Rony and the Troll

When life gets a grip on you it doesn’t let go. A “brief” hiatus to enjoy the lull between the end-year festivities and the looming Lunar New Year, and what happens? The proverbial shit hits the fan.

Mr Rony Tan, you poor misguided sap, what your Lighthouse got broken? When one goes about promoting a cause by way of denouncing or denigrating others, you really have to wonder if they deserve the pulpit in the first place.

So Rony gets invited for tea at ISD, rightly so, and was admonished by the authorities. Rony later issues apologies left right centre. Shades of Derek Hong here. More so as unlike Derek, in an attempt to promote his religion, he was denigrating others’.

Time and again religion is placed in the spotlight and time and again certain quarters bray for blood. Unfairly so, since at the heart of the issue isn’t religion itself, but the misguided practices and teachings of a few idiots. Not only must the authorities set the record straight, but the community as a whole must treat these jokers as the pariahs that they are rather than paragons of society being shafted by the authorities.

With the issue transcending from the online forums to the front page of the Straits Times, it now gains country and worldwide attention. Should it have been done that way, or should it have been more hush hush, letting the ISD go about its quiet (and IMHO critical) mission as it has done all these years to keep Singapore safe and sovereign. What were the benefits of making it public versus the backlash and certainly online furore? I’m willing to suspect someone up there didn’t really think it through.

Did Rony get away with a slap on the wrist or should he have been read the Sedition Act? Well I managed to watch a video on the supposed I-dunno-mandarin-broken-english-speaking ex-nun and supposed blood-peeing-sunday-school-teacher ex-monk and the way it was coming off, sounded more like a stage act orchestrated by Rony with fake accounts of previous paths walked by the supposed 2 ex-Buddhists. Trust me when I say I’ve heard even stronger-worded rhetoric from backyard white America or from the immigrant slums of London.

Surely in multi-cultural and multi-religious Singapore we must be mindful of what we say of others. But is it seditious? I’m no lawyer but to me the video in question didn’t strike me as so. Comical, ludicrous, at times laughable (especially Mr I-Have-Blood-In-My-Pee), a lesson in how not to conduct sermons and come off as plain stupid, but seditious no, there was no malice, not to me at least. But the online furore against Rony to lambast his intolerance, sounds to me the same lambasting is also intolerance, is it not? Especially in your bid to lambast, you denigrate everyone else’s religion as well. And hey it’s happening as I type this. Xtians are intolerant, Buddhists are delusional, Muslims are suicidal. I mean, wtf?

It’s probably cliche to say live and let live and even go as far as to quote PAP with let’s move on, but really, that’s all to it. There will be extremist fundamentals or even otherworldly instigators who will insist on flaming wrecks and rolling heads, but I don’t think we ought to feed these intolerant trolls.

What ISD said

‘Pastor Tan’s comments were highly inappropriate and unacceptable as they trivialised and insulted the beliefs of Buddhists and Taoists. They can also give rise to tension and conflict between the Buddhist/Taoist and Christian communities. ISD told Pastor Tan that in preaching or proselytising his faith, he must not run down other religions, and must be mindful of the sensitivities of other religions.’

The Home Affairs Ministry, on what the Internal Security Department told Senior Pastor Rony Tan

What pastor said

‘I sincerely apologise for my insensitivity towards the Buddhists and Taoists, and solemnly promise that it will never happen again.’

Senior Pastor Rony Tan, in his statement posted on his church’s website last night

More equal than others

Floods a freak event, or could we have tracked it?

IT IS heartening to learn from Wednesday’s report, ‘Work to expand canals next year’, that PUB intends to take concrete steps in the wake of what was described as ‘an extraordinarily intensive storm on Nov 19′. I hope this will go at least some way to relieve the anxiety of residents in the flood-prone Bukit Timah area.

Although we are into the annual monsoon period when heavy rain is only to be expected, it does seem strange that with all the sophisticated tracking technology now available to meteorologists, there was no advance warning of this ‘extraordinarily intensive storm’ for the public to prepare themselves adequately.

The report informs that ‘this flood comes three years after one of Singapore’s worst floodings in recent history, in December 2006′.

However, this appears to conflict with the comment attributed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim (‘Deluge a ‘once in 50 years’ event’, last Saturday) that this was a ‘freak’ event.

I recall from memory that friends living in a two-storey house in Carlisle Road had to evacuate to the upper floor when there was more than 1m of water downstairs – this would have been in 1969. Again in 1979, I was caught along Dunearn Road in a car with the water more than 1m above road level, leaving many cars stalled. Arguably, anyone who had any personal experience would be inclined to believe his was the worst.

As the weather appears to be at the whims and fancy of Mother Nature, it will be intriguing to see how far the ingenuity of man will be able to keep its destructive forces at bay.

Narayana Narayana

Source

I laugh when I read news like this. Singapore pulls out the stops to woo foreigners, plans for every contingency and caters to their every whim. APEC, F1 to name 2 recent ones.

But when it comes to something as perennial as monsoon floods, the government still can’t get it right. Worse still, reports suggest that the NEA(?)/PUB(?)/god knows who in the usual government body ping-pong already knew of the problem and that they would “accelerate” the schedule only after the flood occurred. I guess stuff happens only when the shit hits the fan.

This strikes me as yet another indictment of Singapore’s government bodies and civil servants. The typical frame of mind of civil servants I’ve met is to coast on autopilot until shit happens or their bosses shoot arrows. When problems arise they either sit on it or endure it, instead of facing the problem directly. Perhaps in a view not to offend people or higher-ups, especially when the problems were created by lousy planning (by the same higher-ups) or from lack of proper collaboration and consultation by the team, usually because when the boss says so, rank and file cannot say otherwise. That to me is a sickness, a rot in any organisation.

One that does not appear to be curable anytime soon.

Winning over minds

The new McCarthyism: Fort Hood shooting may be exploited to cast Muslims as innately un-American
05:55 AM Nov 10, 2009IN ALL likelihood, the Fort Hood shooting will be logged as yet further evidence that Muslims are a dangerous fifth column that simply cannot be trusted in the West. Why? Because the shooter appears to be a Muslim. Worse: A Muslim of Arab origin.

It is interesting to see how the media reported on this tragedy – immediately, questions were posed about the shooter’s ethnicity and religion: Implicitly making clear that such things were not just relevant to the story, but probably causal factors.

The fact that he was born and raised on American soil is irrelevant. Some may declare: “Well, of course it’s because he was an Arab Muslim that he did this!” Others may just secretly harbour such feelings – but all of them forget about people like John Russell and William Kreutzer.

Both were sergeants in the United States military. Russell shot dead five soldiers a few months ago at Camp Liberty in Baghdad; Kreutzer went on a shooting spree at Fort Bragg in the US, killing one, and injuring 18. Neither case received the same amount of media attention as this case is likely to – and in neither did any reputable journalist draw attention to the killer’s religion or ethnicity.

Why? Because those two individuals were not Muslims, and they were not Arabs.

At this point, we simply do not know why the shooter at Fort Hood did what he did. But here is what we do know: Muslim Americans number anything from 3 million to 6 million.

We know that, even without any evidence linking Islam to this tragedy, Muslim organisations denounced the killing, rejecting point blank any connection to religion. We know that around 20,000 Muslims serve in the US military, and their loyalty to the US is unquestioned.

And we also know that people on the far right (and probably on the left as well), will use this sad turn of events to yet again “prove” that Muslim Americans are simply not American. They are merely interlopers on American soil who must be suspected and pulled aside for random checks at airports.

The authorities will take swift action against this man, as well they should. But American society at large must also take swift action against those who use these events to justify a new type of McCarthyism – one that focuses not on communists, but “the Muslims”.

I would like to say that I believe American democracy and American values are sufficient to withstand the temptation to fall into such a predictable trap, which will cause the likes of Al Qaeda to rub their hands in glee – for obviously this is what such extremists want in the first place.

But I am not so sure. I hope America proves my doubts are ill-placed.

In the meantime, Muslim Americans should be aware that their situation will become more, not less, challenging. That’s not to say they should change what they are doing – on the contrary, they should keep doing it, and do more of it. Muslim Americans are incredibly loyal to their country – and show it every day through their organisations, their work, their uniquely Islamic-American culture.

That sort of work is what non-Muslim Americans need to realise is normative and well rooted with Muslim American communities. That sort of work is real – and it will go on beyond this tragedy. But Muslim Americans and non-Muslim Americans alike need to be prepared to defend American pluralism against those who would sacrifice it on the altar of political expediency.

Source

An interestingly written article on the Fort Hood shooting episode which has again put the spotlight on Muslims and Islam. This episodes puts in stark contrast our very own military policy in the SAF regarding Malay Muslims. It has been an oft-held notion that Malay Muslims are bypassed for key appointments as it would be “tricky”. Afterall, MM LKY once said, “If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that’s a very tricky business. We’ve got to know his background.”

It wasn’t until the SAF got its first Malay Muslim BG that the notion was dispelled, or was it? If BG Ishak is truly OIC of training, then the myth/truth will likely persist. It is interesting to delve into SAF’s policies to determine exactly how the SAF manages the very same sentiments that American Muslims are feeling right now. Granted, I really doubt that any Singaporean Malay Muslim would ever be in the same shoes as Major Nidal Malik Hasan, as a counsellor for the war-wounded, so understandably the SAF or any Malay Muslim serving in the SAF would truly appreciate what went on in the major’s head. Naturally I’m not privy to the SAF’s policies and I doubt the SAF would be coming forward anytime soon.

The problem for me is, no matter how many media moderates or religious leaders come out to speak in defence of the community and Islam, the damage has been irrevocably done. No one questions the religion of any say white American or Chinese Singaporean when they commit acts of insanity. The sad and ugly truth is, in the eyes of most non-Muslims, even moderates themselves, we have already formed a mental cast of Islam, exactly like how most humans would react positively to encountering a pretty teenage girl walking towards them in a dark alley, as opposed to to say a young man with spiky gelled hair and sporting tattoos. The wiring of our collective (non-Muslim) brains has been reconfigured to react instinctively and negatively to such stories and thus the associations (ie Islam).

As it is right now, how our collective brains have been wired to instinctively despise corporate bankers, investment brokers and Osama Bin Laden. How did we come to this?

Wet Markets must stay

Wet markets make a world of difference

MY 77-YEAR-OLD mother drew my attention to last Saturday’s commentary by Ms Jessica Lim, ‘Time for wet markets to go’.

Ms Lim has not seen some of the better-run wet markets, such as the ones in Tiong Bahru and Bukit Batok East Avenue 4.

My mother and I do the bulk of our weekly grocery shopping at FairPrice Finest and Shop & Save at West Mall, but we visit the two wet markets every month to get items which we either cannot find (surprise, surprise) or which cost far more at the supermarkets.

Like Ms Lim, I have seen some of the fresh produce markets in First World countries. However, she should remember that many folk who frequent wet markets here have never been to a First World country. The cleanliness is something we must try to emulate – Tiong Bahru, for example, is much cleaner than it used to be.

But the market smell is also related to the climate. In England, household refuse is collected once a week – something which would be unthinkable here.

My mother’s face lights up whenever we go to Tiong Bahru wet market, where she has shopped regularly for more than 20 years. The market is a half-hour drive from our home in Hume Avenue, but my mother’s happiness alone makes the hour-long round trip worthwhile.

Joanne Tay (Ms)

Since I can’t link ST’s article by Ms Jessica Lim (how typical), I link this by Joanne Tay. Jessica Lim’s remarks came across as snobbish nearly arrogant and smack of a West-Is-Best colonial mindset. I’ve been to many produce markets in the West and while nearly all of them are indeed much drier, to me it was more by dint of their dietary habits. The fact that our local markets are wet should not be the point of contention, rather the cultural and historical even national identity that our local markets possess.

Having to browse lifeless aisles of merchandise and produce, encountering metal trolleys and plastic baskets, to end off with a machine that goes DEET DEET DEET and a faceless employee from China, is a decidedly experience from the friendly banter of a stallkeeper, listening to their brickbats and grouses and enjoying the hustle and bustle of a brisk morning marketing session.

HDB and a certain Grace Fu might lead you to believe that wet markets are subject to market forces and their existence or disappearance is nary to warrant a blip in our radars. Unless you’re content to watch our history pass us by, content with looking back via grey photos pasted on supermarket whitewalls or exhibition halls, then vote with your wallets.

Hardship Posting

I read Today Online somewhat regularly since it’s a source of local news I can get online without having to pay for it. One of the stories that has gotten my attention is the Hardship Posting article by Tabitha Wang the budget tai-tai. In her article she laments the wonderful lifestyles of the rich and famous expats in Singapore, and suggests an expat tax levy like Singapore’s maid levy.

It drew many heartfelt responses from the expat community expressing disappointment and positing that life isn’t as rosy as Tabitha depicts. Before this I thought Hardship Postings were all shindigs and sex in elevators, but responses included topics like “local packages”, daily medication regimes and lines like “When in Rome”.

Seriously man, what’s the problem? It’s the company’s prerogative to invite someone to work overseas and it’s again the company’s prerogative to pay that person whatever they deem fit, no? No one’s pointing a gun to the chap’s head here, nor can any one individual make ridiculous demands on the company without risking their own job.

But an expat levy cuz the person’s worth it? That’s like asking for a “good-looking” levy on pretty boys and girls cuz people wanna date (and bed) them!

Well that aside, maybe someone rubbed Tabitha the wrong way one day, who cares. The ugly truth is, while a vocal minority in the expat community did come out to speak against Tabitha, rest assured the ones Tabitha talked about won’t be writing to Today anytime soon saying, “yeah babe you’re spot on, I rock!” There are indeed expats in Singapore with lavish lifestyles and packages to support them. Then again the companies probably thought they were worth the bundles of cash to send them here (or anywhere else).

I’ve heard my fair share of Singapore Expat Love Stories, and a stroll along places like Cluny, Oei Thong Ham, Old Holland Road and the districts 9, 10 and 11 will put you straight if you’re clueless. But a recent one took the literal cake. A Singaporean born and bred studied overseas and stayed there to work. Years later, after marrying a local (there) and fully converted to the lifestyle and culture of the host country, the company decided to send him back to Singapore as an expat, on the expat terms of the host country. All this while he still is a Singaporean with a pink IC and red passport. The goodies on the table included a SGD$20,000 monthly rental allowance. While the chap settled on a SGD$6k 3-storey condo penthouse in Havelock Road, it’s pretty clear expat packages still exist. But this isn’t a Ris Low case here, no one’s fooling anyone here, if everyone and everything’s above board, what’s the problem, besides envy?

Upturn the Downturn? How about “I just kneed you in the groin!”

Tiger Uppercut! Tiger Knee!

Reminiscent of the MDA Rap and the P65 hiphoppers, Lim Swee Say and some NTUC jokers (and a few other MPs?) danced and sang their way into labour union workers’ hearts.

Upturn the Downturn? What? Haven’t they got better things to do? And what’s with the HUGE ostentatious stage and lights?

Has the NTUC really “upturned the downturn”? Well this soiree did raise $23mil for the U Care Fund, according to the Youtube info. Wonder where that money goes.

But seriously, could Singaporean public servants please stop singing and dancing?

No embeds, you might go blind.
Upturn the Downturn: The Online Citizen’s take

Arms Race or Reverse Psychology?

Tun Mahathir Mohamad’s concillary tone in a recent statement is worth a chuckle or two. To Singapore’s participation of an airshow in Langkawi, Tun Mahathir asked the Malaysian Government not to enter into an arms race with Singapore as it was a “waste of money”.

Actually his exact words were, “It’s a waste of money. We’re not fighting, we’re not going to war with Singapore.” Wise words indeed.

Except when it comes from the same person who once said, “Please never mention Singapore in front of me again. Don’t you know we are at war with Singapore?” it just sounds ironic.

More tongue in cheek was the Malaysian King’s statement when Malaysian received shipment of its first submarines, “I hope you will have better avenues to protect the nation from threats, now that you are equipped with such expensive assets that are a force-multiplier.” I’m not even sure if the King is for or against buying submarines!

