TR EMERITUS

The recent controversies surrounding the remarks make by pastor Tan and pastor Ng on the Buddhist and Taoist faiths have raised considerable debate among the public. There were many comments from the public for and against the doing of these pastors. Notable ones were those who called for more mindfulness and respect for other people beliefs. There were also those who feel security and peace of the nation should be a priority and religious leaders should be more mindful of what they said. Some feel that as the words were spoken within the four walls of the church to its followers, it was acceptable. There are still other who think that there is no real religious tolerance here. All major religious beliefs except Taoist and Confucianism come into existence due the revelation of its founders. Ultimately, every religion would consider their tenets as the only one that is true and right, and that it is also the only one that can provide peace, solace and direction for all individuals in this life and to lead them onto the path to final deliverance and salvation thereafter. One of the biggest weaknesses of all religions is that, a big part of their teachings and doctrines usually cannot be proven by scientific evidences or facts and have to be accepted by an act of faith on the part of the believers. Believers can only defend these teachings and doctrines through subjective logic and reasoning when under attack. It is when it is ridiculed that emotion can run high with serious consequences on religious harmony. Herein Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech come into conflict. Pastor Tan and pastor Ng were not the first, nor will they be the last to pass unacceptable remarks on another's faith, there will certainly be others of whatever faiths out there who will sooner or later make the same mistakes again. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) in its present form allows for a light touch approach in the handling of religious harmony issues. It expects religious leaders to be sensitive and mindful of their comments on another's faith. But what is listed as acts that may contravene the MRHA are general guidelines and are likely to be breach knowingly or unknowingly again. In the PRC, appointment of Catholic Bishops have to be stamp approved by the Religious Affair Department, so too are reincarnated Lamas including the next future Dalai Lama, they will need the approval of the Religious Affair Department before they can be recognized as such and allowed to lead, preach and practice their faith. In short, controlled the religions and the freedom of speech will also be curtailed and a ‘forced’ religious harmony can be maintained. Certainly it is a model most of us would not want to see implemented here. Which Freedoms then should take precedent over the other in a multiracial and multi-religious society like ours, where the majority of us profess to believe in a religion? For a harmonious society to exist here, it is obvious than that Freedom of Religion will always take precedent over the Freedom of Expression as both cannot co-exist on equal footing. In that context, undesirable acts that would call for a restraining order as stated in the MRHA should be further elaborated and make more specific. The current penalty of a fine should apply to all who breach the acts and not just only on those who have breach a restraining order. For those who have breach any restraining order, mandatory jail terms should be imposed as well. This would provide for a stronger deterrence against anyone with the intent to cause undesirable mischief or trouble that would upset religious harmony here.     Aik TC  Read More →

The Singapore Democratic Party has slammed PAP Law Minister Shanmugam for trying to push the responsibility for Singapore's public transport security to the hapless SMRT which was widely blamed for the security breach at its depot a month ago. Two foreigners slipped into Changi depot completely undetected and spent some 20 minutes there spraying graffiti on the side of a train. The intrusion, which was not detected two days later, shocked the entire nation leaving Singaporeans wondering what the outcome might be had the vandals been terrorists instead. The ministries of transport and home affairs have been distancing themselves from the fiasco, pushing all the responsibility to SMRT though a Public Tranport Security Committee was set up way back in 2002 to oversee security of Singapore's public transport system. Mr Shanmugam, who is also the second minister of Home Affairs reiterated during a community event last Sunday that the government "cannot" be responsible for security at SMRT depots as SMRT is a "private entity." Calling his argument as a "reprehensible stunt", SDP said the government is still the overall in charge of the system's operations: "Just because the SMRT is listed and dividends are paid out, it does not mean the company is a private one. The Government still has the final say on how the system operates. It is completely outrageous for the ministers to try to squirm out of this matter by painting the SMRT to be a private company." It added that the trains transport members of the public daily which therefore falls under the purview of the government: "Even if we accept that SMRT is a private company, it must be remembered that the trains do not just service employees and staff of the company. They ferry members of the public. This necessitates the Government's strict involvement in ensuring the safety of commuters." The official response from the PAP leaders has been most disappointing so far and appears to give Singaporeans the impression that they are shirking their responsibilities in order to cover up their gross incompetence and ineptitude. With the media completely under its control and all forms of political dissent outlawed, the PAP can afford to continue putting up the "wayang" that all is going well in Singapore under its charge.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

作者：中國報 （新加坡讯）何耀珊（Sun Ho - wife of Pastor Kong Hee）过去一年在美国过着好莱坞天皇巨星的生活，住在好莱坞巨星及美国名人富豪聚居、月租新币约3万9000元(约9万1000令吉)的“好莱坞山”豪宅。 当今好莱坞最红的毕彼特（Brad Pitt)和安芝莲娜祖莉（Angelina Jolie）也是她的邻居。 为了发展她的歌唱事业，何耀珊自2003年起，大部分时间都在美国生活。 她回来新加坡协助调查的前一周，记者特地飞到美国的好莱坞山，在盛传是她的豪宅外，苦候了3天，想要访问她。 因为她刻意避开媒体，记者守了3天还是未能见到她，只看到她的豪宅和多部名车——黑色休旅车和黑色马赛地进进出出。 已住了1年 房屋经纪证实，豪宅目前的租户正是何耀珊，他还形容何耀珊是新加坡的“超级巨星”。 他告诉记者，何耀珊在那里住了1年，租约将在11月到期，不过，她已经开口要求约满后再续租约。 记者向邻居打听时，很多邻居都表示，不清楚谁住在那栋豪宅里头，但有一个女邻居认出记者给她看的照片，证实住在那里的，就是照片里的何耀珊，但邻居表示不知道她是艺人。 这名邻居说： “是的，就是她，她有一头长发，一口整齐的牙齿，我见过她好几次。” 女邻居形容何耀珊是一个“很厉害又很传统的人”，很重视传统节日，例如庆祝农历新年。 保安森严 虽然访不到人，记者却在那3天里，“访”到她的豪宅。 专门买卖好莱坞山豪宅的房屋经纪告诉记者，好莱坞山是非常高档的住宅区，距离美国著名的环球影城只有10分钟车程， 许多好莱坞超级巨星都在那里落户，包括：派瑞丝希尔顿（Paris Hilton）的姐姐Nicky、美国卖座电视片《丑女贝蒂》女主角亚美莉卡费雷拉（America Ferrera），以及英国歌星Leona Lewis等人。 经纪透露，好莱坞天皇巨星毕彼特（Brad Pitt)和安芝莲娜祖莉（Angelina Jolie）也在那里拥有产业。 除了好莱坞超级巨星之外，好莱坞山也住了不少美国富豪和名人。 记者在那里守候3天，看到进进出出的都是名车。 据知，那一区保安非常森严，每四个钟头便有警察车到那里巡逻一次。 投资房地产赚不少 何耀珊在美国住月租将近4万元(约9万6000令吉) 的豪宅，她在新加坡，则有一间价值260万元(约608万令吉)的豪华公寓，位于乌节路。 据报导，何耀珊和康希(Kong Hee)早年是住在淡滨尼一间12万 7000元(约29万令吉)的五房式组屋。 后来，她们以42万元(约98万令吉)卖掉这间组屋，另以100万元(约234万令吉)买下里峇峇利路的浩然大厦8楼的单位。 2009年12 月，何耀珊和康希又以260万元 (约608万令吉) ，买下目前这间乌节路豪华公寓。 买下这间豪宅后，他们才在今年初，把浩然大厦的单位以公寓300万元(约702万令吉)卖掉。 旧公寓设有私人电梯 何耀珊之前的浩然大厦公寓，非常豪华，不但拥有私人电梯，还有一个开放式的衣物间。 记者有幸在2005年受何耀珊之邀，到她的浩然大厦8 楼豪宅参观。 记者发现，她的豪华公寓很大，共有两个客厅、四个卧房和一个小厨房。 地板全部是大理石铺成，同时也铺有地毯，屋里还有一个衣物间，以及一部私人电梯。 记者也看到，开放式的衣物间收藏了很多何耀珊和康希的名牌服装。 浩然大厦当年的装修费和家具费高达20万元(约47万令吉)，足够让小人物用来购买一间小型组屋。 这间公寓揉和了美国古典和当代的风味。 据知，那是由她和当室内设计师的姐姐和姐夫一起设计的。 来源：http://www.chinapress.com.my  Read More →