A SingPost mail trolley was stolen (http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/mail-stolen-after-singpost-trolley-left-unattended).

According to the news report, “SingPost said it was the first time a mail trolley had been stolen although mail had been left unattended in the past.”

It is shocking that despite the history of unattended mail, SingPost had not taken adequate steps to prevent a recurrence. Instead, the matter had gotten so much worse with a whole trolley of mail being stolen. This is not just a simple case of the postman being careless but a blatant failure of the postal supervisors and SingPost management to learn from past incidents of unattended mail and implement timely preventive measures.

SingPost is always quick to take disciplinary action against its postmen when such incidents happen. It is right to ask what disciplinary action SingPost takes against its own management and its postal supervisors.

A whole trolley of mail was stolen because the trolley that the postwoman was allowed to use did not come with any theft-prevention security facility. The postwoman left the trolley unattended while using a restroom. May I ask SingPost what standard operating procedure for mail security did the management put in place to take care of such a situation? Was it the fault of the postwoman that she did not or could not put nature’s call on hold, or that no means was provided by her employer to securely stow away the mail? Did SingPost expect her to push the trolley into the toilet cubicle so that her eyes would not be taken away from the mail?

Let me quote this from the same news report:

“The Straits Times reported in June that a bundle of letters had been left unattended at a void deck in Toa Payoh with a note attached telling residents not to touch it and that a postman would return for it later.

SingPost said then that the postman had a heavy workload that day due to the haze.

As his storage box was full, he did not take all the mail with him to the next block. Disciplinary action was taken.”

In the June incident, SingPost was quick to say that disciplinary action was taken. Who was the disciplinary action taken against – just the postman? What did SingPost expect the postman to have done in his situation of having a heavy mail load with his scooter storage box full?

Let’s assume the scenario that the postman carried the mail with one hand (since the storage box was full) and controlled the scooter with the other hand. As a result, he committed an offence for failing to ride his scooter safely. Alternatively, he caused an accident with his scooter. Certainly, SingPost would say that it would take disciplinary action against the postman. Passing the buck to the poor postman would save the skin of management for failing to enable the postman to do his job safely.

It was ridiculous for SingPost management not to foresee that its postmen would just be humanly unable to do their job properly and safely riding their delivery scooters with an extra load of mail to take care of when the storage box is inadequate to hold the load. If the postmen were to leave the mail unattended, they would flout SingPost operating procedure and be disciplined. If the postmen were to overload the scooter and with attention distracted to make sure that the extra load does not drop off the scooter or without both hands controlling the scooter, they would be flouting traffic safety and would be disciplined also. Did SingPost even consider whether the extra load was of a size placeable safely on the light scooter? SingPost should look to its management for accountability that its postmen have to juggle impossible responsibilities.

Complaints against SingPost for poor service have been rife as the company has become ambitious in transforming its postal business into one involving the selling of all kinds of “barang barang”.

Jo Li

Someone wrote an email to us sharing how despite studying in an elite school and graduating from our world class uni she is still jobless. She holds a BA without honours. Her article will be out soon.

So is having a degree now no more an automatic passageway to a good job these days? 

During my time, when you have a degree from the local uni or abroad, people envy you and your life seems blessed and smooth.

Nowadays, there are all kinds of degrees and some of the private ones are unrecognised by our civil service.

For example, someone told me she only got a job offer of $1800 as her degree is from SIM whereas her colleagues with degrees from the local uni got better starting pay. So does that mean SIM degrees are not as valuable as those from the local uni?

Moreover, I have seen many people with world renowned degrees going jobless for long period when they are in their 40s and some even have expensive MBAs.

Some even remove their MBAs or degrees from their resume while out looking for jobs for fear that they are over qualified for certain position.

We have heard of a classic case here whereby a SMU graduate removed her degree qualification from her resume and got the job with NEA just by applying it with her poly diploma. When she include in her degree previously there was no reply.

So is having a degree these days a handicap if you are jobless or applying for a job that does not require one

What about those foreigners coming in with their third world degrees? Are they better or worse off than us? Do employers now just look at the cost and prefer to hire a cheaper foreigner with a dubious looking degree than pay more and hire one of our own local kind?

Gilbert Goh

*The author is the president of Transitioning.org and is one of the most influential activists around in Singapore.

RECAP: At the height of Dr Yaacob's Internet Censorship Activities in Mid 2013 when he decided to censor online news sites under MDA licensing rules, the MDA CEO was nowhere to be seen. 

The whole exercise failed in the PR department with Dr Yaacob even quoted as expressing that people should "read the right thing" in a TV interview. 

This drew wide spread public outrage and even caused a Singaporean-led protest at Hong Lim Park. Even a few internet giants joined in to criticise the MDA's new internet censorship policy and regime which was passed without public consultation and without a mention in parliament.

What caught most people during this saga was the conspicuous disappearance and total MIA of MDA CEO, Ms Koh Lin Net who did not even turn up for a much publicized CNA Talking Point program that she was scheduled to attend. 

She was supposed to present MDA's internet censoring new policy and support the reasons behind it under her office. Instead, she disappeared from all public forums related to the topic without any reason and let the Ministers handle it. 

This was also during the same period that it was revealed on media that she had just purchased a luxury condominium at Keppel where her mother also represented as director.

The public had questioned the matter extensively online.

Unfortunately, it seems the authorities are not interested and we have not heard anything more about the property purchase and development despite much online speculation. 

So what has happened to the MDA CEO who went MIA?  Had she been found and has she gone back to work? 

What happened to the questions raised on this by the public? Has it all just been swept under the carpet again?

Marky Sim

TRS Contributor

Every weekday morning, at around 7.30am, I take SMRT bus service 857 to work.

When the already-crowded bus arrives at the bus stop opposite Khatib MRT station, SMRT officials there would get commuters to board via the exit door.

The buses are often packed right to the doors and there is hardly any space for standing commuters to move. This clearly exceeds the buses' passenger capacities.

I am disturbed to note that SMRT is allowing its buses to be overloaded with passengers in order to meet peak-hour demand. What would happen if the buses were involved in accidents?

Can the Land Transport Authority look into this matter before something serious occurs?

Kok Ying Ying (Ms)

*Article first appeared on ST Forum (24 sep)

I refer to Singapore Announces Tighter Rules Hiring. [Link]

Although there is some initial cheer for MOM's tough stand against discriminatory hiring practices, it may unlikely be able to punish or penalise errant employers unless it sets up a special force to entrap and fine/ jail these employers.

Common sense will tell you that employers can find many excuses to bypass the law.

For example, employers can re-advertise and say that job applicants are not willing to accept their salaries or they can't find someone suitable without disclosing real reasons to MOM.

This practice also happened in public sector. For example, there was this job advertisement from Attorney Chambers Office Legal Executive. This advertisement has been re-advertising again and again. One of my friend who attended the interview said that the HR file was very thick (meaning, she photocopied many job applicants) but a month later, the same advertisement re-appeared again.

Obviously, employers and HR has every right not to tell the job applicant for its rejection. What makes MOM think it can compel employers to tell them the real reasons unless it is a Court order?

And how will MOM get to enforce this? Remember, there are thousands of advertisements every day. How will MOM monitor this closely?

And even if they rely on members of public to blow the whistle, what can be done? At most, MOM will just issue a warning letter. Remember, this is just a rule and guidelines. Employers will hardly care until it is gazetted legislation.

To fine and jail an employer will be a very lengthy process which will encompass the Labour Court.

Last but not least, why must implement it only Aug 2014? Can't it be this year, just like the speed of how MDA tried to get their licensing social media Act gazetted quickly this year?

If they implement it earlier this year, many swing voters may still give PAP a chance. Implementing it only next year may piss swing voters off.

CJ

TRS Contributor

It is extremely disgusting to see another yet another PAP dog telling us to integrate with foreigners. More than just saying something stupid, it highlights the insensitivity of these ministers to the feelings of us average citizens. Right from the SAF to the local universities, Singaporeans are unfairly disadvantaged against the privileges that these foreign trash get (even though they are not necessarily better). 

David Tan Hock San has correctly highlighted a phenomenon: If we were to move to a foreign land like Canada or New Zealand, we should be the ones making the effort to integrate with them and and not expect them to integrate with our culture. By asking us to what is clearly contrary to common sense, our pride as citizens has been denied to us by our useless multi-millionaire ministers.

Besides the infamous cases of Sun Xu and Ma Chi, let's recall several notable incidents involving foreigners:

1) Robert James Springall/Robert James Springal

Even though local taxi driver Tay Gek Heng was trying to make an honest living by slogging it out past midnight, he was punched for no reason by these 2 dudes and their friend Nathan Robert Miller. After getting impatient waiting for a cab, Miller decided to jump onto another taxi's bonnet for fun while Springall decided to dangerously reverse that taxi into a signage pole before the trio shouted taunting remarks such as "Who's your Daddy?" then punching him when Tay came to assist. Miller was eventually sentenced to 3 weeks jail but these two had the audacity to flee their bail and walked away scott-free.

2) Olivier Desbarres

Even as a senior banker at a top-rated investment bank, his behaviour was nothing better than that of a dog. Even though construction workers were just going about their business building a house near where he stayed, he decided to hurl insults at them for the noise they created. At its worse, he threatened to burn down their house before insulting them as "f*ucking Chinese animals" and endangered their safety by throwing a metal sheet at them. Although he was eventually dismissed from his job as the Head of FX strategy at Deutsche Bank, it was apparent that no legal action was taken against him. 

3) Rachelle Ann Beguia (and the likes)

Even as PAP-MP Penny Low was the subject of much furore after being caught using her iPhone while the national anthem was sung, this low-ranking Pinoy woman decided to stand up in her defence. Despite not having served NS or contributed much to Singapore, she had the audacity to claim that NSmen are "moronic" whose "loyalty" are questionable and that they will "pack up and run" when asked to fight a war. Although it was later claimed that the posting was done by her husband Joachim Gay, there have been plenty of nasty remarks made by her fellow compatriots against Singaporeans.   

4) Yuan Zhenghua

For no apparent rhyme or reason or without evidence, this PRC national decided to accuse taxi driver Yeow Chuwee Lam of keeping his belongings before punching the taxi driver and forcing the driver out of his sear. After that - despite not having a driving license - he drove the cab at speeds of up to 105km/h before crashing into cleaner Chandra Mogan Panjanathan at the Changi Airport Budget terminal. Mr Panjanathan had no insurance and her widow now has to take care of their 4 children despite earning only $1200 a month. He was eventually sentenced to 25 months in jail.

5) Stefan Masuhr

Having lived here for more than a decade and held several top-ranked positions with investment bank, Stefan decided to lose his temper one day at a lady Mercedes driver over a lane-changing dispute. He got out of his Bentley and decided to punch the windscreen of the Mercedes twice until it cracked. Surely, a senior banker would have more respect for the rule of law? Up till now, it is not clear if any legal action has been taken against him for road rage even though the incident was understood to have cause much distress to the victim.

These incidents have collectively highlighted the ills that are present with too much foreigners. Even though I may have a strong dislike for Gerald Giam, I couldn't agree more with him that our "grouses [are] perhaps not at the level of the individual [foreigner], but at the powers-that-be who have opened the gates to admit those individuals in the first place." Plainly, the more these insensitive ministers sprout nonsense, the higher the impetus to vote them out! Till then, 2016!

Joseph Kheng-Liang Tan

*Article first appeared on http://www.facebook.com/notes/joseph-kheng-liang-tan/integrate-with-foreigners-lets-vote-you-out-first-/166153780244681

Singaporeans Earn The Lowest Wage Share As Compared To Other High-Income Countries

“Wage share” refers to the share of wages in total GDP, which is the “proportion of economic value added which goes to wages“. According to the International Labour Office (ILO), “If the growth in average wages is slower than the growth in GDP per capita, then the wage share usually declines. If, on the contrary, average wages grow faster than GDP per capita, then it will usually be the case that the wage share increases at the expense of profits.”

Thus if wage share is low, this means that profits are high.

Do you know that Singapore has the lowest wage share among all the high-income countries (Chart 1)? This means that profits would be much higher as well.

Chart 1: International Labour Office Global Wage Report 2008/09, Ministry of Trade and Industry Economic Survey of Singapore First Quarter 2013

Also, you can see that whereas for all the countries, their wage share had maintained at a consistently higher level but Singapore’s wage share had remained at a consistent low, and hovered at near-40% (Chart 2). By now, you would know that Singapore is the richest, if not, one of the richest countries in the world, by GDP per capita. Yet, it performs so dismally in sharing the wealth that its people had helped it built with the people.

Chart 2: International Labour Office Global Wage Report 2008/09, Ministry of Trade and Industry Economic Survey of Singapore First Quarter 2013

According to the ILO, it is important to look at the wage share because “the wage share has often been given significance as an indicator of a “fair share” for workers. This is because a declining wage share usually implies that a larger share of the economic gains is directed into profits. Not only may this be seen as unfair, but it can also have an adverse impact on future economic growth.“

The ILO also said that, “governments are encouraged to display a strong commitment towards protecting the purchasing power of their populations and hence stimulating internal consumption”.

However, do you know that Singaporeans have the lowest purchasing power among the developed countries (Chart 3)? Mind you, we are the richest country in the world, but we have the lowest purchasing power among the developed countries.

Chart 3: UBS Prices and Earnings Report 2011

So, quite clearly, you can see that in Singapore, wages seemed to have remained stagnant, at the expense of profits.

Also, because of stagnant wages and rising prices, the purchasing power of Singaporeans have now become the lowest among the high-income countries.

Importantly, there are also clear benefits to increasing wage share, The ILO had stated that, “because the marginal propensity to consume is higher for labour income than for capital income, it is usually considered that an increase in wage share will have a positive economic impact. Recent studies of Europe estimated that one percentage point increase in the wage share would increase GDP by 0.17 per cent.”

But more importantly, the question is – is the PAP government more interested in maintaining high profits, than to increase wages for Singaporeans? You see, the government benefits from the high profits from two fronts. First, as mentioned previously here, the government has majority shares in the major companies in Singapore, through Temasek Holdings and the GIC, so if the companies do well, they do well. Also, when profits increase, corporate tax increases as well and increases the government’s revenue.

And as Singapore Singaporean had shared on Facebook, corporate tax in Singapore is high - “Over 6 years, it has grown by 39%. (Chart 10).

Chart 10: Singapore Singaporeans Facebook Page

Also, you can see that corporate tax forms the largest proportion of revenue for the government (Chart 11).

Chart 11: Singapore Singaporeans Facebook Page

Knowing this, do you think that the wage share of only around 40% is too low in Singapore?

Do you think that it is healthy for the people when the PAP government takes such an overwhelming interest in profits, that this might come at the expanse of the people’s wages?

Roy

*The author blogs at www.TheHeartTruths.com

Ms Olivia Wang Mei’s plea to consider making integration a key criterion for permanent residence and citizenship applications is, on paper, a sensible one (“Make integration a criterion for PR status”; Sept 11).

However, it is not possible to quantify integration or one’s willingness to assimilate into the culture of the country.

People coming here merely to earn top dollar, without any desire to contribute to the community, are clearly not deserving of permanent residency or citizenship.

But how will the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) ascertain this? It is currently not in a position to know a foreigner’s intentions in entering the country.

Perhaps the ICA could devise appropriate methods to screen an applicant, such as by posing questions on his long-term reasons for wanting to enter and reside in Singapore.

Willingness to serve national service, for example, would be a crucial determinant for an applicant for permanent residency.

The country needs people who are willing to integrate into the community and culture.

Only in this way can Singapore look forward to having a more cohesive and inclusive society.

V. Subramaniam (Dr)

* Letter first appeared in ST Forum (24 Sep)

A 20-year-old female ITE student was jailed for 22 months for attacking a 53-year-old Frenchman, who was a client of her prostitute friend.

Nur Azilah Ithnin had pleaded guilty to causing grievous hurt to product line manager Didier Moise Dominguez, as well as for drug-taking in March earlier this year, reported The Straits Times.

She was the first among five in an online prostitution ring case to plead guilty.

The other four in this case are 23-year-old Nuurul Aliyyah Abdul Talib; Ahmad Habiibul Hakim Assalafi, her 19-year-old brother; 33-year-old Malcolm Graham Head and his 19-year-old girlfriend, Patricia Rio.

Investigation showed that Azilah had been a close friend of Aliyyah and Ahmad since secondary school.

Aliyyah, who met Head and Rio and subsequently worked for them as a call girl, was asked to go to Marina Bay Residences to provide sexual services to Mr Dominguez, who had made a two-hour booking for her at $280.

Worried over her safety, Azilah and the group accompanied Aliyyah to Marina Boulevard. Due to some misunderstanding between Dominguez and Aliyyah, she was not agreeable to provide certain sexual services to him and called the quartet for help. Some news sources speculated that the French client wanted anal sex which is illegal in Singapore. It is unsure why the French client was not charged for that matter.

The four turned up and assaulted the victim, leaving him with fractures on his jaw. Azilah kicked the victim's body twice while the others punched and kicked him.

Dominguez approached security to call an ambulance after the assault, and was warded for four days given 28 days.

The five were arrested at Arab Street on Mar 5. Hakim's case is set to be mentioned on Oct 2, while a further pre-trial conference has been fixed for the rest this week.

Facebook, Twitter and other websites deemed sensitive and blocked by the Chinese government will be accessible in a planned free-trade zone (FTZ) in Shanghai, the South China Morning Post reported today (Sept 24).

Citing unidentified government sources, the Hong Kong newspaper also said authorities would welcome bids from foreign telecoms firms for licenses to provide Internet services in the zone.

China’s ruling Communist Party aggressively censors the Internet, routinely deleting online postings and blocking access to websites it deems inappropriate or politically sensitive.

Facebook and Twitter were blocked by Beijing in mid-2009 following deadly riots in the western province of Xinjiang that authorities say were abetted by the social networking sites. The New York Times has been blocked since reporting last year that the family of then-Premier Wen Jiabao had amassed a huge fortune.

The recently approved Shanghai FTZ is slated to be a test bed for convertibility of China’s yuan currency and further liberalisation of interest rates, as well as reforms of foreign direct investment and taxation, the State Council, or cabinet, has said. The zone will be formally launched on Sept 29, the Securities Times reported earlier this month.

The idea of unblocking websites in the FTZ was to make foreigners “feel like at home”, the South China Morning Post quoted a government source as saying. “If they can’t get onto Facebook or read The New York Times, they may naturally wonder how special the free-trade zone is compared with the rest of China,” the source said.

A spokesman for Facebook said the company had no comment on the newspaper report. No one at Twitter or the New York Times was immediately available to comment.

China’s three biggest telecoms companies — China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom — have been informed of the decision to allow foreign competition in the FTZ, the sources told the newspaper.

The three state-owned companies had not raised complaints because they knew the decision had been endorsed by Chinese leadership including Premier Li Keqiang, who has backed the Shanghai FTZ, the sources added.
 

Source: REUTERS

The 5 day visit by Myanmar’s democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi ended yesterday with a confirmed slap slap on materialistic Singapore. Many Singaporeans must be squeezing to get up close with this lady from a Third World country, economically and materially, with a whole list of what Singapore can do for Myanmar. Come see this Singapore and that Singapore. Come see Orchard Road and Sentosa, Changi Airport, HDB flats…. We can build industrial parks for Myanmar, airports, sea ports, shopping centres, artificial gardens, artificial beaches and parks, and yes HDB flats. We can teach Myanmar, plenty of things, and plenty of things for Myanmar to learn from us. 

Aung San Suu Kyi was more amused than anything. What is there to learn from Singapore except materialism, mad rush, rat race. She was quoted to say, ‘That made me think, what is work all about? What are human beings for? What are human lives for? The Singapore answer will be to work, work and work. Work is everything, work is pride and dignity. 

To this lady of international fame for fighting for democracy and human rights, there is more to just work and money, and work and work. There is a life worth living for. The quality of life is not just about materialism. She conceded that there are things that Myanmar could learn from Singapore but definitely not to copy our model of work, work and work. Myanmar would want to walk its own path to find its own way and happiness. 

Her parting shot to Singapore, ‘Perhaps Singapore could learn from us a more relaxed way of life. Perhaps warmer and closer family relationships. I think we have much to offer you, you come and find out.’ Oooh la lah… This must be shocking to many successful Singaporeans with a lot of cash to paste on their faces. This woman from Myanmar wanted to teach us? How can? 

Aung San Suu Kyi lives a life to improve lives, for freedom and human rights. We live a life of materialism, money and work. We even have to pay the govt for visiting our parents or our friends in their HDB flats. How is that for building kampong spirit and building a warmer relationship with friends and dear ones? We pay for everything and thus have to work and work to pay and pay. 

Well, it is a matter of opinion and expectation of life. We still want to pay that hundred or two hundred thousand bucks to the hospitals to keep us alive to 100 years when we are 90. We need to find more money to live to 100 years. Thank God there is this god sent Medishield Life to help the Singaporeans to live a good life.

Chua Chin Leng AKA Redbean

*The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/

I refer to PRESS RELEASE released by the MOM yesterday: PRESS RELEASE: MOM WANTS FIRMS TO CONSIDER SINGAPOREANS FAIRLY FOR JOBS

Believe it or not, Singapore till now does not have any laws to treat locals better than foreigners. Unbelievably, up till now, it is the only country in the world, where a foreigner can simply fly into the island, look up the papers for a job vacancy and get the job the very day, without any concern that there may be a hundred unemployed Singaporeans, with families to feed, equally qualified waiting for that very job!

And unbelievably, it is the only country among the so-called developed world, not being sure if the island qualifies as a developed country, where there is no minimum wage laws of any kind and anyone can be paid any amount by any employer, take or leave it.

And now this. The government claims, according to this report that “from August next year firms that want to hire foreign professionals must prove that they have tried to hire Singaporeans”

And that they have to advertise in “a national job bank” and that “firm with fewer than 25 or less”  or those whose salaries are more than “$12,000.00 per month” are exempt.

All very nice but have they ever considered whether it will ever work?

I am principally a US Immigration lawyer with more than 17 years of experience and I should know a thing or two about hiring foreigners. And I will tell you that this rule or policy is simply hogwash, another of Lee Kuan Yew’s red herrings that he occasionally throws when convenient. It will not help any Singaporean. If it does, foreigners will be the only beneficiaries of this harebrained policy. This is why:

1. In order for this rule to have any meaning, the country should first have minimum wage laws. Without this, in Singapore any employer can advertise a job at any salary they want. Therefore if any employer wanted to circumvent this law, the easiest thing to do would be to advertise the job at a very low wage rate. In this way they can easily eliminate any Singaporeans, who has to live in Lee Kuan Yew’s HDB flat and send his children to school and pay the high cost of living. After that all they have to do is to claim no Singaporean applied and the job immediately goes to the foreigner.

And secondly and more importantly, the government should carry out wage surveys for different occupations and require employers to comply. For instance, California minimum wage may be about $8 per hour but the wage for a Software Engineer is around $60,000.00 a year, not minimum wage. On the other hand the prevailing wage of a hairdresser may be $40,000.00 a year. This requires the government or the private sector to put out prevailing wage figures for different occupations requiring compliance by employers.

For instance, a nurse assistant wage might be just $40,000.00 a year in the bay area of San Francisco, but you cannot get away with paying this to a Software Engineer whose job requires at least $60,000.00.

Unless you have these laws in place, a Singaporean employer could advertise a job at the nurse assistant rate for the Software Engineer and get away with it to employ the foreigner, who may well be prepared to accept it!

And what is even worse, without the need to pay a fair wage to every worker, the living standards decline and the worker as well as the state goes to the dogs, except of course for the multimillionaire ministers.

2. Second, they should be prohibited from conveniently placing onerous conditions. For instance you cannot advertise for a job and require proficiency in Mongolian which a Singaporean is unlikely to know. After that claim no locals applied and give the job to the Mongolian!

3. For this rule to work, the job has to be tied to the particular employer. As the situation is now in Singapore, I understand once you are certified for your employment pass, you can move from one job to another without further certification.

4. It makes no sense to exempt firms with less than 25 employees from this requirement. If this is the case small firms can continue to hire foreigners at the expense of locals thereby defeating the intention of protecting locals.

5. The functioning of the government agency enforcing this rule must be open to public scrutiny and any local who is denied a job which subsequently went to a foreigner should be provided a grievance filing mechanism for the employer to justify the hiring. Otherwise they could simply give the job to anyone they want without the local ever knowing that he has been taken advantage of.

6. And there should be a separate labor court where these cases are filed enabling the worker to take the offending employer to court and demand adequate relief.

7. And finally any of this would only work if you had the rule of law and basic human rights. In Singapore where none of this exists, the locals will not only continue to be at the mercy of the employers, they will continue to be the slaves of the their government as well; as they are now.

I am sure Lee Kuan Yew’s son is going to do nothing to truly implement any of this. Once again this new rule ostensibly to protect the local worker is instead going to protect the foreigner, as it has always been the case in business friendly island. Once again in Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore where foreign millionaires whizz around in their Ferraris and the locals drool with envy watching them, business interests have won again and the locals have gone to Hell once again.

Incompetent PAP

Just a little bit of context: AWARE Singapore (a women’s rights group in Singapore) was alerted by seven National Service (NS) men to a verse of  Purple Light, an army marching song, that went like:

“Booking out, see my girlfriend
Saw her with another man
Kill the man, rape my girlfriend
With my rifle and my buddy and me.”

AWARE then brought it up with the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and MINDEF, who then investigated and decided that they would stop their men from singing this “offensive” verse.

This sparked an outcry among NS men – most of whom are serving the army full-time as part of their compulsory 2-year National Service in accordance to Singapore law. They all but bombarded theAWARE Facebook post and the comment pages on all the local news outlets that reported on the issue.

There were many comments, most of which were incoherent. But from what I could gather, these are some of the top reasons why they say it should be okay for NS men to sing about rape.

1. NS sucks, so NS men deserve the right to sing about anything they want – including rape.

2. Not only does military training suck, but NS men also run the risk of losing the girlfriends while they’re stuck in camp – which happens a lot. So they deserve the right to vent against these evil girlfriends – even if it means singing about raping them.

3. Most of the time, it’s foreigners’ faults that they’re losing their girlfriends – life is horribly unfair to these NS men. So they should be able to vent and sing about anything they want, which includes rape.

4. AWARE is simply overreacting! IT’S JUST A SONG. AND NS MEN ARE SUFFERING GOD DAMNIT! LET THEM SING ABOUT RAPE! NS sufferings > Idea of rape. Get over it!

5. Singing about rape doesn’t make you a rapist. “Grow the fuck up and live in the real world!”

6. AWARE is a bloody hypocrite! They protect women but don’t seem to care about men! Gender equality my arse!

7. Military men singing about rape as a form of bonding experience is such a “trivial” issue, compared to the hard work and suffering the men go through to protect our country.

8. This song has been around for DECADES – you’re messing with tradition! Fact is: this song is HARMLESS.

…

…

…

…

…

I was interested to find out if similar incidences happened in other countries and how people reacted to them. And I found the St. Mary’s University (Canada) case where a rape chant during orientation week caused some controversy.

The rape chant went like this: “SMU boys we like them young … Y is for your sister, O is for oh so tight, U is for underage, N is for no consent, G is for grab that ass.”

There are the obvious similarities: like this SAF case, it was a seemingly “harmless” setting. Just a bunch of people having fun, and blowing off some steam. But in the Canadian case, it was around 400 people who were chanting, whereas in this Singapore situation, the numbers run into the tens or hundreds of thousands – seeing that the Singapore army is about 500,000 strong. Granted, there are other versions of the army song that don’t include the word “rape” but I would think the number of guys who know and sing this version is pretty significant.

In the Canadian case, it was a big issue party because it was a Roman Catholic school. And here in Singapore, I would think it’d be a big issue as well, seeing that this is our national army we’re talking about.

The biggest difference between the St Mary’s situation and the SAF one, is that after they got called out, the student leaders in St Mary’s were apologetic and the reactions from the public (from what I could see) were mostly outrage at how this could’ve been going on for years without getting caught.

In Singapore, however, our comments were mostly by NS men who are actually upset that the lyrics got banned. Far from being apologetic or glad that the song should no longer see the light of day, they are angered and obstinate about continuing with singing the verse.

Even more mindblowingly, women were commenting and saying “I sing this with my boyfriend and I think it’s perfectly fine.”

I wouldn’t be upset if there were the occasional dissenting voice about freedom of speech and censorship. But it honestly scares me that the side supporting the use of the song overwhelms the other by a drastic amount.

It just makes me so incredibly sad.

How anyone can argue that singing about rape is harmless is completely beyond me. Normally I could just write this off with “OMG I really hate people.” Or “Singaporeans are so stupid.” But this is actually really really disturbing. And I’m just really hoping that someone somehow can convince these NS men and occasional bimbo how singing about raping a cheating girlfriend with a rifle and buddy is definitely a no-no in any context.

Because I would think it’s completely self-explanatory. And I really have no idea how to make it plainer that banning it is absolutely the right move.

Thankfully, Conventionally.wordpress.com puts it across much clearer than I ever could. And if you’re open to listening to the women’s side of the story, and finding out why the verse should be banned, please give her blog a read.

*Edit* This blog offers a great explanation on why singing about rape should be taken seriously, and why it’s so offensive: Verse of Army Song “Purple Light” Banned: The importance of shaping culture

Natalie Koh

*The author blogs at http://nkayesel.wordpress.com

With the sky high property prices in Singapore, many here have mulled over the possibility or potential of acquiring an overseas property. What’s more, with news of people profiting substantially from rental yield, it is hard not to think about buying a much cheaper property with the extra cash you might have instead of it sitting in the bank earning miserable interest rates.  

Before you heed your impulses to buy into overseas property such as those in neighbouring Malaysia, here are some things you might want to consider first.

Firstly, ask yourself the reason for wanting to acquire that property overseas. Is it for investment or personal stay? You may be interested to know that the Malaysian property market for example, favours investors and not flippers. This means that developers in Malaysia mostly do not allow investors to sell off their property within the construction period.  Malaysia also has a Property gain tax that is levied if you sold the property within a short period of time. The tax will be 10 percent within two years and5 percent between third to fifth year. There is even a minimum purchase price of foreigners.

Another key information you need will be the costs involved in the acquisition. This does not mean only the upfront payment, but also the financing costs. Acquisition costs include other miscellaneous fees such as stamp duties, legal fees, disbursement fees and obviously the purchase price. More importantly, the home loan interest in Malaysia is much higher than those locally.

Singapore’s home loan interest rates have been around 1 to 3 percent for the past 10 years. In Malaysia, the average rate is between 4 to 5 percent. Depending on the loan amount, we could be looking at a difference of few thousand dollars a month. The high loan interest will ultimately eat into your capital gains.

If you are buying for investment purposes, do note that the rental market can be vastly different from Singapore. Singapore is land scarce and has in recent years become a hot destination of relocation for expats, thus driving up rental prices. Compared to a similar destination like Hong Kong, you might make better gains renting out a Singapore property compared to that in Hong Kong.

Singapore has been a property hub for a long time and most people will not worry too much about resale value of their property assets. However, in other countries this may not be true. In Malaysia, especially in the new developments of Iskandar, the future of their resale value is still a mystery and may take more than a decade to find out.  

A property purchase anywhere is a big decision because of the costs involved so it definitely warrants your time to find out about every detail. To buy a property overseas in an unfamiliar market would require even more due diligence. Take your time to speak to different people before taking the plunge!

How good is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong?

We compare him to his predecessors based on the 5 basic aspects to a Singaporean’s well-being and summarised them in the radar chart above. The 5 aspects are specifically selected to determine the performance of the 3 PMs at different times. Here are the in-depth rationale how did the PMs fare:

Lee Kuan Yew (1965 – 1990)

Employment score 9: Singapore was a thriving port then but there were still many unemployed people. Along with Dr Albert Winsemius, Goh Keng Swee and other PAP old guards, the PAP team then managed to secure employment for many Singaporeans during the turbulent times.

Freedom score 2: Operation Coldstore, Operation Spectrum, exile of Devan Nair, use of Internal Security Act to arrest political dissidents…the list is endless. There is little or no freedom under Lee Kuan Yew’s iron-fisted rule. Things were so bad nobody dare spoke badly about the PAP government even in private conversations.

Education score 8: Most Singaporeans were uneducated back then, and through his numerous education campaigns like giving free food to children who attend school, helped shore up education level. By the 1980s, Singaporeans have became one of the most educated workforce in the world then. One of LKY’s most controversial yet successful education approach was an all-English medium. Chinese schools and other mono-lingual schools were stopped and everyone go bilingual.

Retirement and healthcare score 7: Most Singaporean elderly were able to retire and do not really face much problems paying off large medical bills. Unlike today, the people don’t have to be bankrupt first to get help in the name of means testing.

Purchasing power score 7: The cost of living was low then, most Singaporeans pay off their housing under 15 years of mortgage loan. A 3A room flat in Tampines costed only $43,500 then. Cars were cheap and there was no COE. Salaries were sufficient to upkeep a single-income family.

Goh Chok Tong (1991 to 2004)

Employment score 8: Outdoing his predecessor, Goh Chok Tong is credited for opening up Singapore’s market to the world. Public sector services were improved significantly and he has to be credited for the development of the train and transport system.

Freedom score 4: His predecessor and himself were still suing people into bankruptcy, most notably Tang Liang Hong and JBJ. Most oppressive rules remained but they were not as aggressively executed as during LKY’s times.

Education score 7: Education opportunities were further expanded through the opening up of the university sector to overseas universities. Although there was the implementation of the streaming practice, students were not half as stressed as they are today.

Retirement and healthcare score 8: Goh Chok Tong’s times is considered the Golden Years by many Singaporeans and one such reason is due to the ability of Singaporean elderly to retire without worries during the 1990s. Healthcare costs were heavily subsidized and help was readily available.

Purchasing power score 9: During the 1990s, Singaporeans see a rise in wages that we were officially declared a first world country. Housing was rising then, but still remained affordable with morgage servicing period still at a comfortable level of below 20 years.

Lee Hsien Loong (2004 – Present)

Employment score 4: The influx of cheap foreign labor caused many Singaporeans to lose their jobs. Professionals, Managers and Engineers were the hardest hit as foreigners with dubious degrees flooded the labor market to compete for jobs at lower salaries. Retrenchment age dipped further with more Singaporeans becoming taxi drivers and self-employed.

Freedom score 5: Defamation suits are still a trademark of the PAP government. The mainstream media continued to be controlled and now the PAP wants to control the internet too. People still get arrested if they protest without permit.

Education score 6: Lee Hsien Loong further expanded the private education sector but did not increase the number of local university places in tandem with the population growth, which grew more than 25% in less than 10 years.

Retirement and healthcare score 2: More elderly Singaporeans and poor are sleeping on the streets and picking cardboards for a living. The new PAP administration remained oblivious to the problem even as voices are getting more and more vocal. Most Singaporeans do not get to retire today because of the relentless rise in Minimum Sum, Retirement Age and the depression of CPF interest rates. Healthcare for Singaporeans is a complete screw up and the people develop a saying goes “rather dead than sick”.

Purchasing power score 4: The bottom 20 percentile income earners see a drop in their salaries under PM Lee’s leadership. The median income earner barely see a real income growth over the same period, but the top 20 percentile income earners see a sharp rise in their income. Income gap continues to widen, which again is neither reacted nor responded to from the PAP. Housing mortgage servicing period stretched from a minimal 25 years to 35 years. Car ownership has become virtually impossible with COE prices alone ranging from $65 000 to $90 000.

Wiki Temasek

TRS contributor

It's been several days since Aware proudly announced their achievement in getting Mindef to ban a stanza of the song Purple Light, and the relentless comments on Facebook really beg for clarification.

Here's the deal: Singaporean men do NOT love rape or miss singing about rape. Had Aware not acted like a bull in a china store as they had, most men would in fact havesupported the expunging of the line themselves if asked. Those who have been simplifying this whole matter as one of men loving to sing about rape are really missing the point. There are several reasons why most guys are infuriated, and no, none of them is that they love singing of rape.

1. Sexual "equality".

That in the name of sexual equality and autonomy (rape being the loss of autonomy), Aware demanded the ban on an army song. While, of course, only men continue to be forced to serve 2 years of National Service (against their will).

This irony is accentuated by the fact that it is Aware - a feminist women's rights organisation - which broke the news that they were the ones who demanded this ban. In their rush and eagerness to claim credit for it (rather than letting Mindef announce it on their own), Aware's sheer lack of sensitivity has caused their proud brag to backfire on them so spectacularly.

The result is that amongst most men, the only thing they have ever heard Aware doing for sexual equality in NS is... ...to ban their song. Aware has created the prevailing sentiment that a group of women, coming from their privileged position of never having to serve a single minute of NS, has got the audacity to tell serving men what they can/cannot do. All the while conveniently ignoring the fact that NS itself is the biggest sexual inequality in the whole matter. It is this sheer sense of injustice and hypocrisy that is fuelling the discontent.

Of course, Aware's usual tired response is that they officially "support" female NS by having "spoken about reforms" before. However, this lip service to sexual equality counts for little when they have done close to nothing to bringing this "official support" to fruition, as compared to their impassioned and strong demands for righting wrongs such, well, a stanza in Purple Light.

2. Female voices on NS

The other fallacy being repeated is that men oppose any female discussion on NS at all because women have not served. That, however, conflates "comments" with "demands". Women are free, just like anyone else, to comment on NS as an institution, just as anyone is free to talk and comment about wars.

But when "comments" turn to demands, instructions, or dictations, a line may duly be drawn. Just as one is free to comment and discuss WWII, one would obviously be sensitive when telling Korean Comfort Women what they should forgive/protest/do/don't. Just as one may freely talk and debate about torture in Guantanamo Bay, one would clearly be slow to tell those who have actually been tortured there what to feel/do/not to do.

While NS may not be outright torture (lol), the forced deprivation of 2 years of one's prime youth based on gender and gender alone is a blatant injustice which most men keep silent about. Men do not object to hearing women talk or discuss about NS. However, when a group of women, loudly speaking ironically in the name of "sexual equality" dictate what men can/cannot do in NS, this dormant sentiment of injustice becomes greatly accentuated.

3. The real motivation behind singing about rape

Moreover, it is hypocritical and myopic that Aware, while claiming to be "troubled" that NSFs were singing about raping their cheating girlfriends, completely ignored the real motivation behind such a stanza (which, of course, is not a love for rape).

Clearly the fact that so many women cheat on or breakup with their enlisting boyfriends does not justify the abomination that is rape. However, it does make it at least understandable why NSFs harbour strong emotions that motivated such ugly lyrics. There is a real problem here that women are equally (if not more) guilty of that Aware is only willing to attack the mere symptom of. The fact that Aware is either unaware of this, or completely trivialises it (just as they accuse NSFs of trivialising rape) shows just how little effort and care they took in dealing with this matter.

At the end of the day, rape is never justified, and no one should promote or even trivialise rape culture. As I said, most men would actually favour removing that offending line if they were asked. But Aware, in its eagerness to eradicate rape culture, needs to be more tactful and sensitive rather than callous and clumsy. It must tread carefully especially when loudly addressing "sexual inequality" and "autonomy" in an area where women enjoy blatantly sexist and autonomous privileges which songs like Purple Light completely pale in comparison to. Only then will Aware (to use some warspeak) win the war instead of merely the battle.

Joel Goh

TRS Contributor

I’m going to get straight to the point: unmarried Christian couples holidaying alone together is a really bad idea.

Before I go on, let me clarify. I am talking to Christian couples. I assume that Christian couples are committed to sexual purity before marriage. If you are reading this and not Christian, this isn’t a word for you (though by all means keep on reading). I am also talking about unmarried couples. That includes engaged but not-yet-married ones. Furthermore, the issue is holidaying alone. I have less of an issue if they are with other Christian couples and definitely no problem if they are holidaying with one of the couple’s family, or if there’s a chaperone. No problem there.

Okay, now that’s settled, let me keep going…

I know all the arguments for this practice. And it seems to me that it’s growing in popularity among young adults in churches. Some of the reasons I’ve heard are: “It’s not like we’ll be sharing a room.” “Don’t you trust us?” “I know couple x and y and they did it and they were okay.” “Where in the Bible does it say we can’t do this?” etc. etc.

Here are some reasons I would still strongly advise against it: (And at the risk of sounding harsh, I may actually remove someone from leadership if, against all advice, they still went ahead and did it.)

• Don’t trust yourselves. Friends, the heart is deceitful beyond all things (Jer. 17:9). The devil, your flesh and the world are against you. 1 Peter 5:8 tells us that ‘your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.’ In sum, no, I don’t trust you and neither should you trust yourself. Don’t trust yourself that, in a place of no accountability, under some beautiful starry moonlight night, when you’re both tired and maybe had a few drinks, you’re not going to seriously compromise your sexual purity. Don’t trust yourself.
• God doesn’t want us just to be minimalists in obedience. The ‘how far before I cross the line’ mentality behind these kinds of holidays is flawed to begin with. This is what the Pharisees did. In contrast Jesus called on them to go for maximum heart-obedience. You might set all these artificial lines for yourself, such as: ‘If we were sharing a bed/room, then that wouldn’t be okay; but if we’re not sharing a room, then it’s okay.’ Jesus said, ‘If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out.’ (Matt. 5:29-30) Elsewhere, we’re called to flee temptation (2 Tim. 2:22). Friends, don’t be a legalist and a minimalist. Figure out the kind of life that pleases the Lord and pursue that maximally.
• We are called as Christians to be above reproach (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 2:7-8). This is a call for church leaders in particular (and that’s why I may remove someone from leadership over this). Our reputation with outsiders matter… a lot! When your unbelieving friends hear that you’re holidaying alone together, their assumption is that you’ll be sharing a room, having a ‘romantic time’, sexually compromising in all sorts of ways. Now of course you can take the time and effort to explain: ‘No, we’ll be sleeping in separate rooms; we’ll keep our hands off each other; we’ll have a curfew; we won’t get drunk…’ But are you going to be able to explain that to all the outsiders you know? Furthermore, is it going to be convincing, or just sound to them like you really want to do what everyone else does but want to save a little bit of moral integrity? Again, why not aim for ‘above and beyond reproach’? Your Lord Jesus’ reputation is on the line. Why not instead give no one any cause to whisper or doubt?
• You can wait. You really can. Our generation is particularly bad at ‘delayed gratification’. My fear is that God’s people are, on this issue, just becoming more and more like the world. Why can’t you wait for marriage to have that holiday alone? It really is much more gratifying then, believe me! You can share a room, share a bed, share lots of romantic moments, and (sorry for the crassness) ‘go at it like rabbits’… all for the glory of God! Is waiting a year, two years, however long, really that much of a problem given you might have a lifetime together?
• Fight the idol of pleasure at any cost. Yes we Christians are being sucked into the hedonism of our world. And we need to actively fight the idolatry of pleasure, which in recent decades, because of wealth and cheaper airfares, is this thing called ‘travel’. Travel isn’t wrong. There are lots of good and pleasurable things about it. But any good thing becomes a ‘god-thing’ when you are willing to sacrifice more important things for it. What are you putting on the altar of this false god? Your reputation? Your purity? Your example and model to younger Christians? Friends, it’s not worth it. Know that there is a greater pleasure in waiting and pursuing God’s will for you with all of your heart.

Okay, over to you. Comments?

Pastor Peter Ko

*The author blogs at http://pastorpeterko.wordpress.com

1     Minister Lui pointed out that “..fares have gone up by a cumulative 2.7 per cent from 2005 to 2011”.  While that may seem like an acceptable amount, he forgot to mention that train ridership has gone up from an average of about 33 million per month to 53 million over the same period.  link   Public transportation is now the preferred mode of transportation for foreign employees of construction companies where this wasn’t so in the past.  On weekends, it is heavily used by foreign workers.  Seats have been removed and there is even a peak hour of sorts.  Traveling on public transport has become stressful.

2     Lui cited the “rise of diesel prices by about 90 per cent, as well as that of national average wages by about 30 per cent over the same period”. 

Fact – For FY 2013, SMRT electricity cost rose only 1.7%.  Its diesel cost DECLINED 5.6 %.  SMRT press release 30 April 2013

The government has frequently cited rise in fuel prices eg. 2011 SMRT applies for fare adjustment to justify fare hikes. Strangely, the government remains silent when fuel prices decline.  Commuters’ interests have been sacrificed to pad the bottom line of PTOs.

3     Another set of data which has been cherry picked pertains to SMRT net profits.  Lui cited SMRT net profits “went down by 50 per cent within the last two financial years”. 

Fact – SMRT profits averaged $160,000,000 for the preceding 3 years. SMRT summary report 2013  (page 3)  If SMRT was not making so much money, the total compensation package for its ex profit driven CEO should not have been $1,800,000 after inconveniencing commuters with a series of epic breakdowns.

4     SMRT has been a money printing machine for Temasek Holdings which owns 54.28 per cent or 824,400,030 shares.  link (pg 38) SMRT was listed in 2000 at 61 cents. Temasek Holdings has recouped more than its initial investment after receiving 69 cents in total dividends. (till 2011)  SMRT dividends since 2001 

5      Temasek Holdings total dividends since listing amounted to $568.8 million in 2011.  Looking at this another way, its initial investment has been more than recouped and the shares it currently holds are its profits. (at market price of about $1.30, more than double its investment)  For no reason acceptable to the general public, the government prefers to ‘lock up’ money which belongs to all Singaporeans in a ‘no-one-knows-where-the-money-is’ account. 

6      SMRT business is not solely public transportation but includes retail and advertising.  Non-fare has exceeded fare EBIT, currently at $93.7 million and $33.3 respectively.  SMRT Report pg 12 and 13  Prime properties which were handed to SMRT on a silver platter by the PAP government belong to all Singaporeans and these have been reaping increasing returns.  SMRT cannot simply ignore this and attribute every fare hike to factors which affect only transportation i.e. fuel increase, fuel increase and fuel increase.

Conclusion

Singaporeans are really not dumb to insist on no fare hikes on the horizon.  What is not acceptable are the perpetually same reasons put forth and the manner of execution – forming pro business committee which offer ‘excuses’ to justify fare hike.

Instead of going the roundabout way wasting resources and time on administration, the issue of concessions is easily resolved with contributions from Temasek Holdings’ (SMRT) enormous profits.

Ordinary Singaporeans contribute directly to Temasek Holdings’ SMRT profits.  It is morally repugnant for a government to keep these profits for share investment/speculation while insisting on ordinary Singaporeans to cross-subsidise by means of another fare hike. 

Phillip Ang

TRS Contributor

Disclaimer: TheRealSingapore.com is a platform for users to submit content and all content remains the property of the individual contributors. The views and opinions expressed by author(s) within the website are solely that of the contributors and in no way reflects the views of TheRealSingapore.com.

Recently, a friend was telling me how a certain musical artist had entranced him with her talent --until he found out she was very religious and thanks God for her success.

My friend considers himself liberal and advocates for the rights of women, racial minorities, and the LGBT community -- yet, for him, religion elicits a "bad taste in his mouth." Unfortunately, this negative visceral reaction towards religion is something that sometimes seems pervasive among people in our age group, and the Princeton University community is no exception. I have encountered a handful of people who identify as liberal and espouse the necessity of equal rights and tolerance, but turn up their noses at the mere mention of religion. It is problematic that some people nearly cringe upon finding out that someone goes to church every weekend.

I have had quite a few conversations with people who "hate religion," or "don't understand its purpose." The gist of their arguments lies in the idea that religion is used to justify things that are affronts to human rights, or simply as another factor on which we divide ourselves. I spoke with a peer who is deeply involved with Princeton's Society of Secular Humanists. The club recently put up provocative advertisements all over campus, which read, "I think, therefore I am atheist." I asked him if he thinks that religion is generally a positive force for humanity, and he responded that he generally feels that it isn't, that "religions teach...[negative] things directly. You know that famous Bible verse where it says that homosexuality is an abomination. Some Christians take that literally and use that to discriminate against gay people." He went on to assert, "If you look across history, there are way more bad things than good things that come of religion."

I'm generally not a religious person, but from what I've gathered, by talking to friends and family who are, holding faith is a transcendent, personal experience, that should not compel anyone to oppress others. When large religious institutions promote oppressive ideals, it is the fault of power-hungry, hateful individuals -- not the fundamentals that are most central to the religion.

When certain religious figures herald ideas that many of us consider small-minded, if we shape our opinions on knee-jerk reactions, it is easy to turn around and label anyone who identifies as part of that same denomination as narrow. If a major religious figure -- say, the Pope -- condemns contraception or gay marriage with a faith-based argument, if we turn around and assume that all Catholics believe the same, we are operating on harmful stereotypes. It's important to remember that even though someone might identify as part of a certain religion, it does not mean that he or she has to accept everything that the religion's figurehead espouses.

I believe that this applies to essentially all of the world's major religions: even if a religion doesn't have a single figurehead -- such as Sunni Islam -- the individual tenets of a minority group shouldn't lead us to believe that all members of the faith believe the same. The flawed thinking that has wrongly painted Muslims as terrorists is the same that leads some to believe that all Catholics believe members of the LGBT community should remain second-class citizens.

Religion is an extremely personal facet of identity, which everyone understands in his or her own way. To be flippant about someone's religion -- based on the assumption that he or she subscribes to a political belief system that violates your conception of equality -- is presumptuous. Even the student from the Princeton Society of Secular Humanists ended our interview by saying how he "recognize[s] that most religious people are average, good people." Presumptuous thinking reinforces the popular image of all religious people as stupid and bigoted, painting them as extremely radical, like those who stand on crowded street corners, flaunting signs that promise all sinners a comfy place in hell.

One person, or a small group's, inflammatory rhetoric should never be the basis for painting an entire faith as stupid or narrow. People who spread messages of hate are not adhering to principles of compassion -- and compassion is one of the central things that make religion valuable. In contrary to the rhetoric of some individuals, you can be a devout Catholic who supports reproductive or gay rights, just like you can be a practicing Muslim who champions women's rights.

I spoke with a Princeton student who identifies both as a gay man and a devout Catholic, an identity that some might call an oxymoron. I asked him whether he feels like a lesser Catholic because some members of the church's political body condemn his queer identity. He says that it is occasionally disheartening, but most of the time, it is something that he successfully reconciles. "I would consider myself a very good Catholic, because I'm very critical of its theology, because that's what they ask for. The Catholic church doesn't want blind followers." He underlined how "primacy of conscience" is the most important thing in his faith. If some verse in the Bible or Koran says that women should be perpetually subordinate or that gays should be stoned, and your conscience tells you that these ideas are standards by which we should never abide, you're not being heretical. You're being moral.

Our conversation reminded me of a lecture I heard from the Dalai Lama last September. He spoke of the underlying commonalities between different religions, espousing the idea that all religions are fundamentally the same. He believes that most tenets that people distort as justification for oppression are nonessential parts of religion. He talked about his friendship with Pope John Paul II: John Paul would tell the Dalai Lama that he was indeed a good Christian, and the Dalai Lama would respond that he considered John Paul to be a good Buddhist.

The Dalai Lama asserted that morality can exist completely independently of religion, and that there are many secular people who are virtuous human beings, but that religion is an effective medium for promoting universally-positive, humanistic beliefs for those who are particularly receptive to faith.

Being irreligious and antireligious are two completely different things, and I believe that being antireligious -- actively disrespecting and trying to invalidate the tenets that many hold dearly -- is not at all a feature of liberalism. It is a feature of bigotry. Questioning someone's religious beliefs is completely valid; only by having our principles challenged do we figure out what we really believe. But questioning someone's religious tenets is different from being dismissive or flippant about them.

I believe that the liberal mindset, which asserts that we need to strive for equal treatment of marginalized groups, like women, the LGBT community, and certain racial groups, is the key to our society's social success. Within the liberal mindset, there should always be a level of respect and deference to people's religious beliefs. If we recognize that people are largely products of the way in which they are raised, and if someone is raised in a faith-based environment, what right do we have to rebuke their religious faith? Social liberalism -- which I think tries to strike the ideal balance between individual liberty and social justice -- strives to be open-minded and accepting. Simply dismissing someone for his or her faith is in direct conflict with the valuable path to social equality that the socially liberal mindset is trying to forge.

Nick Sexton

*The author is a freshman at Princeton University, where he writes for the Nassau Weekly, Princeton's weekly culture, news, and arts publication.