I refer to the commentary, “Why we need more light, less heat on sexuality issues” (June 30). I agree that on contentious issues such as this, we need more resources from all possible disciplines of knowledge to achieve mutual understanding.
For that to happen, however, we must identify the heart of the dispute and why arguments of religion versus rights have dominated the debate.
When the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community cries for equality and against discrimination, especially with the Pink Dot slogan Freedom to Love, their ultimate interest is the inclusion of homosexual relationships in the institution of marriage.
Only then would the LGBT community be equal before the law and thus be protected from discrimination. But this would be deemed a threat to the religious community, wherein marriage is defined strictly as between a man and woman.
The United States Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage based on the argument that it is a constitutional right. This has implications for religious communities across the US because granting such marital rights redefines marriage itself for Americans.
So, the foremost task of various knowledge disciplines would be to provide perspective and research on the LGBT issue, contributing towards answering the question in dispute between the religious and LGBT communities: What makes a marriage?
Is it an emotional bond in which fidelity is a choice and commitment, or can it happen only between a man and a woman? Does same-sex marriage benefit a democratic society?
Our Government is wise to uphold public opinion. The majority are conservative, and the research on same-sex marriage and its societal effect has just begun, as the Netherlands was the first country to endorse it, in 2001.
The debate on its benefits and harm to children and society are ongoing. More time is needed before one can make a correct judgement. Thus, to uphold our current policies is to safeguard our society’s common good.
The West’s experiment in same-sex marriage is irreversible. As a young nation, it is best that we take a cautious approach, to allow knowledge of different disciplines to inform us of the consequences of endorsing this movement, and we can decide from there.
This article, written by Jervin Lim Teng Lai, was published on Voices, Today on 2 Jul 2015.
Singapore Chinese Muslim Heidi Heng was shocked when she was asked the question when she tried to find out more about an opening for an administration position.
At first, she said, she was mistaken for being a non-Chinese because she was seen wearing a headscarf. Then, she was told that her Halal diet would be an inconvenience to other employees especially when it comes to company events.
Heng was responding to job application queries sent via Whatsapp messages on her phone when she was confronted by questions that involved her race, religion and dietary option. She was corresponding with someone who appeared to be the human resource staff of an unnamed company.
A screen grab of the conversation was posted on Facebook on Tuesday, and has since garnered more than 1,000 shares and nearly 100 comments.
The conversation had taken place over Whatsapp when Heng was asking for the appropriate email address to send her resume to. Heng seemed disappointed at how the conversation had panned out, even labeling the comments that the staff member made as “racist”.
“Work is work, food is food. I can eat Halal food, (you) can eat (your) non-Halal food. Just (wanted) a simple admin job, end up get a racist comment… Admin job got event every month meh (sic)?” she said.
Most of the commenters on Facebook have shown support for Heng while criticising the company.
“I don’t see why one’s dietary preference will hinder the productivity of the admin job… what if the candidate is a Chinese vegetarian?” said a Bob M Fauzi.
One commenter even offered Heng a job and is awaiting her reply.
Yahoo Singapore has contacted the Ministry of Manpower for a comment.
Just two weeks after he was sentenced to a three weeks’ jailfor assaulting a taxi driver, 34-year old Dutchman Dino Petrus Johannes van Deijzen saw his sentence increased to three months.
The deputy public prosecutor had appealed the original sentence, saying the judge in that case, District Judge Imran Abdul Hamid, seemed to have been convinced by van Deijzen’s portrayal of himself as a victim.
The Dutchman, a design executive, had claimed that the taxi driver, Me Ee Kah Ling, had also hit him, resulting in the former losing consciousness.
Justice Imran was reported to have “noted that the victim had also engaged in a scuffle with van Deijzen and traded blows, which would have explained the blunt force trauma suffered by the accused.”
However, justice Tay rejected this.
He said Mr van Deijzen’s claims were “convenient excuses to downplay his use of inexcusable violence” against Mr Ee, 42.
Further, justice Tay noted that Mr van Deijzen was not remorseful and that there were neither an offer of compensation to Mr Ee noran apology from the Dutchman.
Mr van Deijzen and his girlfriend were reportedly intoxicated when they hailed and boarded Mr Ee’s cab at Dunlop Street at almost 1am on 21 October.
They asked to be ferried to blk 538 in Ang Mo Kio.
When the taxi reached the destination, Mr van Deijzen’s girlfriend vomited in the taxi.
Mr Ee then asked the couple to leave the car and asked for the fare.
The couple, however, ignored him and walked away without paying.
At this point, Mr Ee threatened to call the police, and was retrieving his phone from his taxi when Mr van Deijzen pounced on him, slammed the door and punched Mr Ee.
Me Ee tried to escape and ran away, but Mr van Deijzen gave chase and pushed him to the ground, and continued to punch and kick Mr Ee.
The heinous act was caught by the in-vehicle CCTV of Mr Ee’s taxi.
Soosay (Photo: Straits Times)
Also in June, National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor, Sundram Peter Soosay, 43, has been found guilty of assaulting a taxi driver while drunk.
Mr Soosay, who is a Singapore permanent resident and has been working at NUS since 2008, was lambasted by District Judge Victor Yeo in court.
Judge Yeo said Mr Soosay’s testimony was “riddled with hindsight reasoning, convenient conjecture and hypothesis”.
Judge Yeo then sentenced the law professor to four months jail and ordered him to compensate the taxi driver, 71-year old Sun Chun Hua. (See here.)
A shuttle train service between Woodlands in Singapore and Johor Baru (JB) in Malaysia opened on Wednesday (Jul 1) to long queues, but it did not appear to ease traffic congestion on the Causeway.
Long lines for the new KTMB service were seen at the JB Sentral station at about 6.00am on Wednesday, with workers making up the bulk of the commuters. Some commuters Channel 8 spoke to said they arrived as early as 5.30am to buy tickets. The tickets for trains departing for Singapore at 5.30am and 7.00am were sold out.
The fares are RM5 from JB Sentral and S$5 from Woodlands, for one-way trips.
Long queues for train tickets seen at the JB Sentral station at about 6.00am. (Photo: Loi Kar Yee)
Despite the large number of commuters crossing the border via the new train service, it did not appear to ease congestion at the Causeway, according to a Channel 8 reporter at the scene.
The shuttle service by Malaysia’s KTM Intercity will run 14 trips between Singapore and Johor Bahru daily, with seven trips in each direction. Commuters whom Channel 8 spoke with said they hoped there would be an increased number of trips during peak periods.
