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
Monday, April 27, 2009
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)