Race, Religion and Media

An article from AFP:

Lee Kuan Yew dismisses low press-freedom ranking for Singapore
SINGAPORE

(AFP) — Singaporeans are free to read whatever they want, the influential founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew said of his country, which ranks near the bottom on a watchdog's index of press freedom.

Lee was referring to the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders' (RSF) annual ranking for 2006, which placed the city-state at 146 out of 168 nations, and lower than Zimbabwe at 140.

RSF cited "new legal action by the government against foreign media" for Singapore's slipping six places in the rankings.

"There's nothing that you'd want to read which you cannot read in Singapore," said Lee, who holds the influential title of minister mentor in the cabinet of his son.

"You can buy our newspapers and see whether we read like Zimbabwe..." he said Sunday night in a keynote address to the International Bar Association annual conference, which has attracted thousands of lawyers and jurists from around the world.

Lee said Singaporeans have wide access to information.

"Everybody's on the Internet. Everybody's got broadband. They've got cable television, access to all the information. You can blog. You can do anything you like," he said in the speech which drew frequent applause.

"But we do not allow certain subjects to be made bones of contention."

Lee said issues of race, language and religion had to be handled sensitively. Singapore is majority ethnic Chinese but with significant Malay and Indian minorities.

"A multi-racial, multi-religious society is always prone to conflicts," Lee said.

The city-state has bitter memories of past racial incidents in its early years and clamps down hard on anyone inciting communal tensions.

Whenever you hear Lee Kuan Yew talk about race and religion, you may get the impression that the multi-religious, multi-racial society is a rather unusual, rare species in the world, and furthermore suffers from some wicked, magical curse that dooms it to endless riots, civil war or other conflicts.

Actually, Singapore’s multiracial, multi-religious nature is hardly unique among modern cities. Think, for example, of Kuala Lumpur … Bangkok …. Melbourne … Sydney …. New York … London …. San Francisco …. Vancouver …. among others.

Even China, which we often think of as relatively homogeneous, has as many as 20 million Muslims, and 40 to 100 million Christians (according to these estimates).

We have to lose our traditional Singaporean mentality that just because some of our HDB neighbours are of a different skin colour or pray to a different God, we are all on the perpetual verge of beating each other up and therefore Singapore is constantly in peril.

As for RSF's rankings, well, LKY can dismiss Singapore’s low ranking for press freedom, but others will not be so easily convinced. The link between state and press in Singapore is just simply much, much, muuuuch too strong, for most people to believe that our press is independent of the ruling party's influence.

"Hey, Tony. Is it true that before you became the
Chairman of the Singapore Press Holdings Board of Directors,
you were the Deputy Prime Minister; the Minister of Defence;
the Minister of Education; the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Health
AND the Minister of Trade and Industry of Singapore ...?"

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Singapore And Its Laws Against Gay People

If you believe that Singapore should get rid of its laws against gay people, do take a moment to sign the online petition here - Repeal Section 377A.

For more information and views on gay issues and the law in Singapore, you can revisit my old posts here (yes,they're all nicely presented on one page, just click the link and scroll down).

I still like this old cartoon, which sums up a lot with very few words:

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Learn, People, Learn.

The Straits Times has an article today about religious charities. It sounds like some churches have been busy trying to avoid being supervised by the Commissioner of Charities under the standard rules applicable to all charities.

ST Oct 5, 2007
No separate watchdog for religious charities
They'll come under office of Commissioner of Charities, but their 'special nature' will be taken into account
By Theresa Tan

SOME churches have urged the Charity Council to let them be governed separately from secular charities, but the council is standing firm.

It told The Straits Times there is 'no need' for a separate administrator to regulate religious charities.

Instead, churches and temples will still come under the Commissioner of Charities (COC) office, said the council, which advises the commissioner.

This is the strongest indication yet that all charities - secular and spiritual - will have to follow a new draft Code of Governance for charities to improve the way they are run.

While the code is not mandatory, charities which do not comply with its guidelines will have to explain why.

It is believed a number of churches expressed concern to the council when asked for feedback on the code. Some points raised were that:

* As spiritual leaders of the church, clergy cannot be excluded from the governing board. The code demands separation of the governing board and management staff, to ensure proper oversight of the charity.

* Rules on fund raising should not apply to churches. This is because church members give voluntarily as part of their religious beliefs and churches say they do not solicit from the public.

After the NKF scandal, I am suspicious of such arguments. The above article instantly reminded of past events such as this one:

Florida priests 'embezzled $8.6m from parishioners'
By Andrew Gumbel

Two Catholic priests in Florida stand accused of embezzling $8.6m (pounds 4.6m) from their parishioners over a 42-year period and spending the money on holiday houses, luxury travel, gambling in Las Vegas casinos and secret girlfriends.

The scandal, at St Vincent Ferrer Church, in Delray Beach, north of Miami, cast yet another embarrassing spotlight on a Catholic diocese that recently lost two bishops to child sex abuse scandals.

According to police who investigated the suspect finances at St Vincent Ferrer for more than a year, Fathers John Skehan and Francis Guinan acted as "professional money launderers" who took money from the collection plate and set up a network of slush-fund bank accounts to which only they had access.

Fr Skehan, 79, was a highly regarded priest whose congregation included many prominent politicians and public figures in southern Palm Beach County. According to the police, however, he also used laundered money to buy himself a condominium near Delray Beach, a cottage on the Cliffs of Moher in Ireland and a pub in Kilkenny, where he was born. The police complaint says Fr Skehan spent $134,075 in church money on a woman described as his girlfriend, another $11,688 on family members, and more than a $250,000 on himself - for car payments, dental work, property taxes and housing fees, and credit card payments.

Fr Guinan, 63, a longtime friend of Fr Skehan who took over the parish in 2003, owns a string of properties in the area. The complaint said he was a gambler who spent lavishly in casinos in Las Vegas and the Bahamas. He was also alleged to have made cash payments to his secret lover, who once worked as a bookkeeper at his old parish of St Patrick's in Palm Beach Gardens, and to have contributed more than $7,000 to the cost of the woman's son's education. He, too, racked up impressive dental bills. The complaint said he spent $15,000 of illicit funds on his teeth.

Suppose Father John Skehan now said: "As a spiritual leader of the church, I cannot be excluded from the governing board. I must be on the governing board and also part of management staff. Screw any potential conflict of interest." How would you feel?

Suppose Father Guinan now said, "Rules on fund raising should not apply to me. This is because church members give voluntarily to my church as part of their religious beliefs and I do not solicit from the public". What would you say?

Learn, people. Learn.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Why We Should Be Foreigners

ST Sep 28, 2007
Needless expenditure on English courses

I AM writing with regard to GeBIZ (http://www.gebiz.gov.sg/), which is the Singapore Government's one-stop e-procurement portal.

All the public sector's invitations for quotations and tenders are posted on GeBIZ. Suppliers can search for government procurement opportunities, download tender documents, and submit their bids online.

While surfing the website, I came upon a government school seeking private-sector companies to conduct English courses for its PRC scholars, paying at least $35,000 for 300 hours of instruction.

I was amazed at the huge expenditure. Aren't schools supposed to be educating our young? Aren't our teachers qualified to teach English?

If it were courses in leadership skills or public speaking, I would understand the need for external vendors to come into the picture as such courses require special knowledge and skill sets.

The Government should think twice before spending taxpayers' money unnecessarily.

Fok Kah Hon

This Fok Kah Hon person is not very clever. Doesn’t he know? This is Singapore. We must give foreigners more advantages than citizens.

Singaporeans can pay for their own private tuition lessons. And if they fail their O-level English exams, well, that is just too bad.

But as for the PRC students - ahh, we can't allow that to happen. We must make the taxpayers pay for their extra English lessons!

Baca Selengkapnya »»

On Beggars and Hawkers

ST Oct 2, 2007
Rid Orchard Road of beggars and hawkers

ONE cannot help but notice an increasing number of people begging for money and selling tissue paper along Orchard Road.

Also on the rise are illegal hawkers at places such as outside Orchard and Somerset MRT stations, selling anything from mobile-phone covers to roasted chestnuts.

I urge the authorities to take action against this group of people, as they are giving a bad image to spanking clean Orchard Road.

