By Alvin Phoon
For most, the Rony Tan issue is resolved. Apologies have been made, hands have been shaken and people have been humbled. However, what this issue has successfully accomplished is to further expose the perils of religion in a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious society. It has also, sadly, brought out the worst in Singaporeans, and displayed openly their lack of ability to participate in intellectual discourse.
For the record, I never called for an apology to be made. I called for Rony to think before he said anything at all. The difference is this: With regards to his comments, I am not upset per se. In fact, it amused me that a pastor would willingly subject himself to humiliation via such an open display of stupidity. And anytime any religious entity decides they want to be embarrassed, I’m all for it. What bothers me, immensely I might add, is how the issue has been completely exploited by the media, mainstream or alternative, by the people, for or against Christianity, to promote their own interests.
When news broke that the ISD called Rony up, the headline should have read “ISD Finally Participates In Crowd Pleasing Activity“. While my criticism of the mainstream media has been no less ambiguous than it has been scathing, I surprised even myself by wondering what exactly the Temasek Review’s intentions were vis-à-vis its article entitled “Pastor Rony Tan visited Phor Kar See temple today to apologize to head of Buddhist Federation Venerable Kwang Sheng“.
The inclusion of words of praise for Buddhism seemed to imply a slanted view. The subsequent text on not bearing wicked ideas against your enemy, which by the way is preached in possibly every mainstream religious text, further presents the Temasek Review’s stance. To be fair, however, they have been very respectful in the way they conduct their business, and is something I have the utmost respect for.
Extremists vs Opportunists
Moving on, I find myself in terribly distressed over the views of two specific groups of people. The first are the ones calling for his resignation and even prosecution. Has it come to that extent? Who are we to demand the imprisonment of anyone who speaks ill of anything?
I find this to be the direct consequence of government influence. When people began sticking gum on train doors and on lift buttons, instead of educating the population, the government banned it. As if it wasn’t important to them at all that we were taught why vandalism was bad. It is a notable trend. Anything they can’t handle, or they feel we can’t handle, they refuse to permit. Knuckle dusters, firecrackers, politically and religiously sensitive material, and even Playboy – all banned.
It should come as no surprise then that Singaporeans would try and get rid of that which they do not understand. Instead of seeing the need for civil discussions, intellectual debates and exchange of ideas, most Singaporeans jump straight into “apologise and arrest” mode. And it is precisely because the education system has not managed to cultivate in them an inquisitive mind. It has not managed to convince them that the acquisition of knowledge is far more important, and far more satisfying than the acquisition of say… fancy branded wallets and expensive jeans. Sexual and romantic conquest has jumped ahead of thirst for wisdom in our list of priorities, and it is this superficial culture, undertaken by most, that has led us to the state we’re in.
As for the second category, they are the ones who see this pastor’s faux pas as an opportunity to glorify their own religion; the ones who shamelessly promote their beliefs in an effort to trump someone else’s. I really cannot decide whether to consider them more benign than the first. I feel at this point of time, the need to clarify something. I am not preaching my religious belief. If anything, I’m preaching religious disbelief.
These people, these opportunists, don’t seem to realise how much their actions reveal of their personalities. I equate shredding the religion of Rony Tan, after he’s already been publically shamed, to kicking a man in the nuts after he’s been run over by his own runaway, brake-less car. Instead of proactively promoting inter-faith harmony by either lecturing Pastor Tan, or educating him about their own religion, these people refused to take a stand when the video was first released. Instead they preferred to sit down, watched as the chaos unfolded, fanned the increasingly raging flames at whim, and continued watching as the religion of another got crushed. Then they swooped down to salvage the remains. This hypocrisy disgusts me to no end.
“We want to co-exist. But see how much better my god is than yours?”
Bigots of different religions and persuasions squabble all the time. Normally I’m happy to sit back and watch because they make for good entertainment. However, in this case, threatening legal action against one party for making religiously insensitive comments is rash and will bear serious future consequences. Instead of being so adamant on imprisoning a man for mere words that were probably not even well thought out in the first place, why can’t we just take a step back, and move on with our lives? Pile on the humiliation if you must. But remember that the day Rony Tan goes to prison is the day religious tolerance and freedom of opinion ceases to exist.
___________________________________________________
Here is my arguement
- Those that ask for punishment to the full extend of law of Pastor Rony Tan are idiots.
- Note the 2 case recently.
– Christian Couple send seditious material to 3 Muslim . (Result – jail term)
– 3 boys setup facebook that insult indians . Result warning -
– Note the difference
– Pastor puts offensive video in Church website>> Netizens put video on youtube.
Let say we apply the law as it is written and charges are drawn, thus requiring arugment in open court.
If I am a smart defense Lawyer, I would argue that the “offense” is by the netizens who put the video on youtube, as the intended audience for youtube is more likely non-christian compared to church website which is more than likely visited by chrisitans . (AND demand that the government “punish” the correct parties. – Hence pastor culpability is reduced, netizen who upload video is partially culpable thus the law applies to them as well .
- So if I am a smart government official, I will avoid this headache by requesting ISA to visit, demand apology and close the case. If the Law is actually applied fully and fairly, more than the pastor must be punished. The netizens will cry foul and demand “escape clause” from the law.
- Conclusion 1) A eye for an eye leaves every one blind.
2) Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
38 Point-by-point Clarifications of Misconceptions
in Pastor Rony Tan’s Vids can be seen @
http://tinyurl.com/ygerfp3
The Cool one
how you arrive at your conclusion leaves much to be desired. put it simply, if Pastor Rony Tan did not say those offensive words, there would be no video to spread. there would be no need for any govt action. if you are the govt & do not see the root of the cause, how can you solve issues at the root?
i do not see how you can justify the video clip, whether the audience is Christian or not, its irrelevant. just as people who organise illegal child prostition ring & sells the videos online, with short clips on their webpage. someone spreads the clip to other video sharing hosts. which side should the law be on? the whistle blower or the illegal child prostition ring? individuals have rights, but their rights may not (isn’t this the case) be above that of the rights of the community or nation interest.
an offense is an offense, more so if the words came from an opinion leader. there is the law & there is a difference between ordinary folks who break the law & law enforcement officers who break them. the law simply deals with the latter more harshly, those who know the law & knowingly breaks them will have to face the (harsher) consequences. that, to me is how the law ought to be, because for the latter, they are held to higher standards by the virtue of their position.
in my opinion:
S’pore does not adequately, protect the interest of whistle blowers, reason being? can S’pore afford to remain as it is in this respect? or would this re-enforce apathy if the whistle-blower is dragged out to the open & hung to dry?
a quote from you:
“if I am a smart government official, I will avoid this headache by requesting ISA to visit, demand apology and close the case.”
luckily (& hopefully), you are not. slackers ought to be exposed, dealt with & sacked from their post!
the govt exists not to take the easy way out of any (be it simple or tricky) situations, they are there to do the right thing for the good of those who put them in there in the 1st place.
The Cool One
how you arrive at your conclusion leaves much to be desired. simply put, if Pastor Rony Tan did not say those offensive words, there would be no video to spread. there would be no need for any govt action. if you are the govt & do not see the root of the cause, how can you solve issues at the root?
i do not see how you can justify the video clip, whether the audience is Christian or not, its irrelevant. just as people who organise illegal child prostition ring & sells the videos online, with short clips on their webpage. someone spreads the clip to other video sharing hosts. which side should the law be on? the whistle blower or the illegal child prostition ring? individuals have rights, but their rights may not (isn’t this the case) be above that of the rights of the community or nation interest.
an offense is an offense, more so if the words came from an opinion leader. there is the law & there is a difference between ordinary folks who break the law & law enforcement officers who break them. the law simply deals with the latter more harshly, those who know the law & knowingly breaks them will have to face the (harsher) consequences. that, to me is how the law ought to be, because for the latter, they are held to higher standards by the virtue of their position.
in my opinion:
S’pore does not adequately, protect the interest of whistle blowers, reason being? can S’pore afford to remain as it is in this respect? or would this re-enforce apathy if the whistle-blower is dragged out to the open & hung to dry?
a quote from you:
“if I am a smart government official, I will avoid this headache by requesting ISA to visit, demand apology and close the case.”
luckily (& hopefully), you are not. slackers ought to be exposed, dealt with & sacked from their post!
the govt exists not to take the easy way out of any (be it simple or tricky) situations, they are there to do the right thing for the good of those who put them in there in the 1st place.
Comment : The Just One
I would like to phrase it in another way.
But found a good featured commentaries: “Many Singaporeans Want to Migrate – Why?”
Hence, the reasons could be there.
No offence though.
@ The Cool one
to my knowledge, the couple that were found guilty got the story of Aisha from the Koran, and were found guilty of Sedition because they distributed parts of the Koran that modern Muslims (or rather, the 2 they distributed to) in Singapore find offensive, or should be interpreted in other ways, etc.
this Rony Tan, used staged interviews to a congregation of thousands to defame another faith, calling it Satanic at one point. while every religion will say something to this effect in its religious texts, preachers must be mindful that they are living in Singapore.
1) the couple had considerably less reach than Rony Tan in their Seditious activities.
2) unlike the couple who were found guilty, Rony Tan is a man with the social status of a Pastor, and therefore, most church goers will take what he said to be authoritative.
3) not all church goers are Christians; some were dragged by their friends.
3a) it shouldn’t matter if all church goers are Christians are not. Seditious speech is Seditious.
3b) it does not matter where the video is uploaded to; this is the age of the internet. anything on the internet can and will be duplicated and uploaded elsewhere. instead of blaming the person that uploaded on YouTube, blame the person that uploaded the original, and starred in the video instead.
3c) what you are saying is, it is OK to commit Seditious acts to people that are Seditious, or tolerate Seditious acts. i find that it is quite disturbing that there are Singaporeans that spew such nonsense.
4) Rony Tan admits wrong doing[1], and says that his Church is going through its archives to remove all material that might be offensive. meaning, this is not the first time he put down another religion.
i do not see why people will cry foul if Rony Tan were charged with Sedition, much less jailed and fined.
your conclusion is flawed. this isn’t about an eye for an eye. this is about upholding the Law with the fragile racial harmony at stake.
Reference:
[1] Straits Times: I’ve Let Many People Down http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_490657.html
@ the last templar ?
after browsing through that article, is it not just talking about not having enough money for retirement due to the crazy high prices of stuff in Singapore, and about how the government makes money? i thought u’d refer me to an article talking about freedom of speech. what “reasons” did you see from that article?
The just One: What do you understand about our justice system? Whether we make a mockery of it or not, i would already consider it a joke. The defacto position of our courts is “guilty until proven innocent”. If you think our justice system is worth bringing up, i suggest you re-examine your material.
Going by your logic, should we then attempt to resuscitate those whose lives were claimed by the mandatory death penalty if we revise that punishment. While generalisation is convenient, it is by no means Just.
If you need another reason why this case cannot be compared with the seditious couple trial, here it is. The couple went OUT and distributed material that would be deemed by anyone as offensive. Rony Tan, on the other hand, uploaded those videos onto his church’s website and youtube page. What this tells you, besides that apparently intelligence is not a prerequisite for bible college, is that while the couple went looking for trouble, Rony Tan invited trouble to him.
You could say that both parties were… unaware.(if you know what i mean)
I’m the last person to be defending religion, or the religious. But this is not about that. This is about the future implications. Sure, employ the short term solution and arrest him. Maybe you like living a a country where your views are censored. But by calling for his arrest, you are effectively allowing the government to censor all future views on religion. You are giving them the green light to take away your right to opine. Ask yourself if you’re ready to for that.
” how you arrive at your conclusion leaves much to be desired. simply put, if Pastor Rony Tan did not say those offensive words, there would be no video to spread. there would be no need for any govt action. if you are the govt & do not see the root of the cause, how can you solve issues at the root?”
it’s a chicken and egg issue here isn’t it? the chicken lays the egg but the egg turns out black. the c0ck confronted the chicken,” your egg got poison lah, stop laying or we’ll make chicken soup out of you” .being the chicken that he is, the chicken worried his license to lay egg maybe revoked chickened out and begged profusely for forgiveness. the c0ck being the c0ck that he is closed an eye so as not to stir a chicken coup probably decided is the best action to take for now.
so from now onwards, they figured, all the chickens will paint their black egg…white – like the white c0ck.
moral of the story is, if it looks white, eat it.
@ Alvin Phoon
it can also be said that Rony Tan went out looking for trouble by arranging a staged interview in his church. mind you, to my knowledge, the couple had concerns and quoted from the Muslims’ own holy book, in its context.
by your logic, Alvin, you are saying that it is OK for preachers to preach Seditious material to an audience that sees the preacher as an authority figure, are Seditious, and/or tolerate Seditious speech… as long as no one else knows about it.
Rony Tan is Seditious NOT because he uploaded the videos, but because he spoke what he did. the videos only EXPOSED his Seditious views.
censorship already exists in Singapore, and is heavily enforced… especially political censorship. however, revising / clarifying the Law is the right thing to do, in addition to voting the PAP out by educating their blind supporters. however, punishing some Seditious people while letting others walk free is not Just, especially given the reach of Rony Tan; the couple that were found guilty of Sedition have considerably less reach than Rony Tan.
if Rony Tan walks free, all people found guilty of Sedition should be released and compensated fairly, and their criminal records of Sedition erased.
there is no problem in opining if you are talking sense and are responsible for your say. for instance, if you “opine” and shout…BOMB and get arrested by the police, does it mean you are not free to opine?
pls, use your brain.
rony tan can, by all means, free to “opine” and repeat the entire episode if he wants to. lol
what is stopping him from speaking from conviction? no guts. simple as that.
he is not stopped by ISD. he is stopped by his fear.
btw, did rome’s laws stopped jesus from speaking what he felt was the truth? nope. he got hanged so what? did his message stop at the cross? nope, in fact, it revolutionized the world.
the truth will prevail unless you are hanging on to lies then i suggest, you behave like rony. lol
@ whyuscare
the Romans did not bother Jesus. Jesus was crucified in order to appease the Jews to prevent an uprising; the blood of Jesus is on the head of the Jews, not the Romans. read Matthew chapter 27 for further clarification.
disagree. it was a collaboration, what jesus did, his message especially, was an affront to the roman’s empire and the political gods. that’s the main reason why his messages were shrouded in secrecy. if he had not spoken in “parables” his end would even be quicker.
read the below extraction from the internet for a start.
Jesus, who was a Palestinian Jew living under Roman occupation, preached a message that was anti-state and religious imperialism. In fact, many believe that the Roman authorities and the elite within the Sanhedrin killed Jesus for espousing this anti-Roman, anti-Sanhedrin sentiment.
Let’s take a brief look at some of Jesus’ teachings and acts that stirred turmoil within the social and religious circles of his day.
The Roman authorities forced its subjects to believe that the emperor was the savior, son of god, and redeemer of all peoples. Consequently, when returning from a military victory, the emperor would enter Rome in a triumphant procession that buttressed his might and power. So for a peasant from a marginalized town of an occupied territory to enter Jerusalem triumphantly(as a Savior) and to postulate himself as God’s son and the messiah was not only a brazen sign of mockery of the emperor, but also of the Roman Empire.
Jesus’ tirade against the vendors at the Temple was also a radical act. Since the Sanhedrin demanded a large portion of the vendors’ profits as rent for their space in the Temple’s outer portion, and since they kept the funds rather than investing them in improving the lot of the community’s poor, Jesus – in true prophetic fashion – denounced the corruption. He would not let others use religion as a means to garner wealth and prestige.
Jesus’ overall message, summarized in his sermon on the plain (Luke 5:17-26), reverses the first century social order by placing the poor and meek first and the rich and powerful last. In the oppressive first century Galilean milieu, the poor and meek were the impoverished Jews (particularly women and children), while the Roman and Jewish male elites constituted the powerful upper class.
Both the Roman Empire and the Sanhedrin worked in collusion to keep the peace against constant rebellious threats from the occupied Jews. Jesus’ messages and actions therefore threatened both the Sanhedrin’s and the Roman Empire’s imperialist power and thus their legitimacy in the ancient Palestinian region. For his radical message and acts, Jesus paid the ultimate price.
Let’s be realistic. Rony Tan did not stage the interview to look for trouble or to mock another religion. If anything, he staged the interview to look for believers. He just happened to underestimated first the netizens, and second the general population. The mocking was collateral, nothing more.
By my logic, something can only be considered seditious, or can only be considered at all, if one is aware of its existence. If you didn’t know it existed, there can be no consideration. Calling for the PAP to be voted out can be considered a form of rebellion, which would allow them to recite the sedition act on you. LKY himself can be charged with sedition for his racist comments. So the question is not whether Rony Tan was seditious because really, all of us are. But we don’t get harassed because we are smart enough be quiet about it. So really, the only crime here is stupidity, punishable by humiliation from the public, but not by law.
Having said that, I agree that some major changes have to be made. However, on the off chance that nothing changes, no amount of education would reverse the damage done. Again, consider the severity of both cases and tell me that you truly believe they should be treated equally. Read the little bride and tell me that you genuinely believe that it is as dangerous as Rony Tan’s statements.
Read the little bride and tell me that you genuinely believe that it is as dangerous as Rony Tan’s statements
indeed.. so you would agreed that tanglianhong and his familLEE deserved to be punished for a 2 min comment during the socalled fr campaign?
if not? why not?
who is more dangerous? tanglianhong or this paster?
if you are in the middle east right now..your head would hav been chopped off without a 2nd glanced…
Alvin,
By your logic, won’t it mean that if one doesn’t know of the existence of (any) Law, he could commit any crime and not be punished for it. I could burn down a park while burning joss papers, and say that it was nothing but collateral. I didn’t expect the dry weather to make everything so combustible.
To bring back into context, the Muslim couple was offended. and in this case, some Buddhists seem to be offended. In both cases, we have ‘victims’.
Results, is what matters. Ignorance of Law is, at most, basis for a lighter punishment. Not exoneration.
[i]Read the little bride and tell me that you genuinely believe that it is as dangerous as Rony Tan’s statements.[/i]
so in your personal opinion tanglianhong and his family is far more dangerous than this paster? just for readin a piece of paper in less than 1 minute?
whose statement is more dangerous? both are about christianity?
in the middleeast you would hav loss your head had you post the same statement as this pastor
@ Alvin
calling for the PAP to be voted out by educating people and letting them make their own choice is called a democratic process.
no matter what your POV on the couple is, what they did is only to distribute materials that were Koranic. therefore, one can argue that the cause of offense does not originate from the couple. however, they were still found guilty.
both the couple’s case and Rony Tan’s case are severe. the first case uses the Koran, the second case is a Senior Pastor using “ex-believers”.
how you can say Rony Tan did not stage the interview to mock another religion blows my mind. he called all non-Christian religions Satanic, talked about rebirth/reincarnation and then mocked the ideas; he did not talk in a general sense not meant to cause offense, but he targeted Buddhism and Taoism.
lastly, by your flawed logic, if i do not know that killing people is an offense, does it mean that i can freely do so? Ignorantia legis neminem excusat - Ignorance of the Law excuses no one.
my point still stands. either they are all jailed, or those that were charged and/or convicted are released and their criminal records for Sedition erased. you can not have your cake and eat it too.
I think an apology from the Pastor would suffice. Lets not press the issue.
All i want to say is that, if you believe strongly in your own beliefs, then you dont need to put others down to make yourself feel better.
And if you agree to the words of such people who put others down, then its also a reflection of your own self belief.
I think all of us should focus on being better Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, than asking for others to be chastised or punished more.
Comment : The Just One
Here is a direct answer.
From one of Alvin Phoon’s comments 10.32, Feb 18, 2010.
“What do you understand about our justice system?
Whether we make a mockery of it or not, i would already consider it a joke.”
Time to reflect in a quiet environment ?
bookworm: i’m not sure i understand your question.
The Just One and lobo76: You must understand what religion, especially Christianity is all about. The best way to “prove” your theory is to “disprove” another. Just look at Behe’s pathetic attempt to prove irreducible complexity. It happens. It’s not pleasant, but it is EXTREMELY entertaining. For me, at least.
But i disagree with both your analogies, mainly because we are talking about two very different courses of action. Besides, I believe he underestimated not because he was ignorant of the law, but because he didn’t think it would be that big a deal. How many times have you done something wrong and went “ahh nobody will find out”.
It’s a democratic process to us. But is it to them? We are living, at best, in a false democracy.
Again, read the little bride. Don’t just examine its content. Examine its packaging, its presentation, its style, its intention. Ask for reactions from your muslim friends. Email a penpal or an international colleague and ask him or her for their opinions.
The reason the couple’s case is more severe is because of the history between the religions involved. There is more than petty conflict in this one, The Just One. Their very origins were at stake.
You said it yourself. He did not mean to cause offence. He wanted to convert. Like I said, disproving one to prove another. What happens in between is passed off as collateral. Buddhism and Taoism are easy targets because first there is no major conflict between the two religions and second, a big portion of the chinese in Singapore belong to those religions. If he had picked Islam, well I’d pay to watch that.
If we truly wish to eradicate such behaviour, why not abolish religion altogether? Now THAT would be tackling the root cause of the problem, wouldn’t you say?
It is very interesting that some likes to totally quote from the bible.
But whatever you read, be discerning and reflect.
This preacher has already highlighted to us about demonic spirits.
In the US President Elections, McCain was favoured by LKY?
It could mean that LKY was expecting the “hand” as mentioned in one of Nostradamus articles to intervene !
Alvin,
You must understand what religion, especially Christianity is all about.
irrelevant. I am going to use the same measuring stick for all (related) things. That’s what being objective is about, right?
How many times have you done something wrong and went “ahh nobody will find out”.
And when you were caught. what else did you say but ‘ahh sh1t…’. Were you forgiven because you say you tot nobody will find out?
… disproving one to prove another.
is a flawed way of doing things. You don’t prove that the blue liquid contained copper element by disproving the non-existence of ALL the elements in the periodic table, do you?
If we truly wish to eradicate such behaviour, why not abolish religion altogether? Now THAT would be tackling the root cause of the problem, wouldn’t you say?
It might. But it would cause another problems. Weak minded people need some ‘higher being’ to believe in. Without this ‘higher power’, they are unable to justify why they should do the right or ‘moral’ thing.
“He did not mean to cause offence. He wanted to convert. Like I said, disproving one to prove another.”
If thats the basis of converting someone, rather than accepting the love of Jesus, and that He died for people’s sins, (or something along those lines, of which i’ve been told a few times), then I would begin to wonder a lot more about this church.
Thats why i say - if you practice what you preach, and others see how beautiful religion can be, (not as how certain religious leaders perceived it to be), then people will be attracted.
Comment : aygee
…..died for people’s sins….
May need to be specific…was for Jews ?
Or was I outdated ?
Lobo76,
Thats a bit harsh to call people who have a need to believe in a higher being “weak-minded”.
this is my take on the incident - the Pastor didnt know what his OB markers are, as a preacher living and preaching in Singapore. If he likes to preach like the way he does, in a more “open” society, like the US, then fair game to him, and good luck.
Now he knows how far he can go in Singapore. He made a public apology. I think thats fair.
My final comment on this thread - if you believe in a certain ideology, only because others are not good enough, or you are told others are not good enough, then i think you should re-think why you follow that ideology. e.g. “I believe in marxism because capitalism fails.” That, in my humble opinion, is the wrong way to believe in something. the old adage of false prophets come to mind.
the last templar,
I’ll let Christians more knowledgeable on the topic to expand on that. Or you can google, and tell me more.
It’s besides the point.
Aygee, you don’t seem to be an intelligent person or capable of grasping what has been said so far
Can someone learned enough about christianity advise on the following:
1. are there different believes within Chritianity?
If so, who is right? Which is right?
So, do the respective believers question who or which is right or based on believe in what they believe is the truth?
This is a technical question with due respect to all. Luv all serve all. Peace and harmony.
lobo76,
We are, actually, using the same measuring stick to identify the severity of both cases. You will find attempts to disprove Islam in the little bride. Again, we have to consider the history between both religions.
I’d probably say something to that extent. But I wouldn’t expect to be forgiven just like that. I don’t care for, nor believe in Rony Tan’s vows. That doesn’t mean that prosecution is the ideal solution. I believe more in humiliation than imprisonment.
Precisely. It is flawed. That’s what makes it so entertaining. Organized religion is full of flaws. So how do believers know if their arguments aren’t?
Excellent. The no religion equals no morality argument. Completely flawed. Again, how do they know it is if they are being taught that it isn’t?
aygee: Perhaps lobo76 put it a little too crudely. But no matter how much you shine it up, it still means what it means. Being human means living with the very natural, pathological fear of dying. People need to believe that there is life after death because it is extremely frightening to believe that there isn’t.
Thank you for all the opinions and points of discussion raised in these 180 comments. We have allowed as many to remain visible as possible (less than 5 have been moderated), however, in the interests of putting the matter to rest and moving forward, let us end the discussion here. Once again, on behalf of the TOC team, I thank you all for allowing us the honour of carrying your thoughts.