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.

Review – HAME MPR-A1

35 comments

To be honest, this was a purchase on impulse. For those who are looking for a technical review of the device then this post will disappoint since I don’t really talk much about the technical aspects and specifications of a device when I reviewed it. Instead, I usually talked about why I am using it, and how I used it.

Here’s a short summary on how I got the device. A shop in Tanjong Pagar Xchange at the MRT Station was selling this device for S$80, even though I was told by my friend that his customer helped him get it in China for RMB 120 (approximately S$25). I decided that it would simply be cheaper if I get it online and so I politely told the sales assistant at the shop I would think about it. I understand the poor shop’s need for that margin to defray its rentals, but then I really ain’t that noble to part with my money to help the owner made a living. Went home and found it on Aliexpress for just a mere US$19.90 a piece with a shipping cost of US$30. I bought two right away and sold one to another friend at cost to defray part of the shipping costs to bring it down to US$35 (approx S$45) a piece.


Micro-USB Port for charging

I bought this because an old friend showed it to me even though I really have no need for a WiFi 802.11b/g/n Wireless 3G Router. If I know of this device earlier then I wouldn’t have considered paying SingTel for multi-sim at all. Other than being a router, the device also functions as an external battery (stores 1800mAh of power), a WiFi repeater (which I haven’t and didn’t try), and it also comes with a RJ-45 ethernet port. In other words, if I end up in a foreign hotel with just an ethernet connection with a handful of devices on WiFi, I probably will still be able to get online. Of course, the only issue is that the battery in it will only give me about 3 hours of Internet connectivity since it has no external power source. In spite of the nagging thought that I don’t really have a need for it, I decided to get one because I liked the device so much as it came with its own power source. That’s not mentioning that I can easily use several devices and share the connection with one or two friends. It had worked pretty well when my friend used it in a small conference room with 4 people. All I need to do is charge it using the micro-USB port on the side of the device, simply by plugging it into the USB ports of a laptop or a desktop computer.

The device can be used almost right out of the box without any need for configuration. A security conscious person would more than frown with my lack of concern about network security but my take is that the risk of drive-by hacking or someone hijacking the connection for their use in Singapore is pretty low. Anyway, though it didn’t connect successfully on the first try when I plugged in SingTel’s Huawei E169 USB Modem with a M1 simcard, restarting the device was all that is needed. While it did take a few minutes to successfully connect, it worked fine after that as I was able to surf using the browser on the Galaxy Tab and use the Facebook app even after I removed the simcard (just to be sure I am doing everything correctly). I even connected a Macbook Air to it just to be double sure I am not mistaken. The only thing I didn’t like here is that it looked rather flimsy with the E169 plugged in. If it is to be placed in a bad and used as a mobile WiFi hotspot, my advice is to be careful about its placement in the bag to avoid breaking the USB modem when the bag is dropped by accident.


USB Port for 3G USB Modem

The device comes with a web-based configuration interface, but it is in Chinese so I didn’t really bothered to look at it as it worked right out of the box. I did notice that there are some firewall features but I didn’t bother to play with them. That probably something I will look into in the future but I had went looking for an English firmware update instead. I failed to find one even though my friend claimed he found one but his attempts to update the firmware has failed.

That brief test would be the end of the story for this device. At that point of time I had kicked myself for wasteing money to purchase another white elephant. I am resigned to use it as an emergency battery for my smartphone even though I had a YooBao “Long March” 11200mAh battery. It turned out that fate had a different idea. On July 13th, I sat like a fool from Lakeside all the way to Tiong Bahru (between 1845 ~ 1910hrs) looking at the white screen on my Galaxy Tab with my SingTel simcard plugged in before even a trickle of data even flowed through. It didn’t just failed to load on my Galaxy Tab. It had actually failed to load on my Samsung Omnia 7 smartphone as well. That is why I was pretty sure it was a network issue and not one with my devices. It doesn’t matter that on both devices I had full reception, but yet nothing was loading. SingTel clearly has a capacity – not coverage – issue, and in my opinion that’s the real reason why they are capping the download limit to 2GB. While it was fair enough to say I was on a moving train, but failing to load for about 10 stations (that’s like 20 minutes) is unacceptable and utterly atrocious. That’s not mentioning I never had this problem in the North East Line or the Circle Line previously and the train is underground for those lines!


Mode switch & Battery Indicator

So, I am still convinced at that time it was a SingTel issue because the people beside me happily loading away on their devices, even though I couldn’t tell which provider they were on. It might not be justified to blame it on SingTel, but I decided to bring the HAME MPR-A1 out to test another day since I had a M1 simcard slot into the E169. Well, surprisingly the HAME MPR-A1 worked pretty well. While I had expected the usual delays since wireless connectivity are less reliable than a cabled one, everything loaded pretty smoothly. The only complaint about the MPR-A1 would be the fact that it felt pretty hot after about an hour and the power runs out after three hours. But it serves my purpose so I don’t really complain about that. I subsequently tested it with the SingTel simcard as well and that episode of bad network didn’t recur.

Now, here’s for some pure conjecture. Another friend who worked as a sub-contractor which installed SingTel’s LTE equipment told me that a part of the equipment used by SingTel for its LTE expansion is supplied by Huawei (the other supplier being Ericsson). The E169 is a Huawei device so I am wondering whether I am not getting a similar issue while using the MPR-A1 because of that. The only issue with this speculation is that I didn’t originally use the device with a SingTel simcard, and I ain’t aware whether M1 uses any Huawei equipment at all. That said, I have decided against another Samsung smartphone should I decide on a replacement for my Omnia 7 in October even though I liked the Galaxy S III a lot. While I may have mostly blamed SingTel for that bad experience on July 13th, I cannot rule out that part of that problem maybe with how Samsung designed its antenna or the chip it used for telecommunications since both are Samsung devices. The same cannot be said about the two strangers next to me who obviously didn’t have a problem on the train that day, and I noticed they are using Blackberry and a HTC respectively. That said, I am wondering whether I should get a smartphone that’s completely “rare” in Singapore. Perhaps one that is made by Huawei or one of those Haier ones from China. After all, as long as it comes with an English interface, I don’t really give a flying damn about the brand. In fact, uniqueness shows character and unlike iFreaks I will not let a device manufacturer like Apple turn me into a drone. No manufacturer should define my character and what is cool for me. I determine what my lifestyle should be and it is not something a manufacturer can sell to me in the form of a overpriced device.

Advertisement:



Disjointed Thoughts – July 2012

Leave a comment

Well, it’s been a busy month. I haven’t had time to blog, and couldn’t think of a lot to say of each of the following. But I do have something to say and I finally found a window to put it down in writing.

A Wang Quancheng, chairman of the Hua Yuan Association, the largest organization representing mainlanders said this: “Of course, the new arrivals are rich or else the government would have to feed them. Some locals are very lazy and live off the government. When new immigrants come, they think it is competition, taking away their rice bowls.”

Some times, it is hard not to hate some of these people. First of all, it is my considered opinion that social assistance is next to non-existent in Singapore. And I said it is next to non-existent because you may argue that there’s a myriad of such assistance around but it means shit to the needy when they don’t know where, or how, to get it. On top of which, that’s not mentioning the “hoops of fire” they need to jump through like some circus animal just to qualify for them.

Indeed, if it is true that lazy locals can live off the government, I wouldn’t be seeing old folks going around collecting paper boxes, or some aunties and uncles going around asking us for the tin cans on our tables in hawker centers. Mr Wang can also explain to me why I saw this old lady who looked unwashed and does not seem to be of sound mind walking around Ayer Rajah Food Center drinking leftover coffee. Maybe she’s not of sound mind, but perhaps she might not have gone bonkers if she didn’t have too many concerns.

