Only some Scandinavian countries and NZ beat us. Singapore trumps all other Asian and American countries. Denmark is No. 1. Canada No. 10 and Germany is No. 12. UK occupies No. 14. Japan is 15th and the US 17th. Disgraceful Malaysia occupies the same place as Samoa at No. 50. Indonesia is of course worse - it's No. 107. North Korea and Somalia are at the bottom, both sharing the 174th place.
Remember how embarrassing it was for the Straits Times when it reported that Kim Jong Un fed his uncle live to 200 wild dogs? If you are interested in what the BBC had to say about the Straits Times with regard to that reporting, please click here.
I just saw in today's Straits Times on page C5 of Life an obituary of Claudio Abbado. The music world has been in deep mourning since his death on 20 January, just two days ago. The Straits Times published today a tribute to him but guess what? They got the wrong photograph of him. Or rather, they got a photograph of another musician.
Here's a photo I've just taken from the Straits Times:
When I first saw the photo, I almost fell off my chair. How could the editors of the Straits Times be so wrong? Isn't that a pic of the famous Italian pianist Pollini? What? Has Pollini died too?
I then did a search on google and no, Pollini is alive and well and thank God for that. It was the Straits Times that made an unpardonable mistake. And I think I know the reason for Straits Times' blunder. Whoever did the reporting or the editing of this obituary obviously didn't know Abbado from Adam. Any musician in black tie is immediately taken for Abbado. I wanted to trace the source of the photo that the Straits Times got wrong and I did a google image search for "Pollini and Abbado" and I think I have the answer. The Straits Times probably took the photo that was published in AFP and other major international newspapers which spoke about Abbado's passing two days ago. For example, see this article published in Khaleej Times on 20 January 2014 which contains this photo:
This is my guess of what happened. That's obviously the photo that Straits Times made use of. In that photo, Pollini was standing next to Abbado and the Straits Times editor wanted to trim it to fit the space in his column but he had no notion what Abbado looked like and had a 50% chance of getting it right but alas, luck was not on his side and he got it wrong. How anybody can fail to see that that was not the image of Abbado is something I can't understand. Surely someone in the Straits Times must know at least what Abbado looked like? Isn't the Life section of the Straits Times dedicated to the arts and music? I cannot believe anyone with the smallest love for music can possibly not know what Claudio Abbado looked like.
Well, that's the Straits Times for you. I have a lot to say about the Straits Times and English grammar but I'll save that for another day. Right now, as the whole world mourns the passing of the great Claudio Abbado, I'm annoyed that the Straits Times can't even get the picture of such a legendary conductor right. Why then did it bother to publish an obituary in the first place?
I read with dismay and shock that the Institute of Mental Health is now introducing acupuncture in its hospital. This is what asiaone.com reports: "The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has become the first health-care provider here to start using acupuncture to help addicts break their drug, drink or gambling habits." For more, please read this.
This is a first that no reputable hospital should be proud of. Medical doctors, if they are to be true to their honourable calling, must always practise only evidence-based medicine. Anything more than that would not be in line with the clear mandate doctors have to heal their patients. When I see a doctor, I would be shortchanged if he performs faith-healing on me. Even if he does not force it down my throat but politely offers faith healing as one of the "methods" of treatment to me when I go to his clinic or hospital, that would be, in my opinion, an outrageous abuse of his position as a legally recognised medical practitioner. It is not too much for a patient to expect a registered medical practitioner to offer only evidence-based treatment recognised by his peers and validated in proper peer-reviewed journals. Before IMH embarks on any treatment programme, it is duty bound to satisfy itself and the public that whatever programme it offers is backed by evidence and properly controlled studies and is duly referenced in peer-reviewed journals. Let us see what evidence IMH has in starting this new acupuncture programme. How effective is acupuncture? I have personally gone through a huge amount of data on this question and from what I can gather, there has been not a single study that shows that acupuncture is efficacious. No, not one. Any study that seems to suggest even remotely that it has some efficacy is alway immediately shot down by experts in the area who point out that the study is flawed or there is no real control provided. Almost all studies show there is absolutely zero effect in the use of acupuncture. Of the rare studies that suggest its mild efficacy, reviews of these studies always indicate some severe flaws in the studies and any perceived efficacy is due wholly and indisputably to placebo effect. In many of the studies that proponents of acupuncture will draw your attention to excitedly, the sample size is too small for any significant conclusion in favour of acupuncture to be made. It is also significant that the "success" of acupuncture is always in ailments that cannot be properly confirmed such as pain and the placebo effect is usually shown to be at play here. That it is merely placebo effect is frequently confirmed when a control group is subjected to a needle prick too but they are pricked at the "wrong" point of the body and yet this control group claims to have benefitted from the procedure. As far as science goes, it is correct to say that acupuncture has no advantage whatsoever apart from being a placebo. That is a scientific statement of fact and I defy IMH to dispute it with evidence. Given that acupuncture has zero advantage to the patient, can IMH argue that as long as there is no harm, it's all right to administer the procedure? Of course not. A hospital is not a church. You can show statistics as I have shown in the past (click here) that prayers don't work but churches will continue to pray. But a hospital is different. It's obliged to do only that which can be of medical benefit to the patients. But it's not only that. Prayers are harmless even if they don't work but the same can't be said of acupuncture. There are serious risk factors. The latest study of adverse events related to acupuncture concludes that "although serious AEs associated with acupuncture are rare, acupuncture practice is not risk-free." (See Xu, Shifen, et al. (2013). "Adverse Events of Acupuncture: A Systematic Review of Case Reports"Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2013 Infection was the most common adverse event. You may click here to read the entire paper. Bear in mind that the paper is not addressing the question of whether acupuncture works. The fact that acupuncture does not work is well documented in countless other papers and studies. This paper only deals with the adverse effect of acupuncture, not its non-existent benefits.
There are many articles that you can find from respectable journals that attest to the fact that acupuncture does not work. In fact there are at least a few hundred times more articles about the inefficacy of acupuncture than there are of the inefficacy of prayer and so technically, if IMH were to introduce prayer into its list of treatments, it would not be so outrageously wrong as if it were to introduce acupuncture. If you are interested in reading a sample of the many articles against acupuncture as a treatment for anything at all, please click on this link. I think I have made my point clear. Acupuncture is inefficacious and not beneficial to the patient except as a placebo. But that's not all. It also exposes the patient to unnecessary risks of adverse effects. This is what the news report says: "The Straits Times understands that no major scientific studies have been published on using acupuncture for behavioural addictions but the ancient method has developed in recent years outside of China as part of a combined approach to curb such disorders." The reader is left wondering why then does IMH introduce acupuncture when no study has been done to show its efficacy on behavioural addictions and there are known adverse events?
If you read on further in the newspaper, we are told this which I quote from asiaone.com:
Acupuncture can enhance the standard mode of treatment, said Associate Professor Wong Kim Eng, clinical director of IMH's National Addictions Management Service, which runs the new acupuncture clinic. It can help to relieve withdrawal symptoms, pain and cravings, as well as anxiety, he added, noting: "So far, there is no single medication that can cure addiction, or a perfect treatment programme. As an Asian society, we sought to borrow some age-old wisdom to improve treatment for our patients."
Is it right for the clinical director of IMH's National Addictions Management Service to say that acupuncture "can help to relieve withdrawal symptoms, pain and cravings, as well as anxiety"? What I would like to know is on what basis is he making such a claim? If a patient were to undergo such a treatment and subsequently takes legal action against IMH for subjecting him to a treatment that is not backed by evidence and proper medical opinion, what defence can IMH rely upon to show that it has acted in the best possible manner as a registered medical hospital that delivers health care services using evidence-based treatments?
The clinical director of IMH's National Addictions Management Service continues to say in that newspaper article that we are an Asian society and so they "sought to borrow some age-old wisdom". Should we engage tangkees to perform religious rites on the patients? After all, we are an Asian society and if we are at liberty to dish out treatment even when there is no study or evidence for it, what is so wrong with having something that is perfectly consistent with our culture as an Asian society?
What I'm concerned about is the newspaper further reports that this initiative "is backed by the Ministry of Health". Is it right for the Ministry of Health to back a treatment that is totally unsupported by evidence or any form of study? Let's not forget that acupuncture has been shown not to have any desirable effect (except as a placebo) on a whole host of ailments that it is traditionally reputed to treat. If acupuncture has been shown not to work in ailments that it is traditionally supposed to treat, what makes IMH think that it will work in something totally new and untested, such as behavioural addiction?
Singapore is a well-known medical hub for responsible and efficient health care services. People in the surrounding countries would fly to Singapore to seek treatment and they do that because they know they can trust the doctors in Singapore to practise responsible evidence-based medicine and they know we have great expertise in the various fields of medicine. But reputation can be lost very easily and going into treatments that are not backed by evidence is the surest way to ruin our good name. Acupuncture may be a part of our culture but so are the offering of prayers to the Goddess of Mercy and the rituals of tangkees or temple mediums. They may be a part of our rich cultural heritage but I sure would not want to see them practised in our hospitals.
I can't call him "Rev" because he's not been properly ordained. Kong Hee is a self-appointed leader of his own set-up which he calls the City Harvest Church. It won't be appropriate to call him Mr Kong Hee either because obviously, he would expect something more glorious. "King" is the best title for him. After all, there are many African tribesmen who insist on being called King because of their elevated position within their tribes. For this post, I'm not in the mood to argue whether King Kong is rightly prosecuted for criminal breach of trust and misappropriating church money. I'm not interested in discussing if he siphoned money from the church to help his wife Ho Sun realise her dream of becoming a Hollywood star. If you are interested in these boring matters, you may want to watch some of his wife's music videos and you can always search on youtube under "China Wine" and see her cavorting in revealing clothes as a geisha in a black men's bar.
King Kong has a way of attracting public attention. Recently, in a sermon in his church, he said to his extremely compliant flock that he heard God crying and telling him, "My son, Kong, thank you. Thank you for going through this. I need you to
go through this alone so that you and City Harvest Church can be the
man and the ministry I call it to be. I'm so sorry, but you need to go
through this by yourself to bring a change to your generation."
The video of this portion of his sermon went viral and it drew a barrage of angry comments from viewers. Most people were outraged because they perceived King Kong's words as a presumptuous claim that God apologised to him.
You would have thought the right thing to do was to lie low and let the storm of protests die a natural death as it usually does if you would but let the fury rage over your head while you remain totally silent. But no, that's not how King Kong and his merry men work for they, like God, move in a mysterious way. A spokesman from City Harvest Church's Corporate Communications Department immediately emailed the Christian Post and this is what he wrote:
"As anyone with a basic education in the English language ought to be
able to tell that the use of 'I'm so sorry' here is not in the context
of an apology, but a word of comfort, for example, 'I'm so sorry about
your mother's suffering,' or 'I'm so sorry you need to go through
chemotherapy.' "
Now, I'm not interested if King Kong's words were irreverent when applied to Almighty God or if they were sacrilegious or even blasphemous. These are deep matters for trained theologians to discuss in their tight collars. Neither am I going to comment on the appropriateness of the response by the spokesman for King Kong. As can be expected, his response triggered a tornado of negative comments from netizens. But as to whether such a comment is appropriate or offensively arrogant is something the reader can decide for himself.
What I'm going to talk about is the grammar. I have made it abundantly clear on a previous posting that I'm the last person on the planet who would point out another man's infraction of the rules of grammar. These things don't bother me in the least. But when someone purports to put on his papal hat and pontificate on what proper grammar should be or if he arrogates to himself the authority and right to put down other people on a point of grammar, it's only fair that he does the pontification or putting down (as the case may be) in flawless English.
Anyone with a basic education in the English language should know that the sentence made by King Kong's representative can only stand if either "as" or "that" in that sentence is deleted. Since the spokesman obviously hasn't the benefit of a basic education in English, I will make myself clearer. The sentence should either read "As anyone with a basic education in the English language ought to be
able to tell, [that] the use of..." or "[As] Anyone with a basic education in the English language ought to be
able to tell that the use of..."
What is interesting to me is this is an obvious case of City Harvest being hoist with its own petard. If the spokesman hadn't been so bitchy and had merely said "As anyone would know, the use of...", it is unlikely that he would have inserted "that" in the sentence, rendering it incorrect. But because he lacks the Christian virtues of gentleness and humility, he haughtily added that caustic remark without realising that he is not equipped to handle a sentence that is longer than what a five-year-old would normally be adept at constructing and hence the bloomer.
A self-appointed grammarian is very much like a self-appointed pastor. He must watch his step carefully.
For some reason that I cannot understand, most netizens seem to oppose the government in everything it does. A psychologist looking at this behaviour will probably understand it better but I'm not a psychologist. It may very well be that we humans naturally take the side of the underdog and the government of any country is never seen as the underdog.
Take the example of the SMRT bus drivers from China who participated in a strike recently. A few of them were prosecuted and some of them were repatriated. Going on a strike is illegal in Singapore. One may or may not agree with such a law. The same applies to all laws. Not everyone will agree with them. But laws are not laws only because there is a universal consensus among all citizens. And besides, these bus drivers are all foreigners from China. Personally, I like many of the laws in Singapore but I don't like some. It's the same with everyone and in every country. But my duty to obey the law is not restricted to only laws that I personally agree with.
These China workers came to Singapore for an obvious economic reason. They love it here. They are paid considerably more here. When their Malaysian counterparts are paid slightly more, they hit the roof. They forget they are given accommodation while Malaysian bus drivers are not. In their utter selfishness and egocentricity, they didn't factor in this additional cost. They take it upon themselves to break Singaporean law.
I laud the government for taking a firm stand against these miscreants. If the government hadn't done anything, it would mean that the laws in Singapore can only be broken by foreigners with impunity. That would be totally unacceptable. I have read what some Opposition parties have said regarding this matter and I think they should be ignored. They will take a stand against the government anyway. I don't care two straws about Hong Kong workers demonstrating in front of the Singaporean embassy. They can stop work in Hong Kong for a year and demonstrate day and night for all I care. Going on a strike and demonstrating are things up their street anywhere so they should go ahead and do what they are good at. This is a free world. Nobody forced these China workers to come to Singapore. If they don't like it here, they can get the hell out and a repatriation order does precisely that - it tells them how to get the hell out in the speediest possible way. They can't come here to work, enjoy the much higher remuneration, break the law here and hope to be let off because they are foreigners.
Singaporeans who take the side of these migrant workers should ask themselves what it is they really want. Are we cutting our nose to spite our face? I know there is a rabid, anti-government and anti-establishment culture among netizens everywhere in the world. Let's be rational. If we oppose a particular law, it's Parliament that should change it. To allow foreign workers who come here for monetary reasons to break the law with impunity is to show scant respect for the process of law in Singapore. The voice that decries our easy immigration policy and denounces foreign talent is the same voice that now says it's all right for foreigners to break our law. Even if we must be insanely anti-establishment and contrary, we should at least, be consistent.
Happy World Philosophy Day! Today is designated World Philosophy Day for 2012 by UNESCO's General Conference.
This is what UNESCO says:
In establishing World Philosophy Day in 2005, the General Conference highlighted the importance of this discipline, especially for young people, underlining that “philosophy is a discipline that encourages critical and independent thought and is capable of working towards a better understanding of the world and promoting tolerance and peace”.
I do sometimes try to give the local press a chance. I happened this evening to see a local newspaper article online and it was about Rajaratnam and I read it for I like the man. Who wouldn't like Rajaratnam? He was such a nice chap and quite an intellectual too. And I thought to myself that the local newspaper wouldn't say anything silly or leave out important information as they did when they wrote about an opposition leader (see my previous blog entry here) because Rajaratnam was after all a Government man.
It's fine to praise Rajaratnam. Like I've said, I like the man and anything said in his favour is agreeable to me. But this line didn't strike the right chord in me:
"Hailed as a leading Indian short story writer, he was published alongside the likes of Rabindranath Tagore and Mulk Raj Anand, whose short stories are today considered literary classics."
Rajaratnam was a great man but in the world of literature, he did not stand anywhere near Tagore or Anand. True, defenders of the Singapore Press Holdings will say that line came
from the preface of a collection of Rajaratnam's
short stories but no responsible newspaper will print that quotation without qualifying it somewhat. That sentence may very well be suitable in a book that compiles the works of Rajaratnam and whose readers are probably aware of the works of Tagore and Anand or they must at least know the kind of reputation both these writers enjoy in the literary world but when a newspaper quotes it without some qualification, it becomes highly misleading especially when most Singaporean readers know very little about who the great literary giants really are and they may very well be led into believing that Rajaratnam was as great a writer as Tagore and Anand.
It's obvious the local press hasn't quite made it yet. I have no doubt the day will come when I will pick up the local papers and read them as I would real newspapers but alas, that day hasn't come yet.
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.
[For the background to this post and some information on what news item the whole of Singapore is abuzz with at the moment, please see my post yesterday by clicking this.]
There is a vicious rumour making its rounds on the internet at the moment that Ho Yeow Sun is going to divorce Kong Hee. I know enough of human nature to know that there isn't a grain of truth in the rumour. But of course you won't just take my word for it. So, let's get to the bottom of this.
What is the source of this rumour? If you do a search on google for "Kong Hee and Ho Sun", you get a pop-up that says "Kong Hee Sun Ho Divorce". And when you click on it, this is what you get:
The first link leads to a forum on Channel News Asia's website. But when you click it, all you see is this:
"Invalid Forum specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator".
The second link is to Hardwarezone which anyone familiar with the internet will tell you, is best ignored.
The third link is to the Huffington Post which leads you to this (sorry for the overlap - I used the screen shot on my MacBook rather inexpertly):
If you click "Read Whole Story" at the bottom, it just just leads to a page that talks about the charges against Kong Hee and other details which have already been splashed on the local newspapers. There is absolutely nothing about a divorce even though the word appears in orange on the title page. I suspect it's a technical glitch in the Huffington Post although I must admit this is the first time I have seen anything like it.
I searched further and I found what I think is the source of this rumour: Click here
Or rather, don't bother to click on it. It's so obviously false and untrue. No sources are given and a cursory glance at it is enough to tell you that it's unsubstantiated nonsense. I won't even give it any credence by publishing its screen shot here.
Now, that is probably the source of this rumour circulating on the internet and I hope I have quashed it.
It's funny that the Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean had to assure the public that the police action was against an individual and not against the church. From my observation in Christian circles, people are crying out for their pound of flesh from Kong Hee. Most Christians are stunned when details are given of the luxurious lifestyles of Kong Hee and Ho Yeow Sun. And their $28,000 a month house in Hollywood isn't the only thing luxurious they can boast of. Asia One Business traces the couple's amazing rise from a $127,000 HDB flat to a $9.3 million Sentosa Cove penthouse. Click here for story
I've been told by quite a few devout Christians that they are pleased to note that the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. But their greatest worry is Kong Hee might have connections in high places and his sentence would be very much reduced. Of course I assured them that the Singaporean courts were just and the correct punishment would be meted out if he was found guilty. I had to remind them that he hasn't yet been tried. But the fact that many Christians I know are clamouring for the maximum sentence even before the poor chap has been tried is an indication of how the general population feels about Kong Hee who will no doubt take the spot that TT Durai (of NKF fame) used to occupy.
Obviously, Teo Chee Hean did not have to assure Christians of the pure intentions of the police. If the court finds that a crime has been committed, the guilty party must be punished to the full extent of the law. And as most Christians will agree, if the guilty party happens to be a church pastor (who should have known better and who should have set a better example), our Christian conscience will demand that he be given the maximum possible punishment. Of course, as in all cases, Kong Hee will have among his parishioners his diehard supporters but from what I know, even within his church, there are many who are getting pretty disgruntled with what's been going on. They together with the larger Christian community and together with the rest of the citizenry are crying for blood. Yes, false rumours should be quashed but as for justice, not only must it be done, it must also be seen to be done.
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.
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?
Most of you would have received an email with this photo:
The photo is always followed by an explanation that the shark tank in Kuwait's Scientific Centre collapsed and sharks were all swimming on one floor of the centre. While it is true that Kuwait's Scientific Centre does have a shark tank, there has been no incident of the tank collapsing.
Here is another example of myths perpetuated on the internet. What really happened was a recent flooding in Toronto's Union Station and here is the photograph that was subsequently doctored by people with loads of time on their hands:
Click here to see many other examples of funny photoshopped pics that came about from the Union Station flooding.
Here are excellent reports of the flooding at Union Station: National Post and CBC
Well, obviously, flooding happens everywhere. The next time we in Singapore experience a heavy downpour and Orchard Road begins to flood, let's remember we're not alone in our troubles.
Time is limited and reading the papers does take up some time. But everyone has to read the papers to keep himself abreast of current news. All the major newspapers are available for free online. My main online newspaper is the BBC. It has the best coverage and gives the latest news fastest. I am signed on the best newspapers in twitter and I find the BBC gives more news and is a lot swifter in getting its tweets to me than CNN or NY Times. The local papers are of course good for local gossip, if one has the time.
In my earlier blog post (see the last paragraph of this post), I alluded to some serious shortcomings of the local press but I didn't give any details. In this post, I will give a proper account to justify what I have said of the local press.
I have written elsewhere on this blog about the serious language errors in the local papers such as the Straits Times (for an example, click here). I have on numerous occasions written to the Press about them but the local press is averse to publishing letters on its wrong use of words and other grammatical errors. They usually thank me for my letters and they inform me that they will alert the newsroom but they don't publish the letters. In many instances, I wrote to them only because the articles that contained grammatical errors were articles about the importance of good English. Surely if a journalist has the ruddy cheek to write about correct English usage and criticises the general public for its common errors, he must at least ensure that his article does not contain grammatical errors! But this is what Straits Times journalists have failed many times and despite the effort I put in to point out the errors, the Straits Times is only willing to "alert the newsroom" but not the rest of its readers.
Language matters are for another post. I have written extensively on them and I will write more in the future. I have saved all my letters and Straits Times' replies on my google plus and so it's easy to blog about them but they don't concern us here.
Language errors don't stop me from reading the newspapers. But inaccuracy and irresponsibility in reporting are far more serious lapses. And these are part of the failings of local newspapers. It is common to hear how lacking in independence the local press is. The opposition parties are always accusing the local press of being controlled by the government and most people do believe this is true but I'm not interested in politics and in what the government controls or doesn't control. I'm only interested in ensuring that the newspapers I spend time reading are accurate in their reporting and it doesn't bother me in the least if the agenda is political or religious or racial. I want full information and if you hold back information for whatever reason, you aren't responsible in your reporting and I'm not going to waste my time reading your articles, especially when I have free access to the world's best newspapers that don't hide information.
Let me give an example. I will pick a local news item and compare the reporting of it in the local papers with what appears in a foreign press. There will be less excuse for the local press since the news item is local in nature.
I first read about the death of JB Jeyaretnam (an opposition leader) in the Straits Times. They had a write-up on his life and upon reading it, I knew something was missing. I looked up the news online and the same chunk was strangely left out in the Channel News Asia article. Channel News Asia is the publisher of Today newspapers and it is produced by the same team. Here's the Channel News Asia article which is substantially the same as what appeared in the Straits Times (you may click on the image to enlarge it):
I have produced the article in full because I want to show you what's missing in it. Now you may want to see what the BBC has to say. I'll just post the screen shot below. The link to the article appears at the bottom.
What made me unhappy with the local newspapers is they totally left out the fact that the Privy Council ruled in Jeyaretnam's favour. The Law Lords in London made scathing remarks about the judgment of our local court. I remember what a foul mood the then Chief Justice was in for weeks after the Privy Council ruling. Shortly after, appeals to the Privy Council were discontinued. Surely this fact is worth mentioning in an article that announces the death of JB Jeyaretnam and makes direct reference to his 1986 conviction? Why should we have to read a foreign newspaper for such information when one would imagine that it should be readily available to local journalists?
My view is simple - if I want current and comprehensive news, I wouldn't look to the local papers. I don't blame the government for this. I don't believe the Ministry of Information is to be faulted. The government of Singapore is actually quite liberal and easy-going. It's the people of Singapore who have misplaced fears and they are the ones who exercise self-censorship. These people include journalists. I recall years ago a talk between Lee Kuan Yew and a group of young journalists. They told Mr Lee that the people of Singapore were generally afraid of voting the Opposition. When asked by Mr Lee, they admitted that they too were afraid if they were to vote in favour of the Opposition. I remember poor Mr Lee looking shocked and he mumbled in disbelief that these journalists had had a good university education. But that's precisely what I've observed and what the foreign press always misses. It's the people with their misplaced fears that give a false impression that a benign government is draconian.
I will say no more. Politics is not what I'm interested in and all I want to say is if you want responsible, fair and comprehensive reporting, go for the foreign press. There are many different newspapers to choose from and they are all freely available online. But if trash is your cup of tea, go for the Straits Times. A good example is this scandalous article complete with the filching of someone's photograph from her facebook account:
