Tag: Singaporean

  • Bishan Gay On trial For Molesting 12 Year Old Boy

    Bishan Gay On trial For Molesting 12 Year Old Boy

    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.

    No caning is imposed on males above 50.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Maid Punched, Slapped For Eating Fish Not Meant For Her

    Maid Punched, Slapped For Eating Fish Not Meant For Her

    In 2012, a Filipino maid jumped from the bedroom window of a sixth-floor condominium unit to escape the alleged abuse by her employer and her employer’s mother.

    A district court heard that she landed on the fifth-floor rooftop of another building at Maplewoods condominium and broke her legs as a result.

    Her employer, Chua Siew Peng, 43, went on trial yesterday for wrongfully confining Ms Jonna Memeje Muegue at the Bukit Timah Road condominium on Oct 30, 2012, and slapping her the night before.

    Her 74-year-old mother, retired radiograph and medicine technician Lum Wai Lui, will know her fate next month for allegedly pulling the maid’s hair, knocking her head on the wall and pouring bleach on her hands and arms on Oct 29 that year.

    Chua’s 41-year-old sister, Kathleen Chua Siew Wei, is also accused of slapping the maid sometime in May that year.

    Yesterday, Ms Muegue, 26, who is now working for another employer, testified that she was initially treated well when she started work in December 2011.

    She said she was never given the key to the unit’s door and gate from the time she began working for the family.

    She said Lui, whom she called “por por” (grandmother), punished her for eating fish that was not meant for her on Oct 29 that year. After Lum found out, she punched, slapped and slammed Ms Muegue’s head against the wall of the kitchen toilet.

    Ms Muegue said: “She used bleach on me and she poured bleach on my hands and my body.”

    A few minutes later, she said, Chua Siew Peng came in and pulled her hair and slapped her many times.

    Chua then told her to stand in one corner of the toilet and to take a shower at around midnight.

    In the morning, she was alone in the flat when she climbed out of a bedroom window and escaped.

    She was later referred to the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics and a police report was lodged. She was warded in hospital and then admitted to a nursing home.

    The hearing continues.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Teenager Who Assaulted Foreigners Out Of Boredom Sentenced To 10 Days’ Detention

    Teenager Who Assaulted Foreigners Out Of Boredom Sentenced To 10 Days’ Detention

    A teenager who assaulted foreign workers with his friends because he was bored and thought they would not fight back was sentenced to 10 days’ detention yesterday.

    Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of reformative training, which involves a minimum of 18 months in detention.

    Daryl Lim Jun Liang, 18, was also ordered to report to a supervision officer every day for one year, during which he has to wear an electronic tag and observe a curfew from 10am to 6pm.

    Lim, who was involved in four such incidents in September and October last year, also has to perform 150 hours of community service within the year. Youths aged 14 to 21 who are sentenced to reformative training undergo structured counselling as well as academic and vocational training for up to two-and-a-half years. In contrast, short detentions are more lenient community-based sentences.

    Lim is now out on S$15,000 bail after the prosecution applied for a pause in the start of his sentence while it studies whether to appeal. It must file an appeal within two weeks.

    Last month, Lim pleaded guilty to one charge of voluntarily causing hurt, with another charge taken into consideration for sentencing.

    The court heard that Lim and three others met on Oct 3 last year, hoping to practise their fighting skills by assaulting foreign workers. At around 6am, they spotted 48-year-old Chinese national Zuo Yu Nian. Lim and a 15-year-old accomplice — who cannot be named because of a gag order — repeatedly punched Mr Zuo in the face and mouth before fleeing.

    Pressing for reformative training as a deterrent sentence, Deputy Public Prosecutor Nicholas Lai said the attack was “particularly heinous” as Lim and his accomplices had a clear intent to attack a specific group of people — foreign workers whom they deemed “physically weak and unlikely to fight back”.

    Noting the rise in the number of youth crimes involving violence, the prosecutor said there is a “more-than-ever pressing need” to send a clear message to potential offenders that such acts cannot be tolerated and will be firmly dealt with by the law.

    Last year, 322 youths were arrested for rioting, 13.8 per cent higher than the 283 cases in 2013. The total number of youths arrested also increased from 3,031 to 3,094 in the same period.

    Mr Lai said placing Lim on probation will “offend public interest … (and send) the wrong signal … that such a serious offence will only be met with a slap on the wrist”.

    He added that the Government’s “zero tolerance” of youth violence was also made plain in Parliament in 2013 when Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean reiterated that all young people who engage in violence will be brought to justice, regardless of their age.

    Although he agreed that Lim’s offence was premeditated and targeted a vulnerable group, District Judge Lim Keng Yeow ruled that reformative training was unnecessary given Lim’s age and that it was his first offence. The judge also noted that probation officers had assessed Lim’s risk of re-offending to be low.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Shafiqah Othman Hamzah: Why I Am Against Institutionalised Religion

    Shafiqah Othman Hamzah: Why I Am Against Institutionalised Religion

    I think I have, on many occasions, explained that I do not like using the term “religion” all that much. I prefer to substitute it with “spirituality” for very personal reasons. But today, I’d like to explain some of the many reasons why the word “religion” plays little to no role in my life, and why I feel like it is irrelevant.

    I can already hear people calling me blasphemous.

    Please do not get me wrong, for what I am truly against is not religion, like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. but in fact, “institutionalised religion.” And that does not mean that I am against institutions as well. I do believe that we need some systems of operations and governing in our lives in order to avoid chaos, but I feel like governance in religion is something that should not exist. Isn’t religion supposed to be personal?

    All around me, I see people arguing who is right and who is wrong, who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell. There are Muslims vs. Christians, and to make things worse, even Muslims against other Muslims as well. The situation in Malaysia speaks for itself. The demonising of other religions, including other sects of Islam that is not Ahl Sunnah Wal Jamaah, or even Sunni Syafie for that matter, goes to show that our government is trying to dictate how we practise our religion.

    There are far too many people in Malaysia (let alone the world) for us to try to advance one particular theology. Not only is this an offence to the diversity that God has bestowed upon us, but it creates a great divide between our citizens. The world wouldn’t be in peace if we all believed in the same thing; we would be in peace if we had a mutual understanding of our differences.

    Which brings me to my next point. The moment someone thinks that their theology is the one and only infallible truth, they immediately hold a monopoly on God. This can be seen when Malaysia banned the use of “Allah” in the Bahasa Malaysia translated version of the Bibles. Yes, they banned it for theological reasons, but as you can see, this is where the problem comes in.

    No matter how differently your theology or understanding of something may be, at the end of the day, we are all parts of the same whole. No one owns God. This is against the idea of a universalistic God. Islam does not own Allah, but Allah owns everything. And if the reason behind the ban is to prevent Muslims from getting confused, than you have to question the faith of your own followers instead of putting them in a bubble. You’re not protecting them, but rather, placing them in deeper ignorance.

    Institutionalised religion also promotes blind belief through coercion and fear. You have to think a certain way because someone above you says so. You have to do a certain thing because someone above you says so. But you don’t really understand why you’re doing it. You were raised to not question, but to just follow. And out of fear of the consequences that may come, you blindly agree with everything that is being spoon-fed to you because you were taught to believe that questioning is a sin.

    The most heart-breaking thing about institutionalised religion for me is that it also teaches us to judge a man not based on his character and how he treats others, but by the way he dresses. Spirituality has been taken over by superficiality. Institutionalised religion insists on playing God.

    Religion is the act of believing in God, and institutions establish a systematic way of doing things. Institutionalising religion then ultimately means establishing a system of how to believe in God. How can this be possible when there are over 6 billion people on Earth? And how could anyone ever think that we are authorised to dictate the spirituality of Man as though we’re God Himself?

    It should not come as a surprise to anyone at all that our world is filled with such diverse views. No two people think the same way and whoever thought that it was best to turn us into a monolith should understand that all their attempts are futile.

    Why is it so hard for people to agree to disagree with each other without inflicting pain or harm towards the other? Are we that conceited and full of ourselves to think that our opinions and upbringing is the one and only infallible truth? To me, one of the best things to do to honour God is by honouring and respecting the diversity that He has given us on this Earth. We are, after all, a part of His creation.

    It’s one thing to be against another religion for holding a different view, but institutionalised religion can cause even adherers from the same religion to go against each other. At the current rate of increasing Islamophobia that is happening across the globe, we need Muslims to unite more than ever now instead of merely denouncing each other for different opinions.

    There is no systematic way to live, let alone believe in God. Personal matters of the heart aren’t something Man should meddle with. It is none of our business, and definitely not in our place to judge. This is the reason why it is so important for us to be kind to each other, because we don’t know each other’s stories.

    We are all equal before the eyes of God. Just because I don’t think or dress like you, it does not make me more or less of a Muslim.

    * This is the personal opinion of the columnist.

    Shafiqah Othman Hamzah

     

    Source: www.themalaymailonline.com

  • The Singaporean In The Digital Ether: An Evolving Identity

    The Singaporean In The Digital Ether: An Evolving Identity

    In this “Wild Wild West” as the Internet has been called, individuals and communities band together to speak out on policies, raise petitions for causes they believe in and aid hapless tourists.

    On the flip side, lynch mobs and vigilantes thrive in this space, and bad behaviour often ends up amplified.

    Without a doubt, like many around the world, Singaporeans are turning to the Internet to spark positive change in their society, as recent incidents have shown. Observers and netizens say this is an online manifestation of a change in Singapore society — with people less afraid of expressing their views — but several also point to the Internet’s role in helping to catalyse this vocality.

    But with the good, comes the bad and the ugly. As many observers have pointed out, the Internet has brought out the best and worst in Singaporeans. The hope is that, over time, as more Singaporeans become comfortable with the medium and speak out against trolls — there are some signs of this, experts and bloggers point out — behaviour online will veer towards healthier norms.

    To Dr Terence Chong, a sociologist and senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singaporeans do not behave worse online than offline. “But because the Internet allows for split-second reactions, the most poorly thought out sentiments and responses are captured for all to see,” he said.

    “The instantaneousness, publicness and permanency of the internet tend to accentuate bad behaviour.”

    However, Dr Chong pointed out that there is also a “natural tendency towards equilibrium” online because the Internet is a public sphere. “The worst of Singaporeans is often countered and checked by more moderate and fair-minded Singaporeans,” he said.

    Blogger Lee Kin Mun, famously known as mrbrown, agreed: “Maybe not everyone, but enough people will say ‘okay, I think you shouldn’t be going after the guy’s kids’… While (the Internet) is open to mobs, it’s also open to collective, moral outrage … there’s space for all of that.”

              

    THE GOOD

    Late last year, a Vietnamese tourist fell victim to a rogue trader at Sim Lim Square, prompting netizens to spring into action — Some sought to punish the shop owner, others aided the tourist. Eventually, the Government and consumer watchdog stepped in, with the former now looking at how to bolster legislation to better protect consumers.

    Months earlier, an outcry broke out over the National Library Board’s (NLB) removal of three controversial children’s titles containing homosexual references. There was an outpouring of views on social media, petitions were made online, a reading event was held, and local writers also pulled out of NLB events.

    Eventually, Communications and Information Minister Yaccob Ibrahim instructed the NLB to place two of the titles in the adult section. On Wednesday, a 19-member independent committee to review titles for the NLB was unveiled.

    That people are being vocal is proof of a greater sense of self-efficacy – an emerging aspect of Singapore identity especially among the digital natives, said Professor Ang Peng Hwa, from the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

    “The online people can connect … they feel like they can make some difference,” he said. In comparison, people of his generation – the baby boomers – “don’t feel so self-efficacious”, in part because many things were done by the Government previously and also because “you (didn’t) have the resources, you (didn’t) know where to go, how to do it”.

    Adding that the Internet “has become a vital tool for mobilisation and organisation”, Dr Chong said: “People are more able than ever before to spread news, garner support and organise themselves whether in the form of reading sessions like the recent ‘penguingate’ saga or through petitions… The ease with which we are able to organise ourselves will normalise dissent, advocacy or contention.”

    Dr Carol Soon, a research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, said social media grants different voices “an accessible outlet”.  “Minority groups can now contest dominant discourse with greater ease,” said Dr Soon, whose areas of research include digital engagement and how new media can be used to cause political and social change.

    Mr Belmont Lay, founding editor of Mothership.sg noted that social media has allowed coffee shop chatter to seep into the open. “The move vocal people get, perceived or real, the more vocal they will be. It feeds unto itself,” he said.

    Blogger Mr Lee added: “The fact that you have more ubiquitous access to the Internet now has helped catalyse the attitude. “We didn’t have a medium in the past … Now everybody is allowed to have a voice, for better or for worse.”

    THE BAD

    There are times, however, that the Singaporean seems more intolerant, insensitive in cyberspace than they may be offline.

    Hate speech and harsh anti-foreigner sentiment is abundant online. In January, former president S R Nathan raised concerns about rising discontent in Singapore, with some of this dissatisfaction amplified by social media. “Reasoned political discourse and intelligent, constructive criticism are rare in this online world,” Mr Nathan had said.

    On another occasion, a Miss Singapore Universe 2013 finalist caused a minor ruckus online last year when she mocked a food stall helper for wearing a shirt with a hole in it on Facebook.

    Following instances such as when Briton Anton Casey had been flamed for his derogatory comments about the public transport system and former National Trades Union Congress employee Amy Cheong condemned online for posting racist comments, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last year cautioned Singaporeans against having a lynch mob mentality.

    Mr Lee had said: “Yes, somebody has done something wrong, repudiate it, condemn it, but do not lower ourselves to that same level to behave in a way which really makes us all so ashamed of ourselves to become abusive, hateful mobs, especially online and anonymously.”

    Most recently, teenager Amos Yee became the target of outrage when he made disparaging remarks in a YouTube video about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and of Christianity. He has since been charged for his comments.

    Mr Choo Zhengxi, lawyer and co-founder of socio-political site The Online Citizen, highlighted how the “anonymising power (of the Internet) has emboldened people to say things online that they may not say offline”.

    And this could be very threatening, he noted. “It has the potential to unleash vigilante justice on individuals who might not necessarily deserve it,” he said.

     

              

    …AND THE ANONYMOUS

    A survey last year by market research firm GlobalWebIndex, which profiles the Internet population across 32 countries and covers 90 per cent of the world’s Internet audience, found that 55 per cent of Internet users in Singapore prefer to be anonymous online, slightly higher than the global average of 52 per cent.

    Data from the first quarter of this year showed that this figure rose to 59 per cent in Singapore, while the global average remained the same.

    Mr Choo cautioned of the “chilling effect” anonymity could have on free speech if people “act with impunity”. He hopes for more Singaporeans to grow comfortable with putting their names to their critiques. “Once things go viral, it’s difficult to rectify the damage that can be done, which can be disproportionate to the wrong being committed,” he said.

    Given that the online environment can be harsh, perhaps, the Singaporean in cyberspace – an active participant at the least – is one who has developed a thicker skin. Mr Lee felt that those who want to give an opinion must be “prepared to defend it”.

    “If you don’t have a thick enough skin to deal with it, maybe just stay out of the kitchen – don’t participate, be a lurker,” he quipped.

    He added that there are many options in cyberspace, and there is no need to engage others in a space that is “negative and toxic”. Drawing parallels with situations in the physical world, he said: “People will gather where they think their views are heard. Not everyone will be comfortable in a robust environment.”

    In time to come, however, even the quieter Singaporean may find his or her voice in cyberspace. “The issue of the silent majority will become less and less pronounced,” Dr Soon said. This will come as healthier norms develop online, and people speak up against trolls or those who are “very acerbic or abusive in their comments”.

    “We’re seeing more incidents where people stand up in cyberspace to condemn certain behaviours and speech. So as more and more people find the gumption and conviction to do so, we will see healthier online norms,” Dr Soon added, citing for example those who stand up against xenophobic speech.

    “(This) is part of a changing society where people are more educated, people are more civic minded. They feel that by voicing their opinions… they may be doing their part as citizens.”

     

              

     

    Singaporeans Online

    Source: www.todayonline.com