Cathedral to pay paralysed woman

Sep 19, 2009

She was injured when tree branches in its compound fell on her
By K. C. Vijayan

CHINA national Wang Shu Xiang was walking with a friend along a pavement in North Bridge Road when branches from a tree in the compound of St Andrew's Cathedral began raining down on them.

Madam Wang, 44, a 'study mama' in Singapore with her school-going son, was struck about the head and body in the incident on Aug25 last year.

The injuries she suffered left her paralysed from the chest down, and she is now unable to move her legs.

But when she tried to get compensation from the Anglican cathedral, it initially said no.

It claimed the mishap was an act of God, and beyond its control. It also blamed the landscape contractor for failing to do a proper job.

But in a closed-door hearing this week, just over a year after the mishap, the cathedral changed its mind and has now decided to compensate her.

Its lawyer, Mr K. Anparasan, told The Straits Times that the cathedral's position had never been on the issue of liability as such, but about the appropriate compensation for Madam Wang.

He added that both Madam Wang and the cathedral were now discussing the compensation amount. If they cannot reach an agreement, the High Court will decide how much the cathedral's insurers should pay.

'It is unfortunate that this freak incident occurred,' Mr Anparasan said, adding that church officials were concerned with Madam Wang's welfare.

'They understand the suffering she and her family are going through, and are hoping that a fair and reasonable financial settlement will be reached to alleviate her suffering,' he said.

The sum Madam Wang is seeking is expected to exceed $400,000 - to cover hefty medical bills, pain and suffering, and the loss of future earnings. She ran a business while in China.

When she filed her suit in January, the church objected and, among other things in its defence, said that the mishap was an act of God.

An act of God is a legal defence against a mishap that is not caused by human failing. The church said it had done everything which could be reasonably expected to ensure the church grounds and its flora were safe for the public and its parishioners.

Madam Wang told The Straits Times: 'It happened so fast, I did not know what hit me. Wood dust covered me all over.'

She suffered fractures to her neck and ribs, and injuries to her spinal cord.

She spent 50 days at the Singapore General Hospital, where she underwent several operations, including spinal treatments and bone grafting.

After she was discharged on Oct16, Madam Wang underwent further care and rehabilitative treatment in Beijing, but remained paralysed from below the chest.

'It was like falling from Heaven to Hell,' she said.

She returned to Singapore in April to be with her 11-year-old son, who is still studying here.

She said doctors had told her that her chances of recovery were slim. 'Only a miracle can cure me,' she said.

Her lawyers, Mr Hoh Chin Cha and Mr N. Srinivasan, commended the church for conceding liability and sparing Madam Wang the trauma of having to go through a trial.

'They have spared her the pain of having to live through the anguish all over again had the matter gone to trial,' they said.

vijayan@sph.com.sg

[The theological implications of this case is mind-boggling. First it was an act of God. The church as the representative of God in the mundane world should therefore compensate the woman. However, if the act was indeed at the hands of God, then compensating the woman who be contrary to the intent of God. After all, if God had struck her down, obviously he had good reasons to do so, either to test her or to punish her. Compensating her would be thwarting the will of God!

But, the woman is not a member of the church, and therefore does not subscribe to the teachings or the doctrines of the church or God. Therefore she does not fall within the "jurisdiction" of God to punish or test. Ah, but God is the creator of all, so the woman too is a child of God, and even if she does not acknowledge it, is God's creation and subject to the will of God.

Which means that the Church did a bad thing to compensate her as this is contrary to God's will. :-) ]

Kangaroo smashes into office

Sep 17, 2009

SYDNEY - AN AUSTRALIAN psychologist had to be rescued from her office after a 'frantic' kangaroo crashed through the window and leapt around the room, toppling furniture, a colleague said Thursday.

[Obviously a 'roo in need of therapy!]

Suzanne Habib jumped screaming atop her desk in the Queensland town of Atherton as the 1.5m marsupial burst through the window behind her with a 'big bang", said colleague Tony Baddock.

'Poor old Suzanne just screamed and went straight up in the air,' Mr Baddock told the AAP newswire.

[Well, NOW who needs therapy?]

'The 'roo was bounding around all over the place, it really was quite frantic.' Mr Baddock said he helped his distressed colleague from her office over a toppled bookshelf. After smashing around the room for about six minutes, the kangaroo hopped into the main part of the building.

'I was then able to block its pathway and encourage it to head out the front door,' he said, adding that it almost bowled over a bystander as it bounded off.

He said it was puzzling to find a kangaroo in the town, which is some distance from its native bushland. Kangaroos are shy and retiring by nature, and rarely venture into human dwellings.

[Except when they need psychiatric help.]

A startled chef, clad only in his underpants, made headlines this March after wrestling with a kangaroo which jumped through a window and onto his bed in Australia's capital Canberra.

[Now THAT's a horny 'roo!]

Swiss immigrant Beat Ettlin said he thought it was a 'lunatic ninja' when he heard the animal crashing into his home, and suffered scratches to his legs and buttocks while dragging it from the house in a headlock. -- AFP

[And nobody got that on tape?!?! Maybe it was so traumatised by the headlock and the rejection of her sexual advances, she had to seek psychiatric help. But she was rebuffed again!]

Taking showers 'can make you ill'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8254206.stm

Showering may be bad for your health, say US scientists, who have shown that dirty shower heads can deliver a face full of harmful bacteria.

Tests revealed nearly a third of devices harbour significant levels of a bug that causes lung disease.

Levels of Mycobacterium avium were 100 times higher than those found in typical household water supplies.

M. avium forms a biofilm that clings to the inside of the shower head, reports the National Academy of Science.

In the Proceedings journal, the study authors say their findings might explain why there have been more cases of these lung infections in recent years, linked with people tending to take more showers and fewer baths.

Water spurting from shower heads can distribute bacteria-filled droplets that suspend themselves in the air and can easily be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs, say the scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Potential threat

Lead researcher Professor Norman Pace, said: "If you are getting a face full of water when you first turn your shower on, that means you are probably getting a particularly high load of Mycobacterium avium, which may not be too healthy."

While it is rarely a problem for most healthy people, those with weakened immune systems, like the elderly, pregnant women or those who are fighting off other diseases, can be susceptible to infection.

They may develop lung infection with M. avium and experience symptoms including tiredness, a persistent, dry cough, shortness of breath and weakness, and generally feel unwell.

When the researchers swabbed and tested 50 shower heads from nine cities in seven different states in the US, including New York City and Denver, they found 30% of the devices posed a potential risk.

Since plastic shower heads appear to "load up" with more bacteria-rich biofilms, metal shower heads may be a good alternative, said Professor Pace.

Showers have also been identified as a route for spreading other infectious diseases, including a type of pneumonia called Legionnaires' disease and chest infections with a bacterium called Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Hot tubs and spa pools carry a similar infection risk, according to the Health Protection Agency.

A HPA spokesperson said: "This is an interesting paper which provides further information about the occurrence of opportunist organisms - germs which do not usually cause infections in humans - in the environment.

"These bacteria, which belong to the same family as TB, can be found in the environment and occasionally in water supplies but rarely cause disease in healthy people.

"Further work will need to look at whether finding these organisms is associated with any increased risk of infection."

Kids vote to slaughter lamb

Sep 15, 2009

LONDON - A GROUP of schoolchildren who reared a lamb from birth and named it Marcus have overridden objections by parents and rights activists and voted to send the animal to slaughter.

Marcus the six-month-old lamb has now been culled, the head teacher of the primary school in Kent confirmed yesterday, after the school's council - a 14-member group of children aged six to 11 - voted 13-1 to have him killed.

The decision has provoked fury among animal-loving celebrities, animal and human rights campaigners and the parents of some of the children, and led to threats against Lydd primary school and its teachers, according to a member of staff.

About 250 children at the school take part in a programme designed to teach them about rearing and breeding animals. The educational farm was started this year, with Marcus being hand-fed by the children. The children also look after ducks, chickens, rabbits and guinea pigs.

The intention had been to buy pigs with the money raised from slaughtering Marcus, but those plans have been put on hold following the furor created by the lamb's culling. The school said the programme may now have to be stopped.

'It's all up in the air,' said a member of staff. 'There's been so much pressure on us as a result of all this.'

Despite that, the school said there had been overwhelming support among the children, the staff and most of the parents to have Marcus - a castrated male who could not have been used for breeding - sent to the slaughterhouse.

But opponents branded it heartless and cruel, with animal rights campaigners asking why Marcus could not have been used to teach the children about wool, and human rights campaigners worried about the emotional impact of Marcus's death on the children.

A popular talkshow host offered to buy the lamb and give it sanctuary and Facebook groups sprung up to rally support to keep Marcus alive. But the children had the final say. The school defended the children's decision, calling it educational.

'When we started the farm in spring 2009, the aim was to educate the children in all aspects of farming life and everything that implies,' the school said. 'The children have had a range of opportunities to discuss this issue, both in terms of the food cycle and the ethical aspect. It is important for everyone to move on from this issue, so the children can focus on their education.' -- REUTERS

----online comment--------
The children owned the lamb, the children raised the lamb, it's their lamb!! Why should all these people interfere with their decision. The missing link here is why the kids chose to kill it rather than keep it alive? Why is it that they have no emotional attachment to the animal after spending months taking care of it?

Unless these so call animal activists can appreciate these deeper issues, they can go back to their la-la land and hug their trees.
Posted by: KaedeRukawa at Tue Sep 15 17:17:13 SGT 2009

[Animal lovers, vegans, PETA, and Buddhists will have their work cut out for them. Maybe not Buddhists cos not all of them are vegans and even the vegan Buddhists are not rabid about their personal choice. I think the school did ok. Perhaps this was a farming community, and anmals sent to the slaughter is an accepted norm. The kids then are exposed to the reality of farming and raising livestock. PETA and their ilk need ti get off their high horse.]

Living my beliefs while adapting to society

Sep 7, 2009
MY THