Monday, July 27, 2015

SG50 Fishcake scam

Some time ago, my secondary school friend Randall (we call him Ghim, and you might have heard me mention him many times before in ancient blog posts), told us excitedly that he is creating a special SG50 fishcake. He is the Business Development Manager for BoBo.

To my surprise, the fishcake is now going viral!

Fishcake looks like this.

There are many articles written about the fishcake, and all are negative.

(Mothership 1)
(Mothership 2)

Here are some examples. There are actually more but lazy to link everything lah.

Basically, here are the things people felt unhappy about:

1) How can BoBo charge the same price for fishcake with the "50" cut out? This is cheating customers' money with a gimmick.

2) Where does the cut away "50" go to? Wasting food!

3) Stop it with the everything SG50! So irritating!

Since Randall is my friend, I had the privilege of asking him to address all these issues:

1) Price per gram

Mothership actually did a mathematical comparison of price per gram of fishcake.

The SG50 fishcake is selling at $1.50 for 195 grams, which is $0.77 per 100 grams.

The Xi dao fishcake is selling at $2.15 for 330grams, which is $0.65 per 100 grams.

Nonwithstanding the fact that people are trying to gei gao about spending $1.50, apparently this means you will be ripped off at a whooping $0.12 per 100 grams of fishcake you buy.

Which would be a scientifically accurate assessment of the situation... Except...


The SG50 fishcake is of a more premium grade, consisting of more expensive fish meat, so naturally the cost is higher. You wouldn't complain about how Kobe beef is more expensive than Australian beef would you? Not that $1.50 fishcake should be compared to Kobe beef lah but you get my drift.

"Duh..." you, being the skeptical Singaporean, say. "Where is the proof that the SG50 fishcake is of a more premium grade?? Sounds like something BoBo is just saying after this shitstorm hit them."

Well, there is no proof. The difference in taste isn't very discernible either to the average person.

However, there is a very valid reason WHY the SG50 fishcake has to use more expensive fish paste.

This is because for the mould to hold the shape of the 50 cut out, it needs to be firmer than the traditional fish paste.

Since the the SG50 fishcake is a UNIQUE CREATION, it is unfair to compare it to any existing BoBo products.

Unlike what people are choosing to believe, there never was a "pre SG50" fishcake selling for the same price!

FYI I photoshopped the 50 away. 

If you wish to do a price/gram comparison,  there is also another BoBo fishcake that is selling at $1.90 per 180 grams.

If you compare the SG50 fishcake to this one, made with premium grade yellowtail fish, then it would seem like the SG50 fishcake is more value for money, isn't it?

But these comparisons don't make sense, because they all aren't made from the same grade of fish paste!!

2) Why do this special fishcake?

During Chinese New Year, fishcake/fishball sellers get loads of sales because families come together for steamboat during their gatherings.

The same thing will likely happen during our Jubilee long weekend. Families will gather to watch the parade on TV together.

The SG50 fishcake seems like a fun, festive item to have during the celebrations, which is why it was created. Because it is fun!

If I were hosting a party, I would love to have the SG50 fishcake in my menu because it would be an interesting talking point for my guests.

3) Bobo is obviously trying to cheat money from the SG50 hype.

Gimmicks are everywhere. Every Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, simi sai day... you see products and services catering specially to those occasions by vendors who wish to get more sales. Even on regular days brands create special editions to their products to spice up their range and jack up prices. Hello Kitty edition? Sign me up.

The SG50 celebrations is no different. As the SG50 fever rises, SG50 products appear to facilitate people's enthusiasm.

Why is a regular scarf only $10 but a Liverpool scarf sold at the match $70? Obviously trying to cheat money right?

If you like Liverpool, the extra cost is nothing. Your scarf is a fun souvenir. If you don't like Liverpool, it is an outrageous scam.

An Apple watch with the same software and hardware, can range from $518 to $25,500. The difference is shocking.

It doesn't matter.


If you find $1.50 for 3 fishcakes ridiculous, then buy another version that isn't the SG50 special.

If you have a problem with companies trying to make more money where there is demand (aka capitalism), you can breed your own fish and make your own fishcakes.

As for money-cheating, look at the rest of BoBo's SG50 offers:

Both products are offering 50g more at no extra cost during the celebrations. And in case you are wondering, this offer is already available before the controversy.

Do nice things like this and nobody notices or cares...

Put what looks like a little less value-for-money (when it actually isn't!), and the whole nation gets enraged. -_-

4) Where did the cut out 50 go?

