Month: August 2012

Random Discourse – Journey of the West and Real Life

Leave a comment


Typical portrayal of
Journey to the West

In my previous post, I mentioned that it is of no surprise why more people seems unable to act, or simply refused to do the right thing. After all, if doing something comes with the risks of taking the rap when it goes wrong, then it is best to just do nothing. It reminds me of Pigsy (or Bajie [猪八戒]) in the Journey to the West story, which often did nothing and is the fastest to take credit. Meanwhile, Wukong [悟空] often gets the rap and punishment from the monk Tripitaka (or Xuanzang [玄奘]) for doing what is right and necessary, and in the best interest of the party.

That comment was inspired by an article in Chinese which I read sometime ago, which made comparison to the Chinese classical fiction Journey to the West [西游记] to the present political plight of Singaporeans. Unlike the original article, I find that it describes pretty well what generally goes on in life at the present right here. One of my drinking buddies even pointed out that it is actually a parody good for all time.

There are five main characters in that story – the monk Tripitaka, his three disciples namely: Wukong the Monkey god, Pigsy, Sha Wujing [沙悟净] (or the ‘Sand Monk’ [沙僧]), and the often forgotten White Dragon Horse [白龙马].

The central figure would be Xuanzang. Though of humble birth, Xuanzang became the sworn brother of the Tang Emperor in the story. He is also the central authority of the party, as all the disciples defer to him for decision. Yet he is also the most helpless in defending himself, even though the reader is often convince about the importance of his objectives, so they are led to believe in the sacrifice he is making for the good of everyone and the generations that comes after. Even so, he would have been long dead – eaten by demons craving for his flesh which supposedly will grant them immortality – if not for his three powerful and capable disciples. Because Wukong is rash and often disregard Xuanzang’s authority in the beginning, the bodhisattva Guanyin [观音] (or Avalokitasvara) gave the monk a magical headband whereby Wukong was tricked into putting on. The monk would activate it by chanting which will cause Wukong an excruciating headache and thus forced Wukong to obey and submit. In the real world, Xuanzang maybe a government scholar who got parachuted into a position of authority, or some so-called foreign talent who got employed by merit of his qualifications with none of the experience or the capabilities he boasted about. At times they have powerful backers which sort of act like the magical headband which forces even the more capable subordinates into submission. In a certain sense, the monk would also describe some ministers perfectly, since propaganda would often refer to their… *erhem* humble beginnings.


A not so typical portrayal of
Wukong as a great ape

Wukong is the most powerful character in the whole story. This is the monkey god that run amok in the Chinese heavens without any regard of the Jade Emperor’s authority nor any fear of the heavenly soldiers. In spite of his quick temper and often rash and unthoughtful actions, Wukong only overriding priority in the entire adventure is to see the monk (or teacher) Xuanzang complete his mission – i.e reach his destination safely to obtain the Buddhist scriptures, and then return to China. As it is often said, with great powers comes great responsibilities. Wukong does most of the unpleasant tasks – fighting demons, or running about to get help when the tasks are too much for him to handle alone. He is also the best equipped to do so, since he also has a pair of eyes which can spot a demon in disguise. Yet, he often gets the most blame and punishment simply for his manner of executing his tasks. However, no matter how many times he has been wronged and cast out, the immensely loyal Wukong never hesitates to return and save his teacher once he hears that Xuanzang is in danger. This is a character we often do not see in a company, or in government agencies or departments. Such a character ceased to exist in real life because there is no appreciation and compliments when things goes well, but the axe would be quick to fall when things go wrong.


Pigsy womanising

Pigsy has great powers too. In spite of the traditional Chinese image of pigs being stupid, Pigsy is in fact the smartest. In general, Pigsy’s order of the day would be that of “No pain! No pain!”, since as long as he does nothing there will be no blame and no punishments when things goes wrong. Furthermore, there is always the more capable Wukong to put things right. Above that, Pigsy often rushes to curry favor with his teacher and take credit for things he didn’t do. At times, he even carry tales to his teacher causing Wukong to be punished. That is typically what we often see in government agencies and departments as shown in the movie Just Follow Law. I am sure we will all find some of those possessed by the Pigsy spirit hiding at a cubicle in a dark corner of our own office too. Unfortunately, many Pigsys are also in position of authority. So they are able to made someone take the fall when they screwed up. Worst of it all, Pigsy is also easily swayed by physical beauty which are often demons in disguise. I can’t help but to draw comparison with the recent sex scandals surrounding the SCDF and CNB chiefs.


Sha Wujing acting
as a human pack horse

Sha Wujing, is a character difficult to write about. He is a sharp contrast to both Wukong and Pigsy. With Wukong being the superhero, and Pigsy the idle bum, Sha is often overlooked and treated as a character the story can possibly do without. It doesn’t help that Sha is portrayed as carrying the luggage in drama series or movies based on the story, which further reinforces the impression that he is simply a character created to perform the mundane tasks that are beneath the notice of his fellow disciples. In a certain way, Sha Wujing is just like any other employee working quietly to do their part in a company. While there are generally considered dispensable and easily replaceable, everyone often felt a sudden sense of loss and helplessness without this person around. Basically, Sha Wujing is like many of those who just do their job without excelling in what they do. He keeps a low profile, but not so low where he would shirk from his own responsibilities while expecting someone more capable to take up the slack. Fortunately for him, at least no one tries make him the scapegoat when things go bad in the story. The same cannot be said of the modern day Sha Wujings in the corporate world.

