When the High Court halved the sentences of City Harvest Church leaders in its recent judgement, Singapore’s social media exploded with anger and disbelief.
Many netizens felt that the court was being too lenient to founding pastor Kong Hee and his management team, who embezzled over $50 million in church funds to fund his wife’s lavish pop star lifestyle in the United States.
A lawyer from IRB Law LLP explains that the reason behind the reduced sentences is related to whether the judges sees Kong Hee and the other leaders as “agents” under section 409 of the Penal Code. Section 409 of the Penal Code is an aggravated form of Criminal Breach of Trust.
He wrote: “The offence of Criminal Breach of Trust (‘CBT’) exists in various forms. There are different maximum sentences for: Simple CBT (Maximum imprisonment term of 7 years); CBT by a carrier (Maximum jail term of 15 years); CBT by a clerk or servant (Maximum jail term of 15 years); CBT by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent (Maximum jail term of life imprisonment or 20 years).”
“To convict the CHC members under the most aggravated form of CBT, the prosecution would have had to prove not only that the CHC members were guilty of criminal breach of trust, but also that they were in fact agents. The purpose of this article, it is best not to delve into what constitutes an ‘agent’ as that probably deserves an entire article on its own, but it would suffice to say that in agency relationships, there is a very high level of trust vested in the agent.”
“To put it simply, the High Court agreed that the CHC members were guilty of CBT but did not find that the relationship between the offenders and the church to be one that involved agency.”
On why the court sentenced a man who stole $1,900 from a Mosque more harshly than it sentenced Kong Hee and the others, IRB had this to say: “The individual who was convicted of stealing $1,900.00 was not charged with theft, but with the offence of ‘house-breaking by night’ to commit theft. This is an aggravated form of house-breaking, and the section under which he was convicted imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. Furthermore, this individual had committed the act of housebreaking by night 12 times on different occasions, and it appears that he was convicted of four charges of housebreaking by night to commit theft.”
In February, a video of Imam Nalla Mohamed Abdul Jameel reciting a prayer in Arabic that said “God help us against Jews and Christians”, among other things, was circulated online.
He was charged in court and pleaded guilty last week to promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, and committing an act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
He also apologised to Christian and Jewish religious leaders for his remarks. He was fined $4,000 and has been repatriated back to India.
The issue has come to a closure in a “uniquely Singapore” way. It judiciously combined the application of law via the courts, lots of community engagement efforts by Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim’s dialogue, and with religious leaders of different faiths. Mr Shanmugam also met the imam for a cordial breakfast.
Few countries in the world have the opportunity to adopt this balanced approach to resolve a sensitive issue, because it needs the existence of social peace and religious harmony, which Singapore works very hard to preserve.
With this closure, it is useful now to deal with the “elephant in the room”, which is Islam’s doctrinal position on the “religious other”.
This discussion is important to make clear to non-Muslim Singaporeans that enmity towards non-Muslims was never a part of Islamic doctrine.
ISLAM AND NON-MUSLIMS: A HISTORY
Islam’s position on non-Muslims was first shaped by historical conditions. This early position evolved over time so that it remained appropriate to the context of the day as the dynamics in the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims changed.
The Quran spoke warmly of Christians because they were more receptive to the message of monotheism, compared with local idol-worshipping tribes in Mecca, when Islam first came.
Furthermore, it was the Christians of Abyssinia (present-day Ethiopia) who gave refuge to Muslims who fled Mecca to escape persecution.
Similarly, Muslim-Jewish relations in the early Islamic era were positive as they were shaped by an agreement that manifested the congenial dynamics between the two faith communities.
More importantly, early Muslims conceptualised the community of believers to be originally independent of confessional identities.
They regarded Christians and Jews to be members of their community.
It was only later that membership in the community of believers came to be seen as a confessional identity in itself, and this had a lot to do with the prophethood of Muhammad.
Tensions, therefore, occurred in Muslim-Christian as well as Muslim-Jewish relations and due to sharp differences in a number of other doctrinal matters.
Notwithstanding these fundamental differences, the special relationship among the three religions as part of the Abrahamic family of religions was preserved.
The divisive issue of Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood was played down and, instead, the focus was on what bound the three faith communities together.
These are the belief in monotheism, the Last Day and the importance of doing good deeds on this earth.
The attitude of early Muslims was to preserve unity of the community of believers so that they could be assured of Jewish and Christian support to defend their city, Medina, against the common enemy in Mecca, who were not monotheists.
This explained why Muslims did not force Jews and Christians to accept the status of Prophet Muhammad as their prophet, too, but chose instead to focus on teachings that could be accepted by all three faith communities.
But the bigger cause of conflict and division was less religious and more political. It was the violations of parties of the agreement to honour it and fulfil their obligations. These violations were seen as tantamount to treason.
Violators were severely dealt with as traitors and put to death – a punishment that was the norm during wartime.
Despite challenges in keeping alliances and violations of the agreement, Jews and Christians were not regarded by Muslims as enemies.
Who, then, were singled out by early Muslims in their supplication?
