By Ghui

There is ongoing debate between Archbishop Nicholas Chia and Function 8 on the retraction of a letter given by Archbishop Chia in support of an anti ISA rally. To muddy the waters, there is also argument on whether or not these letters should have been made public in the first place.

Given that there is a sizable number of Catholics in Singapore and the many questions in relation to Operation Spectrum that still remain unanswered, this whole saga is unsurprisingly generating great public interest.

Each party has its side to the story and Singaporeans have the right to discuss, comment and question. However, what I do not understand is why the Ministry of Home Affairs sees the need to chastise Function 8 for being “disrespectful” to Archbishop Chia?

Surely this is an issue between the Archbishop (or more broadly the Catholic Church) and the activist group. What is the government body’s role in this debacle?  Individual employees of the Ministry of Home Affairs have every freedom to express their opinions in their personal capacity but an official chastisement is certainly unnecessary. Why the government should get involved in what is essentially a private dispute boggles the mind!

Of course, this issue is now one of public concern and the government will no doubt want to be kept apprised of the situation. Be that as it may, is it the government’s role to take sides? This is not some schoolroom fight where the teacher has to step in to tell one party off for being “disrespectful”.

I can understand why the Ministry of Home Affairs would be concerned with events that could upset the religious balance in our city-state but this is hardly one of those! No religious groups are expressing inflammatory remarks nor is any party inciting religious unrest! The only tenuous connection to religion is that one of the parties is an archbishop! This is hardly about religion and raises the question of whether politics have crept into the domain of religion in what is supposed to be a secular system.

To avoid that suspicion, the Ministry of Home Affairs should not get directly involved.

You May Also Like

President Duterte warmly welcomed by Singapore during his State Visit

President of the Republic of the Philippines, Rodrigo Roa Duterte was hosted…

政府带头试行“边赚边缴”保健储蓄模式 暂无计划私人界推行

为确保自雇人士退休后能够负担医疗费用,自2020年起,将试行“边赚边缴”保健储蓄模式(Contribute As You Earn)。人力部长杨莉明表示,目前由政府带头实行该计划,暂不打算在私人领域实施。 根据《海峡时报》报道,在与博纳产业总裁伊斯迈的对话环节中,杨莉明阐述,“边赚边缴”保健储蓄模式,针对为政府工作的自雇人士,如自由摄影师等,政府会在支付酬劳前直接填补他们的保健储蓄户头,为自雇人士带来更多方便。 目前自雇人士的收入净额超过6000新元,仍需强制支付保健储蓄的费用。杨莉明表示,该计划使他们无须担心在“低潮期”还得应付大笔支出,同时也能提前享有保健储蓄户头每年四巴仙的利息。目前自雇人士每年只需缴交一次公积金。 “边赚边缴”保健储蓄模式于去年3月推出,旨在协助填补自雇人士的公积金保健储蓄户头。 博纳产业总裁伊斯迈也询问,自雇人士若将贡献出最高金额到保健储蓄中,是否会获得其他公积金帐户的豁免权。目前保健储蓄的缴费率从四巴仙至10.5巴仙不等,均由员工与其收入净额所定,最高可达5760新元至7560新元不等。 公积金其他账户还包括,普通账户、特殊或退休账户。目前员工除了保健储蓄账户外,仍需为其他公积金账户缴费。 对此,杨莉明表示,公积金不仅仅是为了保健需求,亦为了保障未来退休生活以及购买房子,而自雇人士就如同一般聘雇人士,他们的公积金比例分配也应于一般聘雇人士相同,贡献20巴仙到公积金账户里头。 自雇人士在这10年期间,占我国劳动者的比率介于8至10巴仙,尽管去年则维持在8巴仙,但整体人数较前年减少。而政府于2017年起,逐步落实自雇人士劳资政工作小组的建议,包括推出新保险产品补贴因生病或受伤失去的收入、制定确保自雇人士准时获得酬劳的劳资政标准等。 上述劳资政标准自去年3月推出至今,已获约570家来自各行各业的企业所采纳,在采购自雇人士提供的服务前,先在合约中明文规定服务协议。

Fitch: Kuala Lumpur-Singapore HSR to pick up where it was left off

According to Fitch Solutions research on Wednesday (12 Feb), in the “short…