The most pitiful of the whole lot would be the ‘White Dragon Horse’. People often talked about the monk and his three disciples but forgot about the origins of the horse and an important role it played in the entire story – as a ride for the delicate monk. Originally a dragon princeling who was cast out of heaven as punishment for arson, it also ate the monk’s original horse by mistake. Ultimately it chose to turn into a replacement horse to atone for its earlier misdeeds and lost its ability to speak throughout the journey. Its job is hardly enviable, since the monk rides on it most of the time. When not serving as a ride, it is the pack horse which carries the luggage. The fact that the dragon princeling chose to turn into a horse is that it believes it is serving a higher purpose. It fulfills its role without much fuss, while everyone completely overlooked its contribution. Typically, the white dragon horse which suffers in silence but has no voice is most alike to the Singaporean worker, because the trade union which presumably should be its voice no longer speaks up for it and sings a completely different tune to remind it why sacrifices are necessary.

Sadly, in most situation at the work place, there are probably no Wukongs but a small lot of Xuanzangs and Pigsys. The rest of the workforce of Sha Wujings basically slog on like the White Dragon Horse without a voice. When this blog post was originally conceived and posted as a status update on my Facebook wall, a friend asked me what I consider the heavenly soldiers and the Jade Emperor. In my opinion, they would fall under the same category of the PTB (powers that be) which tries to enforce their authority upon us. In extrapolation, the Buddha and Guanyin would be the equivalent of “foreign talent” in the Singaporean context – used by the PTB to beat down any monkey god among us with its abilities and news ideas which proved too challenging for them.

It is my considered opinion that the PTB would prefer no Wukongs at all, and would replace us with all the arhats or bodhisattva aka “foreign talents”. Unfortunately, in singing the praises of the “foreign talents”, it failed to see how that also demonstrated their own inadequacies and inspired an awakening among the people. The irony that all the traditional Taoist deities are incompetent, clueless and completely inept in the dealing with the challenges Wukong presented at the beginning of the story is not lost on me. That said, while I was doing a bit of researching on the Journey to the West story, I noticed that even the character Wukong is borrowed from the concept of the Hindu deity Hanuman. Again, the irony is not lost on me that the PTB often tells us that our ancestors were immigrants too.

Random Discourse – Hair Cut and Police Report

2 comments

One of the latest brouhaha has got to be the case whereby a mother made a police report over the matter of a teacher taking her son to a haircut.

I had many discussions with separate friends on the matter of education and discipline in school. One of the things we all agreed on: if we were to let our parents know we have been punished / disciplined in school, we will be given a perhaps even more unpleasant “2nd helping” at home. It doesn’t matter whether we are in the right or wrong, because in our parents opinion, such things simply shouldn’t happen. If the school / teacher chooses to punish us – we must have done something in the wrong. In other words, our parents defer to the decision of the school. Perhaps they believed that above teaching us about how to read and write, and on science and humanities, a school also teaches us on how to be proper human beings. Respecting order and authority was the rule of the day back then, even though as youngsters we often resent that. Yet, as we grew older, we understand the necessity of that even though it maybe fraught with abuse. While abuse must be stopped, it is not by means of ‘throwing out the baby with the bath water’.

At the present, society has downgraded the role of teachers from being a mentor and a moral example to nothing more than an instructor or a trainer. Granted, teachers are definitely no paragon of virtue, but I can bet those of us who remember their teachers fondly would recall how some of the sterner ones left a mark on our values and our world views to shape us into what we have become. These days teachers are no longer accorded a lot of respect because parents with equal or better education no longer think highly of them. Teachers and the school have lost the parents’ backing on disciplinary actions. With that, the meaning of education has been completely redefined to mean nothing more than instructing a person the knowledge to work in society, instead of teaching them what it meant to be a person and to live in harmony with one another and the environment. If we take away the religious aspect of some teachings, like those of Buddha and Jesus, we can see their basic objective was simply to ensure that all human beings follow certain guidelines and recognise what is good and evil. Even the Age of Philosophy which sprouted in China during the Spring and Autumn period of the Eastern Zhou dynasty, was a response to the collapse of order and traditions in that period whereby learned people and scholars (such as Confucius) present their ideas on how order can be restored (either through education, philosophical enlightenment or harsh laws) where man can live in mutual respect of one another and with civility. That is why Confucius is lauded as an educator – because education is not only about understanding the science (e.g. the natural order of the world around us), but also about proper behavior and social order. My point is simply, we have long lost our understanding of what education really should be.

The teaching of values and building character has long been completely displaced in schools. That is why these days we even hear arguments that students are ‘customers’, complete with a sleep inducing narrative on that matter. Thus, the modern day school has generally stopped doing so to avoid unnecessary confrontation with parents. After all, some parents argued that the mentoring of a child, teaching them manners and what is good and evil, and discipline is the department of parenting. In their opinion, the school and / or the teachers should have nothing to do with it. Just teach children the ABCs, the mathematics and the science and ensure they get the straight As and be done with it. In extension, the government has also retreated from that arena as any attempt to do so will be followed by accusation of fascism, and it will be decried for imposing its values on the next generation or attempting to indoctrinate the young.

