Wrong charge, wrong conviction

If you have been following the news on Malaysia's prosecution of a group of naturists who went nude on a deserted and remote beach of Penang, you will know that six of them have been convicted and sentenced to one month's jail and fine of Malaysian Ringgit 5,000.00. The remaining four have claimed trial.

A group of nudists that included Malaysians, Singaporeans, Burmese, an Indian and a Filipino gathered in May this year on a remote beach in Penang for what they grandiloquently called the Penang International Nude Games Extravaganza. Activities that included a running relay on the beach and kettle bell workouts round a campfire were carried out. Subsequently, someone in the group posted a video of what happened on the beach on vimeo and the video went viral in Malaysian social media. It caught the attention of the Chief Minister of Penang and because it happened in Penang, the ruling party in Malaysia took the opportunity to lash out at Penang which is ruled by an Opposition Party. There was a huge exchange between the Chief Minister and the Federal Government, both parties condemning the incident and in the meanwhile, Muslim groups in this Muslim-majority state lodged police reports.

We must bear in mind that the incident was seen by absolutely nobody. The nudists got clearance from the park security who even got food for them. When the furore blew up in Malaysia, the park watchman claimed he tried to get them to dress up when all of them went nude but they refused. This of course defies belief since no nudist in Malaysia would dare to go naked against the express orders of a park watchman especially when they were staying overnight on the beach and they needed the help of the watchman and the boatman to get them back to civilization.  And a simple phone call from the park watchman would have brought a battalion of policemen to the beach. Don't forget, this is Malaysia where the police spring to life when there is a nude scene while they seem to slumber through murder and robbery cases. The fact that there was no objection from the watchman can also be seen from the fact that the nudists planned another event at the same place scheduled for 5 December this year. If the watchman had raised any objection not only would they not have dared to stay overnight on the beach and continued their activities the next day, they would certainly not have planned for another event later this year at the same place. Even the authorities were sceptical of the watchman's claim. It was reported that the police spotted from the video someone who looked like the watchman helping the nudists with the campfire. The police must have pretty sharp eyes; I don't see it myself.

So, nobody saw the nudists when they were in Penang and complaints were only made two months after the event when Muslim groups saw the video and lodged police reports. Let's examine the charge against the accused in the Magistrate's Court.

Except for one participant of the Nude Games who uploaded the video online and had an additional charge against him which I won't be dealing with, all participants were charged under Section 294(a) of the Malaysian Penal Code. I understand from one of the accused who claimed trial that there are no other charges. Section 294 reads:

Leaving (b) aside, the section under which they are charged, reads, "Whoever, to the annoyance of others, does any obscene act in any public place shall be punished..."

I have not researched the matter and I have never had occasion to deal with this area of the law but I believe where the accused were at on the remote beach in Penang would constitute a "public place". However, if my memory isn't faulty, I believe case law is clear that mere nudity does not constitute an "obscene act". Doing relay runs or workouts in the nude cannot be considered obscene acts. When you take a shower in your bathroom, you are not doing an obscene act in a private place.

The other pertinent point is the words of the section are clear. "Whoever, to the annoyance of others, DOES any obscene act..."

It is clear that the act committed must be contemporaneous with the causing of annoyance to others. Who were annoyed by the act so that they filed police reports? The Muslim groups. When were they annoyed? Two months or so after the event. They were annoyed after they saw a video posted online. Notice that the verb, "does", is in the present tense. If the annoyance of others arose from something someone did two months ago, this section does not apply at all.

It is quite obvious that the purpose of this section which is titled "OBSCENE SONGS" was intended to punish rowdy sailors who sang obscene songs and ballads and probably performed lewd and obscene acts to the annoyance of the general public. It is also an appropriate section for flashers who expose themselves to women with intent to outrage their modesty, possibly as a perverted means of satisfying their warped sexual craving.  It is not meant for nudists who go naked on a deserted beach and have taken every precaution not to be seen by others and are in fact not seen by anybody at all.

I understand from one of the accused that at least two of the four who are claiming trial are seriously considering throwing in the towel at the next mention on 16 October. I cannot attest to the accuracy of what I have been told but one of them is purported to have said that she was worried that the Malaysian government would never let them go even if they are not guilty of the offence for which they are charged. This is very sad. I cannot believe the Malaysian government for all its faults (and there are many) would go so far as to tamper with justice. If there is a lacuna in the law and the Malaysian government is so concerned about ensuring that public nudity of any sort is made a serious offence, it is for Parliament to enact statutory provisions criminalizing the act. The nudists should not be made a scapegoat whatever the political agenda of the government may be. As matters stand, I cannot see how the charge against the accused can possibly stand.

Low Crime Has Its Consequences

Zoologists tell us that animals that live on islands that have no predators are usually unable to defend themselves when a predator is suddenly introduced. A mere rat that gets to the island from a vessel is enough to threaten extinction to an entire rare species.

The same applies to us humans. Singapore is a country with probably the world's lowest crime rate. Its laws are draconian, its government clean and incorruptible and its police force efficient and competent. I've seen how a thief made off with a camera bag of a Singaporean tourist in Spain. The bag contained not just his camera but all the precious photos he's taken. When I carry my backpack in front of me, friends ask me if I've got gold bars in it.

But it's not all that safe in Singapore. Recently, the Singapore Police Force has been waring the public of a rise in pickpocketing cases. There's now a growing trend of foreign pickpockets making a beeline for Singapore. They may stay here for a week or two and the loot they steal covers their trip and all expenses with a lot of money to spare. They usually steal wallets, mobile phones and cameras. Last year, a pickpocket from as far away as Brazil was convicted of theft in a Singapore court.

This morning, at breakfast, something happened that's best recounted with the help of photographs. Someone hurriedly left his table and I noticed something odd and took a quick pic.

Yes, he left his wallet literally standing on the table. I looked to see where the person had gone to and I saw that he was at a drinks stall quite a distance away from his table.

I didn't want to be meddlesome and he might very well be returning to his seat even though leaving one's wallet on the table is a rather unusual thing to do. I kept watch of his wallet from where I was seated just in case someone took it. I also kept an eye on him, for fear that he might just leave the stall and walk out of the food centre. Sure enough, he walked away from the drinks stall and was leaving the food centre when I shouted out to him.  He went back to his table and took his wallet after thanking me sheepishly.

Can such a person survive in Barcelona or Prague or Rome or any of the other major pickpocket cities of the world? I've been on the infamous Bus No. 64 and I took a lot of selfies and photos of my surroundings, much to the annoyance of the pickpockets who naturally didn't want to be photographed. I have photos of them looking shady and annoyed.

Singapore's phenomenally low crime is a testimony to the wisdom of its strict laws and the integrity of its enforcement officers. But every silver lining has its dark cloud and the average Singaporean is more likely to be a victim of petty theft when he is abroad.

Thinking out loud - Riot in Singapore?

I'm away from Singapore at the moment and the only news I get from home comes from my Facebook newsfeeds that I access from time to time on my mobile phone.  Imagine my surprise when I read about a riot in Little India and I saw for myself the overturned police vehicles and an ambulance which were set on fire.  The reason for the riot?  A bus collided into an Indian foreign worker by accident and killed him.  The people around him went into a frenzy and they started the riot.

I have also read (all from my Facebook newsfeeds) the comments made by many Singaporeans and their typical anti-government diatribe.  They say the foreign workers must have been very upset with the terrible living conditions and the poor wages they get and all it took was one small spark to set off a riot.  At the same time, I've read arguments from some other people online that Singaporeans should not be racist in their comments against the rioters.

What is clear to all of us is this:  we all love Singapore for its peace and stability and nobody, whatever their nationality or ethnic group, has the right to destroy what we have all worked to build up over the decades.  Rioting of any sort is wrong.  If you don't like the wages, go elsewhere.  If you prefer living conditions in another country, go there.  This is a free world.  There is no slavery and every workman has the right to go where he pleases and work where he wills or not work at all. That's entirely up to him.

But there will always be the anti-government lobby that will seize any opportunity to slam the government.  We've seen all that before.  When there is flooding in Singapore (extremely mild flooding and not the calamitous sort we see in many other countries), the government is blamed.  If there is a crack on the road surface, the government is at fault.  And now, if there is a riot, again, the poor government is blamed.  To this group, even bad weather is attributable to the government.

Why then did they riot over something like a mere road accident?  A friend of mine on Facebook who is an Indian national explained to me why he thought the riot happened.  He said it was cultural. In India, riots take place every now and then and they are so common that they are not reported in the newspapers.  It's very common for villagers to go on a rampage and attack government vehicles whenever there is a road accident, usually if the accident results in death.  Typically, civilians are not harmed and most of the time, even government officers escape unscathed.  It's only government vehicles and buildings that bear the brunt of their of their anger.

In just the State of Kerala alone, cases of riots rose from 8,057 in 2008 to 10,938 in 2012.  By any standard, such figures are extremely high.  We can't even imagine having 10 cases of rioting a year in Singapore.  These figures are obtained from the police website in the State of Kerala.

It's wrong to go on a witch-hunt and put the blame on the government, employers or fellow Singaporeans.  The rioters are criminals and they have broken our laws.  It does not matter what their race or nationality is.  It is not racist or xenophobic to denounce them for disrupting our peace and threatening our security.  It's not wrong to slam them for humiliating our police force and the authorities.  Some of us who are typically anti-government should stop our anti-government frenzy and call a spade a spade.  When criminals commit a serious crime, they must be punished severely. It's wrong to excuse their wrong by putting the blame on others who are totally innocent and not all connected to the crime, even if we have a personal anti-government agenda.

It may be common in India to riot when there is a fatal accident and it may be a part of their culture. But if they import that culture to Singapore, we have every right to enforce our strictly no-nonsense laws and exact the maximum penalty that the law provides for.  Singapore is obviously attractive to many foreigners which is why they are here.  But we must ensure that they abide by our laws and when they don't, they must bear the full force of it.  Singaporeans should support and uphold our laws and not seize this opportunity to criticize the government.  The rioting has nothing to do with the government.  Let's not allow our imagination to run wild and if we have a bone to pick with the government for whatever personal reasons we may have, let's not take the side of criminals to achieve our goal.

What is wrong with the West?

Early this week as I listened to the news on the memorial service in Norway to commemorate the massacre a year ago, I thought of an incident that happened a long time ago.  I was standing in a queue to go on a ride in Disney World, Orlando when a pleasant elderly lady asked me how I liked America.  I told her it was fun.  Come on, I was in Disney World.  She asked me if I ever thought of living in the States.  I replied in the negative partly because I could tell that she, like most locals in any country, would welcome tourists to her country but not immigrants who would compete with locals in the job market.  I jokingly mentioned my own native food which I was more used to as a reason.  She didn't seem convinced and she asked me to tell her the "real reason" why I wouldn't want to live in America.  There was a shooting spree (I now forget which one) in the US just months before and I could tell from her tone of voice that she was alluding to this.  Being an obliging chap and one who is careful not to offend others, I told her that one day, I would have kids and if I was told that there had been a shooting spree in my child's school, I would laugh my head off because such a thing couldn't possibly happen in Singapore.  I told her I liked to be assured that my children would be safe when they were in school.  She told me she knew what I meant.  A close friend of hers was shot just months before.  "What do you do to people who smuggle guns into your country and use them?" she asked.  "We hang them.  Capital punishment," I replied without flinching.

Proponents of the abolition of the death pealty will go namby-pamby here.  The State shouldn't take the life of a human being.  Well, Breivik took the lives of 77 people.

At the memorial service in Norway on 22 July, Norway's prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg told the people, "He [Breivik] failed, the people won."  In Oslo Cathedral, Bishop Helga Haugland Byfuglien told Norwegians: "The light shines in the darkness; darkness hasn't been able to overcome it."

Let's be serious and not babble like fools here.  How have the people won?  Breivik killed 77 people.  The people DIED.  Breivik lives and will continue to live.   You can say a million times that Breivik failed and the people won but words don't mean a thing if they don't reflect reality.  Who would you rather be? Breivik or one of the 77?   Knowing how hospitable penitentiary facilities are in Norway, I would rather be in Breivik's shoes any time.  I might even write a book about the day I killed 77 people.  Have I missed something?  How have the people won? 

Just two days before the memorial service in Oslo, there was a shooting incident in Colorado at a cinema screening the new Batman film.  12 people were killed.   Hours after the shooting, Republican Louie Gohmert suggested on a radio show to the host Ernie Istook that the shooting was caused by "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs." Gohmert also wondered aloud why nobody else in the cinema had a gun to take down the gunman.

Instead of banning guns, Gohmert is suggesting that Americans should all carry guns to a movie.  It's back to the Wild Wild West, folks!

Singapore should hold its head up high and make no apology for its death penalty.  Breivik could never have done what he did if he had lived in Singapore.  And I mean NEVER.  Even if he did, he'd by now be swinging by his neck after which doctors would harvest his body parts for transplant purposes.  At least there would be some use for Breivik's carcass.  A curse to humanity while he's alive, Breivik can at least be of some benefit to patients when he's despatched with.  As he should be.

Stoltenberg was dead wrong - the people have not won.  They're dead and buried.  Breivik has won and let's make no mistake about that.  The West must stop using words to change reality.  The people can only win if you do two things - ban guns and kill anyone who disobeys.

The West has no moral right to tell Singapore what to do.  They can't even keep their house in order.  It's that disgraceful.  I have lost count of the number of shooting massacres in the West, especially the US.  Criminals and potential criminals in Singapore who don't like the harshness of its laws should just get the hell out.  Go to Norway or the US and buy as many guns as you legally can.  There's no room in Singapore for criminals.  It's the noose for the likes of Breivik here.  They swing and decent people applaud.

The Church and Your Money

There's been a lot of publicity about innocent people being unduly influenced into giving huge sums of money to religious organisations to which they belong.  Various religious leaders have been charged in court, some have been convicted and what's puzzling to most people is not so much the crimes committed by these supposedly holy men of God but the reaction of the congregation.  The blind, dogged, persistent support given to the church leader even when there have been accusations that he has improperly used the money of these very supporters is something most people find puzzling.

As a long-standing Christian (and a devout one, even if I say so myself), I am in the best position to explain the psychology of these believers.  I have heard of a couple who sold their only home and gave the entire proceeds to their church.  They are obliged to rent from their meagre salaries a modest flat to live in.  You'd probably think they are insane.  But the reality is they aren't any more insane than you and I.  Why then do they do what normal people wouldn't dream of doing?

I'm sure this happens in every religion but I will only give the Christian perspective which is the only one I'm familiar with.

Every organisation needs money and the church is not unique here.  The church needs money and it's not wrong to give to it.  First, I would like to classify churches into traditional churches and non-traditional churches.  By my definition, traditional churches are churches that do a lot of charitable works.  They build schools, hospitals, hospices, old folks' home, orphanages and other kinds of welfare homes.  These churches do a lot of good for society and giving to them is good and right.  But these are churches that usually don't demand money from parishioners.  They don't threaten parishioners or frighten them into giving money.  By my definition again, non-traditional churches are usually new-fangled churches, usually independent and sometimes they become really large and they are called mega-churches.  A mega-church almost always has a single person who holds all the power in the organisation and nobody questions his power and authority and because his church is new and probably started by him, there aren't any real checks and balances to curb his untrammelled power.  Another feature of a non-traditional church (remember, this is entirely my own definition) is that it does not build schools, hospices, orphanages and other welfare homes.  It probably does some charitable work but nothing as major as running welfare homes.  Not all churches that are non-traditional and don't run charitable homes, hospices and orphanages are bad.  I'm sure some are all right but those churches that have been getting bad publicity on the local press are almost always non-traditional churches that don't run welfare homes.  I have to make this clear because it's not my intention to tar all independent churches with the same brush.

I'm sure many people will disagree with my classification and I really don't bother about the distinction.  I'm not out on a crusade to draw people to traditional churches and frankly, I haven't got any evangelistic zeal.  I am all for everyone following his own religion and the religious culture of his community.  What I want to examine here is not which church is good and which is bad but I want to peer into the minds of believers and see what makes them tick.  What makes a person give the bulk of his money to the church and when accusations are made by impartial authorities against the church leader, what makes this same person defend the leader mindlessly and with the ferocity of a wild beast?

A lot has to do with the teachings of the religion.  In Christianity, the worthlessness of man is something that is stressed all the time.  We are like dust at God's feet.  As the famous hymn goes, "Amazing grace.... that saved a wretch like me; I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see".  Or as St Paul writes, he is nothing without Christ, that Christ should increase and he decrease.  The worthlessness of mankind leads to the concept commonly called the "total depravity of man".  We are told from the cradle that we are utterly worthless and not only are we worthless, we are totally and irredeemably depraved.  Irredeemable?  Well, not quite.  There is one redemption open to us and it's only through Jesus Christ, the Redeemer that we may be saved.

Together with this idea that we are utterly worthless and depraved without Christ is the concept that we own nothing.  As the book of Job tells us, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither".  And the New Testament carries on the same imagery with St Paul saying "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out."   All things come from God and when we give our money to the church, we aren't giving God what's ours.  We are returning to God what is really his.  As the hymn goes, "We give thee but thine own".  We are but stewards of the property that belongs to God even though the law of the land says we have a legal title to the property.  We hold all our possessions in stewardship for God's ultimate use and for the purposes of his Kingdom.  These are lofty-sounding words that don't mean more than that the money should be used by the church.

That is in fact the correct teaching of the church.  It's not something the mega-churches cooked up.  What the mega-churches have done is to build on this concept as I will illustrate later.

What Christianity has done to the average parishioner is to make him in a sense vulnerable.  This was vitally important in the history of Christianity when the church was always fighting tooth and nail with the State and controlling the parishioners was what the church sought to do.  Of course many of us don't really care what the church teaches and we don't give a hoot for this concept of stewardship and we would use our property any way we like and the church can go to the blazes for all we care.  That's the stand of the majority of Christians even though they may not admit this and many don't even realize this.

But there is always a group that feels keenly the pricking of their conscience every time they fail to give huge sums to the church and it is this group that can fall prey to errant pastors who know this weakness of a segment of their flock.

In traditional churches, there are some safeguards against exploitation of these faithful few.  Traditional churches NEVER coerce parishioners into giving money.  Giving is always considered a matter between the parishioner and God.  Everything is left to the individual to decide for himself or herself how much, if any, he should give to God. The guiding principle is what St Paul says - to give cheerfully.  So, if you don't feel good about giving, don't give. It's that simple.  Traditional churches too have a proper system of accounting and they have rules in place and the money given by the parishioners do not go to the pastors.

Now I have to be careful what I say because, like I have already explained, not all non-traditional churches are bad.  What I'm going to say next is not applicable to all non-traditional churches but only to a very few of them. What do these very few errant churches do to ensure their ecclesiastical coffers are filled to the brim?

First, they teach their members properly.  These churches always refer their members to the practice in the Old Testament.  Now, the structure of the temple in the Old Testament is very different from the church that we have today.  They had Levite priests and much of the giving to the temple went to the Levites, a group of people who were by birth ordained to be priests.  The traditional 10% or tithe comes from this practice.  But in the Old Testament, the giving of tithe was not all there was to the financial obligation of a devout Jew.  He had to give from his crops to the Levites, something which is called "First fruits".  The system is extremely complex and if you want to cream off your parishioners, you can do it quite effectively by going into detail on what exactly the ancient Israelite had to give to the House of Levi and of course you extrapolate the whole thing and you, the pastor, becomes the Levite in order to give profitable meaning to that Old Testament practice.

Next, you tell your congregation that because they are obliged to give so much to the church, withholding it from the church would be tantamount to robbing God.   This is a frightening allegation - that the Christian is robbing God!  But you can always find something in the Bible to support anything you want and all you have to do is to turn to the book of Malachi (that's the last book of the Old Testament) in which the prophet tells the people that they have robbed God.  I assure you it's very effective when used on a compliant congregation.

Now is the time when you can talk about God's curses.  He who has the temerity of robbing God must surely expect curses from the Almighty.  Extend the curses to the entire family and to the children of the sinner.  That's usually very effective in bringing a hardened person to his knees.

But a good pastor will not just stop there.  The Gospel of Christ is always called the Good News and that's what the congregation wants to hear.  You tell them that God will break the curse if they are obedient (ie give abundantly to the church).  Say to them, "Jesus is waiting at the door to give his blessings.  He wants to give his blessings but as long as you are disobedient, he can't do so.  What will your answer be today?  What is YOUR response to Jesus who now stands at the door with his blessings?  Will you let him in or will you chase him away?"

Now, you do not end there.  If you end there and let the congregation leave the church, you have failed.  It's natural for even the most pious parishioner to have some sense knocked into his head the moment he leaves the church.  What you should do at this point is to ask everyone to pray with you.  Of course you lead in the prayer.  You speak for the people to God.  You tell God how WE have sinned against him.  We have robbed him, you confess.  We have disobeyed him.  But we now repent of our grievous sins.  At this point, you should look over the pulpit to see if some in the congregation are beginning to weep.  There should be some, usually among the ladies if you have done it right.

You thank Jesus for his patience and his compassion.  There he stands at the door with blessings in his hand and we have shut him out.  Lord, we open our hearts to you.  We invite you in.  We receive your blessings.  NOTE: You mustn't say anything about giving money to the church because that would be too obvious but you need not worry.  Everyone knows that that's what he's supposed to do and it's their hateful disobedience and sin that have prevented them from doing so.

At this point, you don't end the prayer but you go into a period of silence but before I continue, I should say something to those who attend traditional churches.  Those who attend traditional churches will no doubt notice that there is a departure from the Liturgy but we are not talking about traditional churches with boring liturgy cast in stone.  We are talking about the modern non-traditional churches that do things "as the Spirit leads".  What I have said is not something I have made up myself.  It's something I draw from my personal experience when I attended non-traditional church services a few times in my younger days.

Let's go back to the pulpit.  Because you have not ended the prayer but have lapsed into silence, the congregation would still be in a prayerful mood.  You break the silence with an admonition: "The Spirit is speaking to you now.  Listen to that still small voice."  This last bit is important.  Of course nobody really hears the Spirit of God speaking.  I mean if you really hear something audible, you'd do well to see a psychiatrist.  That's why the Bible refers to the "prompting" of the Spirit and the voice of the Spirit is always described as the "still small voice".  A devout Christian is trained to "hear" the voice of God by the IMPRESSION that he "senses".  Basically, an impression is no different from a thought.  Of course the parishioners will "hear" the voice of the Spirit.  The pastor has just spoken at great length about the importance of giving to the church and it is impossible that the parishioner senses no impression that should go along the same line.  The devout Christian will believe that he "hears" the Spirit "in his heart".  He feels that the Spirit is telling him to give more money.  Just in case some of them are a little obtuse, you should help them along.  "Is the Spirit of God telling you to do what you have thus far neglected?"  Again avoid talking directly about filthy cash.  You are above all that, surely!

Next, you can add this which I have actually heard in youtube from a sermon taken from a mega-church.  You tell the congregation to put God to the test.  Give him a fixed amount and see if God will shortchange you.  There is something in the Bible about God giving a ten-fold blessing.  Seize that verse for this purpose and tell the people that God has promised a ten-fold return.  Try him out and see if he will go back on his promise.  Give $1000 and see if you do not receive ten times that amount in return within the week or month.  Or if you are wise, give God $10,000 and you'll get a lot more in return.  A website I have seen even talks about a hundredfold blessing, which is better.  Google "tenfold blessings" and "hundredfold blessings" if you don't believe me.  This is religion - you can't sue the pastor if you don't get your ten-fold or hundredfold return.

Sometimes, a bit of soft and slow music can go a long way to goad the believer to reach deeper into his pockets.  Tell the organist to pick a familiar slow hymn.

I recently learnt from a friend who attends one of these non-traditional churches that the pastors force all the members to give their payslips and income tax returns to the church which will ascertain that tithes are collected.  He assures me it's true but I find it preposterous.  Honestly, I know people can be stupid but I really doubt there's anyone in Singapore who wouldn't walk out of a church that asks for your payslip.

Another thing I understand from people who go to non-traditional churches is that they are given a lot of lessons on tithe-giving, etc.  They are always told to look at Malachi 3:10 which reads, "Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need."  It's funny that although I have been a devout Christian all my life and have served the church from being an altar boy to various ministries in adulthood, I have never heard such a creative reading of Malachi.  The Levites' storehouse becomes the church!!!

What they tell their congregation is that their duty is to give 10 percent of their earnings to the church (the Levites' storehouse) and once they have done that, their duty is fulfilled.  If the church misuses the money, God will deal with the perpetrators himself.  But your duty to give 10 percent to the church remains.  Can you believe this?

But this is all perfectly legal.  It's more than legal.  It's religious and nobody dares to say a word against religion.  But to be fair, in most churches, all money goes through a proper accounting process and everything is above board.  Churches generally do a lot of good in society and the scandal of a few black sheep should not tarnish the good name of the holy church, the Bride of Christ.

Important lesson from the Kong Hee Affair.

We must not forget one uncomfortable fact in the Kong Hee Affair.  4 other persons are slapped with charges, some of whom received more charges than even Kong Hee himself because they were in charge of the financial books.  The charges relate to the allegation that monies were diverted illegally for the purpose of boosting and supporting the singing career of Kong Hee's wife.  Nothing is said about the 4 receiving any benefit from their actions.  Now, these 4 persons who have not received any benefit from their actions are charged for offences that carry sentences of life imprisonment.

Even if they are found guilty of doing what they are alleged to have done, the question that looms in my head is "Why the heck did they do it when there's no benefit to them at all?"

People are prepared to incur heavy costs to themselves for their families and loved ones.  A Singaporean actor was willing to go through a hazardous surgery and give half of his liver to his girlfriend (who became his wife) because of his love for her.  I remember reading in the papers about a father who threw himself in the path of a charging rhinoceros in the Terai jungle to divert the attention of the rhino from his young son.  The father died but the son was saved.  But such self-sacrificial acts are perfectly understandable and laudable in that the party performing the acts do so to protect or benefit their loved ones.  These are instances of heroic actions done by someone for his family.

But there are also instances of people who commit crimes for their families and loved ones.  I can think of mothers who steal to feed their children.  I've read of drug runners who risk getting the death sentence to give their families a good life.  But in a normal situation, nobody would do anything illegal and hence expose himself to heavy penalties when that act does not benefit himself and his family but it benefits someone else totally unrelated to him.

But obviously there are people who do sacrificial acts that don't benefit themselves.  Suicide bombers are a good example.  Many Palestinian suicide bombers in fact harm their own families because Israel takes reprisals for every suicide bomb incident and would send the bulldozer to level the homes of suicide bombers' families.

There is only one reason why anybody would do anything insanely sacrificial and even criminal and that does not benefit himself or his family and the reason is always religious.

I must make it clear at the outset that I'm not against religion.  I must also make it clear that I am not commenting in this post about Kong Hee's particular case.  He has not yet been tried and nobody knows if he is guilty or innocent at the moment.  I am only drawing a lesson from his arrest and I'm focusing on the broader picture and it doesn't matter if he is totally innocent; a lesson can still be learnt from the whole episode.

As a devout Christian myself, I'm naturally aware of how the average believer thinks and acts.  When Lee Kuan Yew gave the advice in his book that in his opinion, Muslims should learn to be less religious, I thought it was an excellent piece of advice that he should extend to people of all religions, including mine.  Religion is based on faith and I won't go into the details since I have written extensively on this elsewhere in my blog but in a nutshell, religion is not based on fact and reasoning.  As Martin Luther rightly points out, "Reason is the greatest enemy of faith".  Once a person goes into a system that requires him to lay aside his powers of independent reasoning, he is in fact entering dangerous territory and there is no telling what the outcome may be.

I know too little about other religions so I'll just concentrate on my own.  This is the sort of advice that I'll give to myself and people who bother to listen to me but it's of course extremely personal and lots of people will probably disagree with me.  Basically my advice is simple - if I have to be religious, I must be as moderate as I can and I must choose a time-tested church, particularly a church that has checks and balances in place.  The head of my parish church shouldn't be the overall head.  He must be answerable to someone else.  If he says he is answerable to only God, that's not a good answer because, as we have seen in reality, that usually leads to all kinds of abuses.  It is always possible for someone who is the overall head in a parish church (I use the term to mean a single church building as opposed to a whole church or denomination) to be idolised the way Kong Hee was idolised by his parishioners.  For an understanding of the extent of how he was hero-worshipped, see the video of his birthday celebration in my previous blog entry by clicking this.

So, the pastor of my church must be answerable to someone above him and ultimately the bishop who doesn't run any particular parish church.  There are other checks and balances that can be put in place.  There is something that my church does which I think is really quite good.  They rotate the pastors round the different churches in Singapore.  I've heard stories of parishioners being really upset by this because they have got used to a particular pastor and they want him to remain but of course the parishioners have no say (as should be the case) and the head or bishop has ultimate say on the matter.  But that's precisely how you can prevent a "cult leader" situation - by rotating the pastors every now and then.   Don't forget - religion is antithetical to reason.  It's very easy for people to hero-worship someone when they aren't using their heads.  Incidentally, in the birthday concert the church held for Kong Hee (if you have seen the video link in my blog), they called Kong Hee their "hero".  But independent churches can't rotate pastors because they exist on their own, ie each parish church is all the church they have.  So there must be other mechanisms they should come up with that can remove this potential for hero-worship.

It's very easy for someone to obey without question a hero-idol even if the obedience may lead to a situation where his own interest is seriously compromised.  But alas, the law does not recognise this as undue influence and my fear is the 4 people who are charged with Kong Hee will have to stand on their own.  But it is sad particularly when these 4 did not benefit one bit from whatever they were alleged to have done.

Kong Hee in the limelight

Standing in the limelight on a stage is not uncommon for a self-styled clergyman of an independent church, City Harvest, which is said to have the largest pool of parishioners of all the churches in Singapore (if you count each church as an individual building and you don't group them by denomination).  Nor is it uncommon for his wife, Ho Yeow Sun, who is an entertainer.

But what Kong Hee probably didn't bargain for is getting arrested and charged with criminal breach of trust.

Let's look at what the Straits Times has to say:

Source:  Straits Times:  http://www.straitstimes.com/The-Big-Story/The-Big-Story-1/Story/STIStory_815169.html

I did a search on youtube and I found this video of the church celebrating Kong Hee's birthday in a big way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_uc1tAlqRc&feature=related  (blogger doesn't seem able to link this video to the blog).  But here's the video:

I'm just amazed at the huge differences between the average parishioner in one of these independent mega churches and a parishioner in a traditional church.  For traditional church goers, if the church decides to hold a birthday celebration of this proportion for any clergyman, all of us will feel that something is seriously amiss.  The giving of glory to a clergyman is totally unheard of.  Come on, I don't even know when my bishop's birthday is.

I'm not interested in whether Kong Hee is guilty of the charges against him.  That's for the court to decide.  What I'm interested in is what makes a worshipper in one of these independent mega churches so different from the rest of us.  I did a bit of search on the internet just to understand what makes them tick and I think I have the answer.

We all know that the Bible can always be used to justify anything.  Matthew 10:41 says this: "Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward".  It's not difficult to include the pastor into the definition of a "prophet" or at least a "righteous person" and by increasing the ambit of "welcome", one can almost accommodate that sort of a birthday celebration and parishioners will think it's all perfectly in order to glorify their leader in a way that will make a traditional Christian frown.

I've heard many stories about mega churches and their pastors but I can't be sure they're all true.  I was told that one of them bought a million-dollar sports car (I'm sure it's probably a cheaper sports car).  Another goes skiing in the US once a month with his entire family (again, I'm sure this is an exaggeration).  Ho Sun herself is no stranger to the good life.  She rents the house she lives in in Hollywood for $28,000.00 a month.

The Bible is hardly where you can find justification for wallowing in the lap of luxury.  What Jesus says to the rich young ruler about wealth and Jesus' statement that you can't serve God and Mammon (ie money) are all uncomfortable sayings that the church has to live with.  These verses don't attract worshippers who like the rich young ruler in the Gospel story, aren't prepared for a change of lifestyle.  Mega churches need to preach a new kind of gospel if they really want to be mega.

Prosperity gospel which is preached in many of these independent mega churches teaches that wealth is a symbol of righteousness.  He who obeys God and is righteous will be blessed by God with wealth.  With that sort of teaching, it is no shame for a pastor in one of these churches to throw away his cassock and strut around in the most fashionable outfit styled by award-winning designers.  Pastors in these independent mega churches don't wear cassocks anyway.  To those who preach prosperity gospel, the trappings of wealth are but a symbol of one's inward righteousness.

That may go some way in explaining why nobody bats an eyelid in City Harvest Church despite the publicity given to the lifestyle of Ho Sun in Hollywood.  These are all God's blessings to reward her for her righteousness.  If Kong Hee were a clergyman in a traditional church, his wife would have at least had the decency to choose a more modest place to stay in.

When these independent mega church pastors or their wives make forays into an arena which is usually dubious by Christian standards and would normally be viewed as secular, the reason given is that Christians must "claim" everything for God.  Ho Sun's involvement in the entertainment industry is one such example.  She's doing it for God so that the entertainment industry is not monopolised by non-believers.  And there are believers who really believe that.

A friend who worships in another independent mega church tells me that his pastor has put in a lot of time and effort (not to mention money of course) to turn his magic show into a huge success. What? A pastor has a magic show?  There is a lot of heavy equipment which has to be bought for the magic show and it's not just a simple pulling of a rabbit out of a hat kind of trick.  It's more like a David Copperfield kind of magic show.  His pastor has even had performances of his magic show in the Esplanade and all the church members eagerly bought up the tickets.  What possible religious motive can there be?  The magic show is totally secular, so my friend assures me.  What the church says is that the entertainment industry has gone too much the way of the world and it's now time for the redeemed of the Lord to claim back the entertainment industry from non-believers.  This is their rallying cry which of course will be answered by the pious with fervour as they buy tickets to the magic show and invite their friends to the Esplanade.

Some supporters of Kong Hee say the same thing in the newspapers today (see page 7 of today's Straits Times - 27 June 2012).  They say that it's a way of reaching out to the secular world through the music of Ho Yeow Sun.

I just did a simple search on youtube for one of Ho Sun's pious videos and I have linked below the first video of hers I came across.  Let's get our Bibles, sit back and enjoy this delightful video performed by Kong Hee's wife.  Observe her revealing clothes and the implication of her being a bar girl in a bar frequented by Afro-American customers. 

How has Ho Sun or Kong Hee, through her music, reached out to the secular world?  How instructive, profitable or edifying is this video that you have just watched?  It seems more to me that Ho Sun simply wants to realise her dream of becoming a successful entertainer of Hollywood proportions.  I have no objection to that.  But placing a self-righteous veneer over an otherwise legitimate secular dream just sickens me.  And it puzzles me to no end that Kong Hee's parishioners can't see this.  Do they really think she was glorifying God in this video?

Site of serial killing revisited

Just 3 days ago, there was a huge commotion when someone threatened to kill himself with a chopper in a market just across the road from this site.  That incident reminded me of something more sinister that happened here a long time ago.

In the 3 pics below are the usual Government housing residential flats known as HDB (Housing and Development Board) flats one sees everywhere in Singapore.  Housing is a huge success here and there are, except for very unusual and extremely rare cases, absolutely no homeless people in Singapore.  There is a lovely garden, a bench to sit on and even a gazebo.

The tranquility of the surroundings belies the violence that occurred in one of the flats here 31 years ago.  It happened in the top flat in the first picture - but you will have to picture it mentally because it's concealed by the leaves of a nearby tree.  I tried to take a pic from the other end but the sun was against me.    It was the scene of Singapore's only case of serial killing in which 3 persons lost their lives and the story reads like an Indiana Jones adventure story, complete with blood drinking and human sacrifices to the goddess Kali.

The serial murderer, Adrian Lim, is probably the most hated person in Singapore.  The memory of his brutal crimes remained even long after his trial and conviction.  As late as 1998, the New Paper conducted a poll on the most terrible crime in that year.  30% of the people polled refused to talk about crimes in 1998 and insisted the Adrian Lim murders were the most terrible even though they took place almost two decades before.

Adrian Lim had been an abject failure all his life.  He went to the Anglo-Chinese School until Secondary 1 when he dropped out at about the age of 13.  He did various odd jobs until his fortunes turned for the better when he became a medium.  In superstitious Singapore, Adrian Lim's business as a medium thrived and at one point, it was reported that he raked in about S$7,000 a month from just one client.

Adrian (let's not use his surname which is probably the surname of 20% of Singaporeans) preyed on feeble-minded women and women with psychiatric problems and made them virtually his slaves.  Two of his women, Tan Mui Choo and Hoe Kah Hong lived with him.  However, Hoe was married and when she moved in to live with Adrian, her husband, Loh, went to the flat to look for her.  For some superstitious reasons, he believed the story that his wife was receiving spiritual treatment from Adrian and he even stayed for the night in the flat and early the next morning, he agreed to participate in the healing ritual.  Loh and his wife Hoe, under Adrian's instructions, locked their hands together and immersed their bare feet in pails of water.  Adrian then administered electrodes on Loh with a high voltage which killed him while Hoe was only knocked unconscious.  When she recovered, she lied to the police that her husband had been electrocuted while turning on a faulty electric fan.  No further investigations were conducted and Adrian was off the hook.

In the meanwhile, Adrian was being investigated for the rape of one of his clients during a healing ritual.  He felt the need to sacrifice two children to the goddess Kali in order to receive divine protection.  He instructed Tan and Hoe to bring children to him which they did.

The first was 9-year-old Agnes Ng who was last seen at a religious class in the Roman Catholic Church of the Risen Christ in Toa Payoh.  She was lured into the flat by Hoe, sexually assaulted by Adrian and smothered with a pillow before her blood was drawn and drunk by the trio.  More blood was splashed on the portrait of the goddess Kali.  Her head was then held in a pail of water until she drowned and to make sure that she was dead, Adrian electrocuted her.  Her body was then stuffed into a bag and left in the lift lobby of an adjacent block of flats.

The second victim was a ten-year-old Malay boy called Ghazali bin Marzuki.  Hoe saw him playing in a playground in Clementi and told him she needed his help and he went with her in a cab to Adrian's flat.  But Ghazali was a more hardy child and the sedatives did not work that well on him.  Seeing that he was going to give some trouble, Adrian attempted to tie him up but he was roused from his sedative-induced sleep and he put up a struggle.  Adrian and the two women rained blows on him and knocked him out.  They then drew his blood to perform rituals, after which, as they did to Agnes, they proceeded to hold Ghazali's head in a pail of water to drown him.  Again, the boy proved resilient.  He struggled, threw up and at one stage, he even defecated which made it necessary for them to clean up the flat.  But that was not all.  Ghazali's nose bled profusely and there were pools of blood in the flat.  Adrian gave instructions to Tan to clean up the flat while he and Hoe dragged the body down the stairs and left it under a tree.  There was a trail of blood that led all the way to Adrian's flat.  Adrian and Hoe cleaned up as much as they could but they were not totally successful.  It was this blood trail that led the police to the flat and to the subsequent arrest and conviction of all three of them.

I don't want to think how the parents of these children must have felt when they read the account of what happened.  If this had happened in Norway, Adrian and his accomplices would have long been released from prison.  But thank God Singapore is not one bit like Norway.  All three of them were tried, convicted and sentenced to death.  After the conclusion of the legal process and the dismissal of their appeals, they were hanged on 25 November 1988.

Thank God for the death penalty.  Perhaps that is also the reason why that was the only serial killing in Singapore.  He who kills shall swing by the neck while the entire nation cheers.  Serial murderers who feel stifled in Singapore are more than welcome to go to Norway where they can be sure of being received with tolerance and understanding.

Why society defends paedophiles

Screen capture from Stomp: Click here (Copyright: Straits Times)

It's funny how many Singaporeans I have met who seem to defend the paedophiles and put the blame on an underage girl who must have been exploited and groomed to be a prostitute.  The truth is although I blame the paedophiles absolutely, I became a little uncertain when I saw the girl's photos.  She does not look underage at all.  She could easily pass off as a woman in her early 20s.  I also saw the website advertisement for prostitutes.  They specified that their prostitutes were 18 and above.  I began to dither and I felt I should be slow to blame the men.  Now, if a man wants a prostitute and he goes to the website, how on earth is he to know that the girl is above 18 apart from seeing what the ad says?  He can't be faulted for believing the ad, can he?  It was then that I began to feel some sympathy for these men.  Perhaps they aren't paedophiles after all.  They thought the girl was 20 or whatever the age was and although I can go on my moral high horse and say they shouldn't pay for sex in the first place, that's being judgmental.  The fact is they DIDN'T know the girl was underage and it's no different from a man going to a 30 year old prostitute.  I may not like it but that's neither here nor there.  There's no intention on the part of the men to have sex with an underage girl and they committed no crime.

That was what I thought until I had the good fortune of talking to a friend (I'm not sure if he would like his name to be mentioned, so I'll err on the side of caution and exclude his name for the time being).  He was a police officer in the US and he has considerable experience in tracking down and arresting paedophiles.  He told me something that changed my perspective altogether.  Whatever trickle of sympathy I had for the men has now evaporated.  They should be dealt with according to the full extent of the law if Singapore wants to avoid being seen as a country that is ambivalent about the problem of paedophile crimes.

You see, most of us inexperienced lay people know nothing about the world of prostitution.  We think it's highly probable that these men were mistaken about the age of the girl.  But that's not the situation in real life.  In the world of prostitutes and pimps, an underage girl fetches a better price.  The newspapers have disclosed that these men paid in the region of S$500.00 for sex with the underage girl.  When I first read that, I thought that must have been the going rate for a prostitute but I was wrong!  My friend tells me that the average prostitute charges in the region of S$50.00 in Singapore.  What these men paid was 10 times the fee that one normally pays for a prostitute.

I know nothing about the world of prostitutes but I'm familiar with bicycles.  Supposing I want to buy an entry level Trek mountainbike (with low end parts) and I'm asked to pay S$6,000.00.  I'd hit the roof.  That's because for that amount of money, I should be getting a high-end bike.  I shouldn't pay more than S$600.00.

Clients of prostitutes are no different.  They know how much to pay for an average adult prostitute.  There's no way these men could have got the underage prostitute for S$50.00, just as I can't possibly expect to buy a Merlin bike for S$600.00.

If these men had paid for the services of the underage prostitute, there is no way they can feign ignorance of her age.  They had paid ten times the usual fee a prostitute charges and the extra they had paid for is nothing less than the tender age of the victim which is obviously looked upon as a premium by these filthy perverted paedophiles.  Anyone who can do this must be a dangerous social predator who should be locked up for decades.

I hope that people who know nothing about prostitutes and what they charge for their services would stop excusing these vile paedophiles and begin to clamour for their just deserts.

Edit: 2:00pm 25 April 2012: Just as this blog post was still hot off the press, one of my friends informed me that she searched a few social escort sites and discovered that the fees for 20-year-olds were no different from those for the "mature" women (above 30).  They all commanded the same fee (if not more) as what the 17-year-old was charging.  Although I must admit that I find the men in this affair despicable and vile, I have to admit that perhaps some of them really thought the girl was above 18 and if that is so, they should be viewed perhaps with less frowning.  We should bear in mind of course that if it hadn't been commercial sex, it wouldn't even have been a crime because in Singapore, the age of consent is 16.  I think I'm out of my depths in the world of prostitution so I shan't make any more comments about prostitutes and their clients and I'll just focus my attention on food, biking and religion.

Crime in low-crime Singapore

This pic was taken at 9:07 this morning.  I'll leave it to your imagination what could possibly have happened.  There were shards and fragments of green-tinted glass strewn all over the road just below the smashed windscreen.

This is a reminder to all of us not to leave our belongings in the car.  It's so easy for the thief to smash the windscreen to steal whatever is left in the car.