin rather little to market them, what with free (?) publicity from the Sunday Times. They women even paid their own way over here for their month-long social visit passes. I don’t know how much persuasion it took for them to agree to bear the cost of their own airfares, thus relieving Vietnam Brides International Matchmaking of expenses.

* * * * *

I have detailed a number of times before, in earlier articles, the moral hazards of this kind of business, compounded by Singapore’s government policies — which is another reason why our government deserves to be labelled a human trafficking abettor. Let me just quote from my January 2010 post:

Singapore’s immigration rules help entrap the women, leaving them at the mercy of their husbands. How do the rules do this? Typically, the wife is given no more than permanent residency, not citizenship. That status is subject to renewal every five years, and is linked to staying married to the Singaporean man.

The problem arises when the couple have a baby — which is the whole point of it. The baby is a Singapore citizen. Naturally, the mother is emotionally attached to her child. If she is abused by her husband or her husband’s family, how can she sue for divorce, even if theoretically the route is open to her? Because, if she succeeds in getting her divorce, her permanent residency may be cancelled, whereupon she is sent back to Vietnam and separated from her child.

So for all practical purposes, she is trapped for life, and has to bear whatever abuse is thrown at her. She can’t even refuse sex, for then the husband could divorce her!

Yes, our own government has been more than just turning a blind eye to human trafficking; they have been complicit in it.

Why does our government look so kindly on this trade? It’s not hard to see. It’s one more prong in their “pragmatic” solution to our extremely low birth rate. We need babies and if we must close our eyes to the morally dubious methods of getting them, so be it.

Meanwhile, our police conduct regular sweeps of massage parlours and backlanes where prostitutes haunt. If women are caught selling sex while on social visit passes, they are promptly deported and banned from returning. Selling one hour of your time is a big no-no. To be legit, our government tells us through its actions, women should sell their souls and bodies for life.

99 Responses to “Singaporeans’ national duty: buy women from abroad”

  1. 1 Mat Alamak 30 July 2010 at 01:07

    Actually if such marriages can work and the couple is happy with each other, it will be great.

    On the other hand it will be terrible if it doesn’t.

    But there is no statistics on whether majority of such marriages turn out OK. If it is OK, why not?

    • 2 twasher 30 July 2010 at 05:29

      Even if a majority of such marriages are happy, I do not think that justifies enslaving the minority of women who suffer abuse under this scheme.

  2. 3 KiWeTO 30 July 2010 at 05:06

    To Mat,

    the ends shall justifies the means?

    Perhaps then, along that same vein, we should ship Singaporean women who cannot find husbands out to another country since it will bring about a possible better end for them?

    BTW, I am not sure if YB has raised it up before, but isn’t the legal situation for a Singaporean woman marrying a foreign man not the same as a Singaporean man marrying a foreign woman here?

    Is there inequality of the sexes still then?


  3. 4 yuen 30 July 2010 at 05:37

    well what’s the alternative? with all those unmarried woman graduates, and those who prefer caucasian husbands, the men have to get brides from somewhere

    sure there are risks with such solutions, but you have to balance this against the risks of not solving the problem

    there are also all these foreign maids who get exploited; they too can be threatened with being sent home, though their plight is lesser; do you want to suggest banning foreign maids too?

  4. 5 yawningbread 30 July 2010 at 07:37

    Yuen – what’s the alternative?

    I’m not even sure that you’ve got the point of what I was writing about. You seem to think that I am against foreign marriages, thus the statement “the men have to get brides from somewhere”. But that’s not the point I was dealing with. I was dealing with trafficking, not marriage.

    I can think of three moves that can be made to reduce the trafficking aspect of such marriages:

    1. All wives are given citizenship, so that they have the freedom to divorce their husbands and still keep their children, and stay in Singapore if they wish.

    2. Make marital rape a crime.

    3. Make it an offence (like pimping) to run so-called marriage agencies that cater to quickie marriages. Marriage itself can be legal, even if it’s one that is effected the morning after the first meeting, but no commercial benefit shall accrue to anyone promoting such quickie arrangements. The crime can be described as one of “promoting human exploitation by knowingly putting others into coercive situations”.

    • 6 yuen 30 July 2010 at 10:00

      to follow up your reply: you are against the “meat market” mode of operation of the bride agencies, and would like more rights for the foreign brides; however, any improvements would have to come from government action – changing immigration procedures, family law, oversight of foreign marriage agencies, perhaps even setting up something like SDU to compete with private companies; and would require a more positive attitude towards singaporean men getting brides from abroad; not sure that is viable at present

      • 7 yawningbread 30 July 2010 at 14:05

        You wrote: “would have to come from government action”.

        Why must govt wait for Singaporean men to change their attitudes before it does the right thing? Do we wait for Singaporeans to get rid of racist ideas before the govt outlaws racially-motivated hate speech?

    • 8 Stallion 6 September 2010 at 15:38

      You must be really naive to state this so called “three moves.”

      The situation here is very bad for the average young/old Singaporean men finding a serious partner already. Finding a decent looking yet down to earth local girl is almost impossible,
      That’s why this guys have to be given opportunities to be able to meet this foreign girls & start a family.

      You must be crazy to suggest that the government should gives out citizenship to any foreign women, just by marrying us guys all in the NAME of equality? Are you a woman?
      You want to kill the guys is it?

      Haven you read the papers on China brides? And evidence has shown that amongst couples, the percentages of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%.(Wikipedia) Freedom for them to divorce & still able to stay in Singapore. Get real please.

      With the overbearing Women’s Charter with laws siding girls in Singapore. It’s more than equality already.
      Take a good look at your local Singaporean women around you. What has the so called “gender equality” given to them, done for our country in terms of falling birth rates.

      The local girls now have mostly grown up to be spoilt princess/vain-pots with ridiculous high expectations in dating. Expect this, Expect that, but not willing to share the burden. How many of them are willing to be mothers??

  5. 9 yawningbread 30 July 2010 at 07:45

    KiWeTo –

    My understanding is that when citizen males marry foreign wives, the women are routinely given permanent residency unless special circumstances apply (e.g. criminal record). When citizen females marry foreign husbands, the men are not given PR routinely.

    There’s a feeling that two old-fashioned ideas are behind this policy:
    1. Patriarchal nonsense #1. Wives should move into husbands home, etc…
    2. Patriarchal nonsense #2. Men ought to earn more than women; husbands should support wives. Thus if a foreign man wants to marry a Singapore woman then (by definition) the man must surely come from a developed country, no? In which case wouldn’t the woman want to migrate to a better country? Why would the foreigner (assume a White one, of course) want to move to Singapore unless he’s some kind of deadbeat… in which case Singapore too doesn’t want him.

    I can’t be sure the policy is still in effect. It may have changed.

  6. 10 Solo Bear 30 July 2010 at 10:03

    YB, are you not assuming that the marriage agency is part of the human trafficking ring in Vietnam?

    Where’s your evidence?

  7. 11 Solitary Fish 30 July 2010 at 10:58

    I’m not sure what worries me more: the article, or the responses to it.

    • 12 Beast 30 July 2010 at 13:25

      Hi Stupid bear

      When women are paid for and brought physically to another country, that is a form of trafficking, or illegal transaction.

      I have been advised to marry via the marriage agency by some quarters (namely my parents) and the reason I am not doing it is because of the kind of exploitation it entails.

      The trouble with arranged paid marriages this way is that there is no system of checks, nor avenues (Few, if any) for the women to seek reddresses if there happen to be abuses. The government has little or almost no jurisdiction over the machinations of these marriage agencies because the transaction tends to take place in another country.

  8. 13 Tan 30 July 2010 at 11:49

    Your point that Singapore’s immigration rules help entrap the women is not valid. I just met a Vietnamese woman who was given citizenship sponsored by her Singaporean husband. They have kids and she has been here for about 10 years.

    Even if PR is given for the time being, the PR will not be cancelled at will. Once it has been issued, it is the PR’s for 5 years.

    • 14 Ponder Stibbons 30 July 2010 at 12:29

      One example of a happy marriage does not imply that others are not entrapped.

      If the PR is cancelled after 5 years, that will still mean the wife will have to be separated from her children after 5 years.

      • 15 Solo Bear 30 July 2010 at 14:27

        >> One example of a happy marriage does not imply that others are not entrapped.

        Likewise, one example of entrapment does not mean no happy marriages.

        >>If the PR is cancelled after 5 years, that will still mean the wife will have to be separated from her children after 5 years.

        Doesn’t that apply to all PR marriages, regardless through agency or not?

        So what’s you point here?

      • 16 J 30 July 2010 at 15:21

        I despair at the inanity of the thought processes of Solo Bear.

        We do not need to worry about all the happy marriages because there is nothing to worry about, regardless of how many happy marriages there are. On the other hand, we should care about those who are entrapped because that is a cause for concern, regardless of how few cases of entrapment there are.

      • 17 Solo Bear 30 July 2010 at 19:10


        Who said about anything about ignoring entrapped victims? My point is that just because there are entrapped victims, it doesn’t mean that marriage agencies are bad.

        In any case, where is the evidence that the said marriage agency company (in the main post) is illegally entrapping? I have been asking Alex for his proof that it is doing that. He has not responded.

      • 18 Ponder Stibbons 31 July 2010 at 08:20

        Solo Bear,

        Nobody anywhere in this thread has claimed that there are no happy marriages. You are attacking the wrong target. We are arguing that the law should have safeguards to protect the weak.

        As for permanent residency, the point is that the entrapment aspect can be reduced by giving the spouse better residency rights. I do not think Alex was saying this problem is particular to agency-arranged marriages. It’s just that the agencies take advantage of the present laws to help desperate men entrap women.

    • 19 Tan 30 July 2010 at 18:47

      What do you think will happen if gov decides to grant every foreign bride citizenship immediately after they marry a Singaporean?

      The current immigration rules are sufficient to prevent abuse as well as to prevent foreign brides from being exploited.

      • 20 Beast 30 July 2010 at 19:00

        Stupid Bear is talking nonsense here.

        The obvious crux of the problem is that these agencies are not bothered about the plight of the women they are trafficking (even if they are acting like it); they are just selling these women for a quick buck. They don’t check the client’s background, and then the whole system falls apart because the Sinkie government is not going to bother with how the agency operates overseas.

        It is quite likely that these women would have to pay a ransom in order to be selected; the agencies will also take money from the perspective clients in return for fixing the “happy couple” together, and presto, lo and behold, a marriage contract is formed.

        This kind of activity is human trafficking, marriage or no marriage. In a normal dating agency you don’t see them parading women for men to choose; something akin to the “fish tanks” in Geylang. Obviously something is wrong here, and if folks like stupidbear are supporting these kind of illegal activities then they should shut up about Palestine, because they are not fit to comment on anything related to human rights.

    • 21 Solo Bear 31 July 2010 at 12:40

      Ponder posted:
      >>Nobody anywhere in this thread has claimed that there are no happy marriages. You are attacking the wrong target.

      Then you put up wrong target! You said, “One example of a happy marriage does not imply that others are not entrapped.”

      One marriage from where? The agency? Any arranged marriage? Any marriage under the sun?

      What has entrapment got anything to do with any marriage from the said agency, let alone any marriage from anywhere at all, in the first place?

      >>We are arguing that the law should have safeguards to protect the weak.

      Then we talk about GENUINE cases of enslavement. Not against matchmaking agencies.

      >>As for permanent residency, the point is that the entrapment aspect can be reduced by giving the spouse better residency rights.

      There you go again! What kind of marriage is entrapment? The only entrapment I can think of is the one in the sleaze industry. Not in marriages.

      >>I do not think Alex was saying this problem is particular to agency-arranged marriages. It’s just that the agencies take advantage of the present laws to help desperate men entrap women.

      Then bring forth the proof that these agencies entrap. Stop this preposterous allegation against the agency or any agency. That is tantamount to libel.

      • 22 Ponder Stibbons 31 July 2010 at 13:19

        My target was Tan who claimed that since he knew of one happy agency marriage, that meant that claims of entrapment were invalid. That is clearly an invalid argument. My knowledge of one good banana does not imply that there are no bad bananas.

        You may have other reasons for thinking that entrapment does not exist, but the fact is Tan’s argument is invalid, and I was addressing his argument in my ‘one happy marriage’ comment.

    • 23 Solo Bear 31 July 2010 at 16:47

      Ponder posted:
      >>My target was Tan who claimed that since he knew of one happy agency marriage, that meant that claims of entrapment were invalid.

      Fair enough. I leave it at that.

      >>You may have other reasons for thinking that entrapment does not exist, but the fact is Tan’s argument is invalid, and I was addressing his argument in my ‘one happy marriage’ comment.

      No. I did not say that. I thought you meant that marriage agencies are involved in entrapment. But since you did not mean that, we therefore have no disagreement.

      I agree with you that Singapore’s laws are not enough to prevent entrapment.

  9. 24 RW 30 July 2010 at 11:50

    i’m not sure i follow the logic of marriage agency is inherently a bad thing.
    Yes, marriage agency makes money by matching a guy and a girl together.
    Does that automatically make it a bad thing?

    There are many matchmaking agencies that match-make locally and no one has complain about it. By your logic, local singaporean girls going through a matchmaking agency are exploited too, because the agency makes money from them. Do you really think that is the case?

    The difference between match-making and human trafficking lies in the free-will of the woman. If women freely signed up for matchmking, then there is nothing wrong with it.

    Yes, there are many instances of human trafficking. But it is the act of forcing/coercing women and not the general idea of matchmaking that is the problem.

  10. 26 Beast 30 July 2010 at 13:35

    Marriage agencies in the Singapore context is a bit like going to the market and shopping for your choice steak for beef: They parade the women in front of you, you make your purchase, and you jet back merrily back to Sinkieland (i.e Singapore).

    It is a little bit like prostitution, and yes, it is a form of human trafficking when you consider that when these women sign up with the agencies they are simply looking for agents (just like in a classical human trafficking syndicate) to take a ride out of their country. The marriage part sort of masks the real intentions.

    The reason why the Sinkie government encourages this form of illicit trade has got to do with the demographics of our population: We simply are not procreating enough.

    Personally, I feel that it is quite silly to go to such lengths to get married (it is not as if I require a certificate to have hot monkey sex). Getting hitched is simply a recent human phenomenon, and if I have to go to some foreign country and force her to live with and have sex with me, I’d be better off screwing prostitutes. At least I don’t have to use sign language!

  11. 27 JC 30 July 2010 at 13:37

    Here via TOC.

    A few points come to mind, reading this and the comments. Vietnam is the country that has called such business arrangements (that is what they are) human trafficking, so regardless of whether the brides entered the deal “voluntarily” (coming from poverty/difficult circumstances, how else should they choose?), Singapore’s participation (and endorsement) of such activity is heinous at worst, or disregards Vietnam’s sovereignty, at best. (And Singapore so loves to pull the sovereignty argument.)

    And the same things that made YB shudder made me shudder too, but that’s rather feminist to do so, and many Singaporean men (if the comments on the TOC page are any indication) hate feminists. Women, by all appearances, should come with guarantees–they need to be pretty, submissive, content, obedient, great in bed; to be able to have (many) kids, keep house, AND earn her own spending money if she’s the “high-maintenance” type, which they ALL are (nevermind how much the husband spends on his own toys). I outline this because few people blink an eye when such a ridiculous list of demands from a wife is expressed–and the local women are painted as the demanding ones! But this is routine, because, IMO, the Singaporeans who feel so entitled to such a wife can only judge others’ worth by their economic/financial productivity. If they invest such-and-such amount of time and $$$ into wooing, wedding costs and womanly maintenance, they should “earn back” their costs somehow. Easier to get their money’s worth with a bought object/wife than a local woman who’s been educated (oh dear) and who may have thoughts and life goals of her own.

    In such a situation, I can see why marriage agencies are necessity. But to me it’s just a symptom of a larger problem, and one that locals, particularly women, face everyday, and for too long, with few signs of improvement. Too many men here still only see women as subordinates rather than partners, as another object that needs to guarantee a return on investment. And then see how many Singaporeans (men and women) regard foreign domestic maids and construction workers the same way. When we look at people we deem “below” us, we just see the dollar signs. They aren’t even human anymore. And as long as this goes on, well, this will go on.

  12. 28 Mr Lee 30 July 2010 at 13:54

    Well, Singaporean women think that local men are unromantic, chauvinistic, emasculated, and generally, poor. So they want to find themselves Ang Moh expat bankers who are rich, good looking, charming, and who can bring them around the world.

    Of course that conveniently ignores the fact that these Singaporean women take their national security for granted, for which Singaporean males pay for with 2yrs of their life and several months of reservist.

    How about we make the women do compulsory national service as well? I imagine this would go a long way to alleviating the mate-mismatch problem.

    It’s all nice and dandy to try to blame the men for wanting to import their wives. But let’s face it – Singaporean men are disadvantaged from the start, compared to their female counter parts.

    Why don’t we display some ‘masculinism’ here instead of feminism, and fight for those who are truly disadvantaged and discriminated against in our society – the men.

    • 29 yawningbread 30 July 2010 at 14:08

      Please keep to topic – which is not marriage or male versus female. It is human trafficking (in this case of women), and the complicity of our largest newspaper and government.

  13. 30 Solo Bear 30 July 2010 at 14:13

    YB: “Please keep to topic – which is not marriage or male versus female. It is human trafficking (in this case of women), and the complicity of our largest newspaper and government.”

    So back to my point. So where is your evidence it is human trafficking?

    Human trafficking is enslavement, like women being pimped against their will.

    Your allegation is very serious. If there is no evidence, it is tantamount to libel against the agency.

    • 31 Beast 30 July 2010 at 16:29

      Human trafficking relates to people from one country paying for the sake of settling down in another country. It need not be against their will. Some people pay human traffickers willingly because they seek better lives, but the problem comes when these agents willingly exploit their captives because of their vulnerability status as aliens (Not the ET type, mind you).

  14. 32 JC 30 July 2010 at 14:25

    @Mr Lee: Contrary to your straw-man, I think some sort of NS for women is not a bad idea. Give women medical/administrative/strategical training if physical strength is not up with the men’s. Thing is, I can’t see this solving getting rid of male chauvinism in Singapore or the view that the woman’s place is in the home (but at work at the same time). You’re so resentful of men serving NS and women not having to–are you going to use this to justify all the insults directed at local women all the time? And guess what? The women didn’t choose this situation either. You also ignore that women are more at risk over their careers to be fired when they’re pregnant, to be more likely to not be hired if they’re married, to be paid less, and to grapple with both work and the expectation to be mommy at the same time. They’re also the more likely to give up their jobs when a grandparent or family member has a chronic illness. You know why? Because they’re earning less than the husband. I think your two years of lost income while at NS cannot compare, to be honest. I’m not saying it’s not a sacrifice. But in these debates I see too many men painting fictional women I do not know automatically becoming spoiled tai-tais upon marriage. I don’t know any, so can we please stop perpetuating this ridiculous caricature?

    I also do not know the women whom you say take Singapore’s security for granted. You act as if all local women don’t have brothers, fathers, sons, and cousins who’ve gone to NS. Somehow SG men must be popping into existence and bringing themselves up with female intervention.

    • 33 JC 30 July 2010 at 14:28

      I apologize if the above comment @Mr Lee is out of place. I’ll get off my soapbox now!

    • 34 J 31 July 2010 at 17:50

      While your points may be true (I have not experienced enough to confirm or deny this), may I point out that for the vast majority of males, NS is not a ‘more likely’ – it is a certainty.

      Also, men who go through NS also have a ‘more likely’ – compared to a woman who does not do NS, they are more likely to die.

  15. 35 Cymric 30 July 2010 at 15:24

    I am quite puzzled when comparing this article with this previous one “”.

    In the previous one yawningbread states that prostitution is not human trafficking, while in this one he claims that importing foreign brides are human trafficking.

    We have to look for other evidence whether human trafficking is taking place. If there is no other evidence that human trafficking is taking place, and the sex provider also says, “I am doing this willingly”, then we have to allow the possibility that he or she is indeed doing it of his/her own volition; that indeed this instance of sex work is by free choice and is not human trafficking.

    The difference between a sex worker and a foreign bride is that a sex worker sells her body temporary, while a foreign bride promise to sells her body permanently. If both and done willingly, what makes the first not human trafficking and the second human trafficking?

    Putting it bluntly, buying a foreign wife is just a gamble on both sides. The husband gambles that the wife will not just run away immediately after money is payed while the wife gambles that she will be treated decently and hopefully the husband will help support her family back home.

    Of course, the odds are currently stacked against the foreign wife, but then, as long as they understand the risk, both parties should be allowed to do what they want. True freedom include the freedom to do stupid things that harms yourself (as long as no one else is hurt).

    • 36 Beast 30 July 2010 at 16:27

      Prostitution is not human trafficking simply because they come here on their own volition and quite often, at their own expense.

      In the case of the matchmaking agency, there are syndicates arranging women to come here via marriage, taking money from the perspective bridegroom and possibly the bridge as well, the salient aim being that the girl gets out of the country via paying an agent, and the guy gets his sex object. Take away the marriage part, and it clearly is trafficking on a grandiose scale. Best of all, the government here legitimizes it!

    • 37 Ponder Stibbons 31 July 2010 at 08:33

      It’s not clear that the foreign wives understand the risks. The problem with marriage agencies being involved is that they have strong incentives to play down the risks so that they can complete more deals and make more money.

    • 38 Mr Lee 31 July 2010 at 14:38

      I second this argument and agree that Mr Yawning bread in this article is at risk of running into precisely the same kind of problems that he has accused Prof Aurora Javate de Dios of.

      Mr Bread has not explained why commercially mediated quickie marriages should be deemed as human trafficking. I hope he does so in his next article so we have better clarity

  16. 39 ST 30 July 2010 at 17:02

    When I mentioned this article to my girlfriend, her immediate thought is that: Great! The losers are removing themselves out of the dating pool which is a plus for her friends looking for husbands here. (No husband is better than a loser for a husband right?)

    As for the alternative for men without wives… the reality is that they just have to do better for themselves. Women go to great lengths to make themselves attractive (to men), maybe men should too. And to be clear, we’re really not talking about physical appearances here. Some women “get left on the shelf” for various reasons, I guess some men might suffer the same fate too. Why should there be any guarantees?

  17. 40 Beast 30 July 2010 at 17:38

    Actually, there are also others who have the criteria but choose to remain single, e.g Sim Wong Foo of Creative Technologies (The last I heard he is still not married, though he is rumored to be dating one of the news anchors here. Correct me if I am wrong).

    The truth is that, marriage is simply a contract. You can choose to enter or not enter a contract. The way I see it, marriage restricts me to just one vagina (pardon the word used), but being single means I can access as many Vs as possible without a tinge of guilt.

    Of course, some of you may say I am amoral or immoral, but seriously, why should I give a damn, as long as I am not screwing an underaged girl, or raping a woman?

    The way I see it, these guys who are going overseas to look for wives are simply doing it to fulfill a social burden: Having a family, raising babies, etc, not because they want to get married because they love someone.

    Marriage agencies exploit this social niche and turn it into a lucrative trafficking business, and the government is happy because at least it does its bid to assuage our chronic shortage of babies.

  18. 41 mad 30 July 2010 at 18:56

    i liked the last paragraph.. poignant. i was in vietnam recently and got to talk to a local. actually, he seemed oblivious to the singapore-vietnam bride phenomenon. but from what i understood, going to singapore for an arranged wedding would just be another way these women are “forced” into marriage. they are quite traditional there and place much emphasis on getting married, quick. and not just that, a woman’s role in vietnam is truly domestic. even if you had a job, you would still be expected to cook, clean, raise the baby.. on top of your 9-5 job. the men would play very little role in those duties, if any at all. there is a double standard between the genders. divorce is almost a taboo. in seems that your life is somewhat set in stone once you are married. well.. that was from one local’s POV. so perhaps to some of them, it would seem like life here might be more appealing for whatever reasons. still, IA, it sucks that we are quite blatantly continuing to encourage this.

  19. 42 Beast 30 July 2010 at 20:21

    For the matter, I also have issues with maid agencies.

    These poor maids are tied to their respective owners by unfair contracts; when things go wrong, they are sent back homes, where poverty awaits. That is why they are so vulnerable to abuse, as can be gleaned from the numerous cases in Singapore and Malaysia.They rarely speak out against their employers, even when they are tortured to death (several cases, in fact).In fact, maids are probably more abused in Sinkieland than the buy-in brides from Vietnam or some ASEAN country.

    In western countries such as Australia, maids are banned. Instead, nannies are employed with the same status as other employers and are not subject to the same abuses as the maids in Singapore.

    P.S Alex, sorry for digressing, but I felt that there might be a hint of relevance here.

  20. 43 Beast 30 July 2010 at 20:22

    If maid agencies are human traffickers, then maid agencies are slave traders.

  21. 44 averagejoe 30 July 2010 at 22:51

    i’m 34 this year. and i had 3 failed relationships before.

    to me, i would very much prefer to have a Singaporean woman for a wife, as there is less cultural and language barrier. and it’s less of a hassle than getting a foreign wife.

    it’s good if you can meet the right one on the first relationship, and get married, and then have children.

    but luck is not on my side. the women in my life either didn’t want to have children, just wanted to enjoy 2-person world, or were not ready to settle down until much later. that caused me a lot of agony.

    as much as i dislike the idea of getting a foreign wife, my thinking is that since these women have the same intention to get married ( and maybe have children). why not?

    i begin to tire of all the dating and courtship. i’m not getting any younger, and stamina is declining too.

    but i think vietnamese women may not be my cup of tea. i’m looking more at Hainanese women, as i’m a hainanese myself too.

    sometimes, in life, there isn’t really much choice. being traditional and having the desire to carry on the bloodline, i would need to find someone who shares my value and vision for a complete family.

  22. 46 averagejoe 30 July 2010 at 23:28

    to me, it doesn’t matter from where one finds/gets a wife.

    it’s the shared goal/purpose ( between the couple) that matters most.

  23. 47 yawningbread 30 July 2010 at 23:58

    I find it interesting, and rather dismaying, that about half the comment-contributors don’t seem to even understand what the article was about, going by the way the comments are off-topic. Am I such a terrible writer? Or is the very concept of abuse of another human (through the process of quickie match-making and its after-effects exacerbated by Singapore’s patriarchal laws) so very hard to grasp?

    • 48 Beast 31 July 2010 at 00:40

      Hi Alex.

      I will probably answer your question with satire. It isn’t very funny, but I hope you might enjoy this.

      I think that’s because Sinkies are pretty much abused themselves.

      When you have live for decades in an environment with your mind brainwashed by stupid government propaganda (Think YOG), National Service, threats from the government (Think ISD), pretty soon, the average Singaporean brain is so abused that he or she thinks that it is actually ok for us to do it to other human beings.

      The average Sinkie is a rather convoluted creature. On one hand, he is being tortured by his PAP master. On the other hand, he doesn’t understand torture, so he thinks what he does to his slave (i.e the maids and the Vietnam brides) is not torture.

      All this leads to a dysfunctional society, people with convoluted moral values, and folks who vote because they want a new, fresh coat of paint for their pigeon holes (HDB Flats).

    • 49 Lee Chee Wai 31 July 2010 at 01:32

      Alex, frankly, I do not fully grasp the big picture of human trafficking (which is known to be a serious problem in the US).

      For me, the complication arises from the apparent fact that trafficking per-se isn’t entirely the biggest problem. The biggest problems arising from trafficking seem to be the cases of exploitation that occurs during or after people are trafficked into (or out of) a country. This exploitation tends to occur because of the vulnerability of these individuals, mostly because of their legal status (in the cases of illegal immigration) or lack of uniform legal protection for the rights of individuals (as is the case of residency/citizenship rights for the “mail-order brides” highlighted in this article).

      And I think it is a relatively complicated and emotional problem. Many people I encounter in the US would agree that the exploitation causes human misery and should be eliminated. There tends, however, to be strong disagreement on how to actually deal with it. What should be done about the illegal immigrant after we have dealt with the exploitation? What kind of residency rights do we wish to offer to individuals who “marry in”?

      So, while I would express the same dismay you have expressed, I would also offer my understanding that it is very easy to get distracted by side-issues on this topic.

    • 50 Ponder Stibbons 31 July 2010 at 13:25

      Not to be uncharitable, but I think it’s simply that people see you criticising certain marriage agencies, and thus interpret your criticism as targetting marriage agencies in general. This then segues into several other hot-button topics like gender stereotypes.

  24. 52 rojakgirl 31 July 2010 at 00:03

    My god… they look like a bunch of merchandises being “prettied up” so they can be displayed. I wonder if some of them even know what’s going on? Can they even speak English or even communicate with their “prospective husbands”? Are they even familiar with local laws or who to approach if someone in the family(not necessarily the husband) abuses, molests or rapes them?

    Holy crap, they’re so trusting. And what is with that “virgin” tone? Are they trying to insinuate something?


    • 53 rojakgirl 31 July 2010 at 06:25

      1 more comment pertaining to the video I posted:

      Also, I’m a bit curious. What about those women who got raped? Does this translate into “unwanted goods”, then? Or are they supposed to undergo operations to “give back” their virginity?

  25. 54 Mr Lee 31 July 2010 at 01:34

    @ Mr Yawning Bread,

    I don’t understand why a quickie marriage mediated by a commercial agency amounts to human trafficking when the parties involved enter willingly into the marriage and not under coercion. The fact that a 3rd party makes money from the matchmaking process is irrelevant – why should it be illegal?

    As for “All wives are given citizenship, so that they have the freedom to divorce their husbands and still keep their children, and stay in Singapore if they wish.” – what happens to those foreign women who come to singapore, seduce a man, marry him, get his citizenship, and then proceed to divorce him and take his money? There are so many Singaporean men who have been left high and dry by the empty promises of cunning, deceitful foreign women – these men need to be protected.

    If the issue is about breaking Vietnamese law and offending Vietnamese sovereignty – then the issue is about breaking Vietnamese law and offending Vietnamese sovereignty, not human trafficking. Don’t conflate the two issues.

    Where I unreservedly agree with you is to “Make marital rape a crime.” I think there is little debate on this issue.


    I have never been resentful at women not having to serve NS. As you say it was never their choice to do so. But then again it was never the choice of most 17-18 yr old Singaporean boys to have to sacrifice 2.5yrs of their life.

    The point I am trying to make is – if Singaporean women want to have the freedom to go after that expect banker / hedge fund manager because their perceived superiority to the local male (and I am not saying there is anything wrong with that), then they should likewise respect the choice of Singaporean men to choose to import their wives from abroad – even if it seems like a commercial transaction that is motivated by wanting a ‘demure, well behaved, sweet young thing’.

    As for women’s disadvantages in the workplace due to sexual discrimination/pregnancy issues – well i never denied these issues, and also think that Singapore is lagging behind in putting into place protections for women’s rights.

    but this is besides the topic i am talking about here – and that is that Singaporean men should have the right to choose their wives as they see fit – without being judged for how they make their choices.

  26. 56 KT 31 July 2010 at 10:43

    ‘1. All wives are given citizenship, so that they have the freedom to divorce their husbands and still keep their children, and stay in Singapore if they wish.’


    Why can’t/shouldn’t the divorced wives take their children with them to their home country?

    I would also like to ask you: Do you think matchmakers are guilty of human trafficking even when they have not coerced or deceived anyone?

    • 57 J 31 July 2010 at 17:52

      “Why can’t/shouldn’t the divorced wives take their children with them to their home country?”

      This means that in the event of a divorce, rights to the children should be granted to the woman. Now this may work out fine in this situation, but this is hardly the case for all divorces.

  27. 58 KT 31 July 2010 at 10:56

    ‘(Singapore women) should likewise respect the choice of Singaporean men to choose to import their wives from abroad – even if it seems like a commercial transaction that is motivated by wanting a ‘demure, well behaved, sweet young thing’ . . . Singaporean men should have the right to choose their wives as they see fit – without being judged for how they make their choices.’

    I’m a Singapore woman. I think you have every right to choose the kind of wife you want. But is it possible not to judge you when you want only a ‘demure, well behaved, sweet young thing’? No, it’s not.

    • 59 Beast 31 July 2010 at 12:51

      Well women can judge all that want. Personally, Singaporean women don’t really appeal to me. Based on what I see (yes, I am going to stereotype, and I will clarify that not all Singaporean women fall into this category) Singaporean women are probably not as smart nor as great as they imagine themselves to be.

      The vast majority of women I meet in Singapore can’t even hold a decent conversation with proper English (although I must say, this is generally a Singaporean phenomenon, not a sexist one), prefer to dye their hair blonde and nails painted with an assortment of colours that will make a chemeleon blush, and generally think that they are superior to men because they have a headstart to Singaporean men who serve 2 years in the dreaded N.S.

      I would prefer not to bitch about these kind of things, but since K.T brought it up maybe I feel men like us will need to feel vindicated as well. Besides, what’s wrong with looking for sweet young things? Most guys will prefer sweet young things in preference to a middle aged woman with legs the size of tree trunks. Similarly, women will prefer hunks with biceps in preference to a middle aged, balding pot bellied man.

      Judging people based on their preference is not wrong. Just plain silly, in my view. Maybe you are a married “tai tai” with too much time in your hands? Who knows?

      • 60 Beast 31 July 2010 at 12:55

        And that may also be the reason why more and more women are resorting to marriage agencies: They think they are too high classed when they are simply crass, and when the time’s up they find themselves “left on the shelves” so speaak.

        Of course, I am simply being malicious by “judging” women with this kind of lenses, but the point I want to make is that, this type of slanted judgements are typically sinister and malicious, and yes, if you judge others, others will judge you as well.

        Do unto others as others will do unto you. 🙂

  28. 61 yawningbread 31 July 2010 at 12:58

    I plan to do a follow-up post Sunday, taking into account many of the comments (thank you, all) posted here. I think it’s better to do an article than to respond piecemeal; gives a better overall view of the issue.

  29. 62 silly 31 July 2010 at 14:37

    Those Vietnamese girls at agency are more than willing (they pay for their own expenses to come here); local boys want to ‘cut the chase’ for $5,000; local girls will not miss these losers nor want them. Mr Agency Man appears to be hawkering a commodity in skimpy clothes, more good-time girls than brides – crass! Viet women may over time prove to be wives but men who acquired these Viet women will be remembered as losers (not as in Glee) who bought a wife or predators of women with few choices in life. Human trafficking? It is to me….but live and let live lah.

    • 63 Mr Lee 31 July 2010 at 14:42

      this is precisely the kind of stupid comment that both

      1. does not help us define and tackle the problem of human trafficking, and
      2. is completely whimsical and subjectively judgmental.

  30. 64 KT 31 July 2010 at 15:36

    Off topic but I hope Alex doesn’t delete this.

    Take a group of men (or women) of the same age and you’d find huge discrepancies in their salaries/achievements. ‘Headstart’ is irrelevant after 2-3 years in the working world. And it’s a fact women are paid less despite having a headstart.

    Singapore men can’t stand on an equal footing with women who aren’t ‘demure’ and ‘well behaved’. That’s why Singapore women feel superior, not because men have to do NS. Singapore men’s preferences reflect their lack of abilities, inferiority complex, immaturity, narrow-mindedness and male chauvinism. Why shouldn’t men (and women) be judged on their preferences?

    Of course, I’m generalising. There are fine specimens of the male species in Singapore, just as there are Singapore women who enjoy being demure and well-behaved, at least whilst they are being courted.

    • 65 Beast 31 July 2010 at 16:23

      Ah, more judging.

      I think most Singaporean women are shallow thinkers. They want to go to their silly spas and their hair dressers. Vanity.

      Demure? Well-behaved? Its are but a delusion. A form of social conformance. When one has achieved self-actualization (Think Maslow’s Hierarchy) there’s no need for such stupid behavior. Just be yourself.

    • 66 Beast 31 July 2010 at 16:24

      Preferences do not necessarily reflect on an “inferiority complex”, as you put it.

      After all, a person who likes durians does not necessarily have bad breath……….

    • 67 Beast 31 July 2010 at 16:33

      “Singapore men can’t stand on an equal footing with women who aren’t ‘demure’ and ‘well behaved’. That’s why Singapore women feel superior, not because men have to do NS.”

      Most Singaporean women have no right to feel superior anyway. Equal footing, no problems. Superior? In what sense? Look at Ris Low……….quality? Superiority? (Falls off chair, laughing.)

      No wonder our guys are buying wives overseas. Human trafficking or no, it may be a sign of poor quality……….

      • 68 Roin 1 August 2010 at 03:17

        Judging Singaporean women by Ris Low’s standard is an insult. Please, gtfo if you can’t make a reply without resorting to gender setreotypes.

      • 69 Beast 1 August 2010 at 11:07

        Perhaps so. But most Singaporean women I have met are exactly like Ris Low! In terms of speaking dictation, cheap manners, etc……..

        Of course this is stereotyping, and yes, not all Singaporean women are like that. But wouldn’t you think that Ris Low is the standard bearer of crass women (which is a majority) in Singapore?

        Think about it.

      • 70 Beast 1 August 2010 at 11:08

        And no, I didn’t start it. KT did.

