I was listening to Dave Koz's Cheng Fu (The Dance Alubm) last night. I actually wasn't really playing the album, iTunes was on shuffle mode.
I find this song by Dave Koz very beautiful and romantic. When I close my eyes all I see is T and I holding each other. In the dark, in my room, listening to this song, it just makes me realise how much I miss him and how much I love him, even though he sometimes irritates the hell out of me. But then again, what couple don't have their quarrels.
I realised how safe I feel when I'm in his arms. I realise how much I trust him.
T, my life partner, I love you. :*
14 March 2007
13 March 2007
Crap from Christians again (what's new?)
Note: I'm using the general term Christian to mean all followers of Jesus Christ, be they Catholics or Protestants. I know a lot of people think that only Protestants are Christians but by definition it is not.
Christian's don't want truth, they just want their version of the truth. And what more, their version of the truth is the right one (ordained by God herself) and everyone has to subscribe to it, regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or not.
To shut yourself off like that is no more healthy than a person who believes everything he/she reads or sees (especially in Sg's main stream media) without processing all information that you have and come to your own conclusions.
The Christian's have gone so far as to enact a law (or is it an amendment) to force the park rangers at the grand canyon to NOT say that it took millions of years to form because according to the bible, the earth is only thousands of years old.
So who, we who don't subscribe to stupidity (or Christianity, same difference actually), do we believe, the people who proclaimed that the bible is the end all be all and it explains everything and anything under the sun or people who actually do research on stuff like this. Fair enough the researches don't always get thing right but if you have 100 researchers doing the same type of work and 95 of them say that this is correct and the other 5 say it isn't, who would you believe?
Christian arrogance is really amazing especially when they try to reason out the world in black and white when we living in the real world (Christians don't live in the real world, they are very much like the Muslim extremist) know that most things in this world are grey (or multi-coloured as some of my friends would say) very few (if any) things are black and white. And yet, to Christians, it is so, this is black and that is while, clear cut, no 2 ways about it. Nice to know that the world is so simple. We, living in the real world, must be really stupid to not have known that or even perceived it.
Why am I writing this, well it is just a statement for what the NCCS wrote about the Penal Code. Christ taught love and compassion. Christian Churches in the world teaches hate and intolerance. Which incidentally is exactly what the Pharisees during Jesus' time taught. Talk about white washed walls!
I totally believe that Christians are no different from Pharisees. Let's start calling a spade a spade and not hide behind the framework of love and compassion (whatever your Christian definition is).
further reads: Criminalise lesbianism, say Church leaders
Logic isn't really a Christian's strong point.
P.S. If you are angry from reading this, then you are exactly what I've described about a typical Christian. If you are not, then thank God for some thinking Christians.
------
Penal Code: Proposed changes
'relevant and compassionate'
-- says National Council of Churches of Singapore
THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is of the view that generally speaking, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code (PC) are relevant, timely, compassionate and appear well thought through.
In presenting this feedback, the NCCS is mindful of the role of governing authorities and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards the higher powers (Romans 13:1).
Additionally, in making these comments, the NCCS is aware anecdotally that there are other individuals or groups in society that intend to give appropriate feedback to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on some of the proposed amendments to the PC from other perspectives (e.g. criminal justice viewpoints) and may proffer analysis of both the underlying policies of the Government and the legal wording.
Therefore, the NCCS confined itself only to the proposed amendments that are likely to be of concern to Christian churches, groups and individuals in Singapore.
In this regard, the NCCS gave three feedback points:
'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"
The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion). Will a Christian who shares his/her faith to a non-Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to Christians alone. It may also impact on devotees of other "missionary" religions such as Islam.
Other examples come to mind. If a Christian narrates his testimony of conversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion and only found the same in Christ, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?
Assuming that we have a situation of a Muslim convert that wishes to be baptised in a local church … could the act of baptism performed by the pastor be prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony and likely to disturb the public tranquillity?
In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.
To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly.
The problem with the approach in the preceding paragraph, however, is that illustrations are not exhaustive. Much will turn on the context and circumstances of the words/acts concerned and an objective analysis of the same. In line with this, the alternative approach to that in the preceding paragraph is therefore to leave it to the courts to be the final arbiters in determining whether a contravention of intended section 298 has taken place or not.
(b) The Explanatory Notes to the Proposed Amendments issued by the MHA state that "The Public Prosecutor is aware that some offenders are of low IQ or mentally deficient. They take this into account in deciding whether or not to charge the offender." This approach by the Public Prosecutor demonstrates compassion towards low IQ offenders and the NCCS commends the same. The question is whether, given the variety of conditions that exist within the spectrum of mental illness, the statutory general exception for unsoundness of mind (section 84 PC) should be amended substantively to reflect the same. This contrasts with the present approach of leaving the same for prosecutorial discretion.
(c) We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'
Christian's don't want truth, they just want their version of the truth. And what more, their version of the truth is the right one (ordained by God herself) and everyone has to subscribe to it, regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or not.
To shut yourself off like that is no more healthy than a person who believes everything he/she reads or sees (especially in Sg's main stream media) without processing all information that you have and come to your own conclusions.
The Christian's have gone so far as to enact a law (or is it an amendment) to force the park rangers at the grand canyon to NOT say that it took millions of years to form because according to the bible, the earth is only thousands of years old.
So who, we who don't subscribe to stupidity (or Christianity, same difference actually), do we believe, the people who proclaimed that the bible is the end all be all and it explains everything and anything under the sun or people who actually do research on stuff like this. Fair enough the researches don't always get thing right but if you have 100 researchers doing the same type of work and 95 of them say that this is correct and the other 5 say it isn't, who would you believe?
Christian arrogance is really amazing especially when they try to reason out the world in black and white when we living in the real world (Christians don't live in the real world, they are very much like the Muslim extremist) know that most things in this world are grey (or multi-coloured as some of my friends would say) very few (if any) things are black and white. And yet, to Christians, it is so, this is black and that is while, clear cut, no 2 ways about it. Nice to know that the world is so simple. We, living in the real world, must be really stupid to not have known that or even perceived it.
Why am I writing this, well it is just a statement for what the NCCS wrote about the Penal Code. Christ taught love and compassion. Christian Churches in the world teaches hate and intolerance. Which incidentally is exactly what the Pharisees during Jesus' time taught. Talk about white washed walls!
I totally believe that Christians are no different from Pharisees. Let's start calling a spade a spade and not hide behind the framework of love and compassion (whatever your Christian definition is).
further reads: Criminalise lesbianism, say Church leaders
Logic isn't really a Christian's strong point.
P.S. If you are angry from reading this, then you are exactly what I've described about a typical Christian. If you are not, then thank God for some thinking Christians.
------
Penal Code: Proposed changes
'relevant and compassionate'
-- says National Council of Churches of Singapore
THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is of the view that generally speaking, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code (PC) are relevant, timely, compassionate and appear well thought through.
In presenting this feedback, the NCCS is mindful of the role of governing authorities and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards the higher powers (Romans 13:1).
Additionally, in making these comments, the NCCS is aware anecdotally that there are other individuals or groups in society that intend to give appropriate feedback to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on some of the proposed amendments to the PC from other perspectives (e.g. criminal justice viewpoints) and may proffer analysis of both the underlying policies of the Government and the legal wording.
Therefore, the NCCS confined itself only to the proposed amendments that are likely to be of concern to Christian churches, groups and individuals in Singapore.
In this regard, the NCCS gave three feedback points:
'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"
The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion). Will a Christian who shares his/her faith to a non-Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to Christians alone. It may also impact on devotees of other "missionary" religions such as Islam.
Other examples come to mind. If a Christian narrates his testimony of conversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion and only found the same in Christ, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?
Assuming that we have a situation of a Muslim convert that wishes to be baptised in a local church … could the act of baptism performed by the pastor be prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony and likely to disturb the public tranquillity?
In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.
To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly.
The problem with the approach in the preceding paragraph, however, is that illustrations are not exhaustive. Much will turn on the context and circumstances of the words/acts concerned and an objective analysis of the same. In line with this, the alternative approach to that in the preceding paragraph is therefore to leave it to the courts to be the final arbiters in determining whether a contravention of intended section 298 has taken place or not.
(b) The Explanatory Notes to the Proposed Amendments issued by the MHA state that "The Public Prosecutor is aware that some offenders are of low IQ or mentally deficient. They take this into account in deciding whether or not to charge the offender." This approach by the Public Prosecutor demonstrates compassion towards low IQ offenders and the NCCS commends the same. The question is whether, given the variety of conditions that exist within the spectrum of mental illness, the statutory general exception for unsoundness of mind (section 84 PC) should be amended substantively to reflect the same. This contrasts with the present approach of leaving the same for prosecutorial discretion.
(c) We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'
04 March 2007
Arrogance
Oh my god! What I was thinking really came true!
During the past couple of months, when Indonesia was stopping the sale of sand to us, lots of people have speculated why. Their speculation seems rather logical but I had another idea and this letter to the Jakarta Post really proves it.
I thought that maybe, just maybe, Singapore has become too arrogant and Indonesia is tired of it and is basically reacting to it.
Our arrogance to think that we are better then any of our neighbours just because we are "richer" than them. We have this idea (even my parents do) that just because we have the money, we don't have rely on any 1 country for resources, i.e. we can find other sources because "we rich enough to buy it".
Being out of the country, I have seen this arrogance more and more, sometimes, even our gahmen shows it (like the comment MM Lee made about Malaysia and Indonesia).
The thing Singaporeans have to remember, that we rely on both Malaysia and Indonesia (and even Thailand for that matter) for a lot of things. And they too rely on us. It is a co-dependence that we have. Nobody is better than the other.
This letter to the Jakarta Post really smacks of arrogance, of "we are so much better than you" and that "Indonesia depends on Singapore", not the other way around.
Jakarta Post
04 March 2007
Singapore vs Indonesia
I'm a Singaporean trying to share with you a personal opinion on the recent issue about the sand export ban and Singapore looking down on Indonesia; the sort of things said by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
Well, I'm not going to say much about the sand export ban, but have something to say on the issue of Singapore being too proud and belittling Indonesia.
Let's face it my friends, it is normally those who have an inferiority complex that would feel this way! On the other hand, I'm sure you don't need to be highly educated to be grateful for the fact that Singapore has helped Indonesia, so much so that I would have thought the resources rendered to you could have better used to serve our own people!
No doubt Singapore is tiny, but don't you feel ashamed that Indonesia, being so big, always needs our help?
Last but not least, I think you should appreciate that you are dealing with a government who does thing so gentlemanly; they are very much scholastic, unlike the governments of other nations.
Somehow, I think this whole incident is an insult to the spirit of ASEAN.
BERNARD LIM
Singapore
During the past couple of months, when Indonesia was stopping the sale of sand to us, lots of people have speculated why. Their speculation seems rather logical but I had another idea and this letter to the Jakarta Post really proves it.
I thought that maybe, just maybe, Singapore has become too arrogant and Indonesia is tired of it and is basically reacting to it.
Our arrogance to think that we are better then any of our neighbours just because we are "richer" than them. We have this idea (even my parents do) that just because we have the money, we don't have rely on any 1 country for resources, i.e. we can find other sources because "we rich enough to buy it".
Being out of the country, I have seen this arrogance more and more, sometimes, even our gahmen shows it (like the comment MM Lee made about Malaysia and Indonesia).
The thing Singaporeans have to remember, that we rely on both Malaysia and Indonesia (and even Thailand for that matter) for a lot of things. And they too rely on us. It is a co-dependence that we have. Nobody is better than the other.
This letter to the Jakarta Post really smacks of arrogance, of "we are so much better than you" and that "Indonesia depends on Singapore", not the other way around.
Jakarta Post
04 March 2007
Singapore vs Indonesia
I'm a Singaporean trying to share with you a personal opinion on the recent issue about the sand export ban and Singapore looking down on Indonesia; the sort of things said by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
Well, I'm not going to say much about the sand export ban, but have something to say on the issue of Singapore being too proud and belittling Indonesia.
Let's face it my friends, it is normally those who have an inferiority complex that would feel this way! On the other hand, I'm sure you don't need to be highly educated to be grateful for the fact that Singapore has helped Indonesia, so much so that I would have thought the resources rendered to you could have better used to serve our own people!
No doubt Singapore is tiny, but don't you feel ashamed that Indonesia, being so big, always needs our help?
Last but not least, I think you should appreciate that you are dealing with a government who does thing so gentlemanly; they are very much scholastic, unlike the governments of other nations.
Somehow, I think this whole incident is an insult to the spirit of ASEAN.
BERNARD LIM
Singapore
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