That maybe partially true, considering how some of us born in the formative years of Singapore are raised and how we have been taught in school. Unfortunately, a lot of parents are unaware of the role they have to play and has thus failed dismally. What follows is that the young and impressionable has no one at home or in school to look up to, and whatever that awes and inspires them – in most cases idols of popular culture, which are some of the worst examples – moved in to fill that vacuum. Worst yet, parents try to make up for the lack of presence in their children’s lives, and to demonstrate their love, by showering their children with material wants. It is of no surprise that some children even refused to sit still to consume their meals without a tablet computer playing their favorite cartoon placed before them.

A sense of entitlement thus take hold, and as children grow older and become bolder in expressing their views, parents find it even harder to punish what is wrong. They believed that the best way to love their children is to make them fell good. Even though I am not a parent, I see that as a kind of dereliction of duty. In my opinion that parents should never shirk from the responsibility of teaching a child what is right apart from what is wrong. In many cases, not only is the wrong not punished but rewarded – for e.g. a father trying to make peace with his son by buying him the latest gadget – which thus renders the purpose of rewarding success and doing right entirely meaningless. Just what incentive is there to make the effort to do the different thing when the current method of getting their way simply works? Even when parents may be rewarding a child for his success, the offer to reward is given before hand to entice the child to do so which thus gives them the impression that there is no reason to do better unless there is a reward. It has become quite a norm for children to demand for a reward when asked to do something. Isn’t it sad, that we need to entice people to do what should be done with rewards, and thus made doing what is right or good the exception other than the norm?

To avoid punishing a child for fear of hurting the child momentarily is not love, it is giving them the false impression that the world which is harsh in nature is a warm and fuzzy place. In effect, parents have denied their children the true joy of learning and growing up. Parents failed to see that they are only setting their children up for greater failures in the future – whereby one simple setback would be good enough to cause them to despair and never to pick themselves up again. For e.g. Eagles pushed their chicks off their nests on high cliffs, and then pick them up at the last moment, to teach them how to fly. If eagles feared that their chicks will fall to their deaths, then the chicks will never grow up to soar the skies.

This is how I see it when I read that the child in this case locked himself up for days after that haircut (a standard 4×2 according to some), which in my opinion was really not so bad at all from the few photos shown on the papers. The mother seems to have simply just allowed the child to throw his tantrums for days without giving him guidance on how to handle the matter or to smoothen things out. While I agree it is within the mother’s right to express her concern for her child and even to protest what she perceived to be the high-handedness of the teacher in handling the matter, a police report was an over-reaction and completely unnecessary. Furthermore, I felt there was no need for the teacher to apologise, since the child was not singled out to be discriminated or punished. To force the teacher to do so would simply immobilise the other teachers, depriving them of the power to act when necessary. While the letter to inform the parent did not effectively reach her, that was a matter of communication failure and not so much the fault of the school or the teacher. In fact, this poor teacher had the very unpleasant task of enforcing the school rules only to be hang out to dry by the school and the Ministry of Education, which clearly has not only failed to provide the guidelines to back the teacher, but also to show them where the line is.

An old classmate who has been in the teaching profession for many years mentioned this, “Why is everyone focussing on the hair? It is just a snip. Did it occur to you that the teacher didn’t want to see the student get kicked out of the exam hall and bit the bullet?”. He has a good point. After all, the teacher has taken an action which is in the best interest of the child. In Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is stated that: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”.

It is of no wonder that my friends who has previously been teachers or police constables have such low morale. Other than the teacher, the police constable who had to record the complaints of the parent probably felt he has better things to do in service of the public. From a certain point of view, I felt even getting caught for sleeping in a patrol car in a deserted corner of a multi-storey carpark would have been better for morale than to handle the mother’s police report.

It is of no surprise why more people seems unable to act, or simply refused to do the right thing. After all, if doing something comes with the risks of taking the rap when it goes wrong, then it is best to just do nothing. It reminds me of Pigsy in the “Journey to the West” story, which often did nothing and is the fastest to take credit. Meanwhile, Wukong (the monkey god) often gets the rap and punishment from the Monk Tripitaka (Xuanzang) for doing what is right and necessary, and in the best interest of the party. But that will be for another post, when I get my thoughts more organised to put that down in writing.

Disjointed Thoughts – August 2012

Leave a comment

I have been noticing that there is increased amount of unsafe driving on our roads. Today, my wife was driving and I was in the passenger seat. During the 2 way trip, there were 3 incidents. First, as our lane was blocked for work, my wife tried to pull into the next lane, after indicating. A van which was well behind then deliberately moved much much faster, and to make sure we couldn’t pull into the lane. Second I saw a SUV zip in and out, almost causing an accident – without bothering to indicate. Third, a lorry simply came into our lane, without indication and without giving enough allowance – almost an accident. The driver simply didnt care because of the lorry’s size. I wonder if it is the case that we are simply noticing this more, or if indeed our driving habits have become worse.

The above status update was posted on a minister’s Facebook page. It is true that the driving habits of some people are atrocious, but what took the minister so long to notice? As far as I am concerned, it’s a clear sign that he has been out of touch for too long.

Though many had lauded him for his opinion simply because of his office, I looked at it as just another whining motorist. First of all, the information that a particular lane is blocked for roadworks (or whatever) is often displayed on the Expressway Monitoring Advisory System [EMAS] quite a distance away. In most cases, a motorist would have passed under at least one of those EMAS electronic signboards, and thus have ample time to switch lanes. Unfortunately, a lot of people often ignored the information on EMAS and stayed on their lanes until too late – i.e. when there simply isn’t enough road left to do so safely while maintaining speed. As a result, an entire lane often comes to a complete halt. The chain reaction that followed causes the entire stretch of the Expressway to become congested because everyone would be attempting to change lane, with the vehicles nearest to the block doing so from a stationary position. Now, if I am moving along the next lane and someone tries to filter into my lane from a stationary position, that other driver can do so after I have driven past. Otherwise, I would have to slow down and suffer the inconvenience of being delayed. Just because someone has indicated that he wants to switch over to my lane doesn’t mean I am obliged to do so even though it is a gracious thing to do. Thus, I can understand why the van driver deliberately drove faster. That’s not mentioning, if the road has been congested, the van driver might have been frustrated with the slow moving traffic for a some time already and could tolerate no further delay. Unless the minister wasn’t traveling on the Expressway, the fact that the minister’s wife ignored those notices on EMAS and changed lane only when it is too late would suggest to me that she is among one of those people with a bad driving habit as well.

Next, I wouldn’t condone the action of the SUV driver who zip in and out of traffic. However, that points out another issue. A lot of people drives on the rightmost lane (or lane 1) on any road at speed limit. They drove like that lane belonged to their grandfather, and they are completely oblivious to the concept of an overtaking lane means nor have the common sense to leave that lane even when they noticed a fast oncoming vehicle. Granted the other driver maybe speeding and driving dangerously, it takes just a few seconds to get out of the way and let the other fellow overtake and be on his merry way (or rush on to his death, if you will). I have come to believe many drivers are in a world or their own, or they simply have an ego too big for their own good. That in itself is not surprising, since Singaporeans also behaved the same way when walking in a crowded passageway or shopping mall. That’s not forgetting that everyone paid a king’s ransom to own a vehicle for 10 years.

Slow moving lorries leaving the leftmost lane only make it worse. Not only are they a hazard to other road users, they simply slow traffic down. It is my considered opinion that the SUV driver is not solely responsible for his behavior. He may not have been driving that way had everyone been more considerate. In fact, we should subject a lot of drivers to a annual re-certification driving test since a lot of them apparently throw their highway code out of the window after they get their driving license. But I doubt the minister would care about the finer details of the can of worms he just opened. Frankly, I think this is just the excuse for the traffic police to take strong action against “errant motorists” and increase the revenue of the state coffers.

~ * ~

I think there is a little bit of disconnect between a very vocal small groups online and what I see on the ground… two examples you gave – housing and foreigners… you know, the common appeals I get at MPS, housing is one of them… No one… oh, I won’t say no one, but very very few people are coming forward and complaining that the housing issue is that they can’t afford a flat. Actually it’s the other way around. They are complaining that they can afford a flat but they’re not getting one fast enough…

Take foreigners, for example. I don’t have people coming to me and say there are too many foreigners… but the people that I speak to are asking for the reverse. Most of the residents who are coming to me, their appeals are the reverse, they are asking for help in bringing their relatives in, on a long-term pass, or to get PR or citizenship. A significant number are business owners asking for help in bringing in foreign labour because they just can’t employ Singaporeans.

If there is any disconnect, that disconnect exists between this People’s Action Party [PAP] Member of Parliament [MP] and a large portion of the electorate. Then again, what can we expect from Mr Puthucheary, who has never served National Service? While it is true that Khaw Boon Wan – the current Minister of National Development – is increasing the number of flats built in the next few years to increase availability, it is clear to most people that affordability of the flats is a separate matter entirely. Unless Mr Puthucheary has done some calculation on his own for those residents, I am not sure how he could assert that those people who came to him complaining about the lack of flats really could afford it. That’s not forgetting that if I am telling someone to increase the supply of something, I would definitely be talking about the people who can afford it but not able to get it due to the supply issue.

Few would deny that some employers wants very badly to employ foreigners, and they are not getting enough of them. Has Mr Puthucheary find out whether they can’t employ Singaporeans, or they just won’t? I doubt he bothered. He simply want to portray reality in a way favorable to his party. Since he also mentioned that those seeking his help are asking to bring their relatives into Singapore, wouldn’t that indicate these aren’t local-born Singaporeans? So, why would they be complaining about… themselves? Even if these are new citizen, are they indicative of most Singaporeans in general?

Mr. Puthucheary not only showed the disconnect between the PAP and the people, he has reinforce what some of us have known for some time – i.e. the PAP’s claims that only it has the best candidates is an utter farce. In his haste to try and refute what a large number of people already know and experienced, and in his vain attempt to discredit opposing views as just vocal small groups online, he has forgotten that 39.9% of voters – which certainly isn’t just vocal small groups online – felt very differently and voted the other way in the last General Elections.

Try “try harder”, Mr Puthucheary. Or just continue to serve National Serivce as a doctor.

By the way, saving lives is the duty of a doctor. To argue it is a form of national service is to suggest that a life-saving doctor is an exception rather than the norm. I simply can’t think of a greater insult to the other doctors who are tirelessly doing their part to save lives.

~ * ~

Declaring the issue to be “of real public interest”, the Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision and allowed an application to proceed to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men. In a 106-page written judgment, Justice Rajah said:

We emphasise that we are not deciding here that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 12 as that goes to the merits of the Application, but are instead merely deciding that it is arguably so, which suffices for the present appeal on the preliminary issue of whether the Application should be struck out. The constitutionality or otherwise of Section 377A is thus of real public interest. We also note that Section 377A has other effects beyond criminal sanctions. One unwanted effect of Section 377A is that it may also make criminals out of victims.

The judge has a good point. The fact that Section 377A is vague means that if a victim is being forced to perform fellatio or is violated in his anus, he may also be charged under Section 377A. As such, I believe the law itself needs to be amended and refined to protect victims.

Since the Attorney-General position is there is “no real and credible threat of prosecution” under Section 377A for private consensual sexual acts between two adult males, and that there are ministerial statements made in Parliament indicating the law will not be “proactively” enforced, then Section 377A should explicitly indicate that anyone who does so in public places like a public toilet (even while in the privacy of a cubicle) should be punished, even when both are in mutual consent.

However, the matter of whether the provisions of Section 377A affects the lives of “a not insignificant portion of the community” is actually irrelevant. In any case, any figures – either official or estimates – are open to debate. If the figures are too low, homosexual lobbyists will insist many remained in the closet and refused to be counted. If they are too high, conservatives will challenge that those figures are inflated.

Just as not every heterosexual who engages in sex are doing it because they have any feelings for one another, the same goes for some who engage in the activities stipulated under Section 377A. In other words, I see no reason why this particular group should go unpunished – the same way the law punishes someone who patronises an underage prostitute, or someone who have sex in public. If this judicial decision results in the repeal of Section 377A, it would be the equivalent of throwing out the baby along with the bath water.

~ * ~

Commentary – Why I disagree with Kong Hee’s “theology”

2 comments

First, let me make it clear that the opinion I expressed in the post below does not represent the opinion of any church. I write this knowing that I will earn the enmity of many, but failing to speak out would be the equivalent of a sin of omission – i.e. failing to do what is required to alert someone to the perils before him and allow harm to come to that person. Here goes…

When the matter of financial irregularities in CHC hit the news, I was two minded about what stand to take. After some consideration, I felt that there is no reason for me to be blackmailed by the opinion that good Christians should always stand together with other Christians and pray for them. Faith should not blind us, nor should it negate our ability to reason. What exactly is the point of praying in this case unless the irregularities found are planted evidence? Kong Hee and the other five have hired some of the best lawyers in this country and are fully capable of explaining to the Courts what has been done. Whether their explanation will be to the Courts’ satisfaction that no wrongdoing has been committed is another matter entirely. While CHC’ers may consider this entire matter to be the schemes of the Devil or some form of persecution, it is hard for me to accept that considering my objection and revulsion to Kong Hee’s teachings. It is even more repulsive when some said Kong Hee will have to suffer like Jesus. The image of the anti-Christ comes immediately to mind. Therefore, if I were to pray, it will be for God to open the eyes of CHC’ers to see things objectively, and also for wisdom upon the judge presiding over the case. It wouldn’t do for the innocent to be convicted, nor for the guilty to go scot free.

I admit I know very little about CHC as I have only been there twice. Nevertheless, how well I know CHC is not a prerequisite to what I have to say as I am only speaking out against what I do know. My first impression of CHC after my both of those visits was that it is very much like a pop concert. I decided I preferred the church I was still attending then as it was the place where Christ came looking for me again after seven years or so. I had visited CHC because two fellow believers who went over from their previous church invited me. One of them actually left CHC not long after in 2003 because of the blatant use of the church as a platform to promote Sun Ho’s music albums.

I wouldn’t have given more thought about those two visits or the sermons preached in those services. Suffice to say they were forgettable. Though I often hear about how supposedly anointed a speaker Kong Hee was and how the church numbers have increased, I did not feel edified by his messages and a church’s numbers really meant very little in my personal opinion. After all, people go to church for all sorts of reasons and not necessarily there to seek God. On top of which, how much of that “growth” came from members leaving other churches is another matter entirely. Even so, I thought at that time it was a good thing people are going to church. Since salvation belongs to God, having more people exposed to the Gospel cannot be bad. In any case, I would have completely forgotten about Kong Hee, since he is but one of the many preachers. God could anoint anyone with His Holy Spirit to speak and I have often felt attachment to a pastor (or even to pop stars and soccer players) to be akin to idolatry.

I certainly had my doubts about Sun Ho’s career even though I didn’t really care at that time. When the charges about financial irregularities came about, I was totally puzzled when her secular career is now said to be part of something called a “Crossover Project”. There are two things that I find chronologically mind-bogging. If I remembered correctly, Sun Ho resigned from CHC in 2003 to pursue her secular singing career, due to the criticisms about the church being used to promote her personal career. Yet, CHC’s current propaganda gives me the impression that her departure then was the beginning of the “Crossover Project”, which is said to have began back in 2002 or perhaps even earlier since she spoke about 10 years of Crossover recently. If that is the case, why the necessity to resign at that time? Why even discard the “pastor-singer” moniker at all?

Anyway, I started paying attention to CHC again about 4 years ago because Sun Ho’s “China Wine” MTV was posted on Facebook. That MTV was as uninspiring and completely forgettable as Kong Hee’s sermons. I couldn’t fathom how anyone would think of Jesus in that MTV, not to mention that it might actually stumble a new convert. What came on the heels of that was an article by the titled “The Power of Pop Culture” by Kong Hee published in the CHC’s quarterly newsletter. I felt it was nothing more than self justification for the lifestyle Sun Ho is pursuing in the United States. All my theological disagreement with the teachings of Kong Hee thus began after reading that piece.