There is no cut out 50. The fish paste is squeezed into a mould, then fried.

So there is absolutely no food wastage in the creation of the SG50 fishcake.


I can't believe that a simple fishcake can create a national talking point. There is so much misunderstanding in this matter, and despite Randall's explanation to the press, nobody seems to be very interested.

The whole "companies all jumping into the ridiculous SG50 fever and using it to scam money" angle is way more interesting.

That's why I'm writing this to help him clarify. Just coincidentally, I'm also going to BoBo's factory next week to shoot an episode of Guide to Life! This was arranged before this hooha begin... but it is just as well because now I can ask Randall to show me the famous SG50 machine!

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Gay Marriage and all the Reasons to Oppose It

(Sexual content, not suitable for children)

The topic that's on everybody's lips these days is the legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states in America. For non-Americans who don't know, many states have already allowed gay marriage prior to this, but now the Supreme Court have decided it is a constitutional right, meaning anywhere in the United States, gay couples can now get married.

It was a big win for the gays, who celebrated exuberantly.

Many straight people, who empathize with the discrimination gays go through, celebrated with them.

Facebook brilliantly created a rainbow filter for everyone's profile picture, and overnight everyone's facebook feed looked like a thousand unicorns rampaged through it. 

At first, all I saw was approval at this new judgement. Nobody seemed anti-gay at all!! The overwhelming response seemed to be that everyone was pretty pleased.

I marveled to myself how very far the gays have come in the last decade.

I told my gay friends as much, that the fight is finally over, but they said it's far from it... The silent majority in Singapore probably are still homophobic. But with the very vocal anti-homophobic crowd, they don't dare to say much for fear of being labelled a bigot.

Then, after all the celebrations died down, the anti-gay marriage arguments begin to appear, and I realised my gay friends are right. There is still a long way to go.

9gag, for example, changed their logo to rainbow and posted this picture, which is pretty neutral.

The comments were largely anti gay.

9gag also experienced a huge unfollowing from the angry fans. From the comments, we can see that of 9gag's audience (mostly straight men), many may not have openly voiced their anti gay marriage opinion, but still will express them in little things like comments.

From my own facebook feed, a famous food blogger who is also a doctor posted numerous anti-gay marriage articles, some of which are truly appalling.

Like this one, which is the most condescending, holier-than-thou crap I've ever read.

Quote from the article:

"Just we have shown compassion toward those who have gone to the abortion clinic and to the divorce court, so must we do the same for those who go to the altar of gay marriage." --- WTF just fuck off, gay couples who get married don't need your sympathy or compassion!

The blogger also shared this article, which says paedophiles now want the same rights as gay people.

*roll eyes to the back of my head* Totally no evidence of this in the article... As if paedophiles will dare to ever speak up and say "I AM A PROUD PAEDOPHILE I WANT RIGHTS!". Please!

Anyway, whatever, he is entitled to his views no matter how skewed by his religion they are. And out of respect for him because I really liked him before this, I won't mention his name.

I wanted to point out the articles he posted because he is the only person on my facebook feed to be anti gay marriage.

I read all the articles because I wanted an alternative point of view, a good LOGICAL reason to tell me why people can be opposing this new judgement so strongly. He is a doctor right? He is a smart guy, he must have some good reasons. I wanted to know.

But article after article I read, trying my best to keep a really open mind.

After reading all, I came to the conclusion that NONE of the arguments hold water.

Here's my response to all of them.

Bur first, before that, let's get something clear. Legal unions and sex are different things. You can approve of  homosexual sex or be ambivalent about it but not agree with legalizing gay marriage, and similarly, you can approve of gays getting married but don't agree with their sexual habits. Although I guess the latter is a bit weird because most married couples have sex. Let's discuss both.

1) God doesn't approve

Religious people say this as if it is a good reason for everyone to change their minds.

Firstly, the bible (or any religious text) can be interpreted in many different ways, and many religious people have chosen to believe that their God is about love and acceptance, not hatred and judgement.

Secondly, for the vast majority of humans who don't even believe in your God, that's like saying the Loch Ness Monster doesn't approve. ERM, SO?

2) It isn't natural. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Congratulations on your clever rhyme on Eve, which is a totally logical argument. NOT.

So sick of hearing this stupid statement said as if it is so witty wtf. Btw if God created only two humans from the start, how did they populate the Earth without being incestuous? So now incest is ok but gay sex isn't?

Anyway, speaking of natural... Homosexuality occurs in animals all the time. It's really quite natural.

3) The government only gives a legal hoot about the union of two people because it usually results in children. And they want those children to grow up with responsible parents who are legally bound together.

Of all the arguments, I guess this one sounds the most logical. Since gay couples are naturally sterile, why do they need to get married? Marriage is for the sake of children, not the adults.

Erm hello? Firstly, many gay couples get married because they DO want to have children.

They may not be able to do so naturally, but they can adopt or use surrogates or get a sperm donor.

Whether they are legally able to get married or not, gay couples who want children will go ahead and have children. Being unwed isn't going to stop them.

So if you want the whole "for the child's welfare" thing, you better let their parents get married so they have a harder time splitting up.

Secondly, being legally married ISN'T solely for the children.

There are other things like tax or wills that are different for legally married couples. If one part of a gay couple is hospitalized and only immediate family can visit, his or her partner, even if they have been together for decades, simply cannot enter. At the airport, Mike and I can get our passports stamped together at the counter because we are a family unit. A gay couple cannot.

Marriage means that if your partner is a foreigner, they can must more easily get permanent residency or a green card.

In Singapore, gay couples cannot apply for a HDB flat. Houses being as expensive as they are, are not-so-affluent gay couples destined to rent forever or stay with their parents?

All these legal rights and privileges are denied to gay couples, which is pretty unfair, unless you are saying that marital rights should only be given to couples who have children.

But that's not the case, is it? Many heterosexual couples are sterile or do not plan to ever have children. Then why should they be entitled to all these privileges?

If only people with children should be considered legally married, then let all couples be only engaged until they have a child. Only WHEN a child is born should they be awarded the certificate of marriage.

Until then, I think it's only fair for gay couples to be given equal rights.

4) Children SHOULD grow up in a 1 man 1 woman household.

People who say this sweeping statement come out with it from nowhere except their reluctance to stray from tradition. Research has shown that same sex parenting do not have adverse effects on children. (source 1)(source 2)

If you think about it logically, who will be better parents?

Parents who actually WANT a child... They thought things through and decided that they are ready to be parents, they are ready to take on the responsibility. They made their decision because they are financially able, and their relationship is stable. (Rhymes!)


Parents who stupidly shoot the sperm inside and accidentally got pregnant so they hastily get married and begrudgingly keep the child? Even if they have only been dating for a month, or if they don't have the financial capability to raise a kid? After that they throw the kid to grandparents to take care.

Gay parents will always be the former, because their sexual urges will never mistakenly result in a baby. 

If they want one, they have to jump through hurdles to actually get one. Adoption protocol will put them through tests to make sure they are suitable parents.

Many heterosexual parents, on the other hand, are parents only due to a mistake. Sure, some may belong to the former. Many aren't.

I'm sure you have heard of many shotgun marriages around you which ended in divorce or an unhappy marriage.

If you ask me, children from same sex parents are probably better off, statistically speaking, that those of heterosexual parents. So many heterosexual parents are so terrible, just think of ghetto parents with a dozen kids they cannot afford!

Not saying that all gays must automatically be rich or great parents but at least they won't get a child just because they are horny and stupid, which is so often the case nowadays!

Besides, this argument isn't against gay marriage, it is against gay parenting.

Since gay parenting will happen whether or not they are allowed to get married, then I say it's better for them to be able to get married, right?

Argument over, next!

5) Who is supposed to be mother and who's the father??? This will confuse the child.

A child isn't born knowing that he is supposed to have a father and a mother.

These are gender roles we appoint after many years of tradition. As long as gay parents educate their child properly ("your Mommy and Mama are different from other children's Mommy and Daddy but don't forget we love you just as much as they love their children"), fulfil all the appropriate roles in the kid's life, I don't see what the problem is.

Besides, single/divorced parents often have to take up the mantle of being both father and mother. Loads of these children have turned out fine.

Children don't need parents to be 1 female and 1 male. They simply need parents who love them and care for them.

6) Same sex marriage always denies a child of either a mom or a dad.

Wrong. Same sex marriage denies a child of a BIOLOGICAL mom or dad. People who use this argument act like gay couples cruelly tear a child away from their natural mother or father, but the truth is that these mothers and fathers often don't want the child.

The child is either adopted (both biological parents don't want the child, or maybe orphaned), or a surrogate is paid to give birth (rare case), or there is a sperm donor somewhere who most likely doesn't want anything to do with the kid that his sperm created. You can't deny someone of something that actually doesn't want them.

Mom and Dad are more than just the egg or sperm donor - they are also terms for the main caretakers of the child.

Heterosexual adoptive parents can have their children call them figuratively mom and dad, so why can't gay couples? They can be called dad and dad but they can actually take on mom and dad roles. It is just a name.

7) Homosexuals, especially gay men, are often infidel, which will harm their children.

So marriage will make them think twice about being infidel right? How is this an argument against gay marriage?!


8) Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. 

"After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children."

I actually copied this chunk from some website. It is one of the dumbest shit I've ever read, substantiated by nothing.

Asshole men ditch their kids and wives because they want to fuck other women, have freedom and no responsibility.

What has it got to do with lesbian couples???! Lesbian parents ain't gonna make asshole men any less assholey by not existing!! Ridiculous!

If you think lesbian parents will affect dad abandonment because they see that 2 women can raise a child, why don't you also say the opposite is true? That a man seeing that two men can also raise a child, perhaps he will be heartened and think he can do it too.

Lame. Next.

9) Comparison to Incest

One of the arguments that people love to put forth is that supporters of gay marriage should not be hypocrites and should also support incest.

After, incest is also attraction to what is different from the norm. It could also be between two consenting adults.


Yes, you can marry your family members, legally and legitimately. Surprise!

So arguing that people who are pro gay marriage also also support incestuous marriage is redundant. It is legal, never been illegal, so there is no notion to support.

However, once that marriage is consummated, the sexual act itself is illegal. You cannot have sex with your nucleus family.

The law exists to protect an innocent child from being born out of that union because it probably will end up with genetic deformities.

When a sex act involves harming a minor, then obviously nobody supports it. Is it fair to draw a parallel to gay sex, where nobody is harmed?

What about incestuous sex which doesn't result in pregnancy? Like if both parties went for sterilization?

My personal opinion is that if brother wants to fuck/marry sister, that's their business, as long as they don't get pregnant. I don't really give a crap as they aren't harming anyone. None of my beeswax. Of course I find the idea distressing and disturbing, but after reading Middlesex (it's an awesome book) and watching Game of Thrones and seeing my hamsters go at it, I guess such attraction does happen. O_O

I draw the line at parents having sex with their children because I find that the children, even if they are consenting adults, must be in some way manipulated or educated by the parents into thinking this is ok.

So yup. Conclusion: No need to support incestuous marriage as it is legal; if people want to have incestuous sex that's their business if they aren't harming anyone and don't get pregnant.

10) Comparison to sexual deviants/fetishes

People also love to compare gay sex to various sexual fetishes, and how the public will soon be forced to also accept these fetishes as "normal".

Besides, they say, if gays can marry gays, then what's to stop paedophiles from marrying children or a man from marrying his dog?

10a) Paedophilia

I don't even understand why I have to explain this.

The glaring difference is CONSENT.

Children cannot make life decisions that are supposed to last for a lifetime (marriage), nor are they emotionally developed enough to say yes to sex without understanding the consequences, ok?


I can't, I just can't. People are too stupid.

As for the idiots claiming that because gays are asking for equal rights to get married, paedophiles will now do the same?


Do you HONESTLY believe that?

If yes, you need to jump off a cliff.

10b) Bestiality

Again, a man cannot marry his dog because his dog is incapable of giving consent. Even if the dog shows it obviously loves its owner, the dog cannot possibly understand the notion or consequences of marriage. So no, no animal marriage, ok?

With regards to sex with animals... Now here is where it gets a little iffy.

The mere idea of this will probably set most people gagging. I guess it's safe to say that this isn't to everybody's taste. Bestiality is illegal in most countries. It is considered animal cruelty to do sexual acts to an animal, because they cannot give consent, right?

I must admit that when I was younger, there was no doubt in my mind that bestiality is wrong, it is beyond disgusting, and everyone who does it is a pervert who should be locked up in jail (and probably not allowed to be near the animals in the jail if any).

Reddit changed everything for me. Two of my friends linked me to an IAMA article about someone who has sex with his dogs.

(Article 1)(Article 2)

If the dog is the one humping him, isn't it consent? For further discussion, read THIS. It is very interesting.

We can neuter our animals, force them to breed for our profit, slaughter them for meat, but it isn't ok to allow them to hump us? It does seem a bit unfair, doesn't it? Afterall, cows would rather have sex with you than to be made into a cheeseburger. Maybe the issue here isn't really animal cruelty in some cases. (Of course you shouldn't force yourself on an animal too small for your genitals or is obviously unwilling and shrieking. Or in the reverse hurt yourself by being impaled with giant animal penises.)

Anyway, whatever. I'm not here to champion for the rights of zoophiles or that of animals. I eat the latter, can't talk so much.

But it is food for thought.

But no, just because gay marriage is now legal in 50 states will not suddenly cause everyone to begin having sex with animals, ok? It remains a very niche sexual preference that few can accept.

10c) Necrophilia

I can't. Desecrating a corpse without consent. Upsets the beheaved loved ones. Not the same as gay sex. Sigh... It is an insult to's server space to have to explain this.

11) I feel like gays are forcing gay marriage down my throat and I don't like that. Why can't I just say I don't agree with it without being labelled a bigot? It simply doesn't feel right to me, can't that be a reason?

No, it can't. 

If you can't find a logical reason to oppose it, then simply be ambivalent or apathetic about it. You don't have to care about the issue. If you are straight, it most likely won't affect you in any real way. But if you are against it, then you better give a good reason other than an emotional knee-jerk response.

It is very easy for you to say "It just doesn't feel right" and decide to take away the rights of other people, but for the people affected, it makes a HUGE difference to their lives.

In the past, many have probably voted against abolishing slavery or the right for women to vote simply because "it just doesn't feel right". No other reason, except you are resistant to change.

How would you feel if you are fighting for something you feel is the right thing to do and others oppose you just because? Don't even bother to give you a logical reason, except they don't like it? Won't you find that very insulting and get angry?

12) Gay sex is disgusting

This, at the end of the day, is the reason why anyone would oppose gay marriage. They simply find gay sex disgusting.

And because of that, they find all sort of nonsense reasons to justify their feelings.

Gays have no rights to be all huffy and offended just because someone tells them that gay sex is gross. 
Just as homosexuals have no control over what they find attractive, other people have no control over what they find disgusting - so don't be hypocrites when asking for acceptance! 
Just mention to a gay guy about licking a cunt or a lesbian about male penetration and surely their response is EWWWW. (Witnessed it many times) So if gays can find heterosexual sex gross, straight people are allowed to find your sexual proclivities gross too.

When you first found out what (heterosexual) sex was, what were your thoughts? I was 12 when a friend told me about it, she found her uncle's porn video tapes and saw it.


That was my reaction. I had thought people kissed and slept on the same bed and the woman will get pregnant the next day.

Well... Let's just say that Dash wasn't conceived that way. LOL... Which goes to show the best of us eat our words.

If you find something disgusting, it is easy to also decide that it is wrong, sick, and shouldn't be allowed. 

And that the people who like it, must be either crazy, perverse, ignorant, or has to be "fixed" in some way.

Grow up. Just because you find celery disgusting doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to eat it.

A mature person separates his emotions from his judgement. It is hard to do so, I'll admit it. Being an emotional person, I still wish there are laws against all the things I dislike (ban parsley and crocs), but a small part of me knows that isn't right.

Read a sentence on reddit which pretty much sums up this post:

"Just because you find it disgusting doesn't mean that it's reprehensible."

Are your feelings about gay sex affecting your opinion on gay marriage? If yes, you need to take those feelings out of the equation and think again.


So there you have all my response to all the reasons why people are opposing gay marriage. I find each and every reason pretty invalid, but if you can come up with a good, logical argument, I welcome your views on it.

The only reason that cannot be argued with is 12) Gay sex is disgusting.

If someone feels that way, nothing will change their opinion.

Personally, I find anal sex disgusting (whether on females or males), and no amount of reading up on it or talking to people who engage in it will change it for me. I tell my gay friends my opinion and they laugh about it. I don't like the act; it doesn't mean I don't like the people who perform the act.

So if you find homosexual behaviour disgusting, so be it.**

But those who oppose gay marriage for this reason...


That, I really cannot stand. 

Don't act like you are so much more morally upright, educated, informed than others. 

Don't share articles that use fake science and statistics to get invalid arguments across.


Don't act like it is for the children.

Worst of all don't tell me you pray for the gays and will show compassion towards them despite your disgust with them. JUST FUCK OFF.

Just say it as it is.

You don't like it because you find it disgusting.

Great, then people will know to simply dismiss your opinion as it is a personal one with no bearing on society's welfare.

Or they can let you know frankly that they find you disgusting too.

(**Of course, you shouldn't be unkind or insensitive about your disgust, just like it isn't nice to tell someone an outfit makes them look fat, even though you truly feel that way and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way)