Government lackeys and PAP supporter can go ahead and call me a xenophobe for all I cared. it is my considered opinion that perhaps Wang Quancheng need to understand why some of us hate the likes of them. That said, I am not surprised that Wang has a low opinion of some Singaporeans. After all, who has been spinning a tale that Singapore can’t do without foreigners? Who, has been telling the foreigners that without them we will lose our jobs? Who, has always sing the praises of “foreign talents” and made it sound like Singapore are all incompetent good-for-nothings and yet at the same time say our great our universities are and giving bursaries to train the very people who would look down on us later?

What happened to the spirit that we sang of in the patriotic song ‘We are Singapore’?

Please, don’t play this song in the National Day Parade this year. It’s a joke to sing it with its original lyrics. The lion no longer roars. In fact it whimpers in anguish, agony and pain. It has how retreated into a den and awaits its death while hyenas like Wang Quancheng circles and laugh (in true hyena style) victoriously at its plight. Now, we longer dare proudly say we made it even when people don’t think we can. Now, we are officially saying that we will never make it on our own. How pathetic have we gotten?

When will we awaken from our slumber, Singaporeans? We might be wounded and in pain, but we should have more fight left in us. Hyenas can be numerous, but WE. ARE. LIONS. (Now where is that big hole for me to kick this Wang in?)

~ * ~

Someone by the name of Rachel has written to ask Ion Orchard and LTA whether the weekly gathering of foreign (Filipino) women dancing around Orchard Road is… legal.

Thank you very much, Rachel for proving to the world just what kind of idiots some of you are. I certainly have my own gripes about too many foreigners taking up some of the jobs which manpower Singapore can provide, and foreign assholes like Wang Quancheng above. But what you did really takes the cake in racism and xenophobia, even when I think my gripes are actually justified.

There isn’t a finer example of what scoring an own goal looks like than this. Just what exactly is the point of making this complaint? For your information, I noticed that a lot of old folks gathered at void decks to do their morning taichi as well, and in one case I even saw women practicising in sync with swords to loud Chinese music in the evening. A lot of our teenagers gathered at the large underground “cavern” (i.e. the underground crossing) near the Esplanade to do break dancing too.

Had there been a case whereby Singaporeans are disallowed from doing the same I would have understood the point you are trying to make, Rachel. After all, everyone of us have problems with unfair and unequal treatment from the government and the authorities (in particular the law enforcers) towards Singaporeans – such as how that Romanian trash got away after a hit and run, and how two foreigners managed to jump bail after beating up some of our fellow countrymen. That said, I must point out that we all have a problem generally with just unfair and unequal treatment whether it is real or perceived and regardless of their nationality – take for example the case of Woffles Wu. But in the continual discussion and discourse of this matter, we should not allow the PAP or its lackeys to label us all as “xenophobes” and use that as a means to shut us all up using that as a label much like how homo-nazis silence their detractors by labeling them as bigots, haters or homophobes.

I noticed that some of us are also angry with how the PAP labels anyone who has a problem with its immigration and labor policies as “xenophobes”. And knowing that, just why the hell are some of us still walking into the trap? What good is going to forums of Chinese nationals for e.g. and then digging up their anti-Singapore postings? Note, while Obi-Wan Kenobi once said the best thing to do to a trap is to spring it, the point I am trying to made is there is no need to spring the same trap all the time. That’s not forgetting that those traps may hurt some of us who are trying to get to the same destination using another route or from another direction.

~ * ~

Singapore Ducktours will be stopping its HiPPO River Cruises in the area after it did not win the bid to run water taxi services. It took issue with the emphasis on bid price instead of the bidder’s track record and argued that the requirements – including the S$3 price cap on the standard service. The bid was awarded to Global Yellow Pages Limited & Leisure Empire Pte Ltd and Singapore River Cruise Pte Ltd.

