Tag: Singaporeans

The Economist Got Reminded – Bigotry And Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech

High Commissioner to the UK Foo Chi Hsia has responded to an article by The Economist, saying it is not true teen blogger Amos Ye was prosecuted here for political dissent and not for making vicious statements about Christians and Muslims as implied in the report.

On Mar 30, The Economist published the article, titled An outspoken Singaporean blogger wins asylum in America, which talked about how a US immigration judge granted Yee asylum, and the reasons for doing so. The article cited the judge’s reasons, including that while the blogger was legally prosecuted under Singapore law, his prosecution served a “nefarious purpose – namely, to stifle political dissent”.

In a response published by the UK-based weekly on Apr 12, Ms Foo, referencing specific comments against Christians and Muslims made by Yee in 2015 and 2016, said The Economist may agree with the US judge that such bigotry is free speech, but Singapore “does not countenance hate speech” as it has “learnt from bitter experience how fragile racial and religious harmony is”.

She added that contrary to the suggestion in the article, Singapore’s laws on contempt do not prevent fair criticisms of court judgements.

“Singapore’s court judgments, including on Mr Yee’s case, are reasoned and published, and can stand scrutiny by anyone, including The Economist.”

This is not the first time Ms Foo has responded to an article by The Economist. In March this year, she took issue with an article alleging restrictions on free speech in Singapore, saying that no country gives an absolute right to free speech.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

April 13, 2017
What Are Religious Leaders Doing To Promote Pluralism?

I applaud Dr Yap Kim Hao’s call for “religious pluralism” ( Need for those who can teach religious pluralism; April 11).

It is a reality that religious communities, even in Singapore, remain in their silos.

It is not uncommon for religious organisations and businesses to place emphasis on recruiting those who are of the same faith, even for roles not directly religion-related.

Of course, it is their prerogative to do so.

But it is sad that instead of living and working side-by-side with non-religious affiliated parties to forge mutual understanding and friendships despite their differences, these groups choose exclusivity and isolation.

I have seen it even in charity and volunteer organisations, where one can overhear remarks like “this person will not have genuine compassion because he does not share our faith” or “he is an outsider, so he cannot fully understand our religious goals”.

Rhetoric like this from any religious organisation or individual is disconcerting. Such comments are dangerous and not to be accepted here.

With the City Harvest case and the one in which an imam made insensitive remarks, it is clear that religious leaders have a big influence over their followers.

But what are they doing to promote religious pluralism?

In this age of heightened consciousness of one’s religious identity and of religious diversity, Singapore can never deviate from our pledge of “regardless of race, language or religion”.

Wong Lai Chun

Source: www.straitstimes.com/forum

April 13, 2017
Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi: A Response To Haji Mohammad Alami Musa

The attached article is symptomatic of the confusion and inferiority complex that has infected the Muslims, which has been succinctly described by the eminent Muslim thinker Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas in his 1970 work entitled Islam and Secularism.

In the article, the major premise is “doctrinal basis” upon which ideas are rendered acceptable or rejected. The writer, a bureaucrat, stated that with regards to enmity towards non-Muslims, there is no doctrinal basis and therefore such an idea is rejected. Of course, to an unsuspecting mind, there are no problems in that statement; any sane and matured Muslim can accept that. But when he rambles on about all religions sharing the same roots like the “roots of a Banyan tree”, without evaluating that idea to the same premise he had established for himself which is “doctrinal basis”, he contradicted himself. This kind of thinking, known as the transcendental unity of religions, is already effectively refuted by Al-Attas in his Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam.

Furthermore, to limit the meaning of the term “fansurna” used in the Imam’s prayer to connote the act of vanquishing and enmity is already against doctrinal basis. Fansurna is derived from “nasara”, which the authoritative linguist Ibn Manzur in his Lisān al-‘Arab already explains as “rendering assistance to the oppressed”. In other words, the condition for asking God who is the Lord (Mawla) and Helper (Nāsir) is that oppression exists. So we can ask the question, is there oppression coming from those who claim to be Christians and Jews?

In 2005, George Bush claimed that his Christian god told him in his dream to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. The current administration of the United States are filled with people like this too. The Zionists of Israel still justify their atrocities using their Jewish scripture. In other words, extremists who are Christians and Jews, just like how there are extremists who are Muslims, exist. And the prayer is specifically directed at these extremists and not all Christians and Jews, some of which are our friends and family.

In our bid to preserve and enhance racial and religious harmony, we don’t have to sweep these facts under the carpet or make sweeping statements about religion and Banyan trees that have absolutely no doctrinal basis. Just as how we can talk openly about Muslim extremists without thinking that such discussions are based on enmity against Islam, there is no reason to be offended when we talk about Christian and Jewish extremists.

Source: Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi

April 13, 2017
A Lawyer’s Explanation To Why CHC Sentences Lesser Than Man Who Stole From Mosque

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.”

What do you think?

Rilek1Corner

Source: https://www.allsingaporestuff.com

April 12, 2017
1kg Of Heroin Seized From Singaporean Drug Trafficker In Teck Whye

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.

Rilek1Corner

Source: http://www.todayonline.com

April 12, 2017