Perhaps both are on the same ticket, that an arms race with anyone in the region (or is it just with Singapore?) is a waste of money, and I tend to agree. But is there a split in ideology between the past and powerless rulers of Malaysia and the recent regimes of Badawi and Najib? Let us look at the recent past of military purchases by Singapore and Malaysia:

Singapore’s Archer Submarine – June 2009
Malaysia’s Scorpene Submarine – Sept 2009 (3 months later)
Singapore’s F-15 Fighter Jet – May 2009
Malaysia’s SU-30 Fighter Jet – Aug 2009 (again 3 months later)

Coincidence? Maybe.

F1 Singapore: Cars or Concerts?

As I wait in anticipation for the Singapore F1 2009 Night Race to start, I recall all the news about happening concerts staged during the period of the F1 Singapore Night Race. The list of hot acts include Beyonce, A-Mei and Black Eyed Peas.

Near as I can tell, the news of the takeup rate for the F1 weren’t as stellar as the inaugural F1 Night Race, where the maestro of F1 Mr Bernie Ecclestone once proclaimed it the crown jewel of the F1. But with the economic meltdown of 2008 and the shrinking wallets (or shrinking egos?) of the rich and well-travelled, it struck me that the organisers of the F1 Singapore saw inviting music acts as a way to draw the crowds.

Perhaps, but drawing crowds to concerts most likely doesn’t translate to crowds for the F1 Night Race. There’s definitely a beneficial effect on the hotel occupancy rates for sure, as tourists coming down to attend the concerts will need to shack up somewhere. However, to my mind there’s very little trickle down effect from concerts to the race. Afterall the audience and demographic is decidedly different.

But that won’t deter the statistics-mongers at wherever to likely tout the entire event as a resounding success going by pure tourist entry numbers alone, be it for the F1 or the concerts. To be sure there’s no way to differentiate an F1 tourist from a concert-goer and the numbers might look favourable as a total sum. Will this entertainment circus extravaganza become the default model for the F1 Singapore Night Race?

I don’t know really.

HDB Prices: another lame letter

This letter puzzles me:

Letter from Ignatius Lourdesamy Deputy Director (Marketing & Projects) for Director (Estate Administration & Property), Housing & Development Board

I REFER to the letter “It’s not all about the numbers”, (Sept 16) by Mr See Leong Kit.

It is misleading for Mr See to use the example of flats at Pinnacle@Duxton to conclude that HDB is profiteering from the sale of public housing flats. HDB is able to recover the cost for some projects, while incurring significant losses for others. Overall, in the last three years, HDB incurred an average deficit of $1,045 million a year in its home ownership programme. This cost subsidy, which has to be financed by the Government, is reported in HDB’s audited financial statements.

Why does HDB benchmark its flat prices to market in spite of these huge deficits? Because this is the fairest way of pricing new HDB flats while ensuring equitable distribution of subsidies.

How is this done? HDB first determines a flat’s equivalent market price by taking into account various factors such as location, finishes for the flat and other attributes. This price reflects the flat’s value at the point of sale. It is what people are willing to pay in the open market. HDB then sells the flat at a significant discount, which is the subsidy given by the Government.

Market-based pricing is fairer to all buyers because it allows buyers to receive similar levels of subsidy regardless of market movements and fluctuations in development costs. Mr See states that the Pinnacle@Duxton flats were re-launched at an average selling price “which is $180,000 higher than initial launch prices (in 2004)”. If HDB were to sell those flats at 2004 prices as Mr See suggests, it would be giving Pinnacle buyers today an additional subsidy of $180,000. This is not fair to those buying other HDB flats today, or indeed to all taxpayers.

A market-based pricing approach ensures that all groups of buyers at any point in time enjoy similar subsidies, and balances the demand for new and resale flats.

It is illogical for Mr See to attribute the increase in property prices to HDB, because the recent appreciation in asset and equity values is not unique to Singapore. Nonetheless, flats remain affordable – first-time flat buyers use 17 to 29 per cent of household income for their loans, below the international benchmark of 30 per cent.

HDB is ramping up new flat supply, up to 8,000 Build-To-Order (BTO) flats this year. HDB’s latest BTO project, Punggol Spectra, offers smaller two- and three-room flats with affordable prices that start from $89,000 and $151,000, respectively. HDB will continue to ensure that flats remain affordable.

Could someone explain the bold paragraph to me like a 2 year old what the heck that meant? The way I read it, Mr See is asking HDB to sell the flat at a fixed 2004 price, whether it was launched in 2004 or 2009. HDB’s reply is, if they sold the 2009 flats at 2004 prices, taxpayers are paying for the price difference via subsidies.

But isn’t the price difference exactly what Mr See is asking you to get rectify? If you sold the 2009 flats at the same 2004 flats there won’t be a “$180,000″ to speak of would there? Sometimes I wonder who the hell these people are and how they managed to climb up the corporate ladder.

On another note, I think Singaporeans need to get over the idea that HDB Corp is there for Singaporeans to obtain affordable housing. They are not. It is a Corporation and like all corporation it exists to make money. The suits at HDB Corp are frankly laughing all the way to the banks from this current property bubble of inflated prices and huge financial liabilities, and Singaporeans need to finally realise that, with or without our dear Minister Mah Bow Tan’s protestations that HDB is there for you.

Just like nearly all services in Singapore, like SMRT, SBS Transit, Ez-Link, NETS, et al. All exist to make money while providing monopolistic services to Singaporeans.

Spectacularly Secular

Wow, I now know what it’s like to be deprived of the Internet for a long period of time. Liberating! Yes it was tough at the beginning, working at a country practically devoid of the Internet, with only my GSM phone and PS3 to accompany me, where any instance of the Internet is instantly snapped up for personal communiques with loved ones, all the other things that we do on the Internet suddenly seem frivolous.

Like the recent shitstorm surrounding this upcoming website Singanews. The local blogosphere is awash with allegations of the continuing encroachment of Christianity into Singapore’s secular landscape, by none other than the Thioliban (great idea btw), an amalgamation of Thio Li Ann the ex-NMP and daughter of the matriarch puppet master I mean womentor of the AWARE saga and the obvious Taliban ultra-conservative Afghan guerrilla band ex-what stood for an Afghan government.

Looking back (thanks to Google and Sam’s Thoughts), it appears that the 1-2 punch delivered by The Void Deck (props) and Temasek Review lit up the collective brains of the liberal blogosphere. Allegations abound with veiled portents of conversative Christianity creeping into the sacred liberal grounds of the blogosphere and despite protestations that Singanews was under siege by “secular militants”, it would continue on its merry trek towards providing alternative views and filling the gaps in national debate.

Naturally the liberal blogosphere interpreted that as typical double speak, and frankly with Singanews already wearing the scarlet letter, can Singanews continue to exist other than that of a site expounding Christian values?

The AWARE saga jolted this generation’s bloggers into coming to terms with the idea that values (religious or any other kind) are everywhere and seep into our venacular and consciousness whereever and whatever you do. Even as I type this, my values are imparted into the message. Dare anyone who blogs say that whatever they expound or express on their blogs do not in every way impart their own values to the reading public? Apparently a majority of Singapore’s bloggers are bleeding heart liberals, but liberalism is also a value, just like conservatism is one as well.

What we’re seeing here, is 2 camps being formed and a line drawn in the sand. Both are right and both are wrong at the same time, be it secular militants or conservative fundamentalists (or fundies as people are wont to call them these days). Is the local blogosphere to be dictated by the front-runner liberals? Is the local blogosphere so small that “deviant” speech cannot be tolerated? As a Christian would say, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Well it looks like everyone’s casting stones right now. However it is fair in my mind to say that Secular Singapore remains the way it is with its careful balance of multiple races and religions because it accords all equal treatment, and such it has been an unstated condition that your religion is yours alone and thus understated. The Fateha tudung incident reminded us that grandiose religious displays are frowned upon and you only need to stay in Malaysia for a few days to understand the effort the Malaysian government puts to appease  its Muslim majority. Then why the anger? If we are ok with Christian bookshops, why can’t we tolerate Christian websites? I  suspect the liberal blogosphere is so put off by the Thioliban because of the way they apparently conduct their “business”: in a surreptitious manner.