Interestingly, the Non-Executive Chairman and Independent Director of Global Yellow Pages Limited is Mah Bow Tan. So that probably explains why he has been absent for 12 out of 25 Parliamentary sessions from the inauguration of the 12th Parliament last year until May 14th this year. He is almost as busy as our ex-Minister Mentor.

A URA spokesman explained that the price cap on the river taxi services were needed to ensure affordability and encourage people to use the services when moving around the Singapore River and Marina Bay area. He reiterated that the provisions of other services such as sightseeing cruises and themed boats were not subjected to price control under the URA’s tender. This was to allow the interested operators to work out a financially viable proposal, he added.

Let’s look at the facts for a moment. There is more reason for tourists than locals to use the river taxis because of the sights in that area – the Merlion, the floating platform at Marina Bay. Marina Bay Sands, the Helix Bridge, and even a view of the Gardens by the Bay. If tourists can get that from these river taxis, then Ducktours’ gripes have merit since it would be driven out of business unless it can provide a more personalised service to them (e,g, like taking the tourists under the Merlion’s water jet for a splash). But if river taxis are going to take us on a roundabout route around these, then they are of no use for our day to day commuting since it’s clearly not going to operate like buses on water?

The URA spokesmen is farting out of his mouth, it appears. If the river taxis are going to be a mode of transport for locals, then it must take us across from Marina Bay Sands to Clifford Pier in under a minute and it should be air-conditioned. Otherwise I can just walk for 15 ~ 20 minutes to get from MBS to Raffles Place. Preferably, it should be able to take me from Marina Bay Sands to Riverside Point at Clarke Quay or to the future Sportshub near Tanjong Rhu in less time I would take to transfer from MRT to bus or a taxi. If not just why the hell I want to dally my time away on it and pay $3 when I could do so in better comfort on alternatives?

I don’t see how are the winning bidders going to survive. I would be pissed if public monies are used to save the operators when the current winning bidders go bust. Still, I think Ducktours just sealed its own fate by making a fuss out of it. It should have just make contingencies to scale down its operations and find creative ways to stay profitable. When the current winners go busts, it can then come back with a vengeance and take over the assets. At that point, it should be able to dictate terms and even get all the existing equipment for fire sale prices. The government might even have hailed them as a savior since it would be helping the government cover up the consequences of yet another of their stupid decisions.

~ * ~

These town councils will be raising the service and conservancy charges (S&CC): Bishan-Toa Payoh, Choa Chu Kang, East Coast, Holland-Bukit Panjang, Tanjong Pagar, Tampines and West Coast. Oh dang, that includes mine.

By the way, the Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council was reported to possibly lose its S$8 million investment (6.7% of its sinking funds available for investment) on invested in Lehman Brothers’ Minibond Notes, DBS High Notes 5 and Merrill Lynch’s Jubilee Series 3 Notes. I am not surprised that it is raising the S&CC at all. Ironically, I recalled that when Dr. Teo Ho Pin was confronted in November 2008 about these losses he said, “They (residents) should thank the Town Council for working hard to come up with a diversified portfolio to generate income so that residents do not have to fork out more money.” Guess that didn’t work too well these days. Work harder, Dr Teo! I don’t really care about the whopping rise in electricity tariffs or the spending on lift maintenance post-upgrading. After all, those guys in Aljunied-Hougang apparently didn’t have to pay more. But from your previous answer I guess you will be telling all your constituents that they should be grateful that the increments aren’t more than what they are right now.

As for the spike in cleaning costs with efforts to improve standards and the lot of workers, well… I recalled someone was telling me that we need low costs foreign workers to maintain our living standards. I suppose that didn’t work as planned. Of course, the PAP will tell me that low cost doesn’t mean no cost and costs will always increase. Meantime, we should bite the bullet and keep our wages low because that would drive inflation. I am not really sure how the logic here works but I am quite sure if I have a lot less money to spend then I won’t be consuming the goods that are produced which means companies are not going to make enough profits to increase wages and… erm, nevermind. Feth! That probably explains why they can consider removing GST for gold purchases but not that for food stuffs.

Either way, I have expected the S&CC increment to come sooner or later. After all, I have never truly imagined that the money from the GST vouchers really go to alleviate our lot in life. When the idea for the GST voucher was conceived, the plan to “recover” that money has always been in place. Just look at the electricity bills for starters.

Did anyone really think this government will give us money? I am quite sure only a particular Wang Quancheng thinks so. But then again he’s probably so rich he gets no GST vouchers at all. And I sort of understand why he is unhappy with poorer or the so-called “lazy” Singaporeans. Sour grapes, man!

Commentary – Sex Education and Liberalism

The following is first posted on A Wretch Reformed by a brother-in-Christ. It is reproduced here with his permission and without modification.

Much has already been said about the new sex education curriculum that the Ministry of Education of Singapore (MOE) announced in early July. A cursory glance at the commentaries seems to indicate that a majority disagree with the MOE’s approach, taking specific aim at what the curriculum will teach, i.e. “the importance of the heterosexual married family as the basic unit of society”, and that abstinence is “the best option”.

I must say that I am not surprised at the number of liberal responses out there berating and ridiculing the proposed curriculum. After all, we live in a world that is increasingly sexualized, and where the sacred union called marriage and the family unit are attacked daily and re-defined.

So, faced with the choice to either hold my peace and say nothing at all or utilize my blogging privilege to point out the foolishness of the liberal camp, I chose the latter and that’s why you are reading this post.

Let’s start with this “progressive society” that some love to point to. They contend that if the schools were to teach abstinence, it would set our society back to (gasp!) the Stone Age. It seems that a society or culture is only progressive or advanced if we let teenagers or people do as they please when it comes to sex. The teenagers are going to do it anyway, they say, so why not just teach them the proper method of putting on a condom?

First off, how does this tacit encouragement of premarital sex make us a progressive society? Perhaps they count teenage pregnancies, single mothers, and the murder of countless unborn human beings through abortion, progress? Really?

In her commentary Sexuality education in Singapore – Whose values are we teaching?, Kirsten Han of the Asian Correspondent asserts that abstinence would foster a generation of adults who will think sex and sexuality are dangerous and shameful things, and encourage an environment where those who don’t practice premarital sex are morally better than those who do.

Don’t you find it ironic that while Ms Han is questioning why the MOE would want to impose these “mainstream” values on others, she is actually trying to impose her own set of “mainstream” values on others? I would love to see the statistics on the mental state of these adults who were taught abstinence as teenagers with regards to sex. Without those figures, that’s just her assertion.

Is it such a bad thing to label premarital sex as being immoral? Since when have we as a society begun to call evil good and good evil?

I believe that teaching abstinence to teenagers also teaches them responsibility and respect for another. It takes a strong mind and someone with moral backbone to say “no” to premarital sex when all around you, everyone’s doing it and encouraging you to do it. Not teaching abstinence but tacitly encouraging premarital sex is teaching the young to always find the easy way out–it is always easy to just give in to temptation!

In other words, we cannot start off with the supposition that teenagers are ruled by hormones that cannot be curbed, or that they cannot be brought up with a healthy attitude towards sex in such a way that they understand sex to be sacred between a man and a woman in a marital covenant.

This is where parental oversight is necessary and important–with the increasing sexualization of our society, young people are constantly bombarded with images of sex everywhere. Advertisements, movies, and the easy availability of pornography on the Internet are all contributing to a generation treating sex as nothing but a pastime in an age where the gratification of the “me” is infinitely more important than the collective.

Is abstinence easy? No, but that’s no basis for us not to teach abstinence as the best option against engaging in premarital sex. Here’s a question for those who disagree: knowing that children will lie, do you teach your child how to lie without batting an eyelid or do you teach them to not lie at all? If we follow the liberal logic stated above, then parents and teachers should start classes on “effective” lying.

Secondly, following their logic that we should just provide condoms and teach teenagers how to use them since they are going to engage in premarital sex anyway, we should do the same for other forms of sexual vice, don’t we? After all, the other choice word that liberals love to throw at you is “inclusive”. We aren’t really being inclusive if we leave out the pedophiles, those that practice bestiality and necrophilia and so on, are we?

In the same article mentioned above, Ms Han seems to think that 15,000 people who gathered for Pink Dot 2012 at Hong Lim Park on 30 June more accurately define the “mainstream” values of modern Singapore than, say, the majority of the population who didn’t attend the event. The 15,000-strong turnout, she says, can be “seen as a sign of increasing acceptance of LGBT communities”, and goes on to question if the mainstream heterosexual family unit is still to be considered “mainstream” when seen in that context.

Huh? Really?

I seriously doubt that “mainstream”, God-ordained values such as the heterosexual family unit will be thrown out of the window just because 15,000 people went to support “the right of everyone to love and be part of society, regardless of sexual orientation.” at Hong Lim Park. If nothing else, this assumption of hers was just another push for the LGBT agenda. Again, note the irony I pointed out above.

In conclusion, I applaud the Ministry of Education for doing the right thing. The teaching of abstinence as the “best option” and the importance of the “heterosexual family unit” are, in my opinion, all the more important in this day and age. In a society where social mores are eroding and in a world where even the sacred institution of marriage and gender identity are being redefined, we need to continuously uphold these pillars of a strong and healthy society. There is no turning back the clock once the pillars crumble, and the consequences of a total breakdown will be dire.

The above post has expressed my views too. To add, can it be denied that abstinence is the most effective in deterring sexually transmitted infections and diseases, and unwanted pregnancies (and the horrific consequence of abortion that often comes with that)? While abstinence is the hardest to achieve, that doesn’t mean we forego it entirely even though I am not against teaching male teenagers how to use a condom. But we shouldn’t go so far as to provide the condoms.

As for Pink Dot, another acquaintance wrote on his blog that he hoped that one day we will all accept the freedom of people to love. That, is a fallacy. There has always been a freedom to love. We are all free to love our friends, our pet and even our gadgets. But there are different levels of love and there are boundaries to them. For e.g. if I have a brother, I will love him as one because we are kin. But I will not consider marrying him. I can love another male as a good friend, a good brother, maybe even a good mentor, but I won’t consider marrying him either. In fact, I won’t considering marrying my pet, or my tablet either even if I loved them as dear as my life. So why are we even talking about accepting the freedom to love when there was never in fact, any objection in the first place?

Since I am now on the matter of Pink Dot, I would also like to address the comment of that same acquaintance who further wrote that he hope to see Section 377A repealed one day. I am curious that the matter of Section 377A always come up when matters of homosexuality are discussed. First of all, Section 377A does not affect lesbians. Though it would also subject homosexual and bisexual males to punishment under the law, the law did not specifically single just them out for punishment when it would also punish any other man who would ‘just stick his penis into someone’s anus’ for sexual pleasure or humiliation, and also those who are offering sexual services to other men with such desires.

Now, if Pink Dot is all about the freedom to love then Section 377A should not even be on its agenda since love and sex are not one and the same even though they are not mutually exclusive. Even if I grant those behind the Pink Dot movement that their main objective is about love, and removing the social stigma and discrimination of homosexual people, the impression they are giving me is that they are also promoting the rights of those whose would love to see Section 377A repealed for some other, more personal agenda (see the screen capture of an SMS received by a friend).

It is these people I object to. Is this what you would call love? I am sure not every homosexual person is like this, but if you don’t consider the proposal in this SMS to be plain wrong, then let us agree to disagree. Call me a homophobic hater for all I cared, but over here in my country, homosexual people have equal rights to health care and jobs opportunities, and also universal suffrage. Those who are clamoring loudly against discrimination here would be a lot less hypocritical if they are fighting for any homosexual person’s right to live in those countries that would execute them.

1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 186