THE REAL ENEMY
The supplication by Muslims was for divine help in their war against the disbelievers in Mecca, who were superior both in numbers and strength.
They were the enemies of the early Muslims only because they wanted to kill the Prophet, annihilate Muslims and extinguish Islam from the face of Arabia. It was, therefore, a matter of life and death for the Muslims.
The Prophet’s mission spanned over 23 years, out of which 16 years were spent in a state of heightened tension and war with the disbelievers of Mecca.
Twenty such wars were fought and the Prophet was pained when about 1,000 of his companions were martyred.
The Prophet supplicated to seek God’s help against disbelievers using verses from the Quran that specifically mention them (kafirun and mushrikun).
There is an important qualification, though.
The supplication was not targeted at all disbelievers. It was specifically aimed at disbelievers whose plan was to kill Muslims, drive them out of their homes and destroy Islam.
Disbelieving people who were not engaged in such sinister plans were not the ones Muslims supplicated against.
INCLUSIVE CATEGORISATION
Another pertinent fact is that, besides Christians and Jews who occupy a special relationship with Muslims as People of the Book, there are also a number of other religious communities who enjoy this special status in the eyes of Muslims.
The Quran has categorised Sabians as People of the Book, while there are scholars who also included Zoroastrians.
There are other less known facts.
For example, there was a religious ruling issued in AD710 by Islamic scholars in Kufa, Iraq, to accord Buddhists the same status as monotheists.
This ruling was in response to a query by a young general of the Muslim army, Muhammad Qasim, who upon conquering Sindh province in India was petitioned by the local Buddhist community to allow them to continue to practise Buddhism and preserve their temples. The ruling accorded the Buddhists in question the same status as monotheists (like Jews and Christians) and provided privileges to them, considering them People of the Book, but they were obliged to pay taxes.
Similarly, from an early period, when Muslims arrived in India, Hindus were designated People of the Book, a practical solution that allowed Muslim rulers to permit Hindus to live in peace within the Muslim empire as long as they paid taxes. This also explained why some Muslim mystics consider the Hindu scripture, the Vedas, as a revealed Book and believed that Lords Rama and Krishna could be prophets of God.
As for Taoism, the former grand mufti of Egypt (Sheikh Ali Gomaa) was asked at an inter-faith dinner during his visit to Singapore in June 2014 whether Taoists are People of the Book. He turned to Taoist leaders and asked if their teachings were based on a sacred text, to which an affirmative reply was given. The former Egyptian mufti stated his position that Taoists are People of the Book.
A word of caution is needed here.
It is never claimed that all religions are the same and that religious pluralism is advocated here. All religions are different, although they share the same roots. Religions are like the Banyan tree – they have shared roots, appear to have many trunks (although there is only one trunk) and have many branches that sprawl in different directions as they reach for the sky.
The Prophet of Islam respected all religions; he never denigrated any religion or prayed for the destruction of any religious community. Muslims supplicate for divine help against those, regardless of religion, who wish to harm them in any way.
A 50-year-old Singaporean man was caught with nearly 1kg of heroin in Teck Whye early on Tuesday morning (April 11), the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) said in a statement.
At around 1.20am, the suspected drug trafficker was observed meeting with a 37-year-old Malaysian man in a carpark in the vicinity of Teck Whye Lane. The two were then observed in a car together for a short moment before the Malaysian man alighted and the Singaporean drove off.
The Malaysian man was later arrested with S$3,400 in cash found in his possession.
CNB officers also arrested the Singaporean after he parked his car in another location nearby. Two bundles of heroin, valued at around S$64,000, were recovered from his car.
Investigations into the drug activities of both suspects are ongoing.
Both men could face the dealth penalty if the amount of diamorphine (pure heroin) trafficked exceeds 15g. That amount of diamorphine is equivalent to 1,250 straws, which is sufficient to feed the addiction of about 180 abusers for a week.
Pasukan bola sepak Selangor sudah menempah 115 buah bas untuk membawa para penyokongnya ke Singapura pada 6 Mei ini.
Ini bagi menyaksikan edisi ke-16 pertarungan Piala Sultan Selangor 2017, yang akan berlangsung di Stadium Negara Singapura pada tarikh tersebut.
Demikian menurut Pengerusi Penganjur Piala Sultan Selangor (TSSC), Tan Sri Abd Karim Munisar, dalam laporan Berita Harian Malaysia minggu lalu (8 Apr).
Malah, BHM Online melaporkan bahawa lebih 800 penyokong Selangor hadir ke kaunter Jabatan Imigresen Selangor di pusat beli belah SACC, pada Sabtu lalu untuk membuat pasport ke Singapura.
Tan Sri Abd Karim menambah, berkata kaunter itu dibuka khusus kepada mereka sempena saingan Piala Sultan Selangor edisi ke-16 di Stadium Nasional Singapura, pada 6 Mei ini, menurut laporan BHM.
Presiden Kelab Penyokong Red Giant Selangor Khairul Baharudin pula ditukil sebagai berkata, ia berterima kasih atas pembukaan kaunter pendaftaran pasport.