Thereafter, I viewed a few of Kong Hee’s sermons which happened to be shared on Facebook. Sadly, just like his piece on “The Power of Pop Culture”, verses were often quoted out of context as long as they justify whatever message being preached at that time to exhort the congregation to open their wallets and give in return for spectacular amount of returns and blessing from God, who would otherwise hold it back like some kind of mafia Don. Without any doubt, if that is the theological basis of the so-called “Prosperity Gospel”, I found that it is not only questionable – it is outright heresy.

Let me layout my reasons for my objection to whatever that is preached in CHC. For all intentions and purposes, I don’t think any message that preaches personal gain through endless giving is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is often offensive to people who heard it for the first time because it declares all men to be sinful and condemned. It is a message for all mankind to repent and turn from our evil ways, and to accept Jesus Christ as the only means of redemption and salvation (Romans 3:23 ~ 24). It would be irreconcilable for CHC or Kong Hee to preach the Gospel when their very own church leadership pursues a highfalutin lifestyle. As far as I am concerned, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been dead in CHC for some time.

I have a rather simplistic view of what conversion means. It means one hears the Gospel, believes in it by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, repents of his sins and be baptised by water in Jesus’ name. We often say we give our lives to Jesus, but we cannot give back to God what originally belonged to Him. In reality, when we believed, God gives us a new lease of life and then charge us with the task of the Great Commission – i.e. to bring the Gospel on to everyone who have yet believed and make disciples of them (Matthew 28:18~20). There is no fanciful way to bring Jesus to the masses. We seek to obey God by preaching the same message that all are sinful and condemned. In most cases, we earned nothing but the enmity of all whom we shared the message because very often we Christians have our own failings which invite criticisms, and in particular accusations of hypocrisy.

However, becoming a Christian does not and will not make someone the paragon of virtue or the ultimate arbiter in morality. The fact that we failed to live up to the standards set by God simply means we need them all the more to show how far we have fallen. To discard them simply means a further slide away from what God expects of us. It is exactly for this reason why a Savior is needed. God expects perfect righteousness which we cannot attain no matter how much “good” we do. Our good works are counted as filthy rags – or in the original Hebrew, used sanitary cloth – before God (Isaiah 64:6) and only Christ offers that perfect righteousness that He has imputed to us through faith in Him. Simply put, if a church isn’t preaching the Gospel, then its claims to be fulfilling the Great Commission is an utter sham. All the more so when it panders to the world by the means where it’s most acceptable and well received. This basically says a lot about what I think of the “Crossover Project”.

Other than preaching the Gospel, God also expects us to do good works. For faith without works is dead. Good works is not another way to earn us a way into heaven, or to obtain reconciliation with God. They are basically another outward manifestation of our faith in, and our obedience to God. It is part of our transformation into the image of Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. Charitable deeds are one of the ways we perform good works, and being charitable is not limited to money – for e.g giving up our seat on the MRT to those in need is one of them. Also, being charitable does not mean giving money foolishly away or using money for whatever purposes imagined to be for good. The Bible specifically talks about helping the poor, the widowed, and the fatherless. That brings me to the matter of tithing.

During the Old Testament days in the Theocracy of Israel, the Israelites are commanded to tithe (Leviticus 27:30). The very essence of tithing is for charity, with only the tithe of the third year given to the Levites – the priesthood class (ref. Deuteronomy 12:19; Deuteronomy 14:27 ~ 29; Deuteronomy 26:12 ~ 13). In essence, it is what would pass for a modern day social security and taxation plan in the Theocracy of Israel back then. God has given very specific command on how the tithes should be used as well, making sure no one prospers from it. When Israel failed to do so, God rebuked them, even accusing them of robbing Him (Malachi 3:7 ~ 8).

Now, there is no equivalent of the Levites in the New Testament context, since Jesus has become the High Priest and now intercedes on our behalf. The pastors are different from the Levites and thus we are not tithing “to pay them”. That does not mean we should not tithe, we simply need to understand why; when or if we are feel compelled or led to give. Once we understand the reasons, obeying and giving to church simply becomes a matter of joy. God does love a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:6 ~ 15), but in the context of that passage, the preceding paragraph talks about giving to those who were in need (e.g. the Macedonian Church at that time). It is not some kind of loophole in the Scriptures where we can use to strong-arm the Creator of the Universe into showering the believers with blessings.

In the New Testament church, believers are encouraged to give offerings as we are expected to help one another so there will be no lack among believers. All the more so for those who have given up their job to serve full time in church. Clearly, we cannot expect anyone to make sacrifices and eat all the way into their own savings to serve God full-time. But that money is not given for their prosperity. If they are getting so much money that they can afford to fly in private jets and to live in lodgings way above everyone else, while someone within the congregation is in dire need, then something is seriously wrong!

In any case, God has never failed to command us to look after the disadvantaged regardless of the Old Testament Temple period or the New Testament period. If a church has stored up huge amount of money, then my opinion is that should simply expand charitable services within the community where it got the money. If a church will not help the community in which it is founded and decided that it has other non-charitable priorities, then it should really just leave and stop being hypocritical.

