TR EMERITUS

By blindly reposting an article from Reuters with a headline that scream "breakaway church gives gay ex-monk what Vatican would deny him: a holy wedding", the editors at Todayonline have obviously failed in their journalistic responsibility when such glaring falsehoods are allowed to be propagated. As the Catholic Church has never approve or condone same-sex marriage, there is nothing to deny the gay couple in the first place, and as such, why did Todayonline failed to correct this falsehood that is being erroneously propagated by Reuter, but instead, ended up reinforcing it further? The sin & the sinner: The Catholic Church has been at the forefront in the defences of people within the LGBTQI+ community from being criminalized, or being discriminated, by its careful dissection of the sinner from the act of sin. In so doing, legislative changes were effected around the democratic worlds to stop criminalizing or discriminating against individuals with same sex orientation. Forgiving and empathizing with the sinners, while firmly rejecting the acts of sin, has always been a cornerstone of the Church’s theology and its teaching as this revelation not only separates the person from the sins but give them the hope that God is on their side and will walk them through their prevailing impediments, if they only strive in good faith and not be disheartened by their falls. As such, all the popes are bounded to continue with the teachings of Jesus, The Christ, just as He has taught his disciples. Again, why did Todayonline chooses to propagate same-sex union as being "holy" when it is obviously not? So what falsehood is Todayonline going to propagate next against the Catholic Church - are they going to propagate that killing is "holy" and demand that the Catholic Church sanction killing just to please some people? Trust that the editor at TODAY who is responsible for these glaring falsehoods will correct them with urgency and integrity.   Joseph Nathan      Read More →

In an extraordinary rejection of the CDC’s recommendation yesterday, 11 governors have announced they won’t be adding the Covid vaccine to the list of required vaccines for children to attend school in their states. Nine are Republicans and two are Democrats. ***** The Republican governors are: Gov. Ron DeSantis (Florida) [Video] Gov. Kim Reynolds (Iowa) Gov. Bill Lee (Tennessee) Gov. Kay Ivey (Alabama) Gov. Spencer Cox (Utah) Gov. Kristi Noem (South Dakota) Gov. Kevin Stitt (Oklahoma) Gov. Glenn Youngkin (Virginia) Gov. Mike Parson (Missouri) ***** The two Democrat governors are: Gov. Jared Polis (Colorado) Gov. Ned Lamont (Connecticut) Only one Democrat governor as of this writing — Gov. Gavin Newsom (California) — has announced that his state will follow the CDC’s recommendation and require a Covid vaccine for children to attend schools in the state. No Republican governor has made a similar announcement.follow the CDC’s recommendation and require a Covid vaccine for children to attend schools in the state. In addition to sitting governors, at least 10 Republican candidates for governor have announced that if elected, their states will *not mandate* the Covid vaccine for schoolchildren: Lee Zeldin (New York) Darren Bailey (Illinois) Heidi Ganahl (Colorado) Kari Lake (Arizona) Bob Stefanowski (Connecticut) Tudor Dixon (Michigan) Tim Michels (Wisconsin) Dan Cox (Maryland) Derek Schmidt (Kansas) Doug Mastriano (Pennsylvania) No one has yet heard from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio or Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York. In Indiana, the press secretary to Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, directed questions about whether the Covid vaccine will be mandated to the Indiana Department of Health, and did not immediately respond when asked for the governor’s position on whether Indiana should require the Covid vaccine for school attendance. [UPDATE 3 p.m. The Indiana State Department of Health emailed to say that Indiana “will not make this a required vaccine for school-aged children.”] The two Democratic governors did not take to Twitter to announce their rejection of Covid vaccines as a requirement for school attendance, but made their feelings known to reporters in their states. Gov. Ned Lamont of Connecticut made the following comments at a press conference yesterday, comparing the Covid vaccine to the flu vaccine, which Connecticut does not mandate for school attendance for children 5 and up: “We didn’t require anything in the classroom. I don’t think that’s going to have to change for any reason I can imagine. It’s not like measles where a kid gets measles, the entire class gets infected. This is a very different situation. I think that’s a very different situation. COVID’s a little more like flu…I think [COVID] will be treated a little more like flu…I encourage people to get the flu vaccine, I encourage people to get the COVID vaccine. No mandates.” [LINK] The CDC advisory committee on vaccines, made up mostly of doctors working in the private sector, voted 15-0 yesterday to add the Covid vaccine to the CDC schedule of recommended vaccines for children. You can read more about the committee’s decision and what it means HERE on the website of Children’s Health Defense. States usually follow the recommendations of the CDC, as Dr. Robert Malone, noted on his Substack this week: “State public health systems use the schedule to determine which vaccines to require for children to enter schools. Yes, some states have more stringent requirements than others. Some states allow for ‘opt-outs,’ but in the end, most states follow the CDC guidelines.” It sounds like this may have changed as of this week, with so many states calling their own shots, so to speak.   Source:  Crossroad Report    Read More →

Liz Truss Say what you like about Liz Truss’s short stint as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom but it did produce a few gems for those of us thinking of headlines. While the one that comes to the mind of most is probably her famous “I am a fighter; not a quitter,” line which was spoken two days before she quit. Less famous but I believe equally important was a line that came in that same exchange, which was “He backs the strikers (referring to the rail strike); we back the strivers.” [LINK] Ms. Truss was probably not conscious of it but she was echoing a sentiment that had scared has been part of the Singapore DNA. Singapore has spent a good portion of recent history being held up as what a developed nation can do. Our success has become a text book not only for developing countries to follow but even our former colonial power, Britain, even went as far as to pay us the compliment of stating in the Brexit campaign that they would make London to become “Singapore on the Thames.” Singapore makes no secret of its success. We’ve positioned ourselves as the oasis of calm in a region of turbulence and we consistently make the point that Singapore has the rule of law and unlike other post-colonial places, we welcomed “investment” from our former colonial powers. While these points are well documented, one of Singapore’s less trumpeted but most effective selling points is an aversion to strikes. Like most things in Singapore, our national attitude towards strikes was based on Lee Kuan Yew’s realisation as to the things that could have costs him power. Mr. Lee, as a former labour lawyer who defended striking workers, knew that the “striking workers” who had crippled the economy and made life hard for the British colonial administration could easily do the same to him. Hence, once he got into power, Mr. Lee went about ensuring that the Singapore worker would never go on strike. There was a combination of carrots and sticks. Those who had militant tendencies ended up experiencing jail time and laws were created to ensure that going on strike “without permission” would face sticky consequences. There were also some carrots. Worker’s salaries steadily increased and CPF contributions (at one time employer contributions were as high as 20 percent of the worker’s salary) ensured that Singapore had one of the highest levels of home ownership. External events at the time also helped Mr. Lee. Left-wing governments in Western nations allowed for the development of “militant” unions. Mr. Lee, an anglophile, studied what militant unions did in Western nations, particularly in the UK, could do to national economies. Mr. Lee could happily sell Singapore to Western multinationals that they would never have to deal with strikes in Singapore. So, the foreign multinationals poured money into the country and Mr. Lee could sell the story to the Singapore workers that “going on strike is for losers – strivers are too busy building a better life in their jobs to strike.” You had a culture where employers were considered benevolent and employees who were not “grateful” were considered the problem. When SMRT’s bus drivers went on strike in November 2012, you had people complaining that the China-born bus drivers were to blame and should have upgraded themselves, even though SMRT was engaging in “Un-Singaporean” activities like paying based on race. The story on strikes worked for a simple reason. Money poured into the country and wages for workers went up. However, things may have reached a point where the continued narrative might be coming under scrutiny. As with other parts of the world, costs of living have been going up. However, wages have not been rising and ever since the 2011 election, even the government has understood that it cannot raise government salaries indefinitely when everyone else’s salary is not being raised. The Singapore of today is different from the Singapore of the 60s. As a population, we are aware of how difficult strikes make life for everyone else. As an example, many of us have lived through travel plans being scrapped because airline workers went on strike. Singaporeans understand that people don’t go on strike for the sake of it. Take the example of the case of nine (9) men who were investigated for protesting outside a light industrial building on October 18, 2022. The police took them in for “unlawful” assembly. However, my personal social media had examples of people who were sympathetic these men. The point made; the focus should have been on why the men were protesting rather than the “unlawful” assembly. It turned out that the men had not been paid and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) resolved the matter between the workers and employer. The story can be found at: [LINK] So, is there a realisatoin that being a “striver” and going on strike are not mutually exclusive. Most people understand that anyone who takes a job is primarily trying to “strive” ahead in life. However, the question remains, do we need to get to a stage where people feel like they need to disrupt things in order for get their grievances heard? It’s something that people in power need to ask themselves.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →