Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
Other related similar articles/posts:
1. "Why censor when you can regulate?"
2. "In response to a parent's plea for censorship"
Posted by LCC at 21:02
Although I am somewhat concerned that this new initiative may end up duplicating the efforts (or worse, eat away at the existing resource pool) of other anti-poverty groups in Singapore such as One Singapore and World Vision, it will hopefully be a case of the more the merrier with regards to fighting poverty in Singapore.
Hopefully, all these different groups would coalesce together into an anti-poverty alliance - pooling together resources (instead of competing with one another for them) and leverage upon one another's efforts & expertise. After all, although there may be differences in their philosophies and approaches, the common goal of these groups is to fight poverty; this commonality should over-ride any differences.
Other similar videos here.
Posted by LCC at 20:39
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Posted by LCC at 23:55
Friday, August 02, 2013
People can sometimes place too much importance on others' external apperance, instead of on others' character and motivations. This was my conclusion after I read in today's Straits Times ("Girls' bald move a no-go at school", 2 Aug 2013) that St. Margaret Secondary School had apparently insisted that three of their female students, who had shaved their heads bald for a charity event, wear wigs when they were in the school. Reportedly, Mrs. Marion Tan, the school's principal, was concerned that if the three girls did not hide their bald heads with wigs, they would start a "fad" amongst the other students of the school to have "punk, unfeminine or sloppy hairstyles".
If the three girls had shaved their heads bald as an act of youthful rebellion or experimentation, I would agree with Mrs. Tan's concern. However, in this case, the girls had shaved their heads bald as part of the Hair for Hope (HfH) charity initiative by the Children's Cancer Foundation (CCF). For those of you all who may not know, the HfH initiative, beyond having donors donate to the CCF and to fund the research of cancer treatment, involves donors shaving their heads bald as a symbolic gesture of solidarity and support for young cancer patients whom have lose their hair due to their undergoing of chemotherapy. It is thus most ludicrous that Mrs. Tan should view the shaved heads of the girls as a potential negative example which should be hidden from view and not be encouraged.
Mrs. Tan should have instead allowed the girls to come to school with their shaved heads unhiden. If I was her, I would have invited the girls up on stage during school assembly to proudly announce to the whole school that it was a charitable and courageous act for the girls to shave their heads bald in support of a cause and that what they have done was an act worth emulating. If she had done this, Mrs. Tan would have been able to teach the whole school something worthwhile.
Unfortunately, Mrs. Tan instead decided that despite the charitable and courageous nature of the girls' motivations behind shaving their heads, their shaved heads were "punk[ish], unfeminine" and unbecoming of a "young lady". As a result, instead of teaching them something worthwhile, Mrs. Tan had instead perhaps "taught" the students of St. Margaret that it was more important to have a "feminine" external appearance, rather than a charitable and courageous heart.
What a pity.
Posted by LCC at 19:51
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Later on, responding to apparent criticism against his status update, Pastor Khong made the following comment.
While I can still agree with Points 3, 4 and 5 of Pastor Khong's status update, I take issue with the other points and with his subsequent comment.
Firstly, this court case or trial is one of Kong Hee and the five other City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders, not one of the church or Christianity. What is before the court is whether these six individuals have intentionally misappropriated funds that were entrusted to them. Just as how the court case against Mingyi was not a trial of/against Buddhism, this court case against Kong Hee and the other five is not a trial of all churches and Christians; a trial against the "body of Christ", it is not. Pastor Khong should not muddy the waters by trying to "religionise" the case.
Of course, it is perhaps inevitable that detractors of CHC's methods and theological teachings, and of Christianity in general would see this court case (especially if a guilty verdict is awarded) as validating their criticism and suspicions. But the fact remains that this is a court case brought against individuals, not against a church or a religion. This is a distinction we need to make and remember.
Secondly, although Pastor Khong tries to appear neutral and unbiased, it is perhaps evident that he wishes for the court case to have a certain outcome. He says he is only "just praying for righteousness to prevail and for justice to be administered fairly". But this begs the question of what would he deem a righteous, just and fair outcome? The acquittal of Kong Hee and the five others? What is left unsaid sometimes say more than what was said.
Lastly, Pastor Khong says he does not condone wrongdoings (so he agree that what Kong Hee and the others did were wrong?), so if the court delivers a guilty verdict against Kong Hee and the others, would he step up to speak out against their wrongdoings, just as how he has spoke out against the "homosexual agenda"? Or would he keep quiet? Or would he perhaps argue that what they did is legitimate in the eyes of God and that He would exonerate them eventually? We shall see, I suppose.
Posted by LCC at 07:49