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.

Why nudity made Malaysia go berserk

In my last post which I wrote when I was still on holiday and had to be rather brief, I talked about the adverse publicity that naturism had been getting lately in the Malaysian press after a group of naturists were arrested more than two months after they went nude on a deserted beach in a remote part of Penang. A video of the event which was uploaded on vimeo.com went viral and it caught the attention of the Penang Chief Minister and that led to an unnecessarily hyped up outcry in the Muslim majority country. Incidents of people going nude on Malaysian beaches are not uncommon as the Chief Minister himself has said but there was an obvious political reason why the Penang incident was blown out of proportion. See this for other incidents of nudity in Malaysia.

People in Malaysia and presumably other parts of Asia are usually in the dark about who a naturist (or nudist) is and what it is he does at a naturist gathering. Too often, the public associates nudity with sex and the first thing that springs to mind when they are confronted with a naturist incident is to assume that some outrageously debauched orgy is going on among the participants. That was precisely the kind of reception I got when I told my friends I had been to a naturist gathering in Taiwan last year. When I told them that I took a lot of photos and my wife was quite amused by some of the photos, they thought I had gone mad. One of them asked me if my wife would consider a divorce.

It took me a long time before I understood what really went on in the minds of non-naturists. It's easy for those of us who are naturists to dismiss non-naturists as sex-crazed or having an obsession with sex to such an extent that they associated the human body with it but the fact is there are so many more non-naturists in the world and it's not helpful to begin an explanation of what naturism means by insulting those who are not naturists.

A naturist is simply a person who does not accept the ridiculous notion that there is a part of the God-created or nature-formed human body (depending on your religious persuasion or an absence of it) that is obscene, indecent and so vile and filthy that it has to be covered up. A naturist refuses to accept the worldview that the human body is so base and has such a corrupting influence that anyone looking at it uncovered might be lured to lead a life of debauchery and licentiousness. A naturist believes that the human body is wholesome and decent and worthy of our respect and full acceptance. A naturist accepts and respects the human body in all its colours, imperfections, defects and whatever shortcomings that flesh is heir to.

When someone says that he or she won't go to a nudist beach unless he has gone to the gym for months and has lost 10 kg or so, you know he's not a naturist. He's viewing the body in the light of pornographic culture and that has nothing to do with naturism. It's very hard to explain to non-naturists that a naturist does not look at the body the way viewers of porn do and even after I have explained many times to them, they still revert to thinking of nudity the pornographic way.

Some Singaporeans remind me of the A*Star scholar who walked down crowded Holland Village one evening stark naked with her Swiss boyfriend and insist that they were naturists. But they were probably not naturists. They were more likely people who wanted to shock the public into some sort of reaction. Most naturists are not extreme nudist activists who will insist on having their space in society to go naked. Most of us just have a healthy respect for the human body but we are perfectly aware of societal norms and we conform to them strictly. A naturist is usually extremely tolerant and considerate and he will not do anything offensive to the rest of society. Attention seeking people who expose their nakedness in public for its shock factor are not naturists. Neither are flashers who seek the perverted thrill of being seen by women in dark corners on lonely streets. These are by no means naturists.

Because naturism is so uncompromisingly non-sexual, true naturist gatherings are usually very strict about the conduct of naturists in the resort. Naturists do not stare at one another and any hint of sexuality is a no-no. If for some reason a person appears to be in a state of arousal, he will immediately cover himself with a towel. That's basic etiquette in naturism. Many naturists bring their entire families including young children to a nudist place and I cannot overemphasize the fact that naturism is a family-friendly lifestyle that has nothing to do with sex.

But we are all individuals and of course not all naturists are the same. We only have one thing in common - our respect for the human body (with all its defects) and because of that, we do not view the body as obscene or vile which the rest of the world does.

I knew about the Penang Nude Games but I didn't want to go for a few personal reasons. Although the Games would be held on a remote beach, I was still afraid of being pounced upon by the police and I knew I would be so anxious that even if I did go I would probably not have had a good time. The other thing is my personal taste. I don't like organised games at a nudist place. If I do go to a nudist beach or resort, I would rather be left alone to tan in the sun, swim on my own and read a book without having to participate in fixed games.

In May, at around the time the Penang Nude Games were held, I went on my own to a naturist resort (which I subsequently discovered was rated by a travel magazine to be the 8th best in the world). I was very fortunate indeed for I had, until my final night, the whole resort to myself. I had a very good time lazing under the sun, swimming and reading at the large resort with nobody in sight except for the staff of the resort. Admittedly, some people who are more gregarious may not like such a quiet holiday and like I've said, we naturists are no different from other individuals in that we have our different personal tastes.

 

Luxuriating by the pool where I had the whole resort to myself.

Notice the dove just a few feet above me? Where else can one

take a pic of such sublime serenity?

The press and more specifically the comments of individuals online have been rather scathing of the activities carried out by the participants of the Penang Nude Games which included crab walks and relay races but the one activity that many would single out with some disapproval is the game in which a person would crawl over a few people lying facing upwards on the sand. Personally, I would be very uncomfortable with such a game but that's just me. Non-naturists would immediately give a sexual interpretation to the game but it is very obvious to me that the naturists who took part in that game did not view it in that way at all. If you had seen the video, you would have noticed that they were more concerned about having to bear the weight of the person crawling on them and some of them could be seen pushing the person on top so that he or she might move over to the other side more speedily. There was not the slightest trace of impropriety, sexual or otherwise, in the entire video.

Two weeks ago, when I was tanning myself on a nudist beach in Croatia, I learnt about the uproar in Malaysia over the Penang Nude Games incident. I really believe the furore has a lot to do with a total misunderstanding by Malaysians of what naturism really means. Every online article I read had some negativity towards the concept of naturism.

The participants of the Penang Nude Games clearly had no intention of offending or insulting the modesty of anyone. They chose such a remote and inaccessible part of Penang that absolutely nobody knew about the incident until the public saw the video more than 2 months after the event.

Ironically, the participants of the Penang Nude Games were in all likelihood the only people who did not engage in any sexual activity during their stay on the beach. I know some of the participants and I really can vouch for them. It's the non-naturists who if they were to stay overnight on such a beach would probably indulge in some sex. I wonder if the more fanatical Muslims in Malaysia might have been placated if they had understood the real meaning of naturism and were satisfied that the participants did not do any sex, which presumably is what Islam forbids and what the general public was upset about.

 

Acceptance of nudism really depends on a proper understanding of it.
Near this beach which is ranked the world's 3rd best nudist beach, there
is a beautiful bay and many boats and canoes have to come close to the
beach to get to the bay.  Those who object to nudism and cannot bear the
sight of the human body will probably have to give a trip to the bay a miss.
But as it happens, Europeans are generally not uptight about nudity and
there is a healthy harmony between naturists and non-naturists as they
meet at the shoreline that divides the "FKK strand" from the clothed world.

It really boils down to the people's understanding of naturism. A society that understands naturism is usually quite accepting of it. Last year, when I was with the Taiwan Naturist Association, we rose early to go to a beach by the Pacific Ocean to view the sunrise. A beach ranger from the Police Department came on his buggy and spoke to the President of the Association. Anyone would have thought we would all be taken to the police station for being naked on a public beach if we had been in Penang. But all the policeman wanted was for us to move further up the beach because there was a family not far from us on the same beach. We moved about a hundred metres further up the beach. What happened after that really surprised me. Someone asked the policeman to help take photos of us and he readily obliged us. He even allowed us to pose on his buggy for photos. I have quite a few photos of me sitting au naturel on the policeman's beach buggy but since we naturists are considerate people who do not wish to offend the general public, I won't post the photos here. As you can see, all the photos that I post here are the sort that even the Ayatollah can have no objection.

 By the Pacific Ocean and posing with the policeman's red buggy.

The policeman was the photographer who snapped this pic.

It's sad that Malaysians lack a proper understanding of naturism and because of this misunderstanding the participants of the Penang Nude Games were treated like criminals. If only the authorities in Malaysia knew how spotlessly pure and decent their conduct and intention were on the beach, there would have been no uproar in the first place.

Nude on the beach? Two different results.

I'm currently in Croatia and am now so richly tanned by the hot summer sun as I basked on the beaches by the Adriatic Sea that most of my friends probably won't be able to recognise me when I'm home. But my tan isn't the sort you see with tan lines delineating where my swimming trunks had been.  You see, I have been tanning myself on a lovely nudist beach in Croatia that is ranked Number 3 among the top nudist beaches in the whole world.

The island on which the nudist beach is located

Entrance to the nudist beach

When I checked my Facebook wall a few days ago, I saw a huge furore in Malaysia over a group of people who went nude on a deserted beach in Penang. The Malaysian police which is generally known to do nothing when you report a real crime such as a burglary, snatch theft or even a robbery, suddenly sprang into uncharacteristic action. As my Facebook friend commented, his neighbour had his house burgled recently and the police said there was nothing they could do. But when a small group of people went naked on a deserted and inaccessible part of Penang in some remote bay, the police gathered its forensic experts and obtained fingerprints and DNA samples.

You may ask why the Malaysian police is treating such an inconsequential act as if it were a serious crime. After all, the Malaysian police is known to do next to nothing when real crimes are reported. A recent report I read online seems to suggest that people in repressive countries such as Pakistan and some Arab states are by far the largest viewers of internet pornography and they too take the cake when it comes to sexual perversion or questionable sexual practices such as bestiality. Whether it's because of the oppression that makes them have a heightened sensitivity to sex is something I am not competent to say but the countries whose people are obsessed with sex and pornography are also the countries where the strongest exception is taken to nudity and naturism.

Naturism or nudism (both terms can be used interchangeably) is often wrongly looked upon by Asians as sexual debauchery. What most Asians don't understand is naturists usually go to nudist beaches with their families. We bring our children along. That's because there is nothing sexual about nudism. As I have said elsewhere in my blog, I'm a naturist for only one reason. I find it totally unacceptable that any part of my God-created or nature-formed body (depending on your religious persuasion or the lack of it) should be looked upon as indecent, obscene or so inappropriate that it has to be covered up. But I do observe social convention and more importantly, the law of the land and will not go naked in public not just because the law prohibits it but because I don't want to offend my fellow men.

What's the difference between me and the people caught in the controversy in Penang? They were nude on a beach and so was I. I'll be going home with a lovely tan and a wonderful experience while they are in the soup. It's a small and trivial matter but the Penang authorities have politicized it. If only the Penang naturists had come to Croatia or anywhere else in Europe where people generally have a more well-adjusted view of the human body and do not treat it as a sex object which, I imagine, is what a sex-crazed, pornography addict would do.


EDITOR: I should add that in May this year (the same month that the Penang event was held and by the way, the correct name for the Penang event is the Penang International Nude Games Extravaganza 2014), I was at a naturist resort abroad which I have since discovered is the world's 8th best naturist resort. Again, I came home with a wonderful tan and lots of memorable photos which I can share with friends and relatives. Just imagine, in the space of just a few months, I've been to the 8th world's best naturist resort and the 3rd world's best nudist beach and I'm none the worse for it. I am saying all this in the hope that someone will knock some sense into the heads of the Malaysian police. There are lots of nudist beaches and resorts all over the world and what the naturists did in Penang was really nothing at all and it can in no way hurt your country. On the contrary, it's good for tourism. Instead of harassing the participants of the Nude Games, the Malaysian police should channel their energy into tackling the many major unsolved crimes that the police have been too lazy to look into. Don't go after the nudists in the hope that the public may overlook your legendary incompetence.

THE BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

THE BEAST

Anyone who can find it in his or her heart to make fun of someone else's poverty, even if it's a private joke among friends, is most certainly a beast. There can be no quibble about that. I don't think there is any right-thinking Singaporean (unless he's a beast himself) who will deny the universally accepted fact that Jesslyn Tan is a beast.

Then who is the beauty? We all agree the victim of the beast is a wonderful, industrious and honest worker but there is another person in this whole sad episode who emerges as beautiful and virtuous. She is beautiful physically although not in the beauty pageant kind of way which is really all hype, dross and fakery where models starve themselves almost to death just to look sylph-like. But for those of us who know her, what's truly beautiful is her sincerity and kindness.

I was a little annoyed when I read in one of the alternative news media something about Indranee Rajah. This is what it says:

This after Indranee Rajah, a PAP MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, opportunistically wrote on Facebook that we must support the man wearing a holey t-shirt who was made fun of by former Miss Singapore Universe finalist, Jesslyn Tan.

Granted, this article is intended to be facetious and humorous but I've seen elsewhere the comments of people about what Indranee has done in support of the victim of Jesslyn Tan and many of them aren't at all complimentary.

Indranee spoke up for the victim. She explains that he is an honest worker and she gave the reason why his t-shirt had a hole in it, which was the subject of Jesslyn Tan's cruel insult. It's a good thing for someone like Indranee to go out of her way to defend a man who lives in her constituency. Anyone can post in his blog in support of the man but the impact won't be great. What Indranee has done is courageous and highly laudable.

I understand what many people think. Of course there are a lot of opportunistic people in any government and Singapore is no exception. Like most people, I too have my doubts about the sincerity of some people in government. But Indranee is different. I happen to know her personally as my former classmate in uni and I know how sincere she is. I know that when she spoke up for Jesslyn Tan's victim, her motives were pure and perfectly selfless and she did it out of a desire to support someone in her constituency. Nobody I know who knows Indranee personally will ever imagine that she was opportunistic in what she did.

I was initially reluctant to write this post. I'm happier talking about the errors of our English language "experts" as I have done in countless posts on this blog (and if you are interested in looking at a list of them you may click here). But then I thought how terrible it must be for Indranee to have her motives questioned not just in this facetious article but by many Singaporeans who do not know her personally but judge her unfairly. I continued to lie in bed on this hot Sunday afternoon nursing a fever (it's my tonsillitis again) and I thought to myself how horrible our society would be if every good and sincere MP says nothing in support of victims just because they don't want to be accused of being opportunistic. It does take a great deal of courage to speak up for some victim if you are in government because the default reaction of netizens is to assume that you are just being opportunistic.

I hope to see more such public support from Indranee and other MPs. Those of us who know Indranee or have met her even fleetingly will not doubt her sincerity and those who do not know her at all should be more charitable in their blind judgment. Let's not excoriate the beauty with the beast.

Yet Another Boo-boo by the Straits Times

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?

IMH and Acupuncture.

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.

City Harvest on the English Language

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.

Hurricane Sandy

These are photos of New York that I found on the internet taken by intrepid photographers.  It's a huge disaster.

Below is a doctored pic.  It looks better than the real pics but it's a fake.

To cut or not to cut

A German court has ruled that circumcision of young boys amounted to bodily harm.  This has prompted Germany's Medical Association to tell doctors not to perform circumcisions.


Here's what the BBC says:

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18807040

Ignoring Russell Crowe's impetuous comments about circumcision for the moment, surely a surgery that is needless and irreversible should not be done on a child who is unable to consent to it legally?  There are medical conditions that require circumcision but we are not talking about those.   What about female circumcision which is commonly done in some parts of Africa?  Everyone agrees female circumcision is wrong and barbaric.  We say it's purely cultural and not religious but who are we to say that the traditional beliefs and practices of people in some parts of Africa are merely cultural and not religious?  Would we think differently if one of the major religions adopted female circumcision as a requirement?  Why does a practice suddenly become right when it's religious?

But religion is a touchy subject.  For the moment, two major religions adopt circumcision of young boys as its religious prerequisite.  Was the German court wrong to rule against religious practices?

Let's bust that myth No. 1 - Kuwait's shark tank collapse

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.

It's fatal if you don't read the footnotes!!!

I was cycling late this afternoon when something caught my eye and I knew I just had to turn back.  I had seen the name "Pentecostal" on top of a building.  There were a lot of men wearing ties placing notices outside the church telling motorists not to park by the roadside.  I took a pic of the church from across the road.  I must confess I felt a little uneasy and I did look at the road beneath my feet to see if there might be some slithering creature not far from me.

This is the pic I took:

The reason why I took the pic of the building that says "Pentecostal Church of Singapore" and the reason for my apprehension can be explained by merely referring the reader to this link on ABC News:

Click here


Here's an excerpt from the link:

The report goes on to say: "Snake-handlers point to scripture as evidence that God calls them to engage in such a practice to show their faith in him. Mark 16: 17-18 reads, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

But this is one of those sections in the Bible that are disputed and today, even the most evangelical scholars believe that they shouldn't be a part of the original Bible.  Just look at any modern translation of the Bible and you will see a footnote that says of a large chunk of the end of St Mark's Gospel that includes those verses quoted by the snake handlers that "older and more reliable manuscripts do not contain these verses".

The Bible can be fatal if you believe it wholeheartedly and you don't read the footnotes.

Anyway, I wanted to ask the church attendants what they thought of Pentecostal pastor Mark Wolford but I didn't have the courage to ask anyone in the church.  I wouldn't dare trifle with them.  There may be no rattlesnakes in Singapore but if any one of them gets mad at me, he might just throw a King Cobra at me and I have too little faith to claim the promise in Mark 16:17-18.  Besides, I have read the footnotes!

The Fatal Junction

I recently took my bike out for a spin late one night.  As I approached at about 3am the road junction where a Ferrari driver smashed into a taxi killing himself, the taxi driver and his passenger, I saw blinking lights by the roadside.  This was also the same junction where another non-fatal accident happened just last week (about a week after the fatal Ferrari accident).

The blinking lights came from two police officers, a policeman and a policewoman.  They were very friendly and pleasant.  They told me they were on an operation to arrest motorists who beat the red lights.  As I removed my rucksack to take my phone-camera out, they even advised me to bring my bike onto the kerb.  Naturally, they didn't want a third accident at this junction and right in front of them too.

Police officers in Singapore are a decent lot.  Racist policemen who beat up blacks and only get booked when the video of the beating goes viral are non-existent here.   When I was a student, I even got a ride on a police patrol car out of the Hall of Residence in my university to the bus stop some distance away.  That incident emboldened me and the next day after having had breakfast, I saw from the dining hall of my university hostel a patrol car moving slowly along the road in the direction of the bus stop I wanted to get to.  Accustomed to the incredible friendliness of police officers and without a thought, I clutched my bag and ran after it.  I didn't want to have to walk the long stretch to the bus stop.  The policeman stopped his car immediately, thinking no doubt that a crime had been committed and I was running to them for assistance.  It's not surprising that I got an earful from them when they heard with disbelief that all I wanted was a ride in their patrol car.  That was the only occasion when they were less polite.  But even then, they were not rude.  They were probably too shocked to be rude.  They pointed out to me that it was a patrol car they were driving and not a private car.   After apologizing to them, I even had the cheek to ask if they could still give me a ride but of course they refused and drove off.

But that was a long time ago and now I'm older and wiser.  I asked these police officers if I could take pics for my blog before doing so.  I was tempted to ask them to take a pic of me on my bike but I felt that was going too far and even a camwhore must know his limits. I am indeed older and wiser.

Traffic Incident - car burst into flames?

At about 6:30pm, I saw a strange scene: firemen were dousing a small car in the middle of a road with water from a large hose connected to a fire engine and there were police officers around.  Here is where the incident happened (see the green arrow):

Map: Thanks to my iPhone GPS and courtesy of google plus's fantastic geo-location. The green arrow is where I took the first two pics from but for the last pic, I moved closer to Queen Street.

I can only surmise that the small car must have caught fire and the fire engine came just in time.  Fortuitous?  No, this is Singapore, remember?