In April 2009, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan categorically stated that, “euthanasia, which means helping the patient to commit suicide, is not what Ministry of Health (MOH) is promoting” and that MOH is actually “promoting palliative care for the terminally ill so that they, and their family members, will be able to cope with terminal illness with the least pain and being cared for in the most appropriate setting, which usually means the home they live in.”

When the Health Minister has categorically stated his position that he will not promote euthanasia, Ms Toh Puay San, a deputy public prosecutor (writing in her personal capacity), and National University of Singapore law don Stanley Yeo, seem to have taken the back door approach to push for the issue of dying with aid, with their controversial article in the latest issue of the Singapore Academy of Law Journal.

Although euthanasia is not the same as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) in that euthanasia generally means that the physician would act directly (for example, by giving a lethal injection to end a patient’s life), while PAS refers to the physician providing the means for death (most often with a prescription) and the patient (not the physician) ultimately using that means to end his life; they are similar in that it is intentional assistance given to a person by a physician to enable that person to terminate his own life upon that person’s request.

The arguments for euthanasia and PAS are often not cogent.

For example, pain and other symptoms causing discomfort and suffering, which is often cited by the proponents of assisted dying for euthanasia or PAS, are treatable.

Even where patients are considered to be terminally ill, there remains the frequent prognostic uncertainty.

A terminally ill person’s expression of a desire for death is very often a cry for help, to which a physician can respond in many non-lethal ways.

There are also no secure safeguards that euthanasia or PAS may lead to abuse through the singling out of the disenfranchised like the poor, people with disability, the elderly and the very young, who have no ‘voice’, to conclude their lives out of coercion, or even worse making such feel that they have a ‘duty to die’.

Focusing on euthanasia and PAS also diverts the much needed resources and energies away from patient-care and research on palliation.

As studies have shown that two-thirds of seniors over the age of 65, who receive long-term care, rely exclusively on family, friends and other informal caregivers, MOH’s emphasis on palliative care is the right one.

Mr Gerard Ee, the chairman of the Council for the Third Age, is indeed right in slamming such talk as going down a slippery slope, as there is too great a danger of abuse in legalising euthanasia or PAS.

Picture: Courtesy of Jeffrey Leow

Related posts:

1. Kin outraged, distraught over teen’s cyber suicide (US)
2. Suicide statistics – the young and the stressed?
3. No cheap fares for the elderly, says Gerard Ee

By Seah Chiang Nee

With Singapore allowing in a million foreigners in the past 10 years, it just had to happen. Recent police crackdowns on hot spots was an eye-opener on how deep organised crime has dug in

Do not be afraid of the police! They only have four men, and we have so many; don’t be afraid!

With these chilling words, a hostile mob of 200 set upon four policemen conducting a night raid on an illegal gambling den.

Such a challenge to the police is extremely rare in tightly-controlled Singapore, where public graffiti remains a caning offence.

It has shocked the public and perhaps even the authorities as well.

In a scene reminiscent of the days of secret societies, the unruly crowd shouted obscenities and threw bottles, stones and chairs at the four detectives.

It occurred when the policemen were carrying out raids in the red-light area of Geylang.

One detective was kicked in the mouth and another in the head and back.

The violence, which lasted 15 minutes, prompted a policeman to draw his pistol and fire a warning shot.

Several rioters were detained, and two of them brought to trial recently. One got 15 months in jail, and the other is out on bail pending appeal.

The near-riot occurred two years ago, but the details – and seriousness – only emerged in a recent district court sentencing report.

The story has been given a wide berth by the mainstream papers, but is widely discussed online.

The response of the police was strong and swift.

For months, they conducted a series of large-scale raids in Geylang, Orchard Road and other hot spots, including the following:

> Mar 14: About 400 police and anti-vice officers swept nightspots, arresting 175 people for various criminal activities.

> Feb 7: A multi-agency operation, the second in as many weeks, nabbed more than 158 people for gang-related activities, immigration offences and drug-taking.

>Jan 23: Some 170 people were arrested in a massive 14-hour operation at Geylang, led by the Criminal Investigation Department. Some 200 officers took part.

With Singapore allowing in a million foreigners in the past 10 years, citizens had been expecting crime to spiral in their city.

So far, it has not happened. In fact, overall crime fell by 4% last year, police headquarters announced.

However, the huge influx of foreigners, many of them loosely screened, and rising unemployment have combined to create pockets of crime in several parts of the island.

Offences like prostitution (involving tens of thousands of overseas women), drugs, gambling, loan sharking and peddling contraband cigarettes and pornographic DVDs, became prevalent.

One such place where most of these could be found is Geylang, renowned for good food and the sex trade.

The audacity of the attack on the police was an eye-opener on how extensive things have deteriorated.

“Where did the 200 gangsters come from?” asked a young Singaporean.

“I thought the big triads have long been wiped out!”

A writer using the pen name Strategy commented, “I think this incident can be quite a serious sign and warning. The Geylang area might be a bit out of control nowadays.”

Singapore remains a generally safe city and people can still walk the streets without fear of being robbed or attacked.

The drastic population rise has placed a strain on police resources as the authorities strive desperately to keep crime down.

To many citizens, the crackdown should have come earlier.

“Singapore is fast becoming known as a sin city,” said a school teacher, who fears casinos and vice would one day lead to its downfall.

Others call for a tighter screening of foreigners to keep out people with dubious backgrounds.

There has been no sign that immigration has stopped many such people from living or doing business here.

Singaporeans are fearful that triad members from China and Vietnam etc will establish operations here where, given their aggressiveness, they will soon dominate the local gangsters.

A simple example of negative developments: Some 81% of illegal hawkers come from abroad.

They made up 650 of the 800 unlicensed hawkers arrested so far this year, a newspaper reported.

But are foreigners responsible for most of the crimes in Singapore?

Latest statistics show that their role is rising, but the ratio is lower than their proportion of the population.

For example, the number of arrested foreigners (excluding permanent residents) has been increasing for three consecutive years – from 3,216 (in 2006) to 3,780 (2007) and 3,822 (2008).

They made up 19% of all arrested offenders, an under-representation since foreigners form 24% of the population.

The most common offences were theft, vice and smuggling, public brawls and drunkenness and molest, with a few murders (mainly due to emotional outbursts) and rapes.

In a more serious instance, a group of Vietnamese and Chinese workers fought with wooden poles and kitchen knives in a dormitory in Geylang last month, leaving three men injured.

The series of raids may or may not be a police response to the triads’ challenge of authority, but the people involved are paying a stiff price for it.

The underground has been dealt a financial blow. Many prostitutes have gone underground or moved to other places.

Some fast-food customers in Chinatown have written about being solicited while they were munching on their hamburgers.

Also driven away are most of the back-lane gambling tables and peddlers of illegal cigarettes and pornography.

But suffering alongside them are owners of coffee-shops, budget hotels and restaurants whose business has taken a plunge.

In short, Geylang has become a quieter place, a pale shadow of its buzzing self a year ago.

But most Singaporeans believe its old self will return when the police leave it alone.

_______________________________________

Related posts:

1. The First Tier of The First World: Beyond the Bottom Line
2. Crossing the line into vulgarity
3. Singapore-Indonesian treaties: Is the light at the end of the tunnel a train?

By now, Jack Neo’s fall from grace would stand a good chance at winning News Story of the Year.

The highly-acclaimed filmmaker and actor’s multiple infidelity has been well-documented in every major newspaper and broadcast network in Singapore. Online discussions were on fire with similar threads.

If you do not know Neo or the last name of his wife by now, you are probably not Singaporean.

Even politicians got to jab in. Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo gave his support to the besieged couple. Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lui Tuck Yew vouched for the media circus that surrounded the fracas generated by Neo’s infidelity.

“Acting Information, Communications and the Arts Minister, Lui Tuck Yew replied that the tabloids have been chasing the story as it’s of interest to many Singaporeans and foreigners. But there’s a distinction in the way tabloids and broadsheet papers carried the story.” (Satish Cheney, 12 March, CNA)

“”I know some of the tabloids have been chasing this. It’s of course an issue of interest to many Singaporeans and indeed also outside of Singapore,” (Lui) said. While the broadsheets’ onus is to report the affair in a factual, balanced and credible manner, “the approach taken by some of the tabloid papers is somewhat different” and similar to the way they have reported the “misbehaviour” of golfer Tiger Woods. ” (Neo Chai Chin, 13 March, TODAY)

So as not to raise your hopes, let me state upfront that I am not writing an exclusive expose. Neither do I wish to take any moral position on the issue. Rather, my interest is to explore the validity of the statement as it relates to media coverage, shed some understanding of media frenzy over the spectacle, and share what I wished responsible journalism have covered instead.

Neo’s four-minute circus

Perhaps the most climatic, or anti-climatic, moment of the incident came when Neo called a press conference to supposedly confess his transgressions and publicly apologise.

The media swarmed him with camera flashes as he made a hasty exit with his fainting wife, whereupon the exit became a physical contest between the media and Neo’s entourage.

Following the incident, he was lambasted yet again, with most reports lashing out at the perceived insincerity of his apology, with some suggesting that it was a fabrication to increase the drama points for the incident.

Admittedly, there could be some dumb crystal-ball reporting going on. What is less apparent, however, is the reason for doing so.

The press conference came at the peak of revelation, where women lined up to claim having an affair with Neo. The media was hungry for more news, not the requests by Neo and his wife to be spared the limelight.

It was a circus waiting to happen. If the horde of photographers was not telling already, the number of microphones on the table would be a clear indication that nearly every mainstream media was there to lap it up. There seems to be more resources committed to this than a single Budget issue. A four-minute tear-tinged plea was not enough – columns and airtime have been committed and have to be filled, and they were filled one way or another, regardless of whether Neo of the reading public liked the final read.

In that sense, Neo, for all his experience in the industry, has misjudged or misunderstood the effect of the press conference, both for that one incident and the nature of press conferences as a whole. Either that or his state of mind was simply not prepared to take it on. For all his personal transgressions, my view is that there is only one that needs a public apology – fueling a frenzy that only threw up more stupid, senseless news, whether he intended it or not.

Spectacle – by all, for all?

But that is a pointless jab on my part, and leads us away from a more meaningful question: Is there a distinction between the contemporarily-defined broadsheets and tabloids that Lui spoke of? Perhaps you can decide:

“Ms Chiew Han Joo, an online journalist with omy.sg, said that Neo’s apology was not effective because he “didn’t say that he will change for the better… and he didn’t really explain much about the situation”.” (Joy Fang, 12 March, mypaper)

“One can look at film director Jack Neo’s press conference as a short punchy film: beautifully directed and sincerely performed, the plot centred on infidelity… But viewers looking for some form of closure to Neo’s scandal had better look elsewhere… He did not even come close to providing answers to some important questions: Did you sexually harass the artists you signed up? What is your response to disappointed fans? What did you learn from this episode? Will you be less preachy in your future films, given your own personal failings?”  (Adeline Chia, 12 March, St Online)

Of course, there is also “How Jack Neo can stage a comeback” by Phin Wong of TODAY (13 March). While you might think twice about taking the BlogTV host seriously, his article was prescriptively insightful – that is, if I am Neo, or if I am an everyday reader planning to make it big before embarking on my own scandal.

Perhaps such scandals are hard to come by in Singapore, such that every opportunity is pounced on with vigor. But the attention given is more like a buffalo herd on a stampede than a leopard striking its prey – no finesse, no calculated angle of attack, just a storming hungry rage feeding on anything in its path.

Such is the risk that commercial media must face, to the detriment of their quality. Pressed to fulfill a deadline and a bottom line, commercial media, broadsheets and tabloids alike, have focused on squeezing every drop out of the story. If Neo won’t talk, ask an “expert”, never mind if that turns out to be another speculation.

As far as I can perceive, there is no difference in the reporting style between media – from sensationalised reports to moralistic commentaries, all were reveling in the spectacle, or milking it dry to fill the lines.

What matters socially?

My view and wish for our traditional media is to be more conscientious of what matters to readers, not what sells the news. The goal should not be just to write a more engaging read, but to add value for readers, rather than muddle the plot with moralistic swipes and wild conjectures.

Neo’s transgression is not totally irrelevant to us. However, the media, in their rush for coverage, has stepped beyond what is sensibly relevant. Should we care that Neo apologises? What for – are we his wives, or the women he seduced? Are those who judge vehemently so sure that they can stand up to the test? Why are we concerned, rather than bemused, that politicians should vouch for celebrities?

Unfortunately, this is one incident that I did not notice online media faring much better. Forums and blogs are alive with chatter berating Neo’s actions, moralistic opinions on whether it is him or his romantic liaisons who deserve their plight, and so on.

To draw on two examples that you might be familiar with, “Getting into bed with Jack” by Lee Song Kwang and Ravi Philemon, TOC (12 March) struck out at politicians who made allegedly biased remarks on behalf of Neo, already taking the view that Neo was wrong and any support by political figures characterises them negatively, too. The stand could be valid, but it had an unfortunate effect on readers, who immediately lashed out at with personality attacks.

“Gagged by the church – Foyce Le Xuan” by Sonia Suka, TOC (16 March) started as a mildly contentious piece about the involvement of City Harvest Church in the scandal. Two main camps started to build, one berating the church by assuming Suka was right, and the other discrediting her views as baseless and biased. It is reasonable to expect this in blog discourse, but a second glance would reveal that most comments made in favour of Suka had the same moralistic undertones that has been playing on traditional media.

For another case elsewhere, Hardwarezone carried a discussion post titled “Jack Neo and his apologies” that began with a mostly factual report of the press conference, and then proceeded to disqualify both Neo and Wendy Chong his mistress for, oddly, their professional ability. It would seem that adultery made you a lousy filmmaker and actor. Naturally, the subsequent comments carried the theme, and more rose to the challenge of taking potshots at Neo.

Admittedly, the reporting by traditional media might have fanned the flames too much in one direction, such that effect rubbed off more than it should online. But this incident would not go down in history as proof that Singaporeans could exercise reasonable effort to stay arm’s length from sensationalism.

The incident does have real implications. For instance, what is Neo’s future ability to produce another home-grown movie, given that potential female actors might begin to shy away from his offers? Or, is the prevalence of sexual favours in our filmmaking industry strong enough to dampen or promote our status as a choice location as a film hub for international filmmakers? Perhaps a review of the value of our national awards in the partiality they give to achievement versus professional conduct?

While the heat of the moment might not allow it, there is always more to the spectacle than the frenzy. As the excitement wanes, might there be a writer foolhardy enough to trod the path less taken, and do some real news reporting for a change?

_____________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. A government-controlled media is superior to a free media?
2. Youthquake 6: Alternative media can’t replace traditional media
3. The Mas Selamat Scandal: Its Impact on the Government-People Relationship

As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.
- Bob Dylan -

The young are the builders of tomorrow.

There was a time not very long ago when the young in Singapore were apathetic and too absorbed with material things and caring only about themselves. Indeed, many cared little for Singapore and quite a number, because they had the means, chose to migrate.

Who can blame them? For the last forty years a generation of Singaporeans has grown up in a stifling political climate. They have grown up on a staple diet fed by a controlled media and many aspects of their lives have been dictated by a lot of rules and regulations. They lived as if they were guests in a hotel and felt like children in a childcare centre supervised by a domineering nanny.

Who can blame them for lacking a sense of history?

Having a sense of history can only come from political awareness. For our young Singaporeans to be cohesive and be committed to the nation and to one another there must be space in this country to allow them to develop their political awareness and to imbue in them the spirit of participation in the affairs of the country.

If we want our post-independence generation to make Singapore a better home and increasingly take over responsibility for Singapore, then the political climate must be right. All our young people must be encouraged to think for themselves and to feel the responsibility of making this a better place. Not just the ones specially chosen and anointed to be the future leaders of Singapore.

Should such a state of affairs persist, our young people will continue to be apathetic towards the affairs of our country and Singapore will only become a hotel where its citizens and other immigrants will just stay to make money and hopefully retire elsewhere.

There is no doubt that the young people of Singapore want to be patriotic citizens, not hotel guests. There have said the Pledge in schools for years and the males have done their National Service. Thus they have every right to feel that they belong here. They have every right to want to have a say in the running of the country.

As more and more become educated and better informed through the Internet, these people are no longer easily swayed by one-sided views. Most are intelligent enough to see many sides of an argument and are able to come to their own conclusions.

The new generation no longer just want the right to elect a government; they also want the right to supervise them through discussions and feedback at every stage of the governing process.

This is not a bad thing. It is better than if the young of today are pre-occupied with materialistic things and not caring about Singapore’s survival. This was the situation few years ago and, together with the influx of new immigrants, it was cause for concern.

Not All Is Lost

Luckily for our country not all is lost. At the recent anniversary dinner organised by the Singapore Democratic Party, I met a lot of young people who gave me a glimmer of hope that Singapore still has a future.

The dinner was not the usual sort where boring speeches are made and where senior citizens form the majority. Instead there were plenty of youthful faces like that of Khalis, Priveen, Tian Jing and Jarrod. Some, including Kenneth, have yet to take their ‘O’–Levels.  Goh Meng Seng, the young Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party, could be considered an “old man” that night.

Tony and Justin from the Reform party were also there. Many years back I had breakfast with two senior administrative officers who they said that Singapore does not have alternative ideas because brilliant scholars who left the service were usually so fed-up with the system that they did not want to provide any alternative ideas. And many chose to migrate. It is, therefore, good to see Tony at the party because he and his wife are obviously not turning their backs on their country.

There was a lot of vibrancy and energy at the dinner party but this is not to say that the organisation of the function had not met with obstacles. Jaslyn Go, a young mother of two and the dynamo behind the anniversary celebration told me getting a place was the most difficult task. A reputable hotel had turned them down when they heard it was for a political party’s anniversary celebration, saying that they were fully-booked. Yet when a call was made later to ask if the place was available for a wedding they said it was.

This reminds of the time I contested the 1997 GE. I had a lawyer friend who was boasting to me how he would contest the elections if only his wife had allowed it. I thought surely a brave man like him would readily act as a commissioner of oath for my candidacy. When I approached him to engage his professional service, he declined citing something like “they” will come after him. For what? For practising his profession?

The spectre of fear is still hovering in 2010 as it was in 1997. It is, therefore, gratifying that there are still young people around who are free from fear.

The young people I met are not a bunch of fun-loving philistines. Neither do they seem to me a group of hot-headed radicals. They are idealists with sound views on social and political issues and their feet are firmly on the ground.

The outlook and the perception of the young may not be the same as that of the previous generation. It should not be. Circumstances are different and changing all the time. As they are the vanguard of the future, more and more must be encouraged to have the independence of judgement, the ability to think for themselves and the freedom to try out new ideas.

A stifling atmosphere will destroy idealism, the individual’s motivations and his hopes for the future and his love for the country. Paternalism, therefore, should no longer have a role in this new age. If we want a vibrant and innovative society, then our young people should not be treated like dependent children.

Fortunately the Internet has now allow the younger generation to circumvent the control of opinion by the government and the main stream media and give them the freedom to express their our opinions and expose them to more informed and balanced views

It is such freedom that has made our youth feel that there is a future and that they have a hand in moulding it.

It is such freedom that will help prepare our young people to anticipate and meet the rapid changes in this modern world.

It is a pity, however, that the electoral system at the moment discourages the young from standing for election. Many young people from the opposition parties are discouraged from standing because of the hefty deposit that they need to put up. On the other hand, the young people from the PAP need a coat-tail to hang on. Because of this, Singapore is probably the only country in the world where many Members of Parliament have yet to fight an election by themselves.

This is a pity because the rough and tumble of an electoral contest would be able to show up the good leaders from those who are unable to stand on their own feet.

If any electoral reform is needed, it is to allow the future candidates to contend with one another for the right to represent the people. It is only in a one-to-one contest that the voters will be able to scrutinise the candidates offered to them and separate the wheat from the chaff. It is such a contest that will throw up strong leaders that will guide Singapore through the turbulent seas that lie ahead. It is only through the shouts and noises of an election that the voices of the common people can be heard.

President Roosevelt once said, “To conserve worthy institutions, one must adapt to changing times.”

Is Singapore worth conserving? From the youths that I met at the party, they seem to think so.

Yes, the times are a-changing.

___________________________________

Related posts:

1. My future as a Singapore citizen
2. Singaporean youths are apathetic about Singapore’s future
3. A peek into PAP politics – present and future

“However, gains from productivity improvements may not necessarily lead to higher wages, and could be in the form of a productivity bonus.”

Gan Kim Yong, Minister for Manpower,
on how wage hikes must come with increased productivity

Related posts:

1. Salaries increased for political appointments?
2. Low-skilled, low-wage workers an “economic problem”, says Lim Swee Say
3. Yong Vui Kong meets his mother in jail

In late January 2010, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in announcing the increase in the Additional Housing Grant from the previous S$30,000 to S$40,000, said that with the increase, some 8,000 households annually would benefit.

What does “8,000 households annually” mean? What percentage of Singaporeans would qualify for the Additional Housing Grant? Is that a large percentage or not?

In attempting to grasp the significance of this figure, I tried to compare it to the annual demand for ownership flats as reported by the HDB in their Annual Report. Over the last three years, this has averaged about 10,000 flats per year. The HDB defines “demand” as “bookings received by HDB for 2-room and bigger flats under the various allocation exercises, as well as bookings for Design, Build and Sell scheme flats.”

At first glance, 8,000 eligible out of an annual demand of 10,000 suggests that even the Additional Housing Grant is a scheme that throws money like confetti to all and sundry.

However, the details complicate such a simplistic conclusion. The Additional Housing Grant can be used for resale flats, but not for second-time purchases, whereas HDB’s 10,000-figure for demand includes second-time purchases, but excludes resale transactions. Hence, it is not possible to compare the two figures. Nevertheless, one is left with the distinct impression that not only do all Singaporeans’ first-time flat purchases get an assist from the first grant, perhaps a majority also get the Additional Housing Grant.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the great majority of Singaporeans depend on subsidies to get a roof over their heads. We’re breeding a culture of dependency.

This cannot be tenable. I’m not against subsidies in principle, but it should only be for a small percentage of the population to mitigate extremes of poverty. Dishing out subsidies — and the schemes are permanent — to well over half the population cannot be fiscally responsible.

Unless…. they are not subsidies.

_________________________________

Read the entire article at Yawning Bread

_____________________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. HDB housing policies – tilting the advantage towards PRs?
2. Year In Review: HDB flats – subsidy, affordability, prices.
3. Help the singles with affordable housing

________________________________

By Gangasudhan

Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) today released its findings of a three-month undercover investigation of 134 jewellery and antique shops around Singapore which revelaed that 59 offered tiger parts for sale. And in addition to the report, incriminating evidence of these shops selling alleged tiger parts has been captured on video.

Approximately 159 tiger claws, 303 tiger teeth and 38 pieces of tiger skin were found on sale during the investigation, which was conducted from December 2009 to February 2010. The alleged tiger parts were found to be openly on sale at 52 shops whilst 28 shopkeepers mentioned that an order for more tiger parts could be placed with an expected delivery date between one week and three months. Seven shopkeepers even demonstrated awareness that tigers are protected animals; that it is illegal to sell tiger parts; and, that tiger parts are customs-controlled items.

Related posts:

1. Filming an illegal event is… illegal?
2. Tiger baby blues
3. Red Tiger

“But to become a great centre for the arts and culture, like New York or London, Singapore needs unbridled freedom of speech and expression, and some tolerance for the creative messiness that accompanies it.”

Dr Narain D Batra
Professor of Communication and Diplomacy
Norwich University, USA

Related posts:

1. MDA head honchos rap on video to get Singapore “creative and connected”
2. Free Burma! International bloggers to support freedom for Burma on Oct 4th
3. Number of comments on TOC surpasses 100,000

“But to become a great centre for the arts and culture, like New York or London, Singapore needs unbridled freedom of speech and expression, and some tolerance for the creative messiness that accompanies it. It is freedom of speech in all its manifestations that enables a nation to generate an abiding grand narrative or a myth that binds its people. Today Singapore is a very neat, prosperous and liveable city. It is free from civic violence but its civic life is dull. The city-state has no great heroes. It has no grand story to tell the world.”

Times of india

Related posts:

1. World Refugee Day – Wan’s Story
2. WP Chief Low on homelessness in First World Singapore
3. S’pore 3rd world democracy, Malaysia 3rd world mentality

By Alex Au

Once more, a life is taken. Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi was hanged just before dawn on 26 January 2007. He had been caught with 727 grams of heroin in the transit area of Changi airport 2 years ago, when he was just 19 years old. It was his first visit to Singapore, to look for a position with a football club.

On the eve of his execution, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, after a long delay, finally appealed to Singapore President S Nathan for clemency. Of course it was rejected — Singapore has a machismo complex.

Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, in his reply to the Nigerian head of state said, “There are no new grounds for the case to be reconsidered and all legal avenues have been exhausted.”

Lee added that the 727 grams found in Tochi’s bag “amounts to more than 48,000 doses of heroin on the streets, enough to have destroyed many lives and families,” and that the government “takes a firm stance against drugs to deter Singaporeans and others from importing drugs into Singapore or using the country as a transit hub for narcotics.”

Not so simple.

To begin with, the conviction was troubling. Since I have covered his case in some detail in the earlier article The case of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, I will only touch on 3 key issues here:

Firstly, Tochi was only 19 years old, with not much education. Was it safe to assume that he was familiar with the ways of the world, including the drug trade and the risks involved? Could he be expected to know that different countries view drugs with different degrees of severity?

How many Singaporeans at 19, educated or not, would be familiar with other offences around the world, e.g. petrol smuggling, the arms trade, transporting seditious literature or pornography, and the risks involved?

Secondly, after he had been noticed by airport hotel staff as having loitered in the transit area for more than 24 hours, he was told that the police would be called before they would issue him a room. The police didn’t arrive until 20 minutes later, during which Tochi was free to wander around the airport some more. Anyone who knew he was carrying drugs would have disposed of them in those 20 minutes. Tochi did not, and as his defence counsel said, such behaviour was consistent with his belief that he didn’t have drugs in his possession.

Thirdly, the trial judge himself conceded there was no direct evidence that Tochi even knew that what he was carrying was heroin. Tochi had claimed throughout that he had been told it was a package of African herbs. However, the trial judge also said, Tochi ought to have inspected the package. His failure to inspect it suggested guilt.

When the case went up to the Court of Appeal, one of the three appeal judges dissented from confirming the verdict, if my memory serves me correctly, on precisely the above point. And yet, President S Nathan, acting the advice of the cabinet, would not take that into account and grant clemency.

Beyond the question of conviction, there is also the question of whether the death penalty was appropriate. Unfortunately the death sentence is mandatory for this offence, This is a great favourite of the Singapore government, to tie the hands of the judges. Once a judge finds someone guilty of trafficking in more than 15 grams of heroin, there can be no other sentence than death.

This leaves no room whatsoever for mitigating circumstances.

* * * * *
While Tochi’s case, in my opinion, was an unsafe conviction, there may be other cases where indeed the accused is guilty of drug trafficking. But ‘guilty’ should not necessarily have to mean execution. The Singapore government, however, maintains that the mandatory death sentence is needed for its deterrent effect.

Yet, as I have pointed out in an earlier article Death penalty as deterrence – the easy way out, the evidence from across a number of countries is mixed at best. Quite a number of places achieve low rates of drug abuse without resorting to capital punishment for drug offences.

But even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that it can be a deterrent, it won’t be unless it is publicised, and the publicity directed at the population you wish to deter. Since many of the cases involve foreigners, the publicity should be directed at them in their home countries where drug lords and recruiters operate.

Yet, the fact is, not only is no effort made to publicise Singapore’s draconian laws into the cities, towns and villages of other countries, our government refuses to reveal information about executions altogether. Such information seems to be marked ‘Top Secret’. As Charles Tan pointed out in his essay Abolishing death penalty: understanding the challenges, Amnesty International is left to guess how many executions Singapore carries out annually. How do we reconcile this secrecy with the claimed-for deterrent effect?

In the rare case where an execution is publicised, our subservient media typically reports the official statement, and then shuts up about the matter. Everything we do is the opposite of publicity; yet we claim that our heavy penalties have a deterrent value abroad. Really? From the villages of Bolivia to the fields of Pakistan?

No doubt drug lords make it their business to be well-informed about our laws, but I can’t recall a single case where we’ve nabbed one. The people we hang are the lowly couriers, commonly known as the ‘drug mules’. From the drug lord’s point of view, occasionally he loses a shipment; he factors it into his cost of doing business and won’t bother to spare a thought for the young life that he sacrifices.

On our part, we gloat over the mules that we capture. Once caught, we put them on a conveyor belt to the hangman’s rope. With the mandatory death penalty, there’s no room for mitigation; we aren’t able to offer them a reduced sentence in return for information that might lead to the capture of the drug lord. Why should they help law enforcers when they’re going to be hanged anyway?

We don’t seem to be interested in going after the drug lords; we seem merely to want to tote up the body count.

As Aaron Ng cried out in his blog, with reference to Tochi’s execution,

I never imagined that [the death penalty] would be applied so mechanically. In fact, I think it has been so grossly abused. I have lost faith in the Singapore justice system. The taking of one’s life as punishment now appears to be nothing more than routine business.

We are merely performing law. We don’t stop to ask if our actions are truly informed by a sense of justice and proportionality.

All the while, we imagine we are battling the drug lords, whom we never catch. But seen from another angle, we are as callous as they are over the lives of the couriers. To them, the drug mules are disposable; they are merely instruments for arriving at a profit. To us, they are disposable too, mere statistics for “deterrent value”, which we promptly mark “Top Secret” lest others see us as bloodthirsty.

But we may be worse than drug lords. They sacrifice lives because they are calculative. We? We sacrifice them because we are mindless and unthinking.

______________________________________

Related posts:

1. Discretion to the judges – judgment reserved
2. Calling for an end to the mandatory death penalty
3. Judges reserve judgement in Yong’s mandatory death penalty appeal

In an interview which Lianhe Zaobao (28 Feb 10) did with Dr Chee Soon Juan, reporter Ms Yew Tun Lian implied that Dr Chee was being funded by foreigners to undermine Singapore. This story was also reported by the Straits Times (1 Mar 10).

Dr Chee replied to the newspapers, pointing out that it was the PAP Government that was undermining the interests of Singaporeans through its so-called foreign talent policy, its continued pandering to MNCs, and its use of foreigners in the National Wages Council.

The newspapers, however, insisted that they would publish the SDP leader’s letter only if these points regarding the PAP were deleted (Straits Times Forum: Chee claims ZB interview implied he was anti-S’pore – 17 Mar 10).

Even this sentence was censored: “Is my endeavour working against Singaporeans’ interests or am I working against the PAP’s interests? I wonder just who is really undermining Singapore’s interests.”

If the PAP wants to have a debate of who is undermining Singapore’s interests, it is most welcome. But let’s not do this by censoring the SDP’s views.

The original letter that was sent to ST and LHZB with the deleted portions in bold is reproduced here:

Just who is undermining Singapore’s interests?

In your report Chee on foreign funds, Chiam’s exit from SDP (1 March 2010), your reporter wrote:

In the [LHZB] article, the interviewer asked him about rumours that he had been able to engage in civil disobedience and other activities here because he received financing from foreign donors.

The article said that, after much probing, he replied: ‘I am an academic, and will occasionally receive research funding from overseas. I have written award-winning books, and have taken part in overseas research programmes.’

But Dr Chee did not say what the research entailed. All he would say was: ‘Maybe research like human behaviour.’

The way that the report is written is clearly an attempt to portray me as being evasive about my income. I had told the LHZB reporter, Ms Yew Lun Tian, clearly that I depended on my books and from time to time, help from my relatives for survival.

Because she found it hard to believe that this was sufficient, I told her that we lived simply and frugally.

At one point she said she felt embarrassed about having to ask me where I lived and what kind of HDB flat I lived in. This is an indication that she was aware that she was probing into my personal matters. Nonetheless, I obliged her by answering her question.

Yet Ms Yew reported it in such a way that I was trying to avoid her answer and had something to hide.

What is left unsaid, although clearly implied, is that I may be a stooge of a foreign agent conducting activities against Singapore.

This is the favoured line of an autocratic regime and its controlled media: They portray their opponents as traitorous individuals in cahoots with foreigners to undermine the country.

In what way do I harm Singapore’s interests by fighting for democracy and the political rights of Singaporeans?

[Compare what I do to what the PAP does: The Government brings in foreigners by the millions at the expense of Singaporeans, causing the locals economic uncertainty and hardship.

The National Wages Council, which help to determine the level of wages of Singaporeans, continue to have foreigners such as Americans, German, and Japanese sitting in it. For the record, real income of Singaporeans have stagnated in the recent past and the cost of living has far outstripped wages for most Singaporeans.

But perhaps the clearest indication that the PAP Government works against the interest of Singapore and her workers came from the late Ong Teng Cheong. In January 1986 Mr Ong, then deputy prime minister and NTUC secretary-general, had sanctioned a strike by the shipping industry which he did not inform the cabinet.

This was Mr Ong's account: "The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America asking what happened to Singapore - we are non-strike."

Why do American bosses need to call the PAP Government about a strike carried out by Singaporean workers? Why does it have to account to American businesses for what it does in Singapore? Who does the Government listen to, American MNCs or Singaporean workers?

The important question that must be asked is what are Singapore's interests? They must not be conflated with the PAP's interests?

Is the PAP Government's policy to invest and subsequently lose more than $100 billion in investments in Western banks while poor Singaporeans go hungry and homeless working in the interest of Singapore?]

In all my years of service to this country, I have always worked with one and only one objective in mind: To speak up for my fellow citizens and empower them so that they can stand up for themselves.

[Is my endeavour working against Singaporeans' interests or am I working against the PAP's interests? I wonder just who is really undermining Singapore's interests.]

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

______________________________________________

Related posts:

1. The coming around of Chee Soon Juan and SDP?
2. Chee Soon Juan’s ‘exploitation’ of the Burma situation?
3. Chee Soon Juan’s release from prison (video)

_________________________________________

By Leong Sze Hian & Andrew Loh

Jurong (JTC) and Aljunied Town Councils’ (ATC) Service and Conservancy Charges (S & CC) will increase for all flat types on 1 April.

As Singapore is just coming out of its worse recession, with the economy contracting by two per cent last year and also contracting by 2.8 per cent on a quarter-on-quarter seasonally adjusted basis in the last quarter of last year, unemployment still high at an average of 87,000 for 2009, wages falling by 3.2 per cent in real terms in 2009, and wage cuts that may not have been restored, I would like to suggest that we be cautious in starting to raise fees so soon.

For example, it was also announced recently that  Polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) fees will also go up from 1 April.

According to Jurong Town Council’s annual report for 2008/2009, it had a surplus for the year of $1.5 million, and an accumulated surplus of $3.2 million.

This is after transferring $11.7 million to the sinking fund, giving a total reserve of $79.3 million.

For Aljunied Town Council, the surplus for the year was $2.8 million and total town council funds were  $59.5 million.

So, why is there a pressing need to increase S & CC so soon?

Even if we have to increase S & CC,  those in 1 and 2-room HDB flats should be spared, as their median monthly household income from work declined by a whopping 13.9 per cent in 2009, according to the Department of Statistics’ Household Income Trends 2009 report.

Also, why is it that S & CC in the opposition wards Potong Pasir and Hougang are now lower than Jurong and Aljunied, for all flat types, except for 2-room flats in Hougang which at $28.50 is 50 cents more than Jurong and Aljunied?

According to media reports, Government grants in 2005 per household were $560 for Aljunied, compared to $114 and $111 for Potong Pasir and Hougang respectively.

For 2009, Government grants for Aljunied, Jurong, Potong Pasir and Hougang, were $9.1, $9.1, $0.75 and $0.94 million respectively.

So, even after adjusting for the smaller number of households in Potong Pasir and Hougang, it would appear that Government grants may still be substantially higher per household for Aljunied and Hougang.

If this is the case, why is it that S & CC in Aljunied and Jurong are higher, despite higher Government grants?

The fact that the last reported statistic that three to nine per cent of households were in arrears of more than three months on their S & CC, may indicate that many Singaporeans may still be in financial difficulties.

I hope that other town councils and service providers will not also increase their fees so soon too.

Readers will remember that in 2008, the Straits Times reported:

… the $2 billion in the sinking funds its [the PAP’s] 14 town councils manage is in good hands, said Mr Khaw Boon Wan, the party’s first organising secretary.

TOC had asked then:

It would thus seem that in a year which saw the worst financial crisis in decades, Singapore seeing record inflation and our town councils being affected by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the town councils have been able to effectively double its sinking funds.

The question one would ask is: How did this happen? Were returns from investments so good? Or are town councils collecting unnecessary excess of service and conservancy charges?

How did the sinking funds grow from $1 billion to $2 billion within the space of one year in such an adverse economic climate?

Perhaps before PAP town councils are allowed to increase S&C charges, these questions should be answered first.

___________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. Sinking funds: From $1 billion in 2007 to $2 billion in 2008
2. Town councils’ funds – Teo Ho Pin responds
3. $1 billion in town council funds : what’re they used for?

By Andrew Loh

I have been wondering why the Singapore government has been reluctant to abolish the mandatory death penalty, or at least impose a moratorium on it. It is obvious to anyone familiar with how the MDP is practised in Singapore that there are serious flaws in it.

Lawyers have said so. The Law Society has said so. The international community has said so. (Most countries do not have or have abolished the MDP, including almost all Asian countries.) Even judges have implicitly express reservations about it.

So, why isn’t the government taking heed?

One reason is that of “face”. It is quite clear that in almost all of its public defence of the MDP, the government has adopted the “we are sovereign and we do not kow tow to pressure from others” attitude. Yet, this is not about national sovereignty for that is not in question. No country would stand for external pressure from others. Yet, many countries have abolished or imposed moratoriums on the MDP. Heck, even a draconian state like China has given its judges discretionary powers when it comes to the death penalty.

The issue is about fairness, mercy and humane-ness.

While we may want criminals to be punished and punished severely, we must not forget that the punishment must fit the crime – and the criminal. It is the same reason and principle why we have separate courts for minors – the juvenile courts. If the justice system does not have room for fairness and mercy, then we’re looking for revenge and not justice. We’re looking for vengeance and not punishment. And revenge and vengeance have no place in our laws or in our justice system.

If they do, then we’d be nothing more than beasts.

As for the deterrent argument, it is quite clear that the goverment has nothing to stand on. There are no studies which support such a claim.

And so, we are left with one thing – public opinion. As recently as Jan 2009, Law Minister Shanmugam has cited this as a reason why the government retains the MDP – that Singaporeans support it. But the minister misses the woods altogether. The issue is not the death penalty but the mandatory death penalty and how it is carried out in S’pore.

And there have been NO surveys or studies or research about whether Singaporeans support the mandatory death penalty.

All we have at the moment are assertions – assertions which are not substantiated in any concrete or meaningful way, data or studies.

So, why is the government burying its head in the sand?

My guess is pride – political pride. That we came from nothing, managed ourselves and brought ourselves to “first world” and no one is going to tell us how to run our country. Indeed, Lee Kuan Yew has said this several times.

But pride leads one to a fall, has it not been said?

When the world moves in one direction, we should pay heed and ask why and see if there is something there we could learn. It is fatal to hold on to pride and make up excuses to justify that pride.

Many countries have reversed their positions on the MDP. And all countries have pride. Yet, these countries perhaps placed a higher value on human life than national pride – especially when there are compelling reasons to do so.

And with the MDP in Singapore, there are indeed compelling reasons for us to re-look the legislation.

At the end of the day, are we a society which leaves no room for remorse, repentence and conversion? Are we so filled with pride and “face” that we are unable to have a heart as well?

Yes, Yong Vui Kong smuggled drugs. Yes, he is guilty.

Yet, now that he has been in jail for almost 3 years, he has changed. He now realises his failings. He asks for mercy. He wants to turn his life around.

He has been frightened. Nah, terrified.

He has turned to his god. He has turned to the Buddha. He reads the scriptures. He prays. He counsels his fellow death row friends. He lives and adheres to prison rules.

The guards are amazed. His counselor is amazed. His lawyer is amazed. His sisters and brothers are all amazed at the transformation.

“Being in his presence is like being in the presence of an enlightened being,” one of them says.

Remorse, repentence, conversion. Aren’t these the things we teach our children when they have done serious wrongs?

Is there no value in these?

Is there no room for these?

If the Singapore government is holding on to the MDP because of national pride, then I say I do not want to be a Singaporean.

For that is not me. It should not be us.

For when I see someone being remorseful and repents for what he has done, there must be room in my heart for forgiveness.

And that is how I want my country to be.

Especially when the person in question is a boy.

A boy.

_________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. Room for more, but at what cost?
2. 4-room flat sold for record $653,000
3. M Ravi: Death penalty should not be dispensed ‘in an automated, robotic, spasmodic approach’

“There is a clear global trend away from sentencing
people to death without taking their age, vulnerability
and other powerful mitigating factors into account.”

Saul Lehrfreund, co-founder of the Death Penalty Project

Related posts:

1. Extrajudicial killings by Sri Lankan government
2. Should the state let me choose how and when I die?
3. “We’ll be in a very very sorry state.”

Social Workers are evolving into “care coordinators”, according to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sport, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. By adding, “coordination then means you need to be able to communicate with all the other stakeholders in our society”, Dr Vivian actually meant that social workers are evolving from being case managers, into being care coordinators.

This evolvement of social workers is good, for as long as social workers are going to work as case managers, their focus will be on containing costs, utilisation management, prior authorisation, welfare context, services that are covered and on promoting coordination and communication across disciplines within the organisation. Case management is about social work in the micro level.

When social workers move from being case managers to care coordinators, they move from the micro to the mezzo level; for care coordination is about facilitating access, quality assurance, problem-solving, psychosocial context, covered as well as non-covered services and more importantly promoting coordination of social support services across different organisations and providers.

But there is yet another level for social workers to evolve into – the macro level. The macro level involves society or communities as a whole. This type of social work practice would include policy forming and advocacy on a national or international scale.

One can only wonder if the government of Singapore will encourage the evolvement of social workers to go from the mezzo level to the macro level.

When most national bodies of social work are members of the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW), Singapore’s very own National Council of Social Services (NCSS), renounced its membership of ICSW not too long ago.

ICSW states in its website that their basic mission is to:

“Promote forms of social and economic development which aim to reduce poverty, hardship and vulnerability throughout the world, especially amongst disadvantaged people. It strives for recognition and protection of fundamental rights to food, shelter, education, health care and security. It believes that these rights are an essential foundation for freedom, justice and peace. It seeks also to advance equality of opportunity, freedom of self-expression and access to human services.”

This mission statement is loaded with quite a bit of ‘macro’ ingredients – rights, advance equality of opportunity and freedom of self expression.

Did NCSS withdraw its membership from ICSW some years ago also because it was not ready to allow social work to develop to a macro level?

Social work can be a thankless career. It is perhaps more a calling than a career. Anyone who has spent any amount of time working in the social services sector is probably familiar with the concept of burnout. Burnout destroys the social workers motivation, work ethics and, most of all, the inner hope, that the work they do makes a difference.

Although raising the salaries of social workers is a move in the right direction, doing so to keep them motivated can only go so far, as extrinsic motivations like higher salaries are only temporary.

The government should not stand in the way for the intrinsic motivation of the social workers to evolve to the macro level. Give them a sense of feeling that they too can make a difference in the national and even international level.

_________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. CPF – social security or social bondage?
2. TOC Feature: Social work – a human rights framework
3. Giving equal access to social benefits

The government just announced a change in the COE quota system. From April onwards with a pro-rated formula first and then every 6 months from July, the car population growth rate would be the number of deregistered vehicles in the previous 6 months period plus 1.5% of the current car population.

The aggravating factor to the decreased supply of COEs is that since COEs are fewer, its demand and price becomes inflated, there would be more people holding on to their cars. Hence, the actual number of deregistered COEs recycled into the market would in turn be fewer.

The car industry community is forecasting trends of 30% fewer COEs and higher prices for new cars as a result. Kia has already increased car prices by $5000 for Cat A cars, the staple category for the middle class driver.

For the car buyer, the road ahead is fraught with racing prices. In February 2000, the COE for a 1600cc car and below was a frightening $43,998 and in that year, the COE dipped to a so-called lowest price tag of $32,800 in December.

Whether there would be a repeat of the terrifying period when COEs for small cars hovered in the $30,000 and more range remains to be seen.

Is the COE quota reduction good or bad news? Without question the answer would depend on whom you ask.

Authorised dealers would feel the brakes applied on their sales. Used car salesmen see it as an opportunity for them to compete again as buyers might find the prices of new cars with new COEs daunting. Car buyers would generally be irritated that their desire to change cars every 3-5 years would be more costly than before and the post-1990 Singaporean disposable car culture might stall for a while.

Car owners, however, might heave a sigh of relief as there would be fewer cars on the road and a corresponding decrease in the frequency and intensity of traffic jams consequently, depending on where and when one drives.

Over-extending a bit, taxi drivers might also see this development positively as those who do not want to take buses but would not buy a car, might end up taking taxis as a substitute to owning a car.

Strangely and probably as a result of bad market forecasting, NTUC’s car-sharing business is coming to a stop when this announcement on the reduced COE numbers could actually revitalise the car-sharing niche market. Furthermore, the government’s purse would also fatten from higher COEs. On the other hand, fewer number of cars on the roads might mean fewer car-related taxes e.g. road tax, ARF.

The government seems to be swinging back to the argument that it wants the car population controlled. In the past few years, the government allowed the growth of cars because of the public’s expectation of car ownership. Hence, while owning cars became less expensive relatively, car usage became more expensive with the erection of more ERP gantries and more punitive ERP rates. Nevertheless, the sudden surge in cars was not a result of government generosity but bad maths.

The LTA came clean that the formula for using projected deregisteration of cars for the year instead of the actual deregistration of cars for the past year, swerved the regulation on car population into a ditch.

In recent years, Singapore’s vehicle population growth rate was greater than 5% instead of the allowable growth of 3% stipulated between 1990 and 2008. Last year, when the allowable growth rate was halved to 1.5 per cent in an effort to slow down the car population size, the actual growth was 3.4%.

Since 1990, the COE demand and supply has been based on what you can bid and what the government wants to release into the market. This is probably the easiest way to manage the car population – i.e. car buyers outbid each other to own a car, or cars.

Therein lies the conundrum – is there a better route to control of the traffic problem? Yes, assuming the government breaks free of the COE mindset.

Controlling the car population need not only be through the failing COE system. The direction to take is that it is not about regulating the car population per se, it is about controlling car congestion on the roads even without the COE. It is not about not making people own cars, but making driving so expensive that they would not want to use their car unnecessarily.

Without the COE the car is “cheap” considerably. Car owners therefore won’t feel pained if they leave their car at home and routinely take public transport. This is the re-tuned thinking into allowing car ownership without causing car congestion.

The Off Peak Car scheme, as an example, already offers potential if it can be revamped to a mainstream rather than minority car ownership scheme. Allow people to own cars, but driving it indiscriminately becomes a hole in the pocket, this thus potentially decelerating the car congestion problem on the road.

_________________________________

Related posts:

1. COE: Another solution that may make more money, but may not solve the problem?
2. Beep beep
3. The future of discontent

“But Mr Bala yesterday argued that the law did not allow any procession of five or more people in any public place to demonstrate support for, or opposition to, the views or activities of any person; to publicise a cause or campaign; or to mark or commemorate any event.”

TODAY

Read also: A case of double standards

Related posts:

1. 19 in court to face illegal assembly and procession charges
2. Free Burma! International bloggers to support freedom for Burma on Oct 4th
3. Number of comments on TOC surpasses 100,000

Foyce Le Xuan, on receiving threatening phone calls

Related posts:

1. Siew Kum Hong makes police report against “vile, vicious and malicious” attacks
2. Gagged by the church – Foyce Le Xuan
3. It just makes your blood boil

Related posts:

1. Aware coverage – Straits Times defends itself
2. HDB housing policies – tilting the advantage towards PRs?
3. HDB’s inflexible policies will result in more homeless S’poreans

The New Paper reported yesterday that Foyce Le Xuan was advised by her pastor from City Harvest Church (CHC) not to speak to the media about revealing all the details of Jack Neo’s advances towards her, six years ago.

It would have been alright if Foyce got this advice from a pastor from any other church but CHC. Why? Because CHC is the same church that Jack Neo and his family go to; and they are being counselled by the pastors from this church as well.

Is there a conflict of interest in CHC counselling both Jack Neo and Foyce Le Xuan?

CHC is, after all building a multi-million dollar, 12,000-seater building and it is in their interest to keep the best donor in its membership, to see the building project through.

The remorseful Jack Neo may very well turn out to be one of the biggest contributors towards this building project. It is human tendency to cover-up our sins with money. Is that not the reason why many temples and churches coffers overflow?

Even if Jack and Foyce are being counselled by two different pastors, do they not come under a hierarchy? Do these pastors themselves receive their counsel from the ‘higher-ups’, who guide them on what to say to Jack and more importantly to Foyce?

It seems that it is precisely because the church had advised her not to speak with the media that she is unable to move on. Foyce after all, seem to have so much of bitterness in her heart towards Jack, describing him as ‘devil’ and ‘inhuman’; and it is good for her to come clean to the media – especially in this case, lest she be made out to be an attention-seeker or even worse, a liar.

If the rationale behind the advice really is that going to the media is not a good way to resolve such issues, should not have the pastors advised Jack the same? Why did a pastor from CHC accompany Jack and his wife for the press conference (which went horribly wrong), if this was indeed their fundamental reason?

It seems that Foyce has evidence that she was harassed by Jack and the pastors at City Harvest Church should not hold-back Foyce from coming forth to the media with this evidence – especially since Jack has conducted his case through the media.

_______________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. Foyce Le Xuan makes police report
2. City Harvest Church acquires land for S$310m in central-south Singapore
3. Church of Our Saviour clarifies “allegations”