Sha Najak sent a message to the members of TWC2.
Subject: Statement on AWARE
TWC2 is very concerned about the AWARE leadership takeover. AWARE has been an important important partner in our work to improve the welfare of migrant workers in Singapore and champion for their rights. AWARE has ensured that issues of discrimination against migrant domestic workers are not left out in the CEDAW report and has consulted us in preparing the shadow reports. We have also joined hands with AWARE through its White Ribbon Campaign to raise awareness of the issue of violence against migrant domestic workers. As an established organisation that runs an effective and structured helpline for women in distress, AWARE has been generous in sharing its expertise with nascent organisations such as TWC2. AWARE’s social worker and volunteers have helped us in training our volunteers to staff our helpline service for migrant workers. In addition, AWARE has also taken on issues concerning the vulnerabilities of foreign brides in Singapore and the trafficking of women and children for cross-border sex trade.
The above examples, show that AWARE is far from being a single-issue organisation obsessed with promoting homosexual issues. AWARE is a dynamic organisation that has stayed true to its core mission of championing for the rights of women underpinned by values such as inclusiveness. By advocating the issues concerning migrant domestic workers, foreign brides and trafficked women and children, AWARE has shown that it understands the multiple forms in which discrimination and marginalisation of women can take place as Singapore becomes more globalised. This is largely attributed to a competent leadership that truly understands the multiplicities of gender inequality and the complex social processes that underpin gender discrimination. If AWARE’s future stand to be shaped by a group of individuals that do not have a solid understanding of gender inequality and whose motivation is driven by a single-issue objective, we risk losing a valuable partner in our work. Singapore may also stand to lose as more than two decades of advocacy work that aim to tackle the roots of gender inequality may be lost because of a lack of vision.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.105
Monday, April 27, 2009
The rising son
The rising son
Monday, 27 April 2009
Andrew Loh
The longest period that any political party in Singapore had gone without a secretary general was from 1963, when The Barisan Socialis’ secretary general, Lim Chin Siong, was incarcerated for “subversive” activities and eventually left politics altogether, and 1988, when the Barisan Socialis’ members joined the Workers’ Party. (Source)
25 years.
While nowhere near that length of time, the relatively new Reform Party (RP), founded by the late opposition veteran JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ), had also been without a secretary general – for the last seven months. JBJ passed away in September 2008 and the position had been vacant.
On 26 April 2009, however, after a vote of no-confidence in its chairman was successfully carried by a majority of the CEC, the Reform Party appointed JBJ’s son, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, as its new secretary general. James Teo, a long- time supporter and friend of the late JBJ and who was responsible for persuading Kenneth to join the RP, was appointed treasurer and Edmund Ng is the new party chairman.
Mr Ng Teck Siong told TOC he had also tendered his resignation from the party “completely”.
Before the vote of no confidence on 26 April, questions were already being asked about why no one was appointed secretary general since September of last year.
When Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, 50, joined the RP in March of this year, it was expected that he would assume the position. But things have not worked out that way, and this latest resignation of its chairman is fueling speculation that more is happening in the Reform Party than meets the eye.
The Online Citizen asked the RP’s chairman, Ng Teck Siong, for a comment but he told TOC he would rather not speak on it for the moment and that he would be holding a press conference later. Kenneth Jeyaretnam too referred us to the press statement released by his party.
A check with the party’s website shows no listing of the Central Executive Committee.
So what is the road ahead for the party?
For a start, the party now has a secretary general and a chairman who will need to set the direction for the party. It is also believed that this will be a period of “house-cleaning” and healing of any rifts within the party. It is unclear who else might resign along with the chairman.
With Kenneth Jeyaretnam at the helm, the party looks set to chart a course leading to the next general elections. The party is expected to focus on bread and butter issues and the economy, as Jeyaretnam told the Associated Press on 10 April: “I want to create an image of economic competency of the opposition, meaning that I can advocate policies for economic prosperity and I can advocate better economic policies than the present government,” he said.
When he joined the RP, Jeyaretnam said he wanted to honour what his father stood for but that he will be his own man.
Now that he has assumed the role which his father previously held, Jeyaretnam has the opportunity to shape the party according to his beliefs in a way which will indeed honour his father.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27990.4
Monday, 27 April 2009
Andrew Loh
The longest period that any political party in Singapore had gone without a secretary general was from 1963, when The Barisan Socialis’ secretary general, Lim Chin Siong, was incarcerated for “subversive” activities and eventually left politics altogether, and 1988, when the Barisan Socialis’ members joined the Workers’ Party. (Source)
25 years.
While nowhere near that length of time, the relatively new Reform Party (RP), founded by the late opposition veteran JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ), had also been without a secretary general – for the last seven months. JBJ passed away in September 2008 and the position had been vacant.
On 26 April 2009, however, after a vote of no-confidence in its chairman was successfully carried by a majority of the CEC, the Reform Party appointed JBJ’s son, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, as its new secretary general. James Teo, a long- time supporter and friend of the late JBJ and who was responsible for persuading Kenneth to join the RP, was appointed treasurer and Edmund Ng is the new party chairman.
Mr Ng Teck Siong told TOC he had also tendered his resignation from the party “completely”.
Before the vote of no confidence on 26 April, questions were already being asked about why no one was appointed secretary general since September of last year.
When Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, 50, joined the RP in March of this year, it was expected that he would assume the position. But things have not worked out that way, and this latest resignation of its chairman is fueling speculation that more is happening in the Reform Party than meets the eye.
The Online Citizen asked the RP’s chairman, Ng Teck Siong, for a comment but he told TOC he would rather not speak on it for the moment and that he would be holding a press conference later. Kenneth Jeyaretnam too referred us to the press statement released by his party.
A check with the party’s website shows no listing of the Central Executive Committee.
So what is the road ahead for the party?
For a start, the party now has a secretary general and a chairman who will need to set the direction for the party. It is also believed that this will be a period of “house-cleaning” and healing of any rifts within the party. It is unclear who else might resign along with the chairman.
With Kenneth Jeyaretnam at the helm, the party looks set to chart a course leading to the next general elections. The party is expected to focus on bread and butter issues and the economy, as Jeyaretnam told the Associated Press on 10 April: “I want to create an image of economic competency of the opposition, meaning that I can advocate policies for economic prosperity and I can advocate better economic policies than the present government,” he said.
When he joined the RP, Jeyaretnam said he wanted to honour what his father stood for but that he will be his own man.
Now that he has assumed the role which his father previously held, Jeyaretnam has the opportunity to shape the party according to his beliefs in a way which will indeed honour his father.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27990.4
Kenneth Jeyaretnam voted in as secretary-general of Reform Party
Kenneth Jeyaretnam voted in as secretary-general of Reform Party
Posted: 27 April 2009 1845 hrs
 | ||||||
 JB Jeyaretnam | ||||||
| |
SINGAPORE: Kenneth Jeyaretnam has been voted in as secretary-general of the Reform Party by its central executive committee.
The post was left vacant by his late father, veteran opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam, after his death in September last year.
The Reform Party was set up by Mr Jeyaretnam after he was discharged from bankruptcy in 2007, and it was registered in July 2008.
A statement from the Reform Party said the central executive committee also voted in Edmund Ng as chairman, and Teo Kian Chye as treasurer.
Former chairman Ng Teck Siong, in a separate statement, said he is stepping aside to allow for renewal within the party leadership.
- CNA/yt
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27990.3
Reform Party's new head
April 27, 2009
Reform Party's new head
By Kor Kian Beng & Jeremy Au Yong
A MONTH after joining the fledgling Reform Party founded by his father, hedge fund manager Kenneth Jeyaretnam has taken over as its secretary-general.
At the same time, a long-time ally of the late Mr J B Jeyaretnam and a co-founder of the party, quit after falling out with the younger Jeyaretnam.
The party issued a statement on Monday announcing the appointment of Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam as secretary-general, Mr Edmund Ng as interim chairman, and Mr James Teo Kian Chye as interim treasurer.
The statement also announced the resignation of Mr Ng Teck Siong as chairman following a vote of no confidence against him.
The latter, a long-time ally of the senior Jeyaretnam, told The Straits Times separately that he had quit the party completely.
Opposition sources say Mr Ng fell out of favour because he was slow in appointing a new secretary-general, the post held by Mr J B Jeyaretnam before he died of heart failure last September, two months after setting up the party.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27990.2
Reform Party's new head
By Kor Kian Beng & Jeremy Au Yong
A MONTH after joining the fledgling Reform Party founded by his father, hedge fund manager Kenneth Jeyaretnam has taken over as its secretary-general.
At the same time, a long-time ally of the late Mr J B Jeyaretnam and a co-founder of the party, quit after falling out with the younger Jeyaretnam.
The party issued a statement on Monday announcing the appointment of Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam as secretary-general, Mr Edmund Ng as interim chairman, and Mr James Teo Kian Chye as interim treasurer.
The statement also announced the resignation of Mr Ng Teck Siong as chairman following a vote of no confidence against him.
The latter, a long-time ally of the senior Jeyaretnam, told The Straits Times separately that he had quit the party completely.
Opposition sources say Mr Ng fell out of favour because he was slow in appointing a new secretary-general, the post held by Mr J B Jeyaretnam before he died of heart failure last September, two months after setting up the party.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27990.2
Chairman of Reform Party resigns, Kenneth Jeyaretnam is new Sec Gen
Chairman of Reform Party resigns, Kenneth Jeyaretnam is new Sec Gen
Monday, 27 April 2009
TOC understands that Mr Ng Teck Siong called an emergency meeting yesterday at 11.30am at the Reform Party’s office, where a vote of no confidence in the chairman was tabled. TOC understands the vote was passed by a majority of the CEC.
Mr Ng tendered his resignation this morning.
Speaking to TOC, Mr Ng said he has also tendered to resign from the party completely.
Below is the press release from the party:
The Reform Party
18A Smith Street Singapore 058932 Tel: 6534 9641
The Reform Party is delighted to announce that following a meeting of its Central Executive Committee on Sunday April 26th the following resolutions were passed.
- A vote of no confidence in Ng Teck Siong as Chairperson of the party was passed by a majority vote of the CEC
- Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam was appointed to the position of Secretary General of The Reform Party by a majority vote of the CEC
- Mr Edmund Ng was appointed to the post of chairperson of the Reform Party (interim) by a majority vote of the CEC
- Mr Teo Kian Chye was appointed to the post of Treasurer of the Reform Party ( interim) by a majority vote of the CEC
Edmund Ng, formerly Organising Secretary of the Reform Party said, “I’m honoured to have been selected for this role and to be working with the new senior officers of the CEC. Our new SG brings a breath of fresh air to politics in Singapore and a balanced and qualified voice to the opposition. Since joining the RP Kenneth has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Party bringing energy, direction and cohesion. His professional background, his academic qualifications and his immersion in the political issues of Singapore from a very young age enable him to bring to the Party a depth of knowledge and experience not often seen in opposition in Singapore. “
Teo Kian Chye, also stated that he felt honoured in the trust shown in him by the CEC on appointing him to the role of Treasurer. About his new SG he said, “We must remember that Kenneth has rejected a potentially lucrative career path in order to serve the people of Singapore. He had many options and we are delighted that he chose to join the Reform Party. He has been an example to all of us and I hope that many others will follow the path he has chosen.”
Kenneth Jeyaretnam said how pleased he was to have been appointed to the role of SG. “After choosing to go into politics various offers were put to me but the stated philosophy of the Reform Party,( ‘ that every member of the society is born with fundamental rights and that it is the paramount duty of the society to promote the human dignity of every single member’ ) most closely matched my own philosophy. I was touched by the public response to the announcement in the Press when I joined the Reform Party and the outpouring of support shown to me since. We have a lot of work going forward and it is humbling that so many people have demonstrated this level of confidence in me. I look forward to serving them. “
On Monday April 27th 2009 Mr Ng Teck Siong tendered his resignation as Chairperson to the new SG, Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Under Article 5 (vii) of the Party constitution this resignation will only become effective upon the acknowledgement in writing of the resignation by the Secretary-General of the Party.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27990.1
Monday, 27 April 2009
TOC understands that Mr Ng Teck Siong called an emergency meeting yesterday at 11.30am at the Reform Party’s office, where a vote of no confidence in the chairman was tabled. TOC understands the vote was passed by a majority of the CEC.
Mr Ng tendered his resignation this morning.
Speaking to TOC, Mr Ng said he has also tendered to resign from the party completely.
Below is the press release from the party:
The Reform Party
18A Smith Street Singapore 058932 Tel: 6534 9641
The Reform Party is delighted to announce that following a meeting of its Central Executive Committee on Sunday April 26th the following resolutions were passed.
- A vote of no confidence in Ng Teck Siong as Chairperson of the party was passed by a majority vote of the CEC
- Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam was appointed to the position of Secretary General of The Reform Party by a majority vote of the CEC
- Mr Edmund Ng was appointed to the post of chairperson of the Reform Party (interim) by a majority vote of the CEC
- Mr Teo Kian Chye was appointed to the post of Treasurer of the Reform Party ( interim) by a majority vote of the CEC
Edmund Ng, formerly Organising Secretary of the Reform Party said, “I’m honoured to have been selected for this role and to be working with the new senior officers of the CEC. Our new SG brings a breath of fresh air to politics in Singapore and a balanced and qualified voice to the opposition. Since joining the RP Kenneth has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Party bringing energy, direction and cohesion. His professional background, his academic qualifications and his immersion in the political issues of Singapore from a very young age enable him to bring to the Party a depth of knowledge and experience not often seen in opposition in Singapore. “
Teo Kian Chye, also stated that he felt honoured in the trust shown in him by the CEC on appointing him to the role of Treasurer. About his new SG he said, “We must remember that Kenneth has rejected a potentially lucrative career path in order to serve the people of Singapore. He had many options and we are delighted that he chose to join the Reform Party. He has been an example to all of us and I hope that many others will follow the path he has chosen.”
Kenneth Jeyaretnam said how pleased he was to have been appointed to the role of SG. “After choosing to go into politics various offers were put to me but the stated philosophy of the Reform Party,( ‘ that every member of the society is born with fundamental rights and that it is the paramount duty of the society to promote the human dignity of every single member’ ) most closely matched my own philosophy. I was touched by the public response to the announcement in the Press when I joined the Reform Party and the outpouring of support shown to me since. We have a lot of work going forward and it is humbling that so many people have demonstrated this level of confidence in me. I look forward to serving them. “
On Monday April 27th 2009 Mr Ng Teck Siong tendered his resignation as Chairperson to the new SG, Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Under Article 5 (vii) of the Party constitution this resignation will only become effective upon the acknowledgement in writing of the resignation by the Secretary-General of the Party.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27990.1
Net speculation about Singapore and Facebook warning
Net speculation about Singapore and Facebook warning
The internet can promote greater openness in countries like Singapore, writes Evgeny Morozov on the Foreign Policy website.
He also points to the dangers activists of any kind face on social networking websites like Facebook in his article, Why promoting democracy via the internet is often not a good idea.
The internet cannot make much of a difference in western democracies nor in "authoritarian" states like Russia and China, he says. But it can have greater impact on other countries, he writes:
Free and democratic states do gain from internet technologies, even though their impact is not most significant, as there is a limit as to how much technology could accomplish in countries that already have a vibrant civil society and well-functioning democratic institutions.
On the other hand, mixed regimes - those that are not outright authoritarian and have respect for some basic human rights (Singapore comes to mind as an example) - might stand to lose most from the proliferation of internet technologies, simply because the online mobilization benefits bestowed upon their nascent civil society could not be met by the equal degree of repression of activists – at least, not without the country losing its "mixed" status and becoming a dictatorship (which, in most cases, would also carry prohibitive economic costs).
The wording is curious: Why should a so-called "mixed regime" like Singapore lose from the growth of the internet? On the contrary, Singapore allows free internet access. And the talk of "repression" and "dictatorship" seems very far-fetched in the Singapore context. Singapore has a popularly elected government. But, yes, the internet has made a world of difference by providing new channels of information and interaction.
Morozov cautions about Facebook:
Facebook activism could also easily backfire for it has one inherent flaw: it allows authorities to quickly and easily identify all dissenters - even those who were willing to lend only their virtual support to the campaigns - and put them on their "to be watched closely" list (and then to actually rely on technology to carry out their surveillance).
The internet has not led to greater openness in Russia and China, he says:
Could it be that technology's impact actually helps bolster existing authoritarianism? Existing political structures have not been shaken (or even threatened) by any of the recent protests facilitated by technology; on the contrary, such governments have not only withstood these protests, they have also adapted very fast). The most sophisticated regimes – like China and Russia, for example – have even gone beyond mere defensive strategies and are actively experimenting with offensive strategies like spinning the Web to advance their own political ideologies by hiring paid internet commentators, for example.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27894.1
Mr Ng Teck Siong resigns from Reform Party
Mr Ng Teck Siong resigns from Reform Party
Mr Ng Teck Siong, Chairman of the Reform Party, has submitted his resignation to the party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC).
Mr Ng has worked for the Opposition cause for close to 3 decades. His first foray into party politics was when he joined the Singapore Democratic Party in 1980 under Mr Chiam See Tong. He has also been a trusted friend and confidant of the late J.B. Jeyaretnam for many years. He helped JBJ set up the Reform Party in 2008.
Mr Ng has informed the press that in the interest of party renewal, this is an appropriate juncture for him to step aside and allow fresh blood to take over the helms of leadership in Reform Party.
Mr Ng wishes Reform Party all the best, and hopes it will provide a credible and robust challenge to the PAP.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27986.1
Mr Ng Teck Siong, Chairman of the Reform Party, has submitted his resignation to the party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC).
Mr Ng has worked for the Opposition cause for close to 3 decades. His first foray into party politics was when he joined the Singapore Democratic Party in 1980 under Mr Chiam See Tong. He has also been a trusted friend and confidant of the late J.B. Jeyaretnam for many years. He helped JBJ set up the Reform Party in 2008.
Mr Ng has informed the press that in the interest of party renewal, this is an appropriate juncture for him to step aside and allow fresh blood to take over the helms of leadership in Reform Party.
Mr Ng wishes Reform Party all the best, and hopes it will provide a credible and robust challenge to the PAP.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27986.1
Aware: Playing with words and a controversial precedent
Playing with words and a controversial precedent
SINGAPORE - It has now emerged that two pastors at the Church of Our Saviour (COOS) sent out emails calling on church members to join AWARE and support the new Exco members. Mr Shawn Tay, a pastor with the Choices Ministry responsible for ministering to homosexuals made an explicit call in his email message to all responsible females to sign up for membership with AWARE immediately, and also to attend this all-important EGM so as to vote against changing the Constitution.
Interestingly, Mr Derek Hong, senior Pastor of COOS, has corroborated Dr Thio Su Mien’s earlier revelation that homosexuality should be cast in a negative light as opposed to a neutral one. Quoting TheOnlineCitizen, Mr Derek Hong made a beckoning call to other women in their church to support their sisters in the new Exco. He sees the move by the new Exco as a necessity to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.
Thus, what we are witnessing is a collective ethos shared by the new Exco, their mentor and COOS in particular, with religious undertones. As for the takeover, the spokesperson of the church went on categorically state that “There is no church connection. The church is not at all involved in secular affairs”.
Perhaps, COOS can be given the benefit of the doubt for the first part of the statement because this takeover may be a voluntary action instigated by church members, but not necessarily one that is sanctioned by the church. However, the second part of the statement is a contradiction in the highest order, and to call a spade a spade, a mere play of words.
An email issuing a general call for emotional support for the current members of the AWARE Exco is markedly different from an explicit email calling on church members to join an organization, attend the general meeting, and vote against constitutional changes. That is already a damning evidence of COOS’ attempt to be involved in secular affairs. In other words, this is already an explicit move by the church to influence the outcome of events within a secular organization.
The words by the COOS senior pastor Mr Derek Hong on ensuring that the nation functions according to the principles of his religion may be the catalyst for the setting of a new precedent. Suppose in this hypothetical example, a Buddhist organization functions pretty much like AWARE in organizing sexuality programs that hold a neutral stand towards homosexuality. As we all know, Buddhism is a major religion in Singapore with 42.5% of Singaporeans practising the religion as compared to 14.6% for Christianity. Now, a Christian entity begins to find issue with the sexuality programs organized by this Buddhist organization, and sees the necessity in Mr Derek Hong’s words to ensure that “the nation does not cross the line drawn by God”. Would we see an organized takeover of the Buddhist organization by this Christian entity a la AWARE in this hypothetical scenario? If there is such a takeover, there could be consequences as far as inter-religious relations are concerned. A controversial precedent, no?
What we have witnessed here is a clear cut and organized attempt by a church to influence the events within a secular organization like AWARE. A precedent could be set, which may have ramifications on a multi-religious society such as Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.97
SINGAPORE - It has now emerged that two pastors at the Church of Our Saviour (COOS) sent out emails calling on church members to join AWARE and support the new Exco members. Mr Shawn Tay, a pastor with the Choices Ministry responsible for ministering to homosexuals made an explicit call in his email message to all responsible females to sign up for membership with AWARE immediately, and also to attend this all-important EGM so as to vote against changing the Constitution.
Interestingly, Mr Derek Hong, senior Pastor of COOS, has corroborated Dr Thio Su Mien’s earlier revelation that homosexuality should be cast in a negative light as opposed to a neutral one. Quoting TheOnlineCitizen, Mr Derek Hong made a beckoning call to other women in their church to support their sisters in the new Exco. He sees the move by the new Exco as a necessity to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.
Thus, what we are witnessing is a collective ethos shared by the new Exco, their mentor and COOS in particular, with religious undertones. As for the takeover, the spokesperson of the church went on categorically state that “There is no church connection. The church is not at all involved in secular affairs”.
Perhaps, COOS can be given the benefit of the doubt for the first part of the statement because this takeover may be a voluntary action instigated by church members, but not necessarily one that is sanctioned by the church. However, the second part of the statement is a contradiction in the highest order, and to call a spade a spade, a mere play of words.
An email issuing a general call for emotional support for the current members of the AWARE Exco is markedly different from an explicit email calling on church members to join an organization, attend the general meeting, and vote against constitutional changes. That is already a damning evidence of COOS’ attempt to be involved in secular affairs. In other words, this is already an explicit move by the church to influence the outcome of events within a secular organization.
The words by the COOS senior pastor Mr Derek Hong on ensuring that the nation functions according to the principles of his religion may be the catalyst for the setting of a new precedent. Suppose in this hypothetical example, a Buddhist organization functions pretty much like AWARE in organizing sexuality programs that hold a neutral stand towards homosexuality. As we all know, Buddhism is a major religion in Singapore with 42.5% of Singaporeans practising the religion as compared to 14.6% for Christianity. Now, a Christian entity begins to find issue with the sexuality programs organized by this Buddhist organization, and sees the necessity in Mr Derek Hong’s words to ensure that “the nation does not cross the line drawn by God”. Would we see an organized takeover of the Buddhist organization by this Christian entity a la AWARE in this hypothetical scenario? If there is such a takeover, there could be consequences as far as inter-religious relations are concerned. A controversial precedent, no?
What we have witnessed here is a clear cut and organized attempt by a church to influence the events within a secular organization like AWARE. A precedent could be set, which may have ramifications on a multi-religious society such as Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.97
Aware: Old guard takes battle online
April 27, 2009
Aware saga
Old guard takes battle online
It sets up website while supporters start Facebook groups and petition
 |  | Aware's former president and founding member Margaret Thomas at a press conference -- ST PHOTO: MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN |
THE old guard and its supporters have gone online in their campaign against the recent takeover of the Association of Women for Action & Research (Aware).
In response to the unprecedented leadership fight over one of Singapore's most established civil-society groups, an online petition has been started by Dr Vivienne Wee. She is a founding member of Aware and a former National University of Singapore sociology lecturer who resides in Hong Kong.
Titled 'Save Aware! Gender equality for all!', it was put online last Wednesday on petition-hosting portal GoPetition.com - the day before lawyer Thio Su Mien, 71, revealed that she had played a key role in the Aware coup.
As of Sunday evening, the petition, which aims 'to reclaim Aware as a vehicle to advance women's rights to gender equality and individual choices', had received 1,348 signatures from here and abroad.
While most of the signatures are from Singapore, quite a few come from China, Australia, Britain and the United States. Some messages expressed encouragement for the old team while others left strongly worded comments for their successors.
Mr Loh Ngiap Soon, a Singaporean petitioner who resides in Atlanta, Georgia, wrote that he was disappointed by the 'usurpers' who 'have betrayed their own motivations with their sneaky approach'.
Meanwhile, there is fervent debate in various forums, such as Stomp's Talkback and HardwareZone. Hotly-debated issues range from Aware's stand on sexuality and the religious background of four executive-committee members.
A website (we-are-aware.sg) has also been set up by the old guard, which exhorts people to sign up for membership and cast their vote of no confidence at Saturday's extraordinary general meeting. Two new Facebook groups in support of the old guard, with a combined number of more than 2,800 members and 300 wall posts, have also surfaced.
A few, however, have advised caution for those who jumped on the anti-new guard bandwagon without understanding the full picture.
'What's wrong with you guys? I urge you to consider and think sensibly before you vote,' said a Facebook user going by the name of Lee Cooper. -- MY PAPER
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.91
Vivian Balakrishnan: ‘Keep religionabove the frayof petty politics’
‘Keep religionabove the frayof petty politics’
Vivian Balakrishnanwarns of the dangerof mixing the two
Monday • April 27, 2009
ZUL OTHMAN
zul@mediacorp.com.sg
THE Aware spat is not a national problem, and the Government has no intention of intervening in it, said the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan. This, even as he warns the two warring groups — the new executive committee elected this month and the Old Guard of the Association of Women for Action and Research — to “keep religion above the fray of petty politics”.
Dr Balakrishnan said it is a problem they have to solve themselves and in a democratic manner, while abiding by the constitution of Aware.
The bitter spat between the two groups has been dominating the headlines for several weeks. Members of the new Exco had said they went into Aware to bring it back to its original focus, and that is women issues, when it appeared to them that Aware had veered into supporting homosexuality. As for the Old Guard of Aware, they have questioned what they saw as the stealthy manner in which the new Exco had mounted a “coup” in the 26-year-old organisation. The sage took a sinister twist when members of the new Exco revealed death threats had even been received.
Speaking to the media on the sidelines of his community visit to Nee Soon yesterday, Dr Balakrishnan said: “The most I would do at this stage is to give them some advice. Not just (to) Aware but all Singaporeans. Number one, don’t let a single issue hijack the agenda. We live in a diverse society, there will always be some issue we cannot agree on — weneed to be able to learn to live and let live, to agree to disagree and to do so agreeably.”
He also warned that no one should allow single issues to polarise and divide: “If you allow these single issues to dominate and hijack your agenda, I think you are not going succeed and it’s going to be counter productive.”
Secondly, the minister pointed out that Singapore is a multi-religious society.
As such, he said Singaporeans should “protect and nurture” the place religion has in our society: “We don’t want our religious organisation to be damaged or compromised by the hurly-burly of politicking that happens on the ground.”
His third piece of advice to Singaporeans out to make meaningful changes in society, is to build what he called a “rainbow coalition.” And this means ensuring representation from all the different streams and segments that constitute Singapore.
While urging everyone not to be distracted from the long term and more important challenges facing Singapore, Dr Balakrishnan is hopeful good sense will prevail.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.90
Vivian Balakrishnanwarns of the dangerof mixing the two
Monday • April 27, 2009
ZUL OTHMAN
zul@mediacorp.com.sg
THE Aware spat is not a national problem, and the Government has no intention of intervening in it, said the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan. This, even as he warns the two warring groups — the new executive committee elected this month and the Old Guard of the Association of Women for Action and Research — to “keep religion above the fray of petty politics”.
Dr Balakrishnan said it is a problem they have to solve themselves and in a democratic manner, while abiding by the constitution of Aware.
The bitter spat between the two groups has been dominating the headlines for several weeks. Members of the new Exco had said they went into Aware to bring it back to its original focus, and that is women issues, when it appeared to them that Aware had veered into supporting homosexuality. As for the Old Guard of Aware, they have questioned what they saw as the stealthy manner in which the new Exco had mounted a “coup” in the 26-year-old organisation. The sage took a sinister twist when members of the new Exco revealed death threats had even been received.
Speaking to the media on the sidelines of his community visit to Nee Soon yesterday, Dr Balakrishnan said: “The most I would do at this stage is to give them some advice. Not just (to) Aware but all Singaporeans. Number one, don’t let a single issue hijack the agenda. We live in a diverse society, there will always be some issue we cannot agree on — weneed to be able to learn to live and let live, to agree to disagree and to do so agreeably.”
He also warned that no one should allow single issues to polarise and divide: “If you allow these single issues to dominate and hijack your agenda, I think you are not going succeed and it’s going to be counter productive.”
Secondly, the minister pointed out that Singapore is a multi-religious society.
As such, he said Singaporeans should “protect and nurture” the place religion has in our society: “We don’t want our religious organisation to be damaged or compromised by the hurly-burly of politicking that happens on the ground.”
His third piece of advice to Singaporeans out to make meaningful changes in society, is to build what he called a “rainbow coalition.” And this means ensuring representation from all the different streams and segments that constitute Singapore.
While urging everyone not to be distracted from the long term and more important challenges facing Singapore, Dr Balakrishnan is hopeful good sense will prevail.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.90
Going undercover at Church of our Saviour (COOS)
Going undercover at Church of our Saviour (COOS)
My first ever "undercover" reporting job didn't go so well.
That is because I was "caught" by one of the church staff, who happened to be the one keeping in touch with the media.
My guess is that he saw me while I was snapping pictures at Josie Lau and Alan Chin, who were on stage and being prayed for by Pastor Derek Hong.
My hand trembled when I did so, because I was so near the stage. While everyone was closing their eyes and praying, I was still frightened as somebody might suspect I'm from the media. Well, my fears were realised.
Nevertheless, this guy turned out to be quite friendly, and was a tremendous help. Of course, while Deborah and I would have loved to speak to Pastor Hong ourselves, I guess we had to settle for second best.
Actually, I came into the service rather skeptical about the new Aware Executive Committee. And made no mistake about it, I still am. However, attending the service has made me realise the seriousness of their mission. They appear sincere, and while Josie and team's lack of transparency is glaringly obvious, their purpose remains clear.
They are fighting against homosexuality, and not gays themselves. No matter how misguided they may be, one cannot at least doubt their religious zeal and intent.
Also, going "undercover" at the church service has also made me realise that I seriously need to find out more about this nature versus nurture argument about homosexuality. I cannot continue to be ignorant in this area.
In any case, this controversy has made obvious the seemingly irreconcilable divide between faith and science. While Pastor Hong's reverence of the Bible and its truth is admirable, it is hardly convincing to unbelievers. As for me, I am in a dilemma. While it is clear that the Bible treats homosexuality as a sin, some scientists cast doubt to that claim. Who am I to believe?
Some people, however, question the Christian's adherence to the Bible. To those who ask that: What do you expect? Understand that the "Bible as inerrant" doctrine is not fringe doctrine but mainstream Christianity, and individuals who criticise Christians for sticking to the Bible too much should be more understanding.
They should realise that these Christians are in a bind as well, trying to make sense of a world where faith and science clashe. And guess what? Different people react differently to such as situation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.113
My first ever "undercover" reporting job didn't go so well.
That is because I was "caught" by one of the church staff, who happened to be the one keeping in touch with the media.
My guess is that he saw me while I was snapping pictures at Josie Lau and Alan Chin, who were on stage and being prayed for by Pastor Derek Hong.
My hand trembled when I did so, because I was so near the stage. While everyone was closing their eyes and praying, I was still frightened as somebody might suspect I'm from the media. Well, my fears were realised.
Nevertheless, this guy turned out to be quite friendly, and was a tremendous help. Of course, while Deborah and I would have loved to speak to Pastor Hong ourselves, I guess we had to settle for second best.
Actually, I came into the service rather skeptical about the new Aware Executive Committee. And made no mistake about it, I still am. However, attending the service has made me realise the seriousness of their mission. They appear sincere, and while Josie and team's lack of transparency is glaringly obvious, their purpose remains clear.
They are fighting against homosexuality, and not gays themselves. No matter how misguided they may be, one cannot at least doubt their religious zeal and intent.
Also, going "undercover" at the church service has also made me realise that I seriously need to find out more about this nature versus nurture argument about homosexuality. I cannot continue to be ignorant in this area.
In any case, this controversy has made obvious the seemingly irreconcilable divide between faith and science. While Pastor Hong's reverence of the Bible and its truth is admirable, it is hardly convincing to unbelievers. As for me, I am in a dilemma. While it is clear that the Bible treats homosexuality as a sin, some scientists cast doubt to that claim. Who am I to believe?
Some people, however, question the Christian's adherence to the Bible. To those who ask that: What do you expect? Understand that the "Bible as inerrant" doctrine is not fringe doctrine but mainstream Christianity, and individuals who criticise Christians for sticking to the Bible too much should be more understanding.
They should realise that these Christians are in a bind as well, trying to make sense of a world where faith and science clashe. And guess what? Different people react differently to such as situation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.113
Hating Singapore, isnt it a bit overdone?
Hating Singapore, isnt it a bit overdone?
Another eye catching, thought provoking recent news article on the now infamous "I hate Singapore" facebook group. Accordingly to the news snippet, most of the members are unsurprisingly our citizens, which in turn encouraged other expats to give in to their numerous rant and complaints about my country.
(news source: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,199816-1240610340,00.html )
"The Facebook page says the creator is one Mr Wils Cheng . When The New Paper e-mailed to ask him why he set up the group, he simply referred us to the write-up on the group's Facebook page. He would not say if he is Singaporean. On whether he felt his group's stand was too harsh, Mr Cheng replied: 'I do regret that the name of the group may be 'harsh and unfair', but the things we advocate - free speech, free blogging, less restriction on art and expression, and cultural progress - are all positive.'"
Firstly what does he has to hide whether he is a singaporean? Afraid of repercusions? Is he a a true reformer at heart or coward in disguise?
Freedom of speech doesnt always equate to objective nor constructive airing of opinions. However, how many of those ranting out there are truly unbiased?Sure, in many ways Singapore is lacking and requires areas of improvement, but hey, which country is perfect? Is it really necessary to bash your own country and being so shamelesly unnationalistic? To set up a group to publicly humiliate your own birth place, really, does it make you a better qualified person to think that you have all sides of the stories especially when I suspect a good portion of the people may not even have experience residence in other continents before they shot off their mouth without regards.
I found it ironical at how China which has more human rights restrictions imposed on its citizens produced more nationalistic citizens than us. The chinese are profusingly genuinely proud of their own nation in comparsion. In face of any criticsims in the political or media arena, many times, China citizens from many parts would band together and stick it out defending their country, lashing at the negativity. Yet for Singaporeans who had it better in many aspects, often had nothing but disdain and public outcry against their own land, much eager to embrace the "renegade" badge as if it is some perverse honor. It is this public group of "thoughtless" people that I really loathe that makes others like us having to suffer the mockery by people of other nations, and having to defend ourselves in the face of slapping our own cheek by our own people.
Everyone in life shares different priorities of what is important to them, hence its up to a person how much one is willing to forgo in acceptance of the values that is dearest to their own heart. I have many expat friends living in Singapore and loving it because they can never imagine return to their own country may it Australia, London or New York. They would rather put up with bad English than return to the inconveniences they grow up in, or the unsafe environment where walking alone at night is unsafe, an underground tube that constantly breaks down, or the wet and gloomy expensive life that surrounds them. Overly passionate ciztiens aside, for those foreigners who had unreservedly shared their candid negative views, I hold nothing against them because they have every right to reject what was offered to them and return to their homeland which in turn have its own vices and flaws. However, the question that I wonder is how many of them have even truly tried to adapt or blend in with the locals without that "I am an expat attitude?"
As to the gripes of Ms Laila Allen from Australia, English may be our first working language medium but regardless how much our govt may try to promote it, it is not our NATIVE language (mother tongue) that is if you havent come to realise in your stay in Singapore. Due to our diverse cultural ethnicity, we need a non offensive neutral common language to communicate - hence English. Yet to many, most of all revert to the language which we are most comfortable with in either Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, Teochew, Hakka, Tamil, or Malay etc when we aint working. Yes it is no excuse for bad pronunciation nor grammatical errors when it comes to service industry, however it is apparent that many of our service staff are not highly educated people. They may not necessary have all had the fortune of a good education and what's more, they most probably come from families where English may not be the main medium at home, nor least of all gone to a top school where one could mouth off English perfectly without your so call bad accent. Plus I do resent the fact that the person you are criticising could jolly well be someone Else's mother, brother or sister who does not have the luxury of a proper education. Rather than be judgemental, think about all those poor old aunties and uncle who have to pick up another working language just to find work in this modern society before one starts to pass a sweeping condemnation on all working staff.
I fail to believe all Singaporeans speak badly. Sure there are many where even I would cringe hearing them but I certainly can vouch for numerous Singaporeans who had fantastic spoken English. And as for accent, does one personally think that the thick Australian Queensland English or the Ireland's slang is anything easier nor understandable to other foreigners?
Perhaps Australia is luckier in the sense that their ancestors are of prisoner stock from London, combined with working class migrants from other European countries, hence inheriting the mixture of Cockney, Irish and Welsh, Germany accent. Singapore on the other hand are descendants from of migrants from different part of China, India and Asia states and hence English has never been part of our heritage until we were colonised, which even then, still was a language for the rich and not the common folks. Hence having a weird varied form of accent differing from many other western countries where English is deeply entrenched for centuries is thus comprehensible. We may not have perfect crisp Queens English, nor the nasal American accent for most of the lot but for the last 44 years since English was introduced to our curriculum, and moving on I believe we are getting there, through the evolution of generations combined with the influx of more westerners to taking up residency. However, one has to bear in mind that our society will always be formed by different tier of classes and those who are perfect in English would unlikely be found to be serving in a restaurant, supermarket, receptionist or fronting the desk of a customer service (with exception to citibank customer service perhaps) unless it is a part time job.
On the other matter, just because one asked a question in English in foreign land, one shouldn't arrogantly presume and expect everyone to reply in English, least of all perfect English. If someone continued to speak mandarin or any other foreign language to you, it doesnt mean they do not care about your existence. At times, they are trying to help and hoping in a tiny chance you can make sense of their conversation. When I was in Japan and once asked a (5 star) hotel staff a question in English, he started out feebly in grammatically incorrect English and started to talk in Japanese to himself, to his colleague and to me, desperately hoping hope against hope I may be able to make sense. I am not offended just because he is speaking Japanese to me when I had asked in English. And neither am i critical at the fact that he wasnt able to speak English fluently in a 5 start hotel. In Hong Kong, you can speak English but when you meet someone who doesnt or not quite fluently, they too would also quickly revert back to speaking in Cantonese and fretting about how to convey a point. In Paris, I got misdirected and people tried to point me back in French even though I know they can speak English. Yet I was never offended. Hence the point is, if you dont understand what other people are saying to you, dont point the fingers at others expecting people to accommodate your language. Instead, while in ROME, do what the ROMANS do, go pick up another language, at least basic speech to get you by. If you succeed in acclimatising yourself to the host country, you will in turn be richly rewarded with warmer service and an easier time. When I went back to Japan with the ability to speak their language, the already impeccable service was raised several levels especially by service staff who are not fluent in English and appreciating the simple gesture. The point is , Dont just rave and rant and expect other people to give in to your language medium. If you can speak their language, you would bound to discover how much easier your life will be in a foreign land. I have seen many expats living overseas turn their nose up at the locals and congregate associating amongst themselves, bitching and complaining about matters that would have easily resolve / dissolve if they would learn to integrate with the locals, which obviously was too much to ask from them.
Singapore never professed to be a western country, our national anthem isnt even English. At heart, we are a mix lot, mixed heritage living together. English is only but our common business language. So if one comes across another person on the street, I personally feel that the person is NOT obliged to reply you in English or even be fluent in it. This is NOT to excuse poor linguistic skills in the general public and especially the service industry (which I do concur requires huge improvement but who is going to pay for their British council courses?) but to pin the blame on the whole nation, I think is a little too much. Unless ALL our educational teachers are native English speakers, or had gone through British council course (would parents like to pick up a more expensive school fee tab?) to improve their speech, this situation of weird Singapore accents will always remain a cyclical challenge. What's more, should the huge influx of continuous tourists from China pumping so much cash into western countries expect them to be fluent in Mandarin in the service industry as well if that is the argument to go by? Hong Kong is a good example of a country doing that and no one is faulting their less than perfect Mandarin accent. Hong Kong is colonised by the Brits far longer than Singapore and yet Cantonese remained their main language medium and English is horridly indecent by far and large, situation not helped by the teaching medium swapped to Mandarin in schools years back since the reunification with China. So why is Singapore beating ourselves up so badly in comparison?
There is a difference between airing the gaps and pushing for improvements vs downright negating and turning your back on your own nationality.
I have lived in Australia myself and the English of many people there are neither perfect nor always pristine grammatically correct even if it's their first and ONLY language. And yes, while I readily agree that the Australian staff are friendlier, and warmer, however that does not equate to competency either. I too have my endless fair share of rants about service in Sydney to the point that I often wonder if one should abolish the "welfare allowance" or that the unions are not wielding too much power to the point that the staff doesnt care about what is "customer oriented service", nor do they care about what is call after sales service. Such complacency to me is much more deplorable than an "incompetent singapore staff" who may not know how to handle a question but had the decency to rope in their manager to address any complaints of the staff. In David Jones Sydney, I had the fortunate experience of a male staff who served us halfway but decided that it was time for his smoking break, and no qualms to leave us waitin for good 30-45mins while he scooted out without a word. When we enquired for the followup, no one had a clue, and no one bothered to locate any floor manager if there was even one. When the staff returned, no apologies, no concerns. Whatever we asked, he had no idea and couldnt care less. In another instance, the female staff were just chatting and chatting and couldnt care less that I was in a hurry to pay and go. In another instance where I was promised white goods delivery, and only to have the guys dumping it on my doorstep saying that carrying it into the apartment or assembly is NOT their job, not giving a damn if a single woman could even carry the heavy goods in that require 3 big blokes to handle. So how is Sydney any better when it comes to service quality? Perfect English alone doesnt redeem bad service either nor gain any affections in my books. I rather have someone who is half arsed in English but get the job done without me fretting or getting annoyed with the blatant "couldnt care less" attitude. Hence I think it is a bit rich for any Australians to complain about service in Singapore or any other Asia countries for a fact.
A good portion of westerners may have learned a 2nd / 3rd language but that good portion has never master it well either. I take Kevin Rudd as an outstanding exception. However, even with a chinese son-in-law, how many in his family are able to speak mandarin well? We take a look at a good portion of Australians, which many are not able to speak another language apart from English, not even when they have Aboriginal people in their own backyard and a substantial number of Asians in their community. What is worse is they are still fighting discrimination of the locals against the aboriginals the land they had cruelly stolen from. A good portion of American likewise in a similar position, where English is the only dominant language despite the fact they are a melting pot of other ethnic races like the Hispanic etc. The point I am trying to make here is that there are many groups of people out there who felt so discriminated against to a point that it was a cheering fact that a non-white president has been elected. Hence. shouldnt there be more hate group out there from other countries then to rant about the inequality, discriminating and judgemental society they live in compared to the peeving, trival matters that had been raised in this "I hate singapore" group?
While it is natural and almost 2nd nature to have tons of grievances, contentions about nagging issues,and exasperation's over flaws of a country, however it is childish and petty, even bordering on ingrate for any citizens to declare an open hatred for your own country over such inane matters (unless someone has a political agenda to it which makes it a separate matter). People who constantly gripe about Singapore laws, I often throw back a question, why should strict laws offend anyone who doesnt seek to act out a crime? Incidentally to the ignorant foreigner, personal consumption of gum is not an offence, the sale of it is.
Living in other countries, one also has to pay (different) taxes, abide by another set of laws, work, sleep, eat, watch TV, hang out at cinema cafes malls and beach. What's the big difference? For those complaining of the lack of fun and scenery, go get a great job, and that's what paid holidays and travelling are for. Dont just take for a week or two and gleam only the surface of pretty things, try roughing it out and perhaps some exposure of other people's way of lives in another country would do you a little good and widen your shallow narrow horizon. I had a friend who once told me the difficulty she had locating a rental apartment because no one wanted to rent to a non Japanese, regardless how good her track records may be. Or doesn anyone know the sort of "social" class a working woman at work has in Japan a well civilised country?I was shocked by such a given alienation. People in Sg doesnt know how good they have it despite our country's imperfections.
As for those who carelessly and unreservedly stamp their disapproval and hatred towards Singapore so much, one has to rem there are always 2 sides to a coin and rem the old saying, where the pasture is always greener on the other side but isnt necessary so when you actually do step across.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28045.1
Another eye catching, thought provoking recent news article on the now infamous "I hate Singapore" facebook group. Accordingly to the news snippet, most of the members are unsurprisingly our citizens, which in turn encouraged other expats to give in to their numerous rant and complaints about my country.
(news source: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,199816-1240610340,00.html )
"The Facebook page says the creator is one Mr Wils Cheng . When The New Paper e-mailed to ask him why he set up the group, he simply referred us to the write-up on the group's Facebook page. He would not say if he is Singaporean. On whether he felt his group's stand was too harsh, Mr Cheng replied: 'I do regret that the name of the group may be 'harsh and unfair', but the things we advocate - free speech, free blogging, less restriction on art and expression, and cultural progress - are all positive.'"
Firstly what does he has to hide whether he is a singaporean? Afraid of repercusions? Is he a a true reformer at heart or coward in disguise?
Freedom of speech doesnt always equate to objective nor constructive airing of opinions. However, how many of those ranting out there are truly unbiased?Sure, in many ways Singapore is lacking and requires areas of improvement, but hey, which country is perfect? Is it really necessary to bash your own country and being so shamelesly unnationalistic? To set up a group to publicly humiliate your own birth place, really, does it make you a better qualified person to think that you have all sides of the stories especially when I suspect a good portion of the people may not even have experience residence in other continents before they shot off their mouth without regards.
I found it ironical at how China which has more human rights restrictions imposed on its citizens produced more nationalistic citizens than us. The chinese are profusingly genuinely proud of their own nation in comparsion. In face of any criticsims in the political or media arena, many times, China citizens from many parts would band together and stick it out defending their country, lashing at the negativity. Yet for Singaporeans who had it better in many aspects, often had nothing but disdain and public outcry against their own land, much eager to embrace the "renegade" badge as if it is some perverse honor. It is this public group of "thoughtless" people that I really loathe that makes others like us having to suffer the mockery by people of other nations, and having to defend ourselves in the face of slapping our own cheek by our own people.
Everyone in life shares different priorities of what is important to them, hence its up to a person how much one is willing to forgo in acceptance of the values that is dearest to their own heart. I have many expat friends living in Singapore and loving it because they can never imagine return to their own country may it Australia, London or New York. They would rather put up with bad English than return to the inconveniences they grow up in, or the unsafe environment where walking alone at night is unsafe, an underground tube that constantly breaks down, or the wet and gloomy expensive life that surrounds them. Overly passionate ciztiens aside, for those foreigners who had unreservedly shared their candid negative views, I hold nothing against them because they have every right to reject what was offered to them and return to their homeland which in turn have its own vices and flaws. However, the question that I wonder is how many of them have even truly tried to adapt or blend in with the locals without that "I am an expat attitude?"
As to the gripes of Ms Laila Allen from Australia, English may be our first working language medium but regardless how much our govt may try to promote it, it is not our NATIVE language (mother tongue) that is if you havent come to realise in your stay in Singapore. Due to our diverse cultural ethnicity, we need a non offensive neutral common language to communicate - hence English. Yet to many, most of all revert to the language which we are most comfortable with in either Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, Teochew, Hakka, Tamil, or Malay etc when we aint working. Yes it is no excuse for bad pronunciation nor grammatical errors when it comes to service industry, however it is apparent that many of our service staff are not highly educated people. They may not necessary have all had the fortune of a good education and what's more, they most probably come from families where English may not be the main medium at home, nor least of all gone to a top school where one could mouth off English perfectly without your so call bad accent. Plus I do resent the fact that the person you are criticising could jolly well be someone Else's mother, brother or sister who does not have the luxury of a proper education. Rather than be judgemental, think about all those poor old aunties and uncle who have to pick up another working language just to find work in this modern society before one starts to pass a sweeping condemnation on all working staff.
I fail to believe all Singaporeans speak badly. Sure there are many where even I would cringe hearing them but I certainly can vouch for numerous Singaporeans who had fantastic spoken English. And as for accent, does one personally think that the thick Australian Queensland English or the Ireland's slang is anything easier nor understandable to other foreigners?
Perhaps Australia is luckier in the sense that their ancestors are of prisoner stock from London, combined with working class migrants from other European countries, hence inheriting the mixture of Cockney, Irish and Welsh, Germany accent. Singapore on the other hand are descendants from of migrants from different part of China, India and Asia states and hence English has never been part of our heritage until we were colonised, which even then, still was a language for the rich and not the common folks. Hence having a weird varied form of accent differing from many other western countries where English is deeply entrenched for centuries is thus comprehensible. We may not have perfect crisp Queens English, nor the nasal American accent for most of the lot but for the last 44 years since English was introduced to our curriculum, and moving on I believe we are getting there, through the evolution of generations combined with the influx of more westerners to taking up residency. However, one has to bear in mind that our society will always be formed by different tier of classes and those who are perfect in English would unlikely be found to be serving in a restaurant, supermarket, receptionist or fronting the desk of a customer service (with exception to citibank customer service perhaps) unless it is a part time job.
On the other matter, just because one asked a question in English in foreign land, one shouldn't arrogantly presume and expect everyone to reply in English, least of all perfect English. If someone continued to speak mandarin or any other foreign language to you, it doesnt mean they do not care about your existence. At times, they are trying to help and hoping in a tiny chance you can make sense of their conversation. When I was in Japan and once asked a (5 star) hotel staff a question in English, he started out feebly in grammatically incorrect English and started to talk in Japanese to himself, to his colleague and to me, desperately hoping hope against hope I may be able to make sense. I am not offended just because he is speaking Japanese to me when I had asked in English. And neither am i critical at the fact that he wasnt able to speak English fluently in a 5 start hotel. In Hong Kong, you can speak English but when you meet someone who doesnt or not quite fluently, they too would also quickly revert back to speaking in Cantonese and fretting about how to convey a point. In Paris, I got misdirected and people tried to point me back in French even though I know they can speak English. Yet I was never offended. Hence the point is, if you dont understand what other people are saying to you, dont point the fingers at others expecting people to accommodate your language. Instead, while in ROME, do what the ROMANS do, go pick up another language, at least basic speech to get you by. If you succeed in acclimatising yourself to the host country, you will in turn be richly rewarded with warmer service and an easier time. When I went back to Japan with the ability to speak their language, the already impeccable service was raised several levels especially by service staff who are not fluent in English and appreciating the simple gesture. The point is , Dont just rave and rant and expect other people to give in to your language medium. If you can speak their language, you would bound to discover how much easier your life will be in a foreign land. I have seen many expats living overseas turn their nose up at the locals and congregate associating amongst themselves, bitching and complaining about matters that would have easily resolve / dissolve if they would learn to integrate with the locals, which obviously was too much to ask from them.
Singapore never professed to be a western country, our national anthem isnt even English. At heart, we are a mix lot, mixed heritage living together. English is only but our common business language. So if one comes across another person on the street, I personally feel that the person is NOT obliged to reply you in English or even be fluent in it. This is NOT to excuse poor linguistic skills in the general public and especially the service industry (which I do concur requires huge improvement but who is going to pay for their British council courses?) but to pin the blame on the whole nation, I think is a little too much. Unless ALL our educational teachers are native English speakers, or had gone through British council course (would parents like to pick up a more expensive school fee tab?) to improve their speech, this situation of weird Singapore accents will always remain a cyclical challenge. What's more, should the huge influx of continuous tourists from China pumping so much cash into western countries expect them to be fluent in Mandarin in the service industry as well if that is the argument to go by? Hong Kong is a good example of a country doing that and no one is faulting their less than perfect Mandarin accent. Hong Kong is colonised by the Brits far longer than Singapore and yet Cantonese remained their main language medium and English is horridly indecent by far and large, situation not helped by the teaching medium swapped to Mandarin in schools years back since the reunification with China. So why is Singapore beating ourselves up so badly in comparison?
There is a difference between airing the gaps and pushing for improvements vs downright negating and turning your back on your own nationality.
I have lived in Australia myself and the English of many people there are neither perfect nor always pristine grammatically correct even if it's their first and ONLY language. And yes, while I readily agree that the Australian staff are friendlier, and warmer, however that does not equate to competency either. I too have my endless fair share of rants about service in Sydney to the point that I often wonder if one should abolish the "welfare allowance" or that the unions are not wielding too much power to the point that the staff doesnt care about what is "customer oriented service", nor do they care about what is call after sales service. Such complacency to me is much more deplorable than an "incompetent singapore staff" who may not know how to handle a question but had the decency to rope in their manager to address any complaints of the staff. In David Jones Sydney, I had the fortunate experience of a male staff who served us halfway but decided that it was time for his smoking break, and no qualms to leave us waitin for good 30-45mins while he scooted out without a word. When we enquired for the followup, no one had a clue, and no one bothered to locate any floor manager if there was even one. When the staff returned, no apologies, no concerns. Whatever we asked, he had no idea and couldnt care less. In another instance, the female staff were just chatting and chatting and couldnt care less that I was in a hurry to pay and go. In another instance where I was promised white goods delivery, and only to have the guys dumping it on my doorstep saying that carrying it into the apartment or assembly is NOT their job, not giving a damn if a single woman could even carry the heavy goods in that require 3 big blokes to handle. So how is Sydney any better when it comes to service quality? Perfect English alone doesnt redeem bad service either nor gain any affections in my books. I rather have someone who is half arsed in English but get the job done without me fretting or getting annoyed with the blatant "couldnt care less" attitude. Hence I think it is a bit rich for any Australians to complain about service in Singapore or any other Asia countries for a fact.
A good portion of westerners may have learned a 2nd / 3rd language but that good portion has never master it well either. I take Kevin Rudd as an outstanding exception. However, even with a chinese son-in-law, how many in his family are able to speak mandarin well? We take a look at a good portion of Australians, which many are not able to speak another language apart from English, not even when they have Aboriginal people in their own backyard and a substantial number of Asians in their community. What is worse is they are still fighting discrimination of the locals against the aboriginals the land they had cruelly stolen from. A good portion of American likewise in a similar position, where English is the only dominant language despite the fact they are a melting pot of other ethnic races like the Hispanic etc. The point I am trying to make here is that there are many groups of people out there who felt so discriminated against to a point that it was a cheering fact that a non-white president has been elected. Hence. shouldnt there be more hate group out there from other countries then to rant about the inequality, discriminating and judgemental society they live in compared to the peeving, trival matters that had been raised in this "I hate singapore" group?
While it is natural and almost 2nd nature to have tons of grievances, contentions about nagging issues,and exasperation's over flaws of a country, however it is childish and petty, even bordering on ingrate for any citizens to declare an open hatred for your own country over such inane matters (unless someone has a political agenda to it which makes it a separate matter). People who constantly gripe about Singapore laws, I often throw back a question, why should strict laws offend anyone who doesnt seek to act out a crime? Incidentally to the ignorant foreigner, personal consumption of gum is not an offence, the sale of it is.
Living in other countries, one also has to pay (different) taxes, abide by another set of laws, work, sleep, eat, watch TV, hang out at cinema cafes malls and beach. What's the big difference? For those complaining of the lack of fun and scenery, go get a great job, and that's what paid holidays and travelling are for. Dont just take for a week or two and gleam only the surface of pretty things, try roughing it out and perhaps some exposure of other people's way of lives in another country would do you a little good and widen your shallow narrow horizon. I had a friend who once told me the difficulty she had locating a rental apartment because no one wanted to rent to a non Japanese, regardless how good her track records may be. Or doesn anyone know the sort of "social" class a working woman at work has in Japan a well civilised country?I was shocked by such a given alienation. People in Sg doesnt know how good they have it despite our country's imperfections.
As for those who carelessly and unreservedly stamp their disapproval and hatred towards Singapore so much, one has to rem there are always 2 sides to a coin and rem the old saying, where the pasture is always greener on the other side but isnt necessary so when you actually do step across.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28045.1
Respect
Respect
The headlines on Straits Times read “Jackie slams Singaporeans, where the Hong Kong movie star is quoted,
A lot of people are not like those in USA and Japan who voluntarily have self-respect. When you don’t have self-respect, the government will have to control you….[Singaporeans] have no self-respect at all.
His comments are likely to stir up emotions. Many Singaporean conversations would probably start to label him a second-rate movie star, and question his right to judge us. But in his bluntness Jackie might have hit the uncomfortable truth.
Singapore, in her search for a national identity, has put on so many masks, driven by an unexplainable shame towards being herself. We aim to be like Switzerland, or some amalgamation of rich and developed countries. Even the language we converse in is driven not by who we are, but what is economically pragmatic at that juncture in time.
There is a divide between our overly-involved (IMO, anyway) government and the people. Singlish - the language organically evolved by the people, is labelled as detrimental to our progress, something to be avoided, unclean, almost. The government-run stuff - almost everything else - wins international awards, but is derided by the Singapore people as symbols of our government’s obsession with obtaining the approval of her colonial masters.
The pervasive hand of the government somehow prevents true ownership of victories which ought to belong to the Singapore people. We have become the lesser brother and the Singapore government - the elite - have become the greater. This divide grows everytime a government official believes, consciously or subconsciously, that they know better than the Singapore people. They forget: they are the Singapore people.
So it is, as with every teenager beaten down by their over-achieving sibling, Singaporeans have an underdeveloped sense of esteem. Like an alcoholic, prodigal brother, we rant and tear away at our own, refusing to believe that anything that comes out of Singapore is world-class. Even home-grown Tiger beer advertises herself as more London and New York than Singaporean. We were so very quick to tear down Sim Wong Hoo the moment the Apple iPod took over Creative’s mp3 player market share. I know I was.
There is a need to merge the two Singapores. We could sit in our armchairs and go on at length about how the government ought to be more in touch with the people, or we could realise that we too are at fault. There is an image of Singapore in the international consciousness: an image of clockwork efficiency and world-class execution which is the envy of many nations. There is also the image of cold hard Cylon steel, a Singapore more machine than human.
We need to own who we are. We need to stop letting others define who we are and pour our humanity, stretching, nay, breaking the government-orchestrated exercise of nation-building. We need to speak up and stand up for that which is Singapore. We need to own our victories:
* being thankful for racial harmony and actively protecting that from a knee-jerk reaction to immigrants
* understanding that the measure of a people lies not in what she has, but what she gives
* and making up your own list of what it means to be a Singaporean. Don’t let the government, the media, or even this blog entry define that feeling in your gut
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28044.1
Aware: PROBLEMS? Call Govt
Tussle For Aware
PROBLEMS? Call Govt
DISPUTES? Call Govt
ISSUES? Call Govt
As infighting within women's group Aware continues, netizens ask if it's time for government intervention
WITH the infighting at Aware turning ugly, is it time for the Government to step in to make sure it doesn't get worse?
By Shree Ann Mathavan
27 April 2009
WITH the infighting at Aware turning ugly, is it time for the Government to step in to make sure it doesn't get worse?
That is the question being asked by some Singaporeans as the fight between the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)'s old and new guard escalated.
Three Government leaders have since commented on the issue.
Letters have appeared in the newspapers calling for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to intervene.
Mr Ravi Govindan, who wrote to The Straits Times Forum page, believed secularism could be under threat with the new committee comprising several members from the same religion.
Ensuring secularism is also a sentiment echoed by Mr Choo Zheng Xi, 23, the editor-in-chief of sociopolitical website The Online Citizen.
He is especially concerned over e-mail messages circulating on the Internet which allege that the church may be behind the leadership change at Aware during its annual general meeting on 28 Mar.
If the allegations are true, Government intervention may be needed, he told The New Paper on Sunday, although it should only be a 'last resort'.
However, in a poll we conducted, more than half said the Government should not get involved in the Aware saga. (See page 24.)
And several political commentators we spoke to all said that the Government should should stay out of the fight.
Dr Terence Chong, a sociologist at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, said the call by some for government intervention reflects Singaporeans' 'placid' view of politics.
'So whenever something boils over, they call out for the nanny state to step in,' he said.
'In the long run, this is unfruitful because we end up being political infants that can't see robust debate as part of public life.'
Moreover, he pointed out that no laws have been broken.
While the police should certainly follow up on the death threats some of the new members have faced, he noted: 'They did take power legally and constitutionally, no laws have been broken.'
That's a point also stressed by lawyer Chandra Mohan Nair, 59, a former Nominated Member of Parliament. He said: 'There is no reason for the Government to intervene. There is no crisis, no breach of law, it is opinions being expressed.
'That's healthy, even if there is unhappiness.'
Likewise, Mr Zulkifli Baharudin, 49, businessman and former nominated member of parliament, feels the Government shouldn't interfere.
Unlike in some cases where Governments intervened with charities, there has been no abuse of funds, he noted.
Nevertheless, he feels important lessons can be drawn from the way the Aware affair has played out.
He said that the organisation should be aware that when it comes to any democratic election, there is always a winner and a loser.
'When you have open elections, you face the possible risk of votes going 'wrong' from one point of view,' he said.
'It is a numbers game, so you have to live with the consequences, you can't cry foul.'
He also pointed out that what is going on in Aware is a microcosm of larger society between those who are more liberal and those who hold more conservative views.
That's something Mr Nair agreed with.
He said: 'My wish is they will have a healthy and open discussion and something fruitful will come from the old and new guard.'
The New Paper on Sunday raised the issue of government intervention to both the new and old leaders of Aware.
Ms Margaret Thomas, 57, a founding member of the group, didn't think it was right or necessary.
She noted: 'It's a civil society process, so it ought to be something that we sort out ourselves.
'A lot of people have said this is a wake up call for the society, so let's do that.'
The new leaders of Aware shared a similar stance as well.
Ministers call for tolerance and respect
ON Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean urged Aware's warring groups to tolerate and respect each other's views.
Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, told The Straits Times that the Aware case was not a national dispute and should not upset the balance and tenor of our open, tolerant and secular society.
But she added that Aware members should not let their disagreement become a vehicle for divisive views to be pushed aggressively.
Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports Yu-Foo Yee Shoon told reporters that Aware should settle the issue, respect its members' wishes as well as its constitution.
Following DPM Teo's comments, MsJosie Lau, President of Aware, released a press statement yesterday:
'Aware fully supports what the Ministers said that the disputes are internal matters.
'They should not be exploited in the public arena to serve controversial agendas.
'It is important that diversity of views be heard and discussed in a civil and democratic manner.
'The general meetings of Aware are the appropriate forum for those genuinely interested in Aware and its contribution to the well-being of women in Singapore.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27979.2
PROBLEMS? Call Govt
DISPUTES? Call Govt
ISSUES? Call Govt
As infighting within women's group Aware continues, netizens ask if it's time for government intervention
WITH the infighting at Aware turning ugly, is it time for the Government to step in to make sure it doesn't get worse?
By Shree Ann Mathavan
27 April 2009
WITH the infighting at Aware turning ugly, is it time for the Government to step in to make sure it doesn't get worse?
That is the question being asked by some Singaporeans as the fight between the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)'s old and new guard escalated.
Three Government leaders have since commented on the issue.
Letters have appeared in the newspapers calling for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to intervene.
Mr Ravi Govindan, who wrote to The Straits Times Forum page, believed secularism could be under threat with the new committee comprising several members from the same religion.
Ensuring secularism is also a sentiment echoed by Mr Choo Zheng Xi, 23, the editor-in-chief of sociopolitical website The Online Citizen.
He is especially concerned over e-mail messages circulating on the Internet which allege that the church may be behind the leadership change at Aware during its annual general meeting on 28 Mar.
If the allegations are true, Government intervention may be needed, he told The New Paper on Sunday, although it should only be a 'last resort'.
However, in a poll we conducted, more than half said the Government should not get involved in the Aware saga. (See page 24.)
And several political commentators we spoke to all said that the Government should should stay out of the fight.
Dr Terence Chong, a sociologist at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, said the call by some for government intervention reflects Singaporeans' 'placid' view of politics.
'So whenever something boils over, they call out for the nanny state to step in,' he said.
'In the long run, this is unfruitful because we end up being political infants that can't see robust debate as part of public life.'
Moreover, he pointed out that no laws have been broken.
While the police should certainly follow up on the death threats some of the new members have faced, he noted: 'They did take power legally and constitutionally, no laws have been broken.'
That's a point also stressed by lawyer Chandra Mohan Nair, 59, a former Nominated Member of Parliament. He said: 'There is no reason for the Government to intervene. There is no crisis, no breach of law, it is opinions being expressed.
'That's healthy, even if there is unhappiness.'
Likewise, Mr Zulkifli Baharudin, 49, businessman and former nominated member of parliament, feels the Government shouldn't interfere.
Unlike in some cases where Governments intervened with charities, there has been no abuse of funds, he noted.
Nevertheless, he feels important lessons can be drawn from the way the Aware affair has played out.
He said that the organisation should be aware that when it comes to any democratic election, there is always a winner and a loser.
'When you have open elections, you face the possible risk of votes going 'wrong' from one point of view,' he said.
'It is a numbers game, so you have to live with the consequences, you can't cry foul.'
He also pointed out that what is going on in Aware is a microcosm of larger society between those who are more liberal and those who hold more conservative views.
That's something Mr Nair agreed with.
He said: 'My wish is they will have a healthy and open discussion and something fruitful will come from the old and new guard.'
The New Paper on Sunday raised the issue of government intervention to both the new and old leaders of Aware.
Ms Margaret Thomas, 57, a founding member of the group, didn't think it was right or necessary.
She noted: 'It's a civil society process, so it ought to be something that we sort out ourselves.
'A lot of people have said this is a wake up call for the society, so let's do that.'
The new leaders of Aware shared a similar stance as well.
Ministers call for tolerance and respect
ON Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean urged Aware's warring groups to tolerate and respect each other's views.
Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, told The Straits Times that the Aware case was not a national dispute and should not upset the balance and tenor of our open, tolerant and secular society.
But she added that Aware members should not let their disagreement become a vehicle for divisive views to be pushed aggressively.
Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports Yu-Foo Yee Shoon told reporters that Aware should settle the issue, respect its members' wishes as well as its constitution.
Following DPM Teo's comments, MsJosie Lau, President of Aware, released a press statement yesterday:
'Aware fully supports what the Ministers said that the disputes are internal matters.
'They should not be exploited in the public arena to serve controversial agendas.
'It is important that diversity of views be heard and discussed in a civil and democratic manner.
'The general meetings of Aware are the appropriate forum for those genuinely interested in Aware and its contribution to the well-being of women in Singapore.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27979.2
Aware saga: The other questions we have to ask
Exchange
THE BUZZ
Aware saga: The other questions we have to ask
AN army buddy called me one morning last week, proudly proclaiming: 'I'm joining Aware!'
By Ng Tze Yong
27 April 2009
AN army buddy called me one morning last week, proudly proclaiming: 'I'm joining Aware!'
Which was fine and good, except for one thing.
He also happens to be the biggest chee ko pek (lecherous man) I know.
Dude, I told him, you care about girls. That's not quite the same as gender rights.
We were kidding around. But the fact remains that, in the two weeks since the Aware saga started, interest has spread far beyond women, homosexuals and Christians.
Last Thursday's press conference by the new Aware exco, with its revelations of death threats, has taken things up to a whole new level.
Now, every Singaporean has a dog in this (cat)fight.
As a young Singaporean, I hear the questions of tomorrow ringing just as loudly as the questions of today.
Yes, I want to know the story behind the takeover. At the same time, I want to know:
If it's Aware today, what next tomorrow?
If it's the conservative religious versus homosexuals today, what will it be tomorrow?
And if it's online barbs, explosive press conferences and death threats today, what will we be seeing tomorrow?
How will Singaporeans register their displeasure in a future which the Government has promised to govern with a lighter touch?
However it concludes, the Aware saga reveals where the fault lines have opened up in Singapore over the past 10 years and how the power dynamics have shifted.
Did we see it coming?
On hindsight, perhaps we should have.
In the last decade, we have steadily watched the growing influence of the conservative religious and homosexuals.
We witnessed the growth of megachurches, the discovery of terrorist cells, and hints of a growing tension in the ranting of 2005's teenage racist bloggers.
At the same time, there seemed to be a growing number of homosexuals stepping out of the closet.
Many were new friends, colleagues and acquaintances. Some were also old friends.
There was a growing acceptance of them.
Last year, in the memorable debate over homosexuality in Parliament, we finally heard their growing voices.
The changes were happening all around us.
Slowly but surely, like plate tectonics, our society was evolving.
But until it all exploded with the turf war over a women's group, nobody really spoke up.
Now that the fault lines are clear, it's time to ask some serious questions, something our post-65 MPs can perhaps help with.
Did they see it coming?
Or more importantly: What is it they see coming?
We're not asking for a nanny. But at a time when young Singaporeans are grappling with the liberalisation of civic space and a globalising world, it wouldn't hurt to hear what our leaders have to say beyond repeating the same tired phrases.
Where will we go from here?
What would we have to start doing differently?
How can we pledge ourselves as one united people?
How can we disregard race, language or religion?
What is a democratic society?
What is justice and equality?
What exactly is happiness, prosperity and progress?
These are the questions we must ask, even before this catfight ends.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27979.1
Can a Christian political party possibly exist in Singapore?
Can a Christian political party possibly exist in Singapore?
SINGAPORE - In the wake of the AWARE saga, several permutations went through my mind, one of those centered on hypothetical scenarios in Singapore politics. This led to an interesting question - can a Christian political party exist in Singapore? This piece is by no means an academic dissertation, and is never meant to be exhuastive, but rather an articulation of my thoughts on the subject.
Christianity in Singapore
Christianity in Singapore comprises Catholicism and Protestantism, in addition to Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, and finally the Charismatic movement. The breakdown of the percentage of Singaporeans adhering to the various religions/non-religions is as follows - Buddhism (42.5%), Christianity (14.6%), Islam (13.9%), Taoism (8.5%), Hinduism (4%), Other religions (1.6%) and No religion (14.8%).
Christianity has a prolific presence within the education scene, with a substantial number of missionary schools belonging to four major denominations - anglicans, methodist, presbyterian and catholicism.
A Christian political party and its formation
A Christian political party generally seeks to apply Christian principles to public policy, and this is the raison d’etre for most Christian political parties. The latter may be aligned to the left, right or center.
It is interesting to postulate how a Christian political party can arise in Singapore’s context. The most ostensible cause for the set up of such a party could be attributed to a reaction against prevailing policies by the government. A hypothetical Christian political party can be set up to address public policies on the intergrated resorts, hiring of gays into the civil service and stem cell research.
The set up of the intergrated resorts will be of concern to the Christian community because of its association with the gambling vice. And as far as homosexuality is concerned, it is not uncommon for Christians to hold an antagonistic view on the subject due to their scripture-inspired convictions. Lastly, the government has placed fewer restrictions in the conducting of stem cell research in the hope that this will give Singapore a comparative advantage over other countries who enforce tough restrictions. Pro-life advocators within the Christian community would not be supportive of this less restrictive approach due to belief that life begins at the embryo, and its destruction leads to the denial of its right to life.
Barriers within the Christian community
The first obvious barrier is obviously a matter within the Christian community itself - dealing with the differences within. Despite my earlier said point that a hypothetical party might be established to address the homosexuality issue, signals from the Christian community on the subject could be said to be mixed at best. Notwithstanding Mr Derek Hong’s of the Church of Our Saviour anti-homosexuality stance, Dr Tan Kim Huat, a dean of the Trinity Theological College has came out in support of the repeal of the anti-gay law, section 377A of the penal code. Dr Yap Kim Hao, the first Asian Bishop of the The Methodist Church in Singapore has supported the government’s stance on employing gays within the civil service.
Another source of differences that the community must grapple with is inter-denominational in nature. If, for example, AWARE was a political party, they could face this barrier in garnering support from fellow Christians. Majority of Aware’s exco committee members hailed from the Church of Our Saviour, an Anglican cum Charismatic church. The source of disagreement could potentially come from Christians of traditional denominations (Presbyterian, Methodists) who are against the practices of Charismatic churches, and consider them contrary to the traditions of Christianity.
Barriers from the electorate
A Christian political party would obviously face barriers from the electorate who are largely non-Christian, going by the aforesaid percentage figures of adherents to the various religions. It will be interesting to predict the response of the Muslim voters to a Christian political party. Islam is an Abrahamic religion just like Christianity, and both are also exclusive. There is no doubt that such voters can swing the result either way during an electoral contest.
Judging from the public response to the pursuit of a Christian agenda, the hypothetical Christian political party has a big mountain to climb. When DBS (Development Bank of Singapore) supported Focus on the Family (FOTF), a Christian organization with an anti-gay stance, there was a public outcry resulting in a PR disaster for the bank. There were threats to boycott the bank, and this triggered a response to remove any form of reference to FOTF. This means that the bank has in effect distanced itself from FOTF. A Christian political party that is based on similar values as FOTF would be taken apart by the public. And if the party adopts a conciliatory stand towards gays, they may risk facing barriers within the Christianity community, especially amongst those who are against such an approach.
Political barriers
The Singapore Internal Security Department has adopted draconian measures during Operation Spectrum, which saw the arrest of 22 Roman Catholic professionals and social activists. As it turned out, some of them have assisted the Worker’s Party. The official accusations against the arrested was that they were members of a Marxist conspiracy bent on subverting the PAP government’s rule. It wasn’t shown how the accused could be proven to be a Marxist agitator because their profile didn’t fit the description of one.
This hypothetical Christian political party would be considered an opposition to the ruling secular PAP. If AWARE was a political party and its exco was taken over by a group of Christians bent on turning AWARE into a Christian political party, it would be interesting to ponder on the PAP government’s likely response in such a scenario. However, going by its track record during Operation Spectrum, one would not be surprised to see barriers erected to stymie the progress of this Christian political party.
Pragmatism
The fact remains that a pragmatic approach that can reap economic benefits would be pursued by the government, even if it meant going against the grain of values imparted by certain religions. This occurred in the case of the integrated resorts and stem cell research. If the application of Christian principles in policy debates go against pragmatism, it would be hard for the Christian political party to convince the pragmatic voters. Coming up with public policies that is acceptable from the Christian viewpoint and pragmatic at the same time may be a huge challenge.
Conclusion
The motivation behind the set up of a Christian political party can be a reactionary one in response to the prevailing polices of the PAP government, especially those deemed unacceptable from the Christian perspective. This hypothetical party will challenge the PAP on such policies. However, it will face challenges from its own community, the electorate and finally, the political establishment.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27962.1
SINGAPORE - In the wake of the AWARE saga, several permutations went through my mind, one of those centered on hypothetical scenarios in Singapore politics. This led to an interesting question - can a Christian political party exist in Singapore? This piece is by no means an academic dissertation, and is never meant to be exhuastive, but rather an articulation of my thoughts on the subject.
Christianity in Singapore
Christianity in Singapore comprises Catholicism and Protestantism, in addition to Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, and finally the Charismatic movement. The breakdown of the percentage of Singaporeans adhering to the various religions/non-religions is as follows - Buddhism (42.5%), Christianity (14.6%), Islam (13.9%), Taoism (8.5%), Hinduism (4%), Other religions (1.6%) and No religion (14.8%).
Christianity has a prolific presence within the education scene, with a substantial number of missionary schools belonging to four major denominations - anglicans, methodist, presbyterian and catholicism.
A Christian political party and its formation
A Christian political party generally seeks to apply Christian principles to public policy, and this is the raison d’etre for most Christian political parties. The latter may be aligned to the left, right or center.
It is interesting to postulate how a Christian political party can arise in Singapore’s context. The most ostensible cause for the set up of such a party could be attributed to a reaction against prevailing policies by the government. A hypothetical Christian political party can be set up to address public policies on the intergrated resorts, hiring of gays into the civil service and stem cell research.
The set up of the intergrated resorts will be of concern to the Christian community because of its association with the gambling vice. And as far as homosexuality is concerned, it is not uncommon for Christians to hold an antagonistic view on the subject due to their scripture-inspired convictions. Lastly, the government has placed fewer restrictions in the conducting of stem cell research in the hope that this will give Singapore a comparative advantage over other countries who enforce tough restrictions. Pro-life advocators within the Christian community would not be supportive of this less restrictive approach due to belief that life begins at the embryo, and its destruction leads to the denial of its right to life.
Barriers within the Christian community
The first obvious barrier is obviously a matter within the Christian community itself - dealing with the differences within. Despite my earlier said point that a hypothetical party might be established to address the homosexuality issue, signals from the Christian community on the subject could be said to be mixed at best. Notwithstanding Mr Derek Hong’s of the Church of Our Saviour anti-homosexuality stance, Dr Tan Kim Huat, a dean of the Trinity Theological College has came out in support of the repeal of the anti-gay law, section 377A of the penal code. Dr Yap Kim Hao, the first Asian Bishop of the The Methodist Church in Singapore has supported the government’s stance on employing gays within the civil service.
Another source of differences that the community must grapple with is inter-denominational in nature. If, for example, AWARE was a political party, they could face this barrier in garnering support from fellow Christians. Majority of Aware’s exco committee members hailed from the Church of Our Saviour, an Anglican cum Charismatic church. The source of disagreement could potentially come from Christians of traditional denominations (Presbyterian, Methodists) who are against the practices of Charismatic churches, and consider them contrary to the traditions of Christianity.
Barriers from the electorate
A Christian political party would obviously face barriers from the electorate who are largely non-Christian, going by the aforesaid percentage figures of adherents to the various religions. It will be interesting to predict the response of the Muslim voters to a Christian political party. Islam is an Abrahamic religion just like Christianity, and both are also exclusive. There is no doubt that such voters can swing the result either way during an electoral contest.
Judging from the public response to the pursuit of a Christian agenda, the hypothetical Christian political party has a big mountain to climb. When DBS (Development Bank of Singapore) supported Focus on the Family (FOTF), a Christian organization with an anti-gay stance, there was a public outcry resulting in a PR disaster for the bank. There were threats to boycott the bank, and this triggered a response to remove any form of reference to FOTF. This means that the bank has in effect distanced itself from FOTF. A Christian political party that is based on similar values as FOTF would be taken apart by the public. And if the party adopts a conciliatory stand towards gays, they may risk facing barriers within the Christianity community, especially amongst those who are against such an approach.
Political barriers
The Singapore Internal Security Department has adopted draconian measures during Operation Spectrum, which saw the arrest of 22 Roman Catholic professionals and social activists. As it turned out, some of them have assisted the Worker’s Party. The official accusations against the arrested was that they were members of a Marxist conspiracy bent on subverting the PAP government’s rule. It wasn’t shown how the accused could be proven to be a Marxist agitator because their profile didn’t fit the description of one.
This hypothetical Christian political party would be considered an opposition to the ruling secular PAP. If AWARE was a political party and its exco was taken over by a group of Christians bent on turning AWARE into a Christian political party, it would be interesting to ponder on the PAP government’s likely response in such a scenario. However, going by its track record during Operation Spectrum, one would not be surprised to see barriers erected to stymie the progress of this Christian political party.
Pragmatism
The fact remains that a pragmatic approach that can reap economic benefits would be pursued by the government, even if it meant going against the grain of values imparted by certain religions. This occurred in the case of the integrated resorts and stem cell research. If the application of Christian principles in policy debates go against pragmatism, it would be hard for the Christian political party to convince the pragmatic voters. Coming up with public policies that is acceptable from the Christian viewpoint and pragmatic at the same time may be a huge challenge.
Conclusion
The motivation behind the set up of a Christian political party can be a reactionary one in response to the prevailing polices of the PAP government, especially those deemed unacceptable from the Christian perspective. This hypothetical party will challenge the PAP on such policies. However, it will face challenges from its own community, the electorate and finally, the political establishment.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27962.1
The AWARE saga: Time for government to respond to its ramifications to draw a clear demarcation between secularism and religion
The AWARE saga: Time for government to respond to its ramifications to draw a clear demarcation between secularism and religion
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister of Community, Youth and Sports had finally broken his silence on the AWARE fiasco.
Speaking on the sidelines of his visit to Nee Soon South on 26 April 2009, he said:
“There will always be some issues where you cannot get everybody to agree. We need to be able to learn to live and let live, to agree to disagree, and to do so agreeably. But don’t let these single issues polarise or divide us and become the be-all and end-all of your social activism or your organisation.” (read article here)
The minister also emphasised that it is important for all Singaporeans to remember and also remain sensitive to the fact that they are living in a multi-racial and multi-religious society.
While I concur with Dr Vivian’s views and applaud the government’s decision not to intervene in the AWARE saga, I hope Dr Vivian and his ministry will study the ramifications of this unfortunate episode and respond accordingly to it.
Though the controversy which AWARE found itself embroiled in is purely an internal matter to be resolved by its members, we cannot ignore its implications for the larger civil society.
There is no denial that the present exco of AWARE was voted in legitimately during the March AGM in accordance to the rules set under its Constitution. However, whether they have acquired the moral legitimacy to lead the organization is another matter.
From the press conference called by the new AWARE exco, it appeared that the takeover was orchestrated behind the scenes by Senior lawyer Dr Thio Su Mien who was “disappointed” with the direction AWARE is heading under the old committee.
She had allegedly written an email to her friends a few months earlier urging them “to join it and change its focus to other problems of women and families.” (read article here)
Several new faces turned up at the AGM and voted their representatives into the exco six of whom are members of the Church of Our Savior (COOS).
In a sermon delivered on 25 April 2009, an influential pastor from COOS said:
“We are in a season where things are being shaken. As a church, we believe in what the ladies are doing and Alan (husband of Josie Lau) of course is part of the process as well and so we want to just lift them up for what the Devil is trying to do, God will turn it in the glory of its name.” (watch the video on SG Gutter Press here)
I am curious to know the identity of this “Devil”. Is the pastor referring to the AWARE old guards or anybody who refuses to endorse their uncompromising stance on homosexuality?
It is obvious that the COOS is aware of the “constitutional coup” launched by some of its members to take over AWARE and has given them its blessings and support.
There is a difference between members from the same Church participating in the AWARE elections in their own individual capacities and a group hatching a well-thought and organized plan beforehand with the sole aim of seizing control of the organization.
Will this unprincipled takeover of a secular organization by a faith-based group to “correct” perceived indiscretions on the part of the ex-office holders set a precedent for similiar “intervention” by religious organizations to extend its influence to the wider society via proxies which are secular in name only?
We are moving down a slippery slope here. A Pandora’s box has been opened in this instance which will have a detrimental impact on the secular nature of our society if the perpetuators are allowed to get away with their actions.
Worshipping of “idols” is mentioned in the same breath together with homosexuality as “sinners” by the COOS paster to his congregation.
Will our national institutions and NGOs be infiltrated and even taken over like AWARE one day by such moral vigilantes in order for them to push their agenda to a wider audience?
Religious organizations are free to set up their own NGOs to promote their own teachings, but while its members should be permitted to hold leadership positions in secular groups, a clear demarcation must be drawn between what is permitted and what is not.
I would like to pose the following questions to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan:
1. Should the COOS’s views on homosexuality be allowed to spread beyond the confines of the Church under the guise of secularism?
2. Is it acceptable for a faith-based group to hijack a secular group which it finds disagreeable?
If Dr Vivian’s answers to the above two questions are “no”, it is time for the government to send a strong message across that such actions are not to be encouraged, tolerated or promoted.
I am disturbed that the other Churches and religions have been keeping surprisingly quiet so far. Does silence imply that they acquiesce in the takeover of AWARE by a faith-based group?
They should step forward to clarify their stance on the matter. Will they follow the example of COOS members should they find a NGO promoting a cause which seems contrarian to their teachings?
In multiracial and multicultural Singapore, there is no place for religion in civil society. Let us continue to keep them in their own separate domains for it has served Singapore well since independence.
No group or religion should be allowed to impose their value systems on another. Everybody should be allowed to have their voices heard and a space which they call their own in an inclusive society where nobody is marginalized or discriminated against because of their beliefs, values or sexual orientation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27958.2
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister of Community, Youth and Sports had finally broken his silence on the AWARE fiasco.
Speaking on the sidelines of his visit to Nee Soon South on 26 April 2009, he said:
“There will always be some issues where you cannot get everybody to agree. We need to be able to learn to live and let live, to agree to disagree, and to do so agreeably. But don’t let these single issues polarise or divide us and become the be-all and end-all of your social activism or your organisation.” (read article here)
The minister also emphasised that it is important for all Singaporeans to remember and also remain sensitive to the fact that they are living in a multi-racial and multi-religious society.
While I concur with Dr Vivian’s views and applaud the government’s decision not to intervene in the AWARE saga, I hope Dr Vivian and his ministry will study the ramifications of this unfortunate episode and respond accordingly to it.
Though the controversy which AWARE found itself embroiled in is purely an internal matter to be resolved by its members, we cannot ignore its implications for the larger civil society.
There is no denial that the present exco of AWARE was voted in legitimately during the March AGM in accordance to the rules set under its Constitution. However, whether they have acquired the moral legitimacy to lead the organization is another matter.
From the press conference called by the new AWARE exco, it appeared that the takeover was orchestrated behind the scenes by Senior lawyer Dr Thio Su Mien who was “disappointed” with the direction AWARE is heading under the old committee.
She had allegedly written an email to her friends a few months earlier urging them “to join it and change its focus to other problems of women and families.” (read article here)
Several new faces turned up at the AGM and voted their representatives into the exco six of whom are members of the Church of Our Savior (COOS).
In a sermon delivered on 25 April 2009, an influential pastor from COOS said:
“We are in a season where things are being shaken. As a church, we believe in what the ladies are doing and Alan (husband of Josie Lau) of course is part of the process as well and so we want to just lift them up for what the Devil is trying to do, God will turn it in the glory of its name.” (watch the video on SG Gutter Press here)
I am curious to know the identity of this “Devil”. Is the pastor referring to the AWARE old guards or anybody who refuses to endorse their uncompromising stance on homosexuality?
It is obvious that the COOS is aware of the “constitutional coup” launched by some of its members to take over AWARE and has given them its blessings and support.
There is a difference between members from the same Church participating in the AWARE elections in their own individual capacities and a group hatching a well-thought and organized plan beforehand with the sole aim of seizing control of the organization.
Will this unprincipled takeover of a secular organization by a faith-based group to “correct” perceived indiscretions on the part of the ex-office holders set a precedent for similiar “intervention” by religious organizations to extend its influence to the wider society via proxies which are secular in name only?
We are moving down a slippery slope here. A Pandora’s box has been opened in this instance which will have a detrimental impact on the secular nature of our society if the perpetuators are allowed to get away with their actions.
Worshipping of “idols” is mentioned in the same breath together with homosexuality as “sinners” by the COOS paster to his congregation.
Will our national institutions and NGOs be infiltrated and even taken over like AWARE one day by such moral vigilantes in order for them to push their agenda to a wider audience?
Religious organizations are free to set up their own NGOs to promote their own teachings, but while its members should be permitted to hold leadership positions in secular groups, a clear demarcation must be drawn between what is permitted and what is not.
I would like to pose the following questions to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan:
1. Should the COOS’s views on homosexuality be allowed to spread beyond the confines of the Church under the guise of secularism?
2. Is it acceptable for a faith-based group to hijack a secular group which it finds disagreeable?
If Dr Vivian’s answers to the above two questions are “no”, it is time for the government to send a strong message across that such actions are not to be encouraged, tolerated or promoted.
I am disturbed that the other Churches and religions have been keeping surprisingly quiet so far. Does silence imply that they acquiesce in the takeover of AWARE by a faith-based group?
They should step forward to clarify their stance on the matter. Will they follow the example of COOS members should they find a NGO promoting a cause which seems contrarian to their teachings?
In multiracial and multicultural Singapore, there is no place for religion in civil society. Let us continue to keep them in their own separate domains for it has served Singapore well since independence.
No group or religion should be allowed to impose their value systems on another. Everybody should be allowed to have their voices heard and a space which they call their own in an inclusive society where nobody is marginalized or discriminated against because of their beliefs, values or sexual orientation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27958.2
Lee Boon Yang as Keppel Chair: how much are we spending to keep ex-PAP leaders on GLCs and stat boards?
