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
Friday, February 22, 2013
Yesterday evening, as a somewhat avid reader of the "SAF Confessions" Facebook page, I saw on the page the following "confession".
|Original confession on SAF Confessions|
Posted by LCC at 19:34
Sunday, February 10, 2013
In the recently concluded parliamentary debates on the Singapore Population White Paper, it was interesting to me that, besides other issues being debated, a thread of the debate was on the question "Who is a Singaporean?". This question was first raised and discussed in Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean's opening speech, a part of which is quoted above. It was also discussed, implicitly or otherwise, in the other speeches made during the debate.
Piqued, I started to think about how one can define a "Singaporean" and managed to come up with the following four definitions.
1. Legalistic definition: Singaporean by state recognition
2. Nativist definition: Singaporean by birth
3. Experiential definition: Singaporean by experience
4. Ideological definition: Singaporean by ideological assent or aspiration
Posted by LCC at 23:27
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Posted by LCC at 18:48
Saturday, December 29, 2012
The question is: who will win? Although I am no Nate Silver, my assessment is that the PAP will most likely retain the constituency but without an absolute majority or with only a simple majority. That is, the PAP will win the by-election but with less than 50% of the votes.
Posted by LCC at 23:07
Monday, December 17, 2012
My on-the-spot reaction was to comment: "Hmm, seems like the media is trying to portray Ms Ong as 'loose' and reduce the guilty factor of Palmer."
Sadly, my snap assessment was, in a way, proven right. Earlier today, when I was discussing with others about this incident, there were remarks made about how Ms Ong was perhaps not really a "proper" woman, in view of how she was separated from her husband, having an affair with Mr. Palmer and having a boyfriend all at the same time. One even commented how Mr. Palmer should have known what sort of woman Ms Ong was and not be entangled with her.
Indeed, it is amazing how easily the media can frame and slant people's perspective of an issue. Well, in the end, as the saying goes: "It takes two hands to clap".
Ironically enough, six days before the Straits Times published the article in question, it published this commentary by Susan Antilla on the media's biased tendency to portray women involved in extramarital affairs with married men as sluts, seductresses or mistresses. Oh, the irony!
Posted by LCC at 19:08