This is especially so as Orchard Road is a major tourist attraction and we wouldn't want tourists and foreigners alike to bring home an image of Orchard Road riddled with sidewalk beggars and illegal hawkers.

Nuryusman Mohamed Ibrahim

Actually the tourists probably find the roasted chestnuts quite interesting. The illegal hawkers add a little local flavour into our otherwise sterile cityscape. Think of the Suan Lum or Chatuchak night markets in Bangkok – they’re always crowded and messy. And always a big hit with tourists.

As for the tissue paper, it's usually sold by some poor blind woman or one-legged man. Mrs Wang is very kind. When she sees such people, she often gives them $5 or $10 for one packet of tissue. These people need our help. If you don't want to help, at least don't cause them to get arrested.

I don't know what this Nuryusman person is thinking. He notices an increasing number of poor people on Orchard Road, and his biggest concern is the bad impression that the tourists may have. For goodness sakes, Nuryusman. Your biggest concern should be for the poor people.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

On Credit Lines & Credit Cards

ST Oct 3, 2007
Using cash advance from DBS credit card? Beware this catch

DBS allows customers to borrow cash (credit line) for six-months with 0% interest from their POSB Everyday credit card for a fee.

However, every month, when you make payment to your credit card, all payment goes first to repaying your credit line until it is fully paid before it applies to your credit-card transactions.

Let's take this example: You draw a credit line of $1,000 for six-months with 0% interest on your DBS credit card for a fee and, in that same month, you charge another $500 to your credit card.

When you make a $700 payment for that month, the $700 will go fully towards repaying your credit line (after which you still owe $300 on the credit line). This means you incur finance charges (in the 10-25% annual percentage rate) on the $500 of credit card transactions automatically.

I called up DBS, and they say this is due to the payment hierarchy.

There is no way to specify how my credit card payment should be directed to.

OCBC has a much fairer credit-line scheme which I have used, as it allows you to specify which account you want to pay back, that is, I can fully pay my credit-card transactions monthly, and/or pay back a little of my cash line.

Chang Kui Yu

Quite apart from all that, please use your common sense. Can any bank really lend you money and charge you nothing? Only your mother could do that. And no bank is a mother.

Read the small print, please. “DBS allows customers to borrow cash (credit line) for six months, with 0% interest … for a fee." So instead of charging you interest every month for the sum you’ve borrowed, DBS charges you a fee.

Well, you can call it a “fee” or you can call it “interest”, but either way it’s money you have to pay the bank, for what you’ve borrowed.

According to the DBS website, the fee (which they call an administrative fee) is 2.5% of what you’ve borrowed. That is perhaps not that expensive, but it is also not as cheap as it may sound. An administrative fee of 2.5% should not be confused with, say, an interest rate of 2.5% p.a..

One difference is that interest is charged on what you actually owe in any given month, while an administrative fee is paid upfront on the entire sum you initially borrowed. No portion of the administrative fee is refundable, even though within 1 or 2 short months you may have dutifully repaid every cent you had initially borrowed.

Personally, apart from my mortgage, I simply do not live on credit. All my credit cards are paid in full by GIRO every month. Some years ago, I did sign up for DBS Cashline, but that was just to get a free umbrella. Since then I have not used the DBS Cashline even once, but I do still have that umbrella. Like my money, I save it for the rainy days.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

A Response To TW Tan's Letter

I have received another interesting email, this time from a reader, D. He writes in response to the earlier letter from TW Tan (see two posts below).

Dear TW Tan,

As a young gay Christian myself, I applaud you for your letter. From the bottom of my heart I thank you. Of the many responses Christians have towards people like us, yours is the most Christ-like I've seen.

Most Christians today are unfortunately unable to see past the black and white of the issue. I dare say their faith is one-dimensional, based on a book. Sure, it's a very important book, but I don't believe that it is the be-all and end-all of Christianity. God is so much more than just the Bible. One-dimensional faith is easily destroyed. That's why many Christians defend the Bible so vehemently. Without it, their faith is reduced to nothing. Conceding the fallacy of some verses in it will render it questionable, and that is inconceivable in their eyes.

I think the important point here is for everyone to engage in a process of open and thoughtful exploration. The vast majority of Bible-thumpers don't even know how many verses are there in the Bible which say that homosexuality is wrong, where they are or in what context they were written. To have these people spit in my face and tell me I'm an abomination reeks of spiritual blindness and arrogance. Yes, I admit I may be wrong to think that being gay is ok, but do homophobic Christians realise that they could be wrong too?

The sad part of this debate is that the vitriolic reaction of the larger Christian community towards us has ruined the name of Christianity. Not only have they made a fool of themselves by spreading untruths about us, but in doing so they have portrayed a very negative image of Christianity. But the gay Christian community is not without blame. Many a time we have responded with harsh words, only to realise later that we could have done better...

I feel that society's reaction to the queer community is one motivated by self-preservation. Although many claim that Christians only want to help, their words and actions seek more to discredit and keep us out than anything else. This vexes me greatly, because gay people are not out to destroy anything! We are labeled as destroyers of families, corrupters of youth and agents of disease. None of this is true! I fail to see how accepting us and\nallowing us to form loving relationships will ruin family structure. Ask any gay person and they will tell you that they never made the choice to be gay, much like how you never made the conscious choice to be straight. And just like how straight men are capable of celibacy and fidelity, so are we! And hard as this is to believe, we are not out to discredit religion and faith. The reaction of the gay community to Christians all round is no more than a knee jerk response. Just like how you leave non-believers and people of other faith alone, we only ask that you preach your message in a considerate and sensitive way.

"We are only protecting our children" seems to be a trump card played by conservatives to silence gay-affirming groups. That one statement appears to allow people to at once stop their ears and reject all opinions contrary to their own, regardless of how rational or logical they are. For those of us in the gay community who are trying to reach out to engage, inform and educate, this is a frustrating statement to hear, because it instantly halts all exchange. What we fail to understand is what they are protecting their children from? No amount of exposure to gay people will convert a child who is not gay. If only people would come round to this fact. I grew up with absolutely no idea of homosexuality. What the silence only fuels is the torment that youths who are gay go through. The road to healthy self-acceptance and a well rounded life is fraught with much loneliness and depression. What the conservatives are doing only increases the struggles which gay youths have to go through, and here I am speaking from personal experience.

Having said all this, I must concede that the gay community as it is leaves much to be desired. There is a tremendous lack of positive role models, while unhealthy practices are common and tolerated. I firmly believe that before we ask for society's acceptance, we have to hold ourselves to a standard that is beyond reproach. As it stands, the gay community is simply not a safe place for youths who are in the process of coming out. But not all gay people are predatory. Many of us are working hard to provide safe platforms for those new to the community, but there is a verylong way to go.

Homophobia is a vicious cycle. Fear of discrimination andrejection drives us into the shadows, forcing us to engage in risky andclandestine behavior. This behavior then only serves to fuel the negative image which the community suffers from, and causes people to fear and reject us. The solution to all this lies not with the government (though what we asked of them was not exactly very difficult or demanding), but with each person. All I ask is for you to reexamine the way in which you react about, and to, gay people. A little thought on our parts goes a really long way...

"Before you seek to condemn, have you sought to understand?"

A quick note. I receive many emails from readers all the time. I do read all the emails, but I do not have time to respond to all of them. If I do respond, my reply may be very brief, for lack of time. Sometimes readers send me articles which they'd like me to publish on my blog - please note that I won't do so unless I find the articles interesting (like TW Tan's and Darryl's letters).

Recently I've also turned on the comment moderation function. I have adopted this practice for a variety of reasons: (1) to prepare myself for the arrival of the revised Penal Code, (2) to screen out comments of certain undesirable, blacklisted individuals; and (3) to improve the noise-to-signal ratio in the comment sections. I discourage flame wars, personal attacks and unnecessarily insulting remarks.

In the near future, I will post an "editorial policy" of sorts, where I'll explain in greater detail about the kinds of emails that I will or will not respond to, and the kind of comments that I will or will not publish. Also I may explain some new directions that I intend to take for this blog, so that if these are not to your tastes, you can start looking elsewhere for your Internet readings.

Baca Selengkapnya »»