Lee Boon Yang as Keppel Chair: how much are we spending to keep ex-PAP leaders on GLCs and stat boards?
It was reported recently that Dr Lee Boon Yang who had retired from cabinet will take over Lim Chee Onn as Chairman of Keppel Corp. Mr Lim, 64, himself a former Cabinet minister, will however stay on for an unspecified period as a senior adviser. (read article here)
Keppel Corp is a public-listed company with commercial interests in property, infrastructure, offshore and marine engineering as well as financial investments.
With due respect to Dr Lee, he is not exactly the best person to helm Keppel Corp based on his CV here. Dr Lee is a dentist by training. After joining the government, he held various portfolios in the Ministries of Defence, Labor, Finance and lastly Information, Communication and Arts.
Can Keppel Corp please explain its decision to appoint Dr Lee as its Chairman? What will be his annual salary and bonuses if any?
If Keppel Corp is a purely private outfit in the first place, it is unlikely to recruit Dr Lee and in any event if it did, only its shareholders have the right to question its decision.
However, Keppel Corp is partly owned by Temasek Holdings which owns 21% of it as of February 2008 (source: Kepcorp).
Technically speaking, Temasek Holdings is owned entirely by the people of Singapore though it functions as a commercial entity independent of the government.
Are taxpayers’ monies being used to pay Dr Lee’s salary? Why does Dr Lee need to work? Unlike the current civil service scheme, he is entitled to pension for the rest of his life!
It is a standard practice for the ruling PAP to give its retired ministers a “plum” job after they left public office either in a Government-linked Company or statutory board.
Ex-Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan was appointed the Chairman of Singapore Press Holdings upon his retirement. His predecessor was Mr Lim Kim San, the previous Minister for National Development.
From my observations, this arrangement is born out of political necessity to serve four purposes:
1. Keep current ministers on their toes all the time so that they will not dare to defy the party’s wishes.
2. Retain the allegiance and loyalty of the ex-ministers so that they will not go against the present cabinet.
3. Keep the PAP’s henchmen in control of strategically important companies like SPH in order to retain their political dominance.
4. Impose a mouth gag on these insiders with knowledge of sensitive information to prevent them from divulging any state secrets which may embarrass the government.
History is full of ex-government leaders creating trouble for the incumbents after they left office. We need only look across the causeway to see how Mahathir’s vitriol against his successor led eventually to his downfall.
The PAP is indeed smart to continue to keep ex-ministers on its payroll so as to keep them in check. Even if they had wanted to express opposition to the government’s policies, there are no avenues for them to do so because SPH will never grant them an interview.
Have you ever wondered why Singapore never have an instance of ex-PAP leaders coming out into open to disagree with the present ones in its history?
When PAP co-founder Rajaratnam passed away two years ago, few Singaporeans, especially the younger generation can hardly remember him.
When is the last time we heard about Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Ong Pang Boon or other PAP old guards in the papers?
The only time we will read about them is when they or their closed ones passed away like in the case of Toh Chin Chye who lost her only daughter recently.
In contrast to the shabby treatment given to the first generation of leaders, MM Lee Kuan Yew is given extensive coverage by the media once every few days to the effect that Singaporeans young and old are constantly reminded of his omnipresence.
The PAP practice of lavishing generous rewards on its ex-leaders only goes to maintain political stability to serve its own partisan interest while it is a drain on our state resources.
Ex-ministers should be allowed to retire gracefully to spend more time with their families. Let us not trouble them again by making them “serve” the nation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27959.1
It was reported recently that Dr Lee Boon Yang who had retired from cabinet will take over Lim Chee Onn as Chairman of Keppel Corp. Mr Lim, 64, himself a former Cabinet minister, will however stay on for an unspecified period as a senior adviser. (read article here)
Keppel Corp is a public-listed company with commercial interests in property, infrastructure, offshore and marine engineering as well as financial investments.
With due respect to Dr Lee, he is not exactly the best person to helm Keppel Corp based on his CV here. Dr Lee is a dentist by training. After joining the government, he held various portfolios in the Ministries of Defence, Labor, Finance and lastly Information, Communication and Arts.
Can Keppel Corp please explain its decision to appoint Dr Lee as its Chairman? What will be his annual salary and bonuses if any?
If Keppel Corp is a purely private outfit in the first place, it is unlikely to recruit Dr Lee and in any event if it did, only its shareholders have the right to question its decision.
However, Keppel Corp is partly owned by Temasek Holdings which owns 21% of it as of February 2008 (source: Kepcorp).
Technically speaking, Temasek Holdings is owned entirely by the people of Singapore though it functions as a commercial entity independent of the government.
Are taxpayers’ monies being used to pay Dr Lee’s salary? Why does Dr Lee need to work? Unlike the current civil service scheme, he is entitled to pension for the rest of his life!
It is a standard practice for the ruling PAP to give its retired ministers a “plum” job after they left public office either in a Government-linked Company or statutory board.
Ex-Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan was appointed the Chairman of Singapore Press Holdings upon his retirement. His predecessor was Mr Lim Kim San, the previous Minister for National Development.
From my observations, this arrangement is born out of political necessity to serve four purposes:
1. Keep current ministers on their toes all the time so that they will not dare to defy the party’s wishes.
2. Retain the allegiance and loyalty of the ex-ministers so that they will not go against the present cabinet.
3. Keep the PAP’s henchmen in control of strategically important companies like SPH in order to retain their political dominance.
4. Impose a mouth gag on these insiders with knowledge of sensitive information to prevent them from divulging any state secrets which may embarrass the government.
History is full of ex-government leaders creating trouble for the incumbents after they left office. We need only look across the causeway to see how Mahathir’s vitriol against his successor led eventually to his downfall.
The PAP is indeed smart to continue to keep ex-ministers on its payroll so as to keep them in check. Even if they had wanted to express opposition to the government’s policies, there are no avenues for them to do so because SPH will never grant them an interview.
Have you ever wondered why Singapore never have an instance of ex-PAP leaders coming out into open to disagree with the present ones in its history?
When PAP co-founder Rajaratnam passed away two years ago, few Singaporeans, especially the younger generation can hardly remember him.
When is the last time we heard about Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Ong Pang Boon or other PAP old guards in the papers?
The only time we will read about them is when they or their closed ones passed away like in the case of Toh Chin Chye who lost her only daughter recently.
In contrast to the shabby treatment given to the first generation of leaders, MM Lee Kuan Yew is given extensive coverage by the media once every few days to the effect that Singaporeans young and old are constantly reminded of his omnipresence.
The PAP practice of lavishing generous rewards on its ex-leaders only goes to maintain political stability to serve its own partisan interest while it is a drain on our state resources.
Ex-ministers should be allowed to retire gracefully to spend more time with their families. Let us not trouble them again by making them “serve” the nation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27959.1
Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's advice for Aware
April 26, 2009
Minister's advice for Aware
| By Li Xueying, Political Correspondent | ||
| | | Aware's former president and founding member Margaret Thomas at a press conference -- ST PHOTO: MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN |
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan made it clear it is not a good idea to mix religion and what he calls the hurly-burly of politicking on the ground.
He gave this piece of advice on Sunday to the two groups at loggerheads in the ongoing Aware saga.
Speaking after a ministerial visit to Nee Soon South, Dr Balakrishnan prefaced his remarks by stressing the Government would not be getting involved 'at this point in time'.
Saying the dispute is 'not a national problem', he added: 'This is a problem they (Aware) have to solve themselves. Let me state categorically that at this point in time, the Government has no intention of intervening.
'Let them settle this democratically, according to their own rules, abiding with their constitution.'
But what he would do is to offer three pieces of advice - to not just Aware, but all Singaporeans.
ONE: religion should be kept above the fray of petty politics.
TWO: do not let one issue hijack the agenda and polarise Singapore.
THREE: A rainbow coalition is vital for any group here to make meaningful change.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27958.1
Church denies instigating Aware takeover
Staff sent out email asking members to vote at Aware EOGM
Monday, 27 April 2009
But church denies instigating Aware takeover
By Terence Lee and Deborah Choo
26 APRIL, 2009 –A CHURCH of our Saviour (COOS) staff sent out an email calling for church members to vote at AWARE’s upcoming EOGM, a spokesman has confirmed yesterday.
For a while, it had been unclear whether the leaked email messages, readable in various forums, were authentic.
Speaking on the sidelines after Sunday’s 10.30am service, the church spokesman verified that only Shawn Tay and Linda Seah’s email messages are genuine. Both are staff of the church.
Mr Tay sent out an email on 17th April calling for church members to join AWARE and support the new Executive Committee members. He is from Choices Ministry, a department specialising in homosexual counseling.
In the email, Mr Tay called for “all responsible females to sign up for membership with AWARE immediately, and also to attend this all-important EGM so as to vote against changing the Constitution.”
As for Ms Seah, who is a zone pastor, she sent Senior Pastor Derek Hong an email on 16th April stating that “the number of members registered on Tuesday night is 13 out of 40 who turned up.” As of the time of this piece’s publication, the church has not been able to clarify what this means.
Both email messages were sent only after news of Aware’s takeover broke on The Straits Times.
It is also unclear if the rest of the leaked email are authentic.While admitting that their pastors were involved in garnering support for the new Executive Committee, the church spokesman denied allegations that they instigated the takeover of AWARE.
This is in line with an earlier claim made by the new Executive Committee at a press conference held at Raffles Town Club. They asserted that the church was not involved in the takeover.
“There is no church connection. The church is not at all involved in secular affairs,” they said.
The spokesman maintained that it was the church members’ prerogative to join AWARE, rather than a decision by the church staff’s.
Pastor Hong, who preached during the service, could not be approached directly by TOC for comment.
Pastor voices support for new Aware Exco
While COOS has denied involvement in the AWARE takeover, they are actively supportive of their church members getting involved in the EOGM to support the new Executive Committee.
Pastor Hong devoted most of his sermon on the issue of homosexuality, voicing support for the endeavours of the new Aware team. The service was attended by about 800 people.
Calling for solidarity, he implored the women in the church to “unite with the sisters and support them.” He also said that the new team’s actions are not “a crusade against the people,” but instead a move to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.
He also spoke against the “neutral” portrayal of homosexuality taught by AWARE to schoolgirls. The Christian’s belief system, he argued, prevents them from accepting homosexuality as “neutral.” The Bible clearly teaches that it is wrong, and that is the position the church have to take.
“Christians have the responsibility to protect the young, the vulnerable, and the innocent, even though its not popular or politically correct, even though people may not understand or they may get angry with us,” he said.
The pastor, however, sees a silver lining in the controversies. Contrasting Singapore against countries that are heading towards liberalisation, he is glad the Aware team stood up for what the Bible deemed was right. He said: “We need to thank God that because section 377A still stands, we will not move in that direction.”
During the service, new Aware president Josie Lau and her husband Alan Chin were called on stage. While Mr Chin did speak to the congregation, it was not on the Aware controversy, but rather his claim that God has healed his sister of brain stem damage.
After his sharing, Pastor Hong then prayed for the couple, and beckoned the church to join him.
COOS against gay-bashing
Within his sermon, the pastor reiterated the church’s position on homosexuality, which can be found on the COOS website. Basing his position purely based on the Holy Bible, he said that it is not a matter of personal opinion as homosexuality is clearly a sin against God.
“It’s black-and-white,” he said, “It’s not because I don’t like somebody, but because the Bible says so.”
He then stated that there are other religions that are against homosexuality as well, including Islam and even Judaism. However, he finds it strange that “the homosexual community never attacks the Islamic people for having that stand.”
Wearing a bright green shirt with a patterned tie, the pastor gave no indication of being worn down by the controversy. In fact, he spoke passionately at certain points in the sermon, his voice booming through the speakers.
“God does not grade sins,” he said with conviction.
While homosexuality is clearly wrong, it is not the worst sin either, he said. People who are involved in homosexuality are no worse than people who lie. However, there is a tendency for the church to condemn homosexuality more than other wrongdoings.
Pastor Hong also vehemently denounced gay-bashing, noting that homosexuals are as deserving of equal rights to jobs, housing, education, health, and welfare as straight people are. Objecting to the use of homophobic expressions, he noted that many languages and dialects have derogatory terms for more effeminate men. He called such verbal abuse “evil.”
The preacher emphasised that Christians should not feel too smug about themselves either, because God loves homosexuals as well. Christians are not better than homosexuals in any way, he said, but are saved only by the grace of God.
COOS, he added, frequently gives financial aid to HIV patients, some of whom are homosexuals. So far, the church has given food supplements to 100 patients.
Gays can become straight
“Change is possible,” said the pastor, once again underlining a Biblical perspective. However, he also cited real-life examples and scientific research as further proof that homosexuals can turn straight. Some are found in his church, he claimed.
Nevertheless, he stopped short of proclaiming total transformation in these individuals. In fact, these people still struggle with homosexual thoughts, just that they no longer have sex with other men.
“…they have become more straight, if you like, just like all of us, we’re still a work in progress, we may not commit adultery but it doesn’t mean we don’t struggle with those thoughts,” he said.
Pastor Hong also refuted the idea that homosexuals are born the way they are, and he denied the existence of a “homosexual gene.” He draws on studies from NARTH, which he says is a secular, non-religious organisation that does scientific research on homosexuality.
Calling the nature argument “propaganda”, he maintained that developmental factors feature more in the development of homosexuality.
Caution towards militant gay activist groups
The pastor spent significant time speaking against what he calls “discrimination against people with pro-family values.”
Christians have often also been misunderstood in the media. They are labeled as anti-homosexuals when in fact they are simply against the practice. He called this labeling a “trap” by the “propaganda of the gay activist people.”
An example he cited of such discrimination was the recent Miss USA pageant. Pastor Hong showed a news clip on Fox News where front-runner Miss California spoke out against gay marriage when asked a question by judge Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger who is openly gay.
Many believed her answer cost her the crown.
The clip concluded with Mr Hilton in another footage making insulting remarks about Miss California and shouting vulgarities. Pastor Hong called this “just the tip of the iceberg.”
Calling for a resistance against the agenda of certain gay activists, he cautioned that traditional values and lifestyles can be undermined.
He said: “They want to change the values and principles to what we deem to be normal to their own pattern of life. If you even dare to speak against it, you get disqualified, you get penalised, you get discriminated against.”
Church members voice support
COOS members which TOC spoke to after the service are supportive of the new AWARE team.
Mr Wong, a church member in his forties who does not attends cell group, said that the new Executive Committee should be given a chance to prove themselves. After all, they took over Aware legally.
Some church members have even joined Aware this year. Speaking anonymously, they insisted it was their own personal decision, and that no coercion was involved.
While their decision to join Aware was based on their convictions as a Christian, they pointed out that Christians are not the only ones resisting homosexuality.
“I mean if you’re a parent, and you learn about what they teach in school, won’t you be concerned?” said a lady.
Latest figures for Aware membership stands at more than 880. It is unclear how many church members have joined the organisation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27933.1
Monday, 27 April 2009
But church denies instigating Aware takeover
By Terence Lee and Deborah Choo
26 APRIL, 2009 –A CHURCH of our Saviour (COOS) staff sent out an email calling for church members to vote at AWARE’s upcoming EOGM, a spokesman has confirmed yesterday.
For a while, it had been unclear whether the leaked email messages, readable in various forums, were authentic.
Speaking on the sidelines after Sunday’s 10.30am service, the church spokesman verified that only Shawn Tay and Linda Seah’s email messages are genuine. Both are staff of the church.
Mr Tay sent out an email on 17th April calling for church members to join AWARE and support the new Executive Committee members. He is from Choices Ministry, a department specialising in homosexual counseling.
In the email, Mr Tay called for “all responsible females to sign up for membership with AWARE immediately, and also to attend this all-important EGM so as to vote against changing the Constitution.”
As for Ms Seah, who is a zone pastor, she sent Senior Pastor Derek Hong an email on 16th April stating that “the number of members registered on Tuesday night is 13 out of 40 who turned up.” As of the time of this piece’s publication, the church has not been able to clarify what this means.
Both email messages were sent only after news of Aware’s takeover broke on The Straits Times.
It is also unclear if the rest of the leaked email are authentic.While admitting that their pastors were involved in garnering support for the new Executive Committee, the church spokesman denied allegations that they instigated the takeover of AWARE.
This is in line with an earlier claim made by the new Executive Committee at a press conference held at Raffles Town Club. They asserted that the church was not involved in the takeover.
“There is no church connection. The church is not at all involved in secular affairs,” they said.
The spokesman maintained that it was the church members’ prerogative to join AWARE, rather than a decision by the church staff’s.
Pastor Hong, who preached during the service, could not be approached directly by TOC for comment.
Pastor voices support for new Aware Exco
While COOS has denied involvement in the AWARE takeover, they are actively supportive of their church members getting involved in the EOGM to support the new Executive Committee.
Pastor Hong devoted most of his sermon on the issue of homosexuality, voicing support for the endeavours of the new Aware team. The service was attended by about 800 people.
Calling for solidarity, he implored the women in the church to “unite with the sisters and support them.” He also said that the new team’s actions are not “a crusade against the people,” but instead a move to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.
He also spoke against the “neutral” portrayal of homosexuality taught by AWARE to schoolgirls. The Christian’s belief system, he argued, prevents them from accepting homosexuality as “neutral.” The Bible clearly teaches that it is wrong, and that is the position the church have to take.
“Christians have the responsibility to protect the young, the vulnerable, and the innocent, even though its not popular or politically correct, even though people may not understand or they may get angry with us,” he said.
The pastor, however, sees a silver lining in the controversies. Contrasting Singapore against countries that are heading towards liberalisation, he is glad the Aware team stood up for what the Bible deemed was right. He said: “We need to thank God that because section 377A still stands, we will not move in that direction.”
During the service, new Aware president Josie Lau and her husband Alan Chin were called on stage. While Mr Chin did speak to the congregation, it was not on the Aware controversy, but rather his claim that God has healed his sister of brain stem damage.
After his sharing, Pastor Hong then prayed for the couple, and beckoned the church to join him.
COOS against gay-bashing
Within his sermon, the pastor reiterated the church’s position on homosexuality, which can be found on the COOS website. Basing his position purely based on the Holy Bible, he said that it is not a matter of personal opinion as homosexuality is clearly a sin against God.
“It’s black-and-white,” he said, “It’s not because I don’t like somebody, but because the Bible says so.”
He then stated that there are other religions that are against homosexuality as well, including Islam and even Judaism. However, he finds it strange that “the homosexual community never attacks the Islamic people for having that stand.”
Wearing a bright green shirt with a patterned tie, the pastor gave no indication of being worn down by the controversy. In fact, he spoke passionately at certain points in the sermon, his voice booming through the speakers.
“God does not grade sins,” he said with conviction.
While homosexuality is clearly wrong, it is not the worst sin either, he said. People who are involved in homosexuality are no worse than people who lie. However, there is a tendency for the church to condemn homosexuality more than other wrongdoings.
Pastor Hong also vehemently denounced gay-bashing, noting that homosexuals are as deserving of equal rights to jobs, housing, education, health, and welfare as straight people are. Objecting to the use of homophobic expressions, he noted that many languages and dialects have derogatory terms for more effeminate men. He called such verbal abuse “evil.”
The preacher emphasised that Christians should not feel too smug about themselves either, because God loves homosexuals as well. Christians are not better than homosexuals in any way, he said, but are saved only by the grace of God.
COOS, he added, frequently gives financial aid to HIV patients, some of whom are homosexuals. So far, the church has given food supplements to 100 patients.
Gays can become straight
“Change is possible,” said the pastor, once again underlining a Biblical perspective. However, he also cited real-life examples and scientific research as further proof that homosexuals can turn straight. Some are found in his church, he claimed.
Nevertheless, he stopped short of proclaiming total transformation in these individuals. In fact, these people still struggle with homosexual thoughts, just that they no longer have sex with other men.
“…they have become more straight, if you like, just like all of us, we’re still a work in progress, we may not commit adultery but it doesn’t mean we don’t struggle with those thoughts,” he said.
Pastor Hong also refuted the idea that homosexuals are born the way they are, and he denied the existence of a “homosexual gene.” He draws on studies from NARTH, which he says is a secular, non-religious organisation that does scientific research on homosexuality.
Calling the nature argument “propaganda”, he maintained that developmental factors feature more in the development of homosexuality.
Caution towards militant gay activist groups
The pastor spent significant time speaking against what he calls “discrimination against people with pro-family values.”
Christians have often also been misunderstood in the media. They are labeled as anti-homosexuals when in fact they are simply against the practice. He called this labeling a “trap” by the “propaganda of the gay activist people.”
An example he cited of such discrimination was the recent Miss USA pageant. Pastor Hong showed a news clip on Fox News where front-runner Miss California spoke out against gay marriage when asked a question by judge Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger who is openly gay.
Many believed her answer cost her the crown.
The clip concluded with Mr Hilton in another footage making insulting remarks about Miss California and shouting vulgarities. Pastor Hong called this “just the tip of the iceberg.”
Calling for a resistance against the agenda of certain gay activists, he cautioned that traditional values and lifestyles can be undermined.
He said: “They want to change the values and principles to what we deem to be normal to their own pattern of life. If you even dare to speak against it, you get disqualified, you get penalised, you get discriminated against.”
Church members voice support
COOS members which TOC spoke to after the service are supportive of the new AWARE team.
Mr Wong, a church member in his forties who does not attends cell group, said that the new Executive Committee should be given a chance to prove themselves. After all, they took over Aware legally.
Some church members have even joined Aware this year. Speaking anonymously, they insisted it was their own personal decision, and that no coercion was involved.
While their decision to join Aware was based on their convictions as a Christian, they pointed out that Christians are not the only ones resisting homosexuality.
“I mean if you’re a parent, and you learn about what they teach in school, won’t you be concerned?” said a lady.
Latest figures for Aware membership stands at more than 880. It is unclear how many church members have joined the organisation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27933.1
Four key witnesses to testify for David
Four key witnesses to testify for David
The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Mon, 04/27/2009 9:01 PM | National
In an attempt to convince judges that David Hartanto Widjaja, an Indonesian student who died at the Nanyang Technology University (NTU) campus in Singapore in March, did not commit suicide, his family will present four additional key witnesses at a coroner's inquest in Singapore from May 20-26.
David was found dead after allegedly committing suicide at his campus in Singapore, where he was reportedly having difficulties with his studies. According to witnesses, the student died after jumping from a balcony of a campus building.
The university said David was under stress because his grades had dropped due to his addiction to online games and he was in danger of losing his scholarship.
In a statement issued shortly after his death, it was claimed David was in a meeting at the office of his mentor, Professor Chan Kap Luk, when he went berserk and stabbed his teacher in the back. He then left the office, stabbed himself repeatedly, then jumped off the balcony, the university claims.
David’s parents, however, have insisted their son was murdered, denying he would never commit suicide and claiming they had evidence to prove it. They will underline the oddities found at the crime scene.
The family and an independent verification team filed the case with the coroner’s court last week and gathered their own witnesses to support their case.
“One of the witnesses is a professor whose office is located next to Chan’s. The professor, named Chang Chong Wah, said he thought there was no reason at all for David to commit suicide because he was working on a high-profile, PhD-caliber project,” the team’s leader, Iwan Piliang, said Monday in Jakarta.
David was working on a Computer Vision (CV) technology project, mostly applied in the entertainment and military industries, at the time of his death.
“David was a genius and he never complained of any problems with his studies at all. Before he died, we had regular talks and I did not notice any stress at all in him,” David’s older brother William said.
The team also said they had found many unexplainable oddities at the crime scene. For instance, even though the NTU statement said David was the aggressor, Chan had fewer wounds than David.
“Chan had only five wounds on his body while David had 36. Most of them were on his right arm,” Iwan said.
“However, the latter fact does not match the fact David was right-handed. If it was true he cutg himself after stabbing Chan, then the wounds should be on his left arm.”
He added there was no blood at all found near the balcony, which many said David had climbed prior to jumping.
“David had so many cuts and bled profusely, there should have been blood in the area surrounding the balcony,” Iwan said.
The inquest is a vital part of David’s family’s search for justice to clear his name. If the court rules David’s death was indeed suicide, the case will be closed. If it suspects foul play, a further investigation will take place.
Inquests are common in the Singaporean judicial system. They have the ability to limit the state’s power in stopping an investigation into a case. (hdt)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28093.1
Couldn't get past the pig
Couldn't get past the pig
I shall be kind and attribute it to a rush job both at the Health Ministry and at the Straits Times on a Saturday night. But it was the kind of information that could prove misleading.
On the front page of the Sunday Times, 26 April 2009, was the headline "New flu virus kills 68 in Mexico". For want of a short name, the article mostly referred to the infecting agent as "swine flu", though a simple glance at the headline and a closer reading of the story would indicate that it was a new strain.
On page 2, the newspaper had a box providing "Flu Facts". It said:
The Health Ministry (MOH) yesterday released information on swine flu.
What is swine flu?
It is a respiratory disease affecting pigs that is caused by type A influenza virus. Most outbreaks occur during the late fall and winter months, similar to influenza outbreaks in humans.Does it affect humans?
Swine flu viruses very rarely affect humans. However, sporadic human infections with swine flu have occurred. These cases commonly occur in people with direct exposure to pigs.How does it spread to humans?
It spreads to humans mainly through contact with infected pigs.Can people catch swine flu from eating pork?
There is currently no evidence to suggest that swine flu can be transmitted to humans from eating pork or pork products that have been thoroughly cooked.And so on....
Did you spot the problem?
Both the newspaper and the Health Ministry were misled by the convenient use of the name "swine flu" when referring to a new type of flu. Relying on that name, the ministry regurgitated irrelevant stuff about a pig disease -- and the reporter obviously didn't spot the problem -- when the news story was about "a new version of the A/H1N1 flu virus, which is a combination of bird, pig and human viruses" –- words from the front page article itself.
By telling people that swine flu is contracted mainly through contact with infected pigs, Singaporeans are led to complacency. It is correct, but irrelevant. The news was not about good ol' swine flu.
A quick tour of news reports from other countries' newspapers provided the following key pieces of information:
- There have been 1,300 cases in Mexico in recent weeks, mostly in the capital. This at a time when the usual winter flu season should be over. 81 have died as of Sunday night (26 April) Singapore time. Of these, 20 cases have been definitely linked to the new flu virus, with 61 cases still under investigation. These 61 died from symptoms very similar to the 20 confirmed ones.
- Most patients died of severe pneumonia.
- The worrying thing is that most deaths have been of healthy young adults aged 25 – 45, unlike the usual flu that hits us from time to time, which tends to affect young children and the elderly, i.e. those with immature or compromised immune systems. In this respect, it resembles the 1918 – 1920 pandemic of "Spanish flu" -– more below.
- Indications are that it is being spread by coughs and sneezes from human to human since Mexico City, a conurbation of 20 million, doesn't have many pigs running around.
- Fortunately, early reports are that Tamiflu and other anti-viral drugs appear to work to reduce symptoms.
The Mexican government has declared a state of medical emergency. Schools have been closed and events that would bring together crowds have been cancelled. Masks are being distributed as widely as possible.
A few cases have been found in the US states of Kansas, Texas and California. No fatalities have been reported yet. Nonetheless, the virus has already spread so far in Mexico and the US that a containment strategy is out of the question, said Anne Schuchat, interim deputy director for science and public health programs at the Centres of Disease Control.
The World Health Organisation is poised to declare the outbreak "a public health emergency of international concern". If that happens, travel advisories, trade restrictions and border closures may follow. The world economy, already down in the pits, will suffer another blow, with airlines the first to reel from the impact.
* * * * *
Experts have been warning for over a decade that the world is due for another flu pandemic. It has been 90 years since the great pandemic (the "Spanish flu") of 1918 – 1920.
A pandemic sweeps the world when a new strain appears for which humans have no immunity -– since no one has ever encountered the virus before. But other factors, like how easily it can be transmitted from human to human also determine its extent and effect.
In this respect the H5N1 bird flu, although of concern, has thankfully not (so far) evolved into a form that can pass easily from human to human. Without this mutation, outbreaks tend to be isolated. This new flu, however, looks like it has made the leap to human-human transmission, thus the sudden spike to over 1,000 cases in a non-farming environment.
The 1918 pandemic -- also an H1N1 virus like the current Mexican one -- was estimated to have infected about one billion people during the two years that it ran its course, about half the global population at the time. It reached every continent and some of the remotest Pacific islands as well, in an age without air travel and mass tourism.
Estimates of fatalities ranged from 20 – 100 million, representing a mortality rate of 2 – 10 percent. (The 81 deaths so far out of 1,300 infected in Mexico in the current outbreak would represent a mortality rate of 6 percent.) According to a Wikipedia article about the earlier pandemic, an estimated 7 million died in India, nearly 3 percent of India's population at the time. In the Indian Army, almost 22% of troops who caught the disease died of it.
Why did soldiers die so easily? Because the 1918 virus was believed to provoke a "cytokine storm" in patients. A cytokine storm is an overreaction of the body's immune system, which explains its severe and sudden symptoms -- in some cases, too weak to walk within hours and dead within a day. Young healthy adults with robust immune systems were ironically most at risk.
* * * * *
I should not sound alarmist. It is not yet known how infectious the new strain is. We have anti-virals today that the 1918 generation did not have. We have better public health systems that in theory should be able to monitor the disease's spread better than pervious generations ever imagined possible, and which can swing into action at a moment's notice.
With luck, we can nip this new disease in the bud.
But it won't help if our Health Ministry and leading newspaper confuses the new strain with the usual swine flu, contact with pigs, and the importance of well-cooked pork. Don't throw away your chashao bao yet.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28014.2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)