It simply defies basic economic principles when one believes that giving beyond his capacity “will earn one many times more in return”. It also belittles the other Christians who gave time, and service to serve God in other capacities – turning them into nothing more but second-class citizens in God’s kingdom. It is simply common sense to ask Kong Hee how does God bless this other group many times in return. God certainly never intended the Holy Scriptures to become an excuse for leaders to make believers pour out their hard earn money into a bottomless pit. The Scriptures have examples on how God works when He truly intends something to be done. For example, when God commanded Moses to build the Tabernacle, Moses was told what to ask from the Israelites. But God’s servants do not take more than what is necessary because Moses immediately told the people to stop giving when he realised that there is more than enough (Exodus 36:6 ~ 7). In short, there wouldn’t be any issue asking the congregation to give as long as there is a target figure in the first place. (If one example is not enough, read up 1st and 2nd Chronicles on the first temple which King Solomon is instructed to built, and be truly amazed! Then read up on the second temple in the Book of Ezra chapters 1 ~ 3 as well. Pay special attention to where the material is coming from and see whether anyone actually gave until they wept.)

Kong Hee’s “theology” has really very little feet to stand on. If anyone justifies taking from the congregation by quoting Scriptures, then it is necessary for the congregation to evaluate whether it follows God’s modus operandi according to the Scriptures too. The Scriptures should be the very fail-safe to prevent anyone from asking fellow believers to sign them a blank cheque, and in specific to prevent someone from using Scriptures to their advantage and abuse certain parts to suit their own personal agenda. Believers are thus equipped to play the role of a watch dog over their own church leaders had they been reading their Bible. They can be sure to a certain extent when their leaders tell them to give, whether the instructions really came from the Almighty Himself or not.

Current Affairs – Feng Tianwei and Olympic Medals

2 comments

There are good reasons to celebrate Feng Tianwei’s bronze medal at the Olympics, as much as not celebrating it. But for anyone to shame their detractors with the comment in the picture shown here, it will only strengthen the resolve of those who felt no pride to not support foreign-born Singaporean sportsmen. It does nothing to reconcile and unify us, other than to continue to tears us apart.

To the person who said this, please don’t forget a lot of Singaporean males gave 2 years of their valuable life to serve National Service, even though I have read on Facebook the comment of a certain Balaji Narasimhan – if I am not wrong, a second generation immigrant – who considered that as nothing but a walk in the park. It begs the question, has the person who made this comment (in the picture) done something spectacular to put Singapore on the world map and make Singapore proud? If he was just another who did fairly much “nothing”, then who the hell is he to berate us when he is the same? Shame on this self-righteous hypocrite who has taken shamelessness to a even higher level.

Back to the matter of feeling no pride over Feng’s win. In my case, there is no reason for me not to cheer for her win. Beyond the politics, it was a personal achievement – one that her own hard work has paid off. I wouldn’t deny I would have felt a lot more pride had a local-born Singaporean won. An old primary school classmate and I had a discussion separately on this matter, and one of things that came up during the discussion was that a lot of Singaporeans had no reason to feel pride in her win because they felt Feng does not represent us. He has a good point, and from a certain perspective I agree because I also felt Feng does not represent the Singapore that I grew up in – i.e. the Singapore where we have our emotional attachment as our place of birth. Above that, it is the Singapore that we grow up in it and one we felt grew up together with us. When we feel proud of the person we grow up into, we also feel proud of Singapore. Feng Tianwei, unfortunately, cannot and will never be able to represent that emotional Singapore – the one in our hearts is very different from the one we lived in. She represented a Singapore that we could no longer feel emotionally attached to. In a certain sense, Singapore and many Singaporeans are now like two friends who has grown up together and yet become alienated. It is a matter of national identity and not so much an objection to Feng’s foreign-born status.

Fellow blogger Darryl Kang (more well known as DK) mentioned in his comment on one of my status, he would have felt better had Feng only discovered her talent after coming to Singapore instead of being “cradle-snatched from China” (in my words). His comment reminded me of another reasons by those who felt no pride – that Feng could leave Singapore and return to China at the first sign of trouble. Meanwhile, there is of course the question of priority, as some felt we have more pressing concerns than winning an Olympic medal. Thus, there is the question of who really desired an Olympic medal – is it Singaporeans, or just the People’s Action Party [PAP] government which has generally nothing to show for their mediocrity?

All of these are good and valid reasons. Something that the PAP leaders have obviously chosen to overlook as now they come out full force to try and vindicate their so-called “foreign talent” policies. The PAP tries so hard to vindicate it that they lumped them together into one homogeneous group. When Goh Chok Tong was confronted with the question, he replied with the comment “Who’s going to build your HDB flat?” When Ng Eng Hen talked about it recently, he said “… for example in essential services, we need people to build our homes, man our hospitals, so on and so forth.”

It is utmost insulting that the PAP continues to try and befuddle the people. A lot of people I talked to, have a clear idea the difference between the foreign investor, the foreign migrant worker and then the so-called “foreign talent” competing with Singaporeans on the PMET level. It is shameful and appalling that those who claimed to the top talents and cream of the crop of this country failed to see that even while the people could. Singaporeans do appreciate the foreign migrant worker building our homes, keeping our estates and food courts clean. We also welcome foreign investments and in particular tourists who will be a boon to our country. But it is on the PMET level that we Singaporeans have been asking all along whether Singapore has failed to produce the numbers to fill the jobs that have been created, and whether truly that all of these filling PMET roles are truly the talent they claimed to be. Except for the unreasonable, Singaporeans can understand that if 10000 jobs are created and we can only fill 8000, then 2000 foreigners are needed to make an investor set up shop here. When Singaporeans see that 6 out of 10 jobs are going to foreigners, then Singaporeans have a right to question the policies because the facts obviously doesn’t match what we have been told. Is that so hard for the Men-In-White to understand? Using Feng Tianwei to say that “Foreign Talents is the way to go” is not only an insult to Singaporeans, it betrays the contempt the PAP leaders have towards native-born Singaporeans. That, is yet another reason why some of us rejected Feng Tianwei, even when it is probably of no fault of her own for those to dislike her. Native-born Singaporeans felt aggrieved because of this blatant unequal treatment coming from those who claimed they have been elected to serve. But who, and what, are the PAP politicians really serving?

Feng Tianwei, and some of those “foreign talents” that we rant often about, are really different matters entirely. Feng Tianwei, does not compete with most Singaporeans for a job even while she might add on to the strain in housing and transportation. She (and in fact a lot of other foreign-born athletes) did not wake up one day and decided she wants to come to Singapore to be a sportsmen and pursue her dreams. In fact, agents from Singapore probably go to a foreign country and made some of them an offer, “Your talent can bring Singapore something that we desired. If you forsake your homeland and be one of us, you get a shot at personal glory and a better life.” Offered something similar, a lot of us would have grabbed that opportunity as well. It was a chance and an offer she took, but don’t forget it is not an easy decision to make. Some of us often talked about how we wouldn’t hesitate to leave and work in another country if given the opportunity, but when that comes by we also turned it down because of our attachment to our family and home. What I am trying to say here, is that it is not easy for someone to make that decision.

I will stand firm on my opposition to this so-called “foreign talent” and immigrant policy which affected us the most, but that would not include the part on sports. Call me an hypocrite, but let me point out that an old friend for almost twenty years reminded me that Tan Howe Liang (the other Olympic medalist) was born in Swatow and came to Singapore at the age of 4 (refer to Wikipedia). Let us all be honest with ourselves. Would we have at the present day celebrated his win if he won his medal today when he is often cited as an example of a “true local talent”? Or would we have instead said, “Chey, born in China what!?”

That brings me to the next part of this post. Whatever anger we have at this sham of a “foreign talent” and immigrant policy, it should be directed at the policy makers. We should avoid directing at the entire community of foreigners. There are of course black sheep among them, but let us be very specific about who and what we are angry about. That is why I generally avoid the garbage that is on all flavors of those political and current affairs websites bearing the name “Temasek”, or claiming to be presenting the views of “The Real Singapore”. Having an opinion, and being a bigot are distinctively different matters entirely.

Back to the matter about Feng Tianwei and foreign born sportsmen. Another reason why some Singaporeans are not happy (if not upset) about her win is the prize money she has won. My colleague was helpful enough to show me the Wikipedia on her. The girl has won an impressive number of medals and this isn’t the only one she won. Granted, she probably get other awards for those wins, I have to point out that an athlete is a profession that very much relies on ones youth and vigor. To put it in an analogy, just like a shooting star they often burn bright but they burn out fast. Once they are past their prime there are really very little option left for them and thus they have to make as much money as possible in that short span of time for their entire lifetime. Those who succeed may become coaches or trainers, but those who failed can only fade into obscurity. Consider again Tan Howe Liang, what else did the nation do for him?

Anyway, the colleague who sent me the Wikipedia page on Feng mentioned that Ronald Susilo also runs a small shop selling badminton equipment in her neighborhood. On looking up the Wikipedia page on him, I can see that he is at least not doing too badly. Meanwhile, I see a number foreign-borns in our national squad. So for those who are saying how Feng Tianwei are ripping us all off, consider the plight of those who may never have made it at all. They may possibly return home because they are not welcomed here, and perhaps even live with shame while their former countrymen looked upon them as traitors who paid the price for failing to make it. My plea is that we take note of that while we lash out, because it does us all no good to hurt some people who might really want to make their new home here. Frankly, why do we begrudge Feng Tianwei for the prize money she won, when very few of us would bat an eye when soccer players are paid top money to play in a foreign football club, while at times not live up to their part of the bargain?

My point is this. It maybe probably true that when Feng is past her prime, she might return to her land of birth. But it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy when we continued to treat her as the other. I am not asking anyone to embrace her simply because she has won, but to at least offer our hospitality to her so she would stay and pass on her experiences and skills to the next generation of players. Regardless of what our opinion about her is and how we felt about the thrice-damned, infernal “foreign talent” policies that has brought hardships upon us, ensuring that Feng Tianwei feels at home and remain behind maybe our best shot to fulfilling our dreams of having a native-born Olympic medalist. My opinion is, even when we don’t like something, we Singaporeans have a heart big enough to accept something that has already happened and try to make the best out of it.

That said, we also need to change our mindset that there will only be a life with academic qualifications. As long as we continue to believe that the people who don’t study hard will end up as road-sweepers, and that there are alternate career options in the minds of parents, then we can more or less forget about having our native-born Olympic medalist. In fact, most of us heartlanders can forget about that aspiration because it simply means only people with the money and wealth can pursue such a dream.