to caution Khong’s church that the church was embarking on a confrontational approach” when Khong & his gang want a judicial review, even though they are judgemental clowns who discredit other Christians
I don’t take issue with netizens’ views on the clownish, bigoted, unforgiving and boorish behaviour of pastor Khong and his gang.
I can’t stop laughing at a polo-playing pastor getting worked up over a church employee giving birth when married to the baby’s hubbie when his own daughter had a baby outside marriage. I mean the parents were in holy matrimony even though the baby was conceived before the marriage. And his daughter’s life-style fits the image of polo as a sport of the decadent, spoiled and sexually active rich: ask the Prince of Wales and his wife the Duchess of Cornwall, his ex-mistress. Par for the course, you would have tot for a polo-playing pastor: a daughter enjoying sex outside holy matrimony and having a baby outside holy matrimony. And he not preventing it, as any Asian parent would do.
Most appropriate, if true, that a civil servant at MoM told him off by referring to his daughter’s life-style. If he can’t get his daughter not to do premarital sex or have a kid outside marriage, why should he insist on punishing someone else for having consensual sex outside marriage (I mean this is not Saudi Arabia or bible-belt America, but a wannabe global city), and who has a baby inside marriage. Better behaved than polo-playing Khong’s daughter. Doesn’t his bible say:
– Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
– And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
– He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
– Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
– For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
– Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Maybe, his bible got these passages removed as haram?
I support MoM’s stand on the case*. But disagree when Manpower Ministry “caution the church that it [the church] was embarking on a confrontational approach” over the matter. (ST report)
As lawyers quoted by Today said:
Mr Abraham Vergis said: “What is ordinarily an employment law matter is now being recast in terms of the constitutional right of a church to manage its religious affairs. This challenge has the potential to become a landmark case depending on how the courts address the questions raised.”
Another lawyer, Mr Chia Boon Teck, felt that should the court’s ruling allow for an exception for religious organisations with regard to the employment laws, “the wider implication may be that other religious bodies would also argue that the authorities not interfere with how they deal with their staff”, a point Mr Khong also acknowledged in his media statement.
And there are allegations that MoM did not follow the rules of natural justice.
So, as he and the church are filthy rich, why shouldn’t the church go to court? Khong and friends may be clownish bigots but they too got rights, juz like Dan Tan, and those whom the ang moh tua kee local human rights activists love. http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/where-use-of-isa-will-be-met-by-silence-from-the-usual-human-rights-kay-pohs/
Seriously, as we strive to become a more open society, one of the consequences that we must accept is the willingness of citizens and organisations to litigate unpopular causes. We should not “flame” those who exercise this right in circumstances, in situations, circumstances we dislike, think they are wrong, or in this case know that they are wrong.
A more open society is a place where people have the right to offend or annoy, or do things differently, or juz disagree. If you don’t like this right, don’t ask for a more open society. And go live in North Korea, or Vietnam or Saudi Arabia.
My other serious point is that S’pore is starting to forget the British strand of secularism that we inherited from our colonial masters. A vocal minority (in our constructive, nation-building media, as well as in injun territory and cowboy towns) are following the French and Turkish model of secularism (look up “anti-clericalism”) which has a very anti-religious streak. The British version ignores, disdains or overrules religious behaviour or practices, where such behaviour or practice conflict with the law, while not interfering in a person’s religious beliefs so long as they remain a matter between that person and his god. In the other version, the state and the secularists actively and aggressively promote secularism even if it interferes with personal beliefs.
In a place where issues of faith are still taken very seriously, this is a dangerous trend. Thankfully, the govt is still secular, not anti-clerical, unlike many netizens and local media journalists. And yes, even the British version as practiced here does sometimes interfere with personal beliefs like only Sikhs can wear headgear in schools. But these inconsistencies only prove the point of non-interference.
More on these clowns who give Christians a bad name:
*From a Today report: Nevertheless, it felt compelled to respond, and reiterated that “many different religions co-exist and thrive” here and individuals and religious organisations are “free to practise their respective faiths”.
“However, our system of governance is a secular one and everyone has to abide by the laws of the land regardless of race, language or religion,” the MOM said. “The laws regarding employment constitute one such area. Employment laws have to be applied equally to all regardless of their religion.”
It noted that the case “was strictly a dispute between an employer and an employee, and MOM treated it as such”. “All organisations, whether they are religious or not, must abide by the same laws,” it added.
While the Constitution states that religious groups have the right to manage their own religious affairs, it excludes acts that are “contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality”. In an Aug 28 statement explaining why it sanctioned the FCBC, the MOM said there was insufficient cause to support the dismissal, while noting that “we have to preserve a common secular space for people with other beliefs, and employment is one of these secular spaces”.
Hear, hear, I say.