“Ini adalah usaha yang amat baik kerana kebanyakan daripada kami tidak mempunyai pasport, tetapi pada masa sama kami ingin memberikan sokongan,” katanya dalam laporan BHM Online itu.
(Gambar-gambar: Facebook/The Sultan of Selangor’s Cup)
3 PERTARUNGAN ANTARA S’PURA-SELANGOR
Tiga pertarungan akan berlangsung antara Selangor dengan Singapura pada hari berkenaan. Buat pertama kalinya, perlawanan antara Sekolah Sukan Singapura dengan Sekolah-sekolah Gabungan Selangor akan berlangsung, iaitu pada jam 4:45 petang.
Veteran Singapura pula akan bertarung dengan Veteran Selangor pada jam 6.30 petang. Manakala pertarungan utama iaitu antara Pilihan Singapura dengan Pilihan Selangor akan berlangsung pada jam 8:00 malam.
Dengan begitu ramai penyokong Selangor yang akan berangkat ke Singapura, Tan Sri Abdul Karim dilaporkan berkata, para penyokong Selangor akan bergerak secara berperingkat-peringkat bermula jam 9.00 malam, pada 5 Mei nanti.
“Setiap bas akan turut disertai oleh seorang pegawai dari Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan dan seorang pegawai Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) untuk memastikan tiada kekecohan berlaku sepanjang perjalanan ke Singapura,” kata Tan Sri Abdul Karim lagi.
IT IS SAID that a politician thinks of the next elections but it takes a real leader to think of the next generation.
And so it is with Mr Goh Chok Tong who may, having bolstered the PAP’s grip in politics through his asset enhancement and HDB upgrading schemes, lay claim to being a brilliant politician but, through these same policies, demonstrated utter failure as a leader.
In 1991, under pressure to deliver a good result to secure his mandate as the new prime minister after taking over from Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh introduced the asset enhancement programme which, for all intents and purposes, cajoled (or threatened, as some saw it) Singaporeans into voting for his party in return for enhancing the prices of their HDB flats.
The plan worked brilliantly, securing for the prime minister and his party mates a healthy victory. But it also started the pernicious mentality among Singaporeans that one’s flat was a commodity whose price stood to appreciate markedly over a short span of time.
As a consequence, few thought little of shelling out huge sums of money, mainly by using their retirement funds, to finance HDB purchases. The motivation was that one could monetise the asset and realise robust capital gains at a later stage.
Such a trend had two unfortunate effects: The first was that using CPF savings to service HDB mortgages would leave many financially wanting in their retirement years.
The second is that as prices rose, young entrants into the public housing market would find it prohibitive to start a home. As a result, many young couples put off having children as their finances come under pressure.
The propaganda, pushed by a media that act more like cheerleaders than vehicles for thoughtful deliberation, compounded the public’s exuberance for asset enhancement. Duly stoked, homeowners devised ways of using their flats to turn a profit.
Some have even resorted to buying older flats at high prices with the view to reaping the benefits of redevelopment through the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).
(The SERS selects older blocks of flats for demolition and replaces them with new ones. Displaced occupants stand to gain from a fresh 99-year lease of their new flats and are, in some cases, compensated financially or given subsidised prices for their new flats.)
This prompted the National Development Minister to step in and point out that SERS, as the name suggests, is selective – extremely selective, in fact – of blocks earmarked for redevelopment; only four percent have come under the scheme since it was launched in 1995.
In addition, the Minister reminded, when the 99-year lease is up, a flat would have to be returned to the state. In other words, it becomes worthless.
How does this square with Mr Goh Chok Tong’s vaunted promise to enhance one’s asset in return for voting for the PAP?
A cynical ploy
It was the height of irresponsibility to make a promise that the government is ill-equipped to deliver. For one thing, property prices are not determined by fiat. Much of it relies on the state of the economy. With an increasing number of workers being retrenched (or if they remain employed, having their wages frozen) and the young finding it more difficult to find jobs, how are Singaporeans going to afford bigger and more expensive flats or, for that matter, even their first one? And if they can’t, how is value of HDB property going to go up?
With the global economy showing little appetite for the kind of exploitative trade seen over the past few decades, Singapore’s economic fortunes have dimmed considerably. The inexorable march of automation also means that more and more Singaporeans will be out of jobs, replaced by robots. Add to these China’s determination to by-pass Singapore (a staunch US ally) as a trading centre in order to secure its own shipping interests, our economic future looks shaky.
In the face of such uncertainty, how is the PAP going to make good on its asset enhancement promise? It was, to begin with, unrealistic to expect prices to appreciate indefinitely. Yet, Mr Goh and company chose to ignore the pitfalls in a cynical bid to buttress its political hegemony.
The policy also has ramifications at the macro level. With a significant portion of income tied up in property, consumer spending and other forms of domestic investment are necessarily curtailed. Investments in higher education or to start-up businesses are also reduced. All these have serious implications for our economy as we move ahead.
In the final analysis, housing – in particular public housing – should not be a tradeable commodity. It is our home in which we bring up our children, that roof over our heads when ill-winds blow. It should never have been turned into a commercial entity.
