A 24-year-old Singaporean man was on Thursday charged with trafficking in persons under the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act.
The is the first case to be prosecuted under the Act since it took effect last month.
According to court documents, the accused, Muhammad Khairulanuar Rohmat, had allegedly recruited a 15-year-old teenager with the purpose of exploiting her last Wednesday afternoon at a Starbucks cafe in Orchard Road.
Later, he supposedly had consensual sex with her at a men’s toilet in Cuppage Plaza. For this offence, he faces a second charge of having sex with a minor.
Khairulanuar has been remanded for a week for further investigations. The case will be heard again on April 29.
Under the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act, anyone who recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receives a child for the purpose of exploitation, whether here or abroad, is guilty of an offence.
If convicted for trafficking, Khairulanuar could be fined up to $100,000, jailed up to 10 years and caned a maximum of six strokes. For sexually penetrating a minor, he could be jailed up to 10 years or fined, or both.
One of my daughters and her husband recently adopted my precious and beautiful grandson. He is from the mountain aboriginal people of Taiwan. His beautiful black hair, long legs and broad shoulders are amazingly like his daddy’s. But his bronze skin is very different from that of my three-year-old granddaughter’s, who when she saw a picture of her new baby cousin said, “He looks funny.”
We are all different yet…
There will come a time when your children will be exposed to children and adults from other countries and continents. Their color, dress, habits and language will be different than what they consider normal.
These cultural differences should not be viewed as embarrassing or inappropriate by you. Instead you should view their questions as an opportunity to broaden their horizons and educate them on the differences that make us all unique and special.
…the same
It is important to teach your children that though their skin may be lighter or darker than the child sitting behind them, they are both very much alike in the fact that they both need to be loved, both need to be treated with kindness and respect and both enjoy doing all the things kids love to do.
It is important that you teach your children that cultural diversity is not a reason to exclude, demean or even bully someone. A child in Singapore is a child throughout the world.
Experience is the best teacher
When it comes to understanding and being comfortable with cultural differences, the best thing you can do is to give your children a variety of cultural experiences. This can be done by:
Visiting exhibits and various cultural events such as festivals and ceremonies
Eating a variety of foods favored in other countries
Reading about different places or origin and cultures of people you and your children come in contact with
Befriend the parents of children from other cultures in your child’s classroom, sports team or dance class
Focus on the similarities rather than the differences-help your child realize that different clothes, accents, etc. don’t change the fact that both children enjoy soccer or that both children struggle with spelling
Set the bar
In spite of the fact that our children test our patience and push our buttons, they look up to us. They mimic our attitudes and actions. So by being respectful and accepting of people from all walks of life, we will be teaching our children to do the same.
A freelance tutor yesterday denied molesting a 12-year-old boy in a toilet at a shopping mall popular among students.
Cheng Hoe Huat, 52, is on trial for using criminal force on the boy by touching his private parts in the male toilet on the first floor of Bishan Junction 8 on Nov 13, 2013.
A frequent visitor to the mall, he told the court he would spend almost every weekday there, reading newspapers and the Bible and writing spiritual journals.
Cheng, who uses a walking stick, said he would talk to the boys he meets and make friends with them.
He testified that he came to know a group of madrasah boys by chance that day. The boys approached him while he was seated outside The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf. He asked them how the madrasah taught sex education compared to other schools.
After they left, he continued with his reading until around 4.30pm or 5pm. Before leaving, he made a trip to the toilet. He denied asking the boy, who was then in Primary 6, to go with him.
Conducting his own defence, Cheng claimed he did not recognise the alleged victim or any of his four friends who were among the 13 prosecution witnesses who testified in court.
The boy, who is now 13, gave his testimony behind closed doors on Wednesday. His father was also among the prosecution witnesses.
The boy lodged a police report at Bishan Neighbourhood Police Centre a day after the alleged incident.
Junction 8 is a popular hangout spot for students from nearby schools, such as Catholic High School and Raffles Institution.
District Judge Lee Poh Choo will give her judgment on May 8. If convicted, Cheng could be jailed for up to five years and/or fined for molesting a person under 14 years old.
(Trigger warning for homophobia, transphobia and suicide mentions.)
By reading this article, you agree to the following statement, in its entirety:
“Robert Bivouac (alias of the author) does not consent to any part of this article and/or the entirety of it being reproduced in any Mediacorp and/or SPH-owned media outlet or by any journalist or personality affiliated with Mediacorp, SPH and/or the Government of the Republic of Singapore, in any form, as well as on other online or offline platforms, without his express permission, delivered solely via email. You (the reader) may, however, share this article on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, in its unaltered form, provided you do not allow any aforementioned individual or media outlet to circumvent the terms of this agreement using your “share”, and make them aware of this agreement. No attempt to contact Robert about this article via any means besides his Twitter account (@boygainvillea) and the email[email protected] shall be entertained. No attempt by any individual(s), company, religious institution or other organisation not explicitly authorised by a court of law or other suitable institution in the Republic of Singapore to contact Robert’s family, educational institutions (including those he has been accepted into but has not yet commenced studying at), colleagues/employers and/or place(s) of employment shall be made, via any means or for any purpose, about this article, or on the subject of Robert’s sexuality. This agreement may be modified without notice by Robert Bivouac alone.”
With that out of the way (phew),
“I find it totally confounding that Pink Dot is allowed to promote its agenda,” Mr Khong said in a statement issued yesterday. “I find it even more disconcerting that the event is being used as a platform of public persuasion to push its alternative lifestyle.”
— Lawrence Khong, pastor of Faith Community Baptist Church, in response to Singaporean LGBTQ+ event “Pink Dot” announcing in 2014 that it intended to change Singapore’s attitude towards LGBTQ+ people.
Look, I only kind of know who Bertha Henson is. I know she used to write for the nationally-owned paper, the Straits Times. I know she transitioned later on into running the now-defunct Breakfast Network, a site which commented on local political affairs. I know she’s rather famous and respected in the local literary and political scene, but she dropped off the radar after that, or at least my radar.
That is, until today, when I came across this article on Facebook.
What did Bertha have to say? With an at most milquetoast condemnation of Lawrence Khong’s views, she turned almost immediately on the justifiably indignant members of the queer community who raised the outcry about IKEA’s promotion, calling them “as intolerant of other people’s views as they say other people are of theirs”.
Excuse me?
First, some facts.
Fig. 1, preference between rejecting vs accepting “gay lifestyles” in Singapore. Data taken from REACH’s “Our Singapore Conversation Survey”, page 9.
Leaving aside for the moment the points Fikri makes in her essay on why this data doesn’t mean the majority of Singaporeans are homophobic and the criticism of the term “gay lifestyles” itself, 47% of Singaporeans “reject gay lifestyles”, whatever that means. 47% isn’t a majority, but 47%+27% is. 27% of Singaporeans are neutral on the “gay lifestyle”, but that doesn’t mean fuck-all. Being neutral on a human rights issue is as good as being against it; it means you contribute to the silent majority brought out by those against, in this case, acceptance of queer (represented here by gay) people. So yeah, fuck neutrality, a full 74% of Singaporeans are, by the looks of this survey, against queer rights in one way or another.
Where does IKEA’s support of Lawrence Khong, and our subsequent reaction to it, fit in? I’m not sure how many of the respondents REACH interviewed were actually queer, but assuming the same fraction who support “gay lifestyles” are queer, that puts us in the minority. The minority that’s been legislated against by laws like Section 377A, condemned, and demonised by homophobes with large platforms like Lawrence Khong and his ilk.
The word “platform” is key here. Lawrence Khong, as an individual homophobe, might be pretty vile (as seen here, he firmly believes in a homosexual agenda and likens gay sex to incest and drug-taking). He might have a family, and they might be homophobic. That’s vile too. What makes the difference, then, is “platform”; Lawrence Khong boasts a 10,000 strong church and chairs LoveSingapore, an alliance of 100-odd churches that seeks to “TURN [Singapore] God-ward”.
“Platform”, then, comes from all public activities of Lawrence Khong, be they religious (sermons and other officially church-related events) or secular (magic shows). Wherever Lawrence is in public, he builds his personal brand as a dedicated Christian pastor and cool stage magician; through this, then, he not only profits, materially or otherwise, but he gains the means and the audience for his messages.
And those messages are distinctly harmful; from local LGBTQ counselling organisation Oogachaga’s March 2012 survey, 60.2% of the respondents to that survey reported experiencing homophobic or transphobic abuse and discrimination, leading to an overall higher rate of suicidal thoughts and attempts. What does it mean, then, to assist the people responsible for such abuse in growing their platform?
Sounds a lot like bullying to me; and yet, the way Bertha describes it, you’d think we were the bullies here. According to Bertha, for the understandably offended to ask fellow queer people and their straight and/or cis allies to “vote with their money”, as it were, and register protest against any attempt to help Lawrence Khong or the like increase the reach of their potentially lethal abuse, is now “intolerant” and “bullying tactics”, and puts us at risk of “start[ing] a culture war”.
Bertha Henson has fallen for illusions about free speech that seem to be afflicting much of the liberal Western media today. Hers is an admittedly less virulent version of the stance GamerGate, the terrifyingly racist, sexist, transphobic and homophobic American hate group that has harassed marginalised people in the gaming and media communities, holds; namely, that all views can, should and must be heard, and that it’s censorship to claim otherwise.
Well, fuck you and your illusions, Bertha. Us queer people, even with our 21,000-strong turnout at Pink Dot 2014, can’t muster the same platforms as bigots like Lawrence Khong and his 100-church-strong LoveSingapore network. We can’t “bully” a company with EUR €29,293,000,000 (that’s 29.293 billion euros, or SGD $42,308,747,100.33) in revenue and 351 stores in 46 countries that chooses to “reward” its loyal customers with discounts to watch a homophobe’s magic show.
You know what? I don’t believe Bertha.
I don’t believe it’s censorship to demand a view, backed up by institutional prejudice, be kept from gaining traction, and I don’t believe in any value of “free speech” that allows hate speech and its endorsement to walk free.
I don’t believe it’s “bullying” to organise a boycott, a sit-in, a loud outpouring of fury over the Internet at an act that quite literally threatens to harm us, and I don’t believe it’s “pushing too hard”, as Bertha so ungenerously puts it, to stand up for our rights.
I do believe, though, that she needs to snap out of it. Bertha, wake the fuck up, and smell the coffee. We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re going to do something about this sorry situation.
Robert Bivouac is a queer Chinese man living in Singapore. He is an advocate for social justice and diversity in media, and believes in the right to be free from hate speech. He can be reached on Twitter at @boygainvillea or at [email protected].
Gara-gara respons kurang profesional dan dianggap menyindir pelanggan, restoran milik empat selebriti setempat, Studio Cafe, telah dikritik teruk di media sosial.
Hujung minggu lalu, seorang pelanggan yang kali pertama ke kafe itu telah memberi reviu peribadinya di Instagram.
Antara lain pelanggan itu berkata hidangan yang ditempahnya “kurang rasa” dan sajian menu di kafe itu juga kurang menyerlah kerana agak “kemelayuan”.
Pelanggan itu juga berkata layanan yang diberikan kepada pelanggan kurang memuaskan.
Studio Cafe, yang terletak di Blok 47 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh, dimiliki personaliti televisyen Nurul Aini, Khairudin Samsudin, Ashmi Roslan dan Fadhlur Rahman.
Diminta mengulas, Khairudin berkata para pemilik Studio Cafe tidak mengurus laman media sosial kafe itu.
Sebagai respons kepada reviu mengenai makanannya yang “kurang rasa”, pentadbir laman media sosial kafe itu bertanya sama ada yang dimaksudkan pelanggan itu ialah makanan yang disajikan rasanya seolah-olah “macam air”.
Mengenai menu “kemelayuan” pula, kafe tersebut seterusnya berkata ia bangga dengan menu yang disajikan kerana berbangga sebagai orang Melayu.
Respons tersebut menerima kritikan ramai di media sosial yang menganggapnya sebagai kurang profesional dan bersifat menyindir.
Memburukkan lagi keadaan, pos di Instagram itu berlarutan kerana Studio Cafe terus-menerus menjawab komen pelanggan berkenaan dan pengguna lain di media sosial.
Seorang pelanggan, Encik Aliff Azman, memberitahu Berita Harian (BH) bahawa beliau kecewa membaca cara kafe itu memberi respons kepada pelanggan.
“Seharusnya mereka menerima maklum balas dengan sikap terbuka…pihak pengurusan harus manfaatkan maklum balas untuk perbaiki khidmat supaya dapat kekal dalam dunia perniagaan,” kata Encik Aliff, 25 tahun.
Penulis blog makanan yang dikenali sebagai K berkata beliau terkejut dengan respons yang diberikan kakitangan Studio Cafe.
“Walaupun pelanggan tidak sentiasa betul, Studio Cafe perlu memperbaiki cara menangani maklum balas negatif,” kata K yang mengendalikan laman blog We Kiss We Tell.
Ketika diminta mengulas, pemilik bersama Studio Cafe, Nurul Aini, berkata beliau memohon maaf bagi pihak pengurusan sambil menjelaskan akaun Instagram Studio Cafe itu ditadbir pengurus kafe tersebut.
Seorang lagi pemiliknya, Khairudin, pula berkata pihaknya telah menyiarkan e-mel di Instagram supaya pelanggan yang ingin memberi maklum balas boleh berbuat demikian menerusi e-mel.
“Namun, jika komen-komen negatif dibuat di media sosial, kami tetap akan menanganinya dengan baik dan selesaikan isu itu secara peribadi menerusi e-mel,” tambahnya.
Para karyawan perhubungan awam yang dihubungi BH berkata terdapat beberapa amalan terbaik untuk menangani maklum balas pelanggan
Pengarah akaun firma perhubungan awam Cohn&Wolfe Singapore, Cik Safina Samian, 40 tahun, berkata sesebuah perniagaan harus bijak menggunakan saluran media sosial dan media tradisional dalam menangani maklum balas.
Menurutnya, satu cara ialah menghubungi pelanggan secara langsung menerusi telefon, e-mel atau berjumpa sendiri dengan pelanggan dan elak daripada menggunakan saluran media sosial untuk berbincang dengan pelanggan “di hadapan” pengguna lain.
Pengurusi Mileage Communications, Encik Yap Boh Tiong, pula menerangkan bahawa firma harus mengkaji aduan yang dikemukakan dengan teliti, lalu mengakuinya dan meneruskan perbincangan dengan pelanggan menerusi e-mel atau telefon.
“Tidak kira sama ada komen yang diberikan pelanggan itu baik ataupun buruk, jawapan harus sentiasa kekal sopan,” kata beliau.
Mohon maaf dan akan belajar daripada apa yang berlaku
“Bagi pihak pengurusan, kami menghargai dan menghormati setiap maklum balas yang diterima… Semua maklum balas ini akan kami manfaatkan untuk pembangunan Studio Cafe dan memperbaiki khidmat yang kami tawarkan kepada pelanggan.”
– Pemilik bersama Studio Cafe dan personaliti televisyen setempat, Khairudin Samsudin.
“Kami mohon maaf atas apa yang berlaku. Kami sudah pun mengambil alih akaun Instagram kafe dan harap dapat meninggalkan apa yang berlaku dan fokus kepada masa depan.”
– Pemilik bersama Studio Cafe dan personaliti televisyen setempat, Cik Nurul Aini.