      • 71 Roin 4 August 2010 at 03:49

        If that could be said as “true”, then I should say that “most men I’ve seen are the same”, right? I’m this close to saying I won’t date a local guy – not because of his status, or education level, or anything – but because of the mere fact that “most men” I’ve met don’t care for intellect – they just want some simpering girl who’s pretty and submissive at the same time. Works both ways, my friend.

        Maybe there are better people of either genders, but they’re hiding. :’D

      • 72 KT 4 August 2010 at 11:01


        Singapore women aren’t good enough for you? How about the rest of the female human species from other parts of the world, from America to Zimbabwe?

        By your own admission, you have to pay for sex, and your parents are telling you to buy yourself a wife from Vietnam. Doesn’t that say it all?

  31. 73 yawningbread 31 July 2010 at 15:51

    JC wrote (30 July 13:37): “Vietnam is the country that has called such business arrangements (that is what they are) human trafficking”

    It seems Cambodia too has laws on this kind of “matchmaking” and South Korea apparently uses consumer protection laws to stop matchmaking agencies from leading their clients into a situation where they potentially break the laws of Cambodia.


    Straits Times, 31 July 2010:

    Headline: Matchmaker charged

    SEOUL: South Korean prosecutors yesterday charged a matchmaking agent accused of arranging a group interview between 25 Cambodian women and a South Korean bachelor.

    The agent surnamed Lee allegedly failed to tell his client of restrictions in Cambodia on international marriages, including a ban on group interviews with brides. If convicted, Lee, 58, faces up to three million won (S$3,300) in fines, prosecutors said.


    • 74 Mr Lee 31 July 2010 at 16:50

      This article illustrates my point perfectly. The issue is about sovereignty and respecting another country’s laws – not about human trafficking. Do not conflate the two issues

    • 75 Solo Bear 31 July 2010 at 16:54

      The above article does not show how the Singapore-based matchmaking agency (as reported in main article) is involved in human trafficking.

      I agree on the point that YB’s implication that prostitution is not human trafficking baffling, in view of the fact that he considers matchmaking to get Viet brides to marry Singaporeans human trafficking.

  32. 76 Solo Bear 31 July 2010 at 16:58

    >> This article illustrates my point perfectly. The issue is about sovereignty and respecting another country’s laws – not about human trafficking. Do not conflate the two issues

    Mr Lee,

    You said it better than I intended to.

    To drive the point further, would YB consider homosexuality a crime because Singapore’s law says so?

    Let’s see some consistency. If YB wants to accept such marriages as human trafficking because Viet law says so, why not accept Singapore’s law that male-male sex is a crime?

    Why campaign so hard against Singapore’s law, yet accept Viet’s law without question?

    The crux of the matter is all about consistency in one’s arguments.

    • 77 Beast 31 July 2010 at 17:15

      Stupid bear

      The answer is fairly simple: Singapore judicial system sucks.

      And so do you and your anti semitic blog.

    • 78 Beast 31 July 2010 at 17:17

      Point of note: Singapore law does not ban homosexuality. S377A speaks of sex which is deemed “unnatural”, which, amongst other things, involves anal sex as well as a blow job.

      Technically, if my girlfriend blows me, both of us can be charged. That is why Singapore law is so stupid and backward.

      • 79 KiWeTO 1 August 2010 at 04:48

        more off topic,

        but didn’t that Singaporean judge bend over backwards and sideways in one judgement to say that oral sex between man and woman was legal when it led to penetrative intercourse?

        (god knows what he visualized as illegal, thing couples might otherwise get up to in bedrooms and car backseats!)



  33. 80 yawningbread 31 July 2010 at 18:34

    This has nothing to do with sovereignty. You don’t even understand the meaning of the word “sovereignty”.

    The fact that Vietnam and Cambodia have laws and regulations against quickie-matchmaking only shows that they consider quickie-matchmaking a vile practice prone to producing victims. Now why would they consider it vile? Unless. . . . taraah. . . .

    • 81 Beast 31 July 2010 at 19:01


      The salient point to me is that this women are trying to do it via the quick fix: Using marriage as cover to get a free pass to Singapore. This is not very different from a human trafficker transporting aliens to Singapore for a sum of money.

    • 82 Solo Bear 31 July 2010 at 21:57

      YB posted:
      >>The fact that Vietnam and Cambodia have laws and regulations against quickie-matchmaking only shows that they consider quickie-matchmaking a vile practice.

      YB, if you are saying that we should respect Viet Laws and hence stay away from there as far as match-making in concerned, I have no problem with that.

      What you appear to be saying is that match-making itself is a vile practice – and that is because Viet laws make it so. So based on that argument, would you then agree that homosexuality is a vile practice too, because Singapore’s law says so? Let’s see some consistency in your argument.

      You have to come up with a better argument to support your claim that matchmaking companies in Singapore engage in human trafficking.

      If there is any vile practice at all, it is in the sleaze industry, where it is very well known that underage girls are being pimped. It is also well known that Singapore pedophile men pay to have sex with them.

      That’s the area that’s more worthy of attention.

      • 83 RedLena 1 August 2010 at 01:48

        I see you’re trying to bring in your well-known anti-gay agenda here. Haven’t you learnt that people laugh at you for your ridiculously illogical and poorly-founded anti-gay tirades?

        To get to the point here, once more your lack of thinking skills are on display. You are trying to slip in the notion that since Vietnam and Cambodia have outlawed such mail-order bride activities, therefore this must mean they are “vile”. You hope to trap YB into admitting that by the same token, since Singapore has Section 377A, therefore homosexuality must be “vile”.

        You got your arrows wrong. Mail-order bride agencies are considered unethical in plenty of countries, not just Vietnam and Cambodia. It is because they smack of human trafficking that they are outlawed. The arrows go that way.

      • 84 Beast 1 August 2010 at 10:37

        Stupid Bear. Maybe you should engage your nonsense in your own blog instead.

        Mail order brides is simply a form of human trafficking. Prostitution is an occupation involving one’s right to sell his or her own body, and gay sex is…..fuck, it is just sex between two consensual adults. What is it that you do not understand?

    • 85 RW 31 July 2010 at 22:55


      Why are these matchmaking are vile practices in your opinion?

      Guy and girl wants to get married. They have a problem finding each other on their own. So they go to matchmaking agency which helps them find each other for a fee. So what is wrong with that?

      Local guys and ladies use those agencies as well. It will be disingenuous to say local ladies are exploited and suffering under the vile practices of these evil matchmaking agencies.

      And if you think about it, students and tutors go and find each other at a tution agency, giving the agent a cut in the process. Can you say any of them are exploited?

      Matchmaking itself is neither evil or vile.
      There are many legitimate cases of them.
      I suspect you are thinking of something more specific like forcing women to these agencies against their will. But those are more specific practices, which does not necessarily equate to the overall idea of matchmaking.

      • 86 Beast 1 August 2010 at 11:04

        The crux of the issue is not about match dating (Although frankly, the idea is pretty dumb assed); it is about human trafficking under the guise of arranged marriages.

  34. 87 Joshua Kums 1 August 2010 at 08:37

    This phenomenon I believe was started by the American Caucasian Male who coined it as mail order brides from the Philipines.There will always be groups of men who feel that women should always be submissive and subservient to them and this goes up to the highest echelons of
    power.The most important thing is that men still don’t look at women as their equal.What is wrong in a women not wanting to have kids and be burdened for the rest of her life.The template that most men have is of their mother being subservient to their farther.It will take a couple of generations before this template changes.Until then life will always be equal.

  35. 88 KT 1 August 2010 at 12:49

    RedLena – ‘It is (unethical) because (the agencies) smack of human trafficking that they are outlawed.’

    Sorry, ‘smack of’ ain’t good enough. Where’s the proof? At no point in time is any woman physically restrained, drugged, or in any way prevented from seeking help from the police or her country’s embassy.

    Beast, do you not understand English? More than one reader has asked Alex to substantiate his allegation that quickie-matchmaking is necessarily human trafficking. Is that not a valid question? If you have nothing to say except it is because it is, please shut up.

    Alex, why do you allow Beast’s name calling? Does it help the discussion in any way, or does Solo Bear deserve it?

    • 89 Beast 1 August 2010 at 13:15

      Check solarbear’s blog. It is full of homophobic and anti semitic comments. I have in fact notified the cops because of this. Unfortunately no action was taken.

    • 90 Beast 4 August 2010 at 17:33

      Hi KT

      Whether you marry or not, you still have to pay for sex. The difference is, I don’t want to pay for it by being tied down by a contract. Besides, its my problem, not yours.

      Personally, Taiwanese women are far prettier, but that’s only my point of view. I normally don’t place this kind of judgment unless someone else does. Anyway, take my opinions with a pinch of salt. I do not wish to incite the wrath of shrews.

      • 91 KT 4 August 2010 at 19:45

        You make it my business when you denigrate all women in Singapore, which probably include your mother and sister(s).

        YOU, have to pay for sex whether or not you’re married because you are undesirable to women. Lots of women (Singaporean or otherwise) don’t get paid for sex, in money or in kind. Nor do they pay, whether they’re in a relationship that’s marital, committed, casual, or one night only. That’s what standing on an equal footing with men means. But such women wouldn’t even look in your direction. Hence, you have no idea that they exist.

        Your lack of desirable attributes to women is actually none of my business. But when you declare that no woman in Singapore is fit to even wash your feet, I have to speak up. A beast who can get only prostitutes and Vietnamese brides to have sex with is not qualified to pass judgment on Singapore women. Please keep your delusions to yourself.

  36. 92 InSpir3d 4 August 2010 at 20:09

    This is so entertaining – chauvinist vs a feminist

    Beast – i do agree that taiwanese women are much prettier & better dressed & more nicely made up

    KT – why get so worked up? many men who are ordinarily attractive to women, also pay for sex – including football stars, movie stars, billionaires, and presidents. Just because Beast pays for sex doesn’t mean he is not attractive.

    • 93 Beast 4 August 2010 at 20:14

      Thanks for being understanding.

      Btw I made a typo error: It should be “Cringe”, not cling. My mistake.

      • 94 yuen 4 August 2010 at 22:22

        I am neither a chauvinist nor feminist, and have no opinion on whether Beast is attractive or not, nor on whether KT should get worked up or not; or whether taiwanese girls “prettier”, “better dressed”, “more nicely made up’ than Singapore girls or not – have not met enough girls to judge; I am interested to see that both Beast and InSpir3d found this to be so

        since taiwan imported far more vietnamese brides than singapore, it appears taiwanese men have rather different views; or perhaps taiwan’s prospective parents, like those in india and china, have been aborting female fetuses leading to a shortage of young women, exacerbated by women marrying caucasian husbands

  37. 95 Seren 8 August 2010 at 14:57

    @ Beast

    Even if you don’t see any point being tied down to a marriage contract from the social standpoint, at least think about your own health – one contract is much simpler compared to the many STDs you risk when going to prostitutes.

    And if you think you can tire of one woman – please, won’t the same one woman be tired of you at some point? It takes two to tango. Why else (short of the government putting them up to it, as quite a few of the commenters here are likely to react) are magazines proffering tips on spicing up marriage again?

    And tarring all Singapore women with the Ris Low brush – along with calling them all vain – isn’t fair. There are many I know who aren’t like that.

    • 96 Beast 8 August 2010 at 23:08

      Hi Seren

      I agree with you: It is unfair to stereotype. I was trying to highlight this point when another poster claimed that the guys who went to Vietnam to purchase their wives are losers.

      With regards to STDs, there’s no reason why you can’t catch STDs from your spouses or from one night stands. The simple solution? Condoms. Self protection.

      Sure, the woman can tire of the man. I absolutely agree with that. That is why my personal view of marriage is that of pointlessness. Statistics show that at least half the marriages will face the inevitable divorce. Of course, I am not saying marriages should be banned. You want to get married, go ahead. But don’t force me to get married.

      Sure, most women are not Ris Low. But most Singaporean women (and men) speak like Ris Low.

      Hope I make my points succinct enough, without provoking a ruckus……again. :O

  38. 97 unbelievable 9 August 2010 at 15:04

    What are you guys smoking?

    Didn’t you see the brides in the video smiling and laughing? Obviously this is a willing buyer willing seller proposition and not human trafficking where females are mugged/abducted and sold without their consent.

    The only thing I get from these anti-foreign wife posts is an enormous amount of jealousy.

    Either because these lucky guys are getting cheaper better faster wife-maids that are way superior than their own local working wives those poor souls are stuck with for life, only because the guy loathes to lose half his assets. Or the poster is an local unmarried left on the shelf Singaporean female.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: