Saturday, July 19, 2008

Jesus was born on Bethlehem

I'm sure family and friends are going to get 'blown over' by this video treat!

Rachel the 5+ year old pianist will sing you a song which she had composed. She had just started piano lessons 3 months ago. I think she's doing great and enjoying herself. Just like Daddy!

(Link here if you cannot watch it)

Many thanks to missus for capturing this awesome but hilarious video. Indeed these are precious moments that pass us by if we don't stop and enjoy them.

PS. I know the subject header is not grammatically or biblically correct. Don't need to spam with comments :P

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Where are your accusers?

She was a pawn in their religious fervour, an object of scorn. They had already known of her affair with a married man. If not, how else would they find them?

They hauled her through the public marketplaces. The men whispered in hushed condemning tones while the women folk held tightly to their men. He had promised to leave his wife after each love-making. But each time it ended with “Await my good news”. Good news indeed, she grimaced bitterly. Where is he now?

The church leaders scoffed at her when she questioned about the other guilty party. She had no right to speak, they told her. She was guilty as dead. Through the streets they dragged her in search of the Rabbi whom everyone called Jesus.

She had heard rumours of this Rabbi. He was the Holy One of God. Nothing escaped him without Him knowing. His prophetic eyes will search out every sin in her life and expose all of them in public. He will humilate her. Afterall, He had already called the scholars and theologians ‘Brood of Vipers!’

How much more will he condemn her adulterous affair! Surely he would leave the worst of his choice words on her. Then he would call down fire from heaven to consume her.

Let this be a lesson to all. The Law must be upheld and regarded in the highest as he proclaimed over her charred body.

Now she stood trembling in fear before Jesus. Surrounded by her pastors,the church elders and leaders, they scrutinised her every movement. Their eyes pierced her soul, searching every fault hidden in dark corners. Their judging lips brayed “Condemnation! Blood payment according to the Book!”

Yet he did not give more than a glance at her. He bent down and began to write on the ground. A crowd had already gathered. Her accusers lifted their voices and commanded Jesus to pronounce a judgement upon her based on the Law of Moses.

He straightened up and said, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

She squeezed her eyes shut. The stones will strike her any moment. She could almost feel them now. I bet the larger stones will be from my pastors. They have been counselling me against the affair. I have failed. I deserve the worst.

*Shuffling of feet*. No stones touched her still. Breaking her fear, she heard a gentle voice asking, “Where are your accusers?”

She opened her eyes. The crowd was still there but their faces had softened. Her accusers were no where to be found.

“No one,” she answered in barely audible tones and still in puzzlement.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and sin no more."

These few words remained etched in her heart eternally - “Neither do I condemn you”. She felt the power in those words.

Power to liberate her from her bondage. Power to remove all condemnation. Power to renew her and restore her whole again. Power of God’s love flowing through her.

Most of all, power to fall in love again. With the new man in her life - Jesus. One who will never leave nor forsake her. One whose words holds true and eternal.

Ask the Samaritan woman by the well. Cross-examine the woman with the issue of blood. Interview Mary Magdelene.

You can also question all the prostitutes, the tax-collectors, the blind, the lame, the lepers, the sick and those who called on His name to save them.

Judgement, condemnation.

They were familiar with these. Often pronounced on them by the Pharisees, religious leaders and the world. And rightly so because they deserved every bit of it.

Grace. Forgiveness.

These they found in Him. They knew they were helpless. Lost and needed a Saviour. And they received much more.

(John 8)

Thursday, July 10, 2008

When did LKY and ST become flip-floppers?

I was a bit stunned at the audacity of it all.

First LKY claimed in the defamation suit against CSJ that the IBA (International Bar Association with 30k strong members) had praised Singapore's judicial system. And the association had even sent him a letter of approval.

IBA is a world recognized body. Its endorsement of Singapore judiacial system is like a stamp of approval. It's like having ISO9001 on your IT processes.

Then SDP called the 'bluff' when it verified with IBA. IBA not only denied having sent any letter, it produced a 72-page report criticizing Singapore on the human rights issues and press freedom.


Now I have Straits Times rebutting IBA's report here.

So I'm wondering now, first you used IBA's name to bring up Singapore's judicial system. Now you rebuke the same very association for publishing a report.

So which is which? You mean Singapore is so unique that only the PAP government can define what is right?

It's like telling International ISO9001 that they have got it all wrong. They don't really know our IT processes, so they shouldn't be telling us what to do, what to change. Put it bluntly, it's like telling ISO9001 - YOU SUCK!

Right. Who used IBA's name in the first place? Surely it wasn't CSJ.

Ahh... the absurdity of politics. No wonder I'm no politician.

PS. Sometimes I wished we had more humble ministers who would admit their mistakes when they boo-boo. Not 'sorry that it had happened'. But simply 'SORRY'. It soothes an angry soul.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Solve the puzzling disconnect

Today publishes
This is the part that puzzles me:
"The spokesman said plainclothes officers on routine anti-crime operations in the area heard a loud knock on their vehicle after stopping at the traffic light.

They saw an Indian man walking away. When the officers identified themselves and interviewed the person, he became abusive and refused to furnish his particulars, saying he is an American citizen and the Police has no right to check on him.

Despite repeated warnings to stop his verbal abuse, including a racist slur against one of the Malay officers, he continued to be uncooperative and persisted in his abuse. "

Puzzling questions that ran through my mind:
  • Now why would an Indian man out of the blue knock on the police vehicle? Did the police officers see the Indian man knock on the vehicle? Could it be another person?
  • How come so 'zun' (coincidentally accurate in Hokkein) that it 'happened' to be Goplan Nair?
  • Did the Indian man had sudden revalations from divine above that the car was a police car and knocked on the car to confirm?
  • If anyone had knocked on my car, I wouldn't be the least concern as long as the car was not damaged. Neither do I need to identify myself as a police officer and interview him.
  • And why did the Indian man (if it was indeed Goplan Nair) insult the Malay officer with a racist slur? I mean he's already out of bail, why does he want to have a civil charge against him?
Of course when you don't have the full picture, one tend to over-exaggertate. Enjoy my 'conspiracy' theories:
  • They were 'subtlely' following Goplan Nair and were discovered. This got them infuriated and decided that Goplan needed to pay for exposing their 'stake-out'. (If only they were so vigilent towards Mas Selamat.)
  • The Indian man needed help, knocked on the car to call for assistance but got the arrest instead.
  • The knocks on the police car were big dents. How was the driver ever going to return back to the police station? Oh, he knows the number of forms he had to fill for the car damages during operational duty.
  • The police car following Goplan nearly knocked him down. He was furious. Knocked on the car and demanded an explanation. Got arrested instead.
  • One of the officers showed Goplan the #1 sign with his finger while driving by. Goplan retaliated.
  • One of the officers shouted, "Damn Yankies". Goplan retored with a racial slur.
I don't know... there seems to be bits of disconnect all over.

As usual I will be fed with bits of disjointed information. Soon enough a whole big story consisting of bits and pieces will be revealed. It will be so ludicrous that I can even believe 'pigs fly'.

Friday, July 04, 2008

Shame on you, Mdm Yeong and Today! Shame, shame!

Re-reading the transcripts from this blog (it is very accurate since you'll see the written transcripts and the audio ones) and also the audio clip from SDP website, you'll find that Mdm Yeong and the Today newspaper had 'conveniently' left out Dr Chee's words to make him sound like he had accused them as 'murderers', 'robbers', 'rapists' and 'child molesters'!

Here is the ploy exposed -

From Today:
Mr Davinder Singh: “ ... And to conclude on Dr Chee’s submissions, he says that he doesn’t wish Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ill. In that same breath, he says he stands by The New Democrat article, which alleged that they are ‘criminals, corrupt, and covered up matters in the NKF’. And under his breath he’s now just said ‘murderers and robbers’.”

Dr Chee: “And rapists, too, you might as throw it in, you know, right? Child molesters”.

against what was actually said in the audio clip and in the written transcripts:

Dr Chee: “And rapists, too, you might as well throw it in, you know, right? Child molesters”.

Can you see how Mdm Yeong and Today 'conveniently' left out the word "...might as well..."? This totally changes the statements from one of allegations (from Davinder Singh) of CSJ towards the PAP leaders to one of downright accusations by CSJ to the PAP leaders.

The former makes CSJ sound like he had accused LKY and the PAP government with these degratory terms. The latter gives me the impression that since Davinder Singh had alleged CSJ to imply that the government are 'murderers' and 'robbers', other degratory terms might as well be thrown in.

Wow... didn't know Mdm Yeong is so smart. Must have been a scholar. A good one too. Until exposed through the new media - Internet. Why don't you do us a favour by showing us the whole transcripts instead of partial information?

*clap clap clap*

Shame on you, Mdm Yeong. You have 'lied' to Singaporeans.

Shame, shame.

Mdm Yeong: Chee Lies Again

Taken from Today Online.


Yeong Yoon Ying
Press Secretary to Minister Mentor

In a letter to Today, Madam Yeong Yoon Ying, the press secretary to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, responds to opposition politician Chee Soon Juan’s call forMr Lee or his counsel to produce part of a transcript from last month’s court hearing to assess damages arising from the libel suit against Dr Chee.

YOUR report “Nothing to do with political freedom” (3 July 2008) refers to my letter to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and toDr Chee Soon Juan’s response published on his website.

In my letter to the WSJ, I said that in the recent defamation cases, Dr Chee had called Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew ‘murderers, robbers, child molesters’ and ‘rapists’ in open court.

Dr Chee alleged that I had lied, and challenged me to produce the relevant transcript.
I enclose p. 115 of the verbatim court reporting transcript of the hearing on28 May 2008. Line 11 onwards reads:

Mr Davinder Singh: “ ... And to conclude on Dr Chee’s submissions, he says that he doesn’t wish Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ill. In that same breath, he says he stands by The New Democrat article, which alleged that they are ‘criminals, corrupt, and covered up matters in the NKF’. And under his breath he’s now just said ‘murderers and robbers’.”

Dr Chee: “And rapists, too, you might as throw it in, you know, right? Child molesters”.

Mr Singh: “And this is the man who says “I don’t wish them ill”.

Dr Chee has once again lied toSingaporeans.

Alright let's read the partial transcript of the court proceedings which caused this ruckus.

I don't know about how the legal terms or procedures are. On paper, it states Dr Chee has labelled the leaders as 'murderers and robbers', 'rapists' and 'child molesters'

But my understanding of the words exchanged is: Dr Chee is so fed up with the legal proceedings and misinterpretations that sacarsm has ruled his words.

Take for example (or lack of better of at the moment):
A wife was quarreling with her husband. She accused him of not spending enough time with her. In her opinion, he was more interested in golf and his golfing kakis, one of whom was a woman named Mary. (No offense to any Marys here.)

He tried to defend himself with reassurance of his love and time.

In response to him with frustration that nothing was going to change, she shot back, "Since you are so defensive, you might as well start an affair with Mary since you are spending so much time with her in golf!"

Now on paper technically, she did tell him to have an affair.

However in context of the heated argument, she was insinuating that her husband's love and time for golf was driving their marriage apart. It was as if he had committed adultery. But did he commit adultery? Of course not! Was she asking him? By no means. Was she implying he did? I do not think so.

It stems from frustration with a man cornered. It's like following up with a statement, "Since you claim this to be so, you might as well put in such-and-such. It makes no difference to me."

So, Mdm Yeong, I've said numerous times. Don't show me partial transcripts. It can deviate from the truth and the context it was quoted upon.

Take the 'text' out of 'context', it becomes 'con'. Till now, you have yet to show us the full transcripts.

For you readers, hear the proceedings and read the transcripts from the SDP website and make your own judgement and conclusions.

What is Patriotism?

I was reading this blog about his Singapore life. Till date, he is still figuring out what patriotism means.

I, too, asked myself the question and the scary part was I don't really know. And then a flurry of words came and here is my response to him:

"I have migrated. What I had suggest(ed) to many Singaporeans is to stop seeing the world through the tainted glasses the media and government want you to look through.

See the world for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Singapore is a really fine (pun intended) city. But I do not see my next generation growing up in that kind of environment anymore.

Choose wisely. It still is not a bed of roses elsewhere, but you realise you have a choice in how you want your life to be. Back in Singapore, you don't have choices. It's a rat-race, do what they tell you or fade away and die in the background.

Patriotism? I'm still figuring it out today. But I can summice like this to what runs through my mind:

A patriotic person is akin a solider in the Iraq war. He gives of himself for the country, knowing the risks and glories, yet chooses to be a soldier because he believes in what the country (not the government) stood for. It is no loss that he sacrifices himself for the cause. He is not motivated by greed, nor by political means, nor by the media. He does what he chooses to. He has a choice.


Wednesday, July 02, 2008

.sg Politics is not good for anyone

I have been telling myself: Stop writing about Singapore politics. You are just gonna get the hurt.

But I can't help it. For the past year, the unfolding events, laughable responses and published stories in the Straits Times unfurled within me a whole ruckus of disgruntled emotions - derisive, fuming mad, hilarious, ludicrous, incredulous, absurdity... the list goes on.

It's like watching a comedy... of errors.

It shows how the government thinks of us Singaporeans. Stupid enough to swallow the whole bait, sinker and hook.

Aww... c'mon, give me something more credible to chew on, instead of spin stories. It's sickening and frustrating enough letting me bits and pieces of disjointed information. Then you try to piece all these into an incredulous story for me accept.

Here are the not-too-recent 'jokes' that got me all agitated:
  • Ministers' pay
  • GST for the poor
  • Increase of ERP, increase in utilities and cost of living, bus fares, taxi hikes
  • Mas Selamat sage, 'independent' report, response from WKS, PM
  • Petrol tax from MBT. opposition comments from Hen
  • Singapore Dissident
  • CSJ defamation suit, calling him a 'psychopath'
  • ST gutter journalism, etc

Now we have this latest report by a certain Yeong Yoon Ying, Press Secretary to Minister Mentor.

I winced in disgust. You mean just because you wrote something with eloquent government speech means it is credible? I'd bet WSJ thinks otherwise.

Two Views of Freedom of Speech and Law in SingaporeJune 30, 2008
Your editorial ("Democracy in Singapore," June 26), relying on a "partial transcript," has misunderstood the issue in the libel case involving Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his sister.

The case had nothing to do with political freedom. It was for defamation arising from the Chees' false claims that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew are criminals and corrupt. Despite being advised by a Queen's Counsel, they failed to produce any credible defense or evidence to back up their claims.

Having lost, Dr. Chee in open court then called the Singapore leaders "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists." The Chees also rebuked the judge, ignored her orders and shouted her down. In Ms. Chee's defense, her lawyer could only claim that she was "almost paranoid." This is why the judge sentenced the Chees to imprisonment for scandalizing the court.

Many opposition politicians routinely criticize government leaders, but are not sued because they have not uttered slanderous falsehoods. Contrary to your editorial, Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, subject to the law.

Singapore's laws must be decided by Singaporeans, not by foreigners like Gopalan Nair, who is a U.S. citizen, or by the foreign media. Foreign media are entitled to report and comment on what is happening in Singapore, but they circulate here subject to Singapore law. They have no right to defame, to give a skewed account of court proceedings, or to engage in Singapore politics, for example, by campaigning for their version of Western style "democracy" for Singapore.

Yeong Yoon Ying
Press Secretary to Minister Mentor

This is a joke itself, Mdm Yeong. You are not doing anyone any favour, really. Internationally and locally especially. Singapore is already world-wide infamously known to be an authoritarian state. So prove them wrong.


Settle it once and for all. Put the nail into the coffin so all words will be hushed. I've said again, your words prove nothing. It's empty talk. Unless you have something to hide...

Now see how Singapore Democrat has responded. Plain simple facts baring the truth (according to their side) to let every reader hear the transcripts and decide for themselves. (For readers, read here)

The PAP responses these days have really gotten weirder and weirder. I have to contend with "Singaporeans are complacent", "What to do, it has happened", "Let's move on", "I am appalled and flabbergusted", "GST is to help the poor"...

Are these responses et all? Or just hog-wash? Spin stories?

"If you love Singapore too much, first it will break your heart, then it will break your soul." -Alfian Sa'at

How apt.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Told you so: Straits Times is going into gutter journalism

Not sure if you had read the article about Tan Lead Shake published in the Straits Times.

The first glaring mistake mentioned Tan Lead Shake was a member of Singapore Democratic Alliance. I was like - huh? Is this another political ploy to undermine SDA (or the opposition for the matter)?

It's such a unforgivable mistake that I find it hard to swallow it as "it was an honest mistake".

Read it for yourself here.

Woo... the Straits Times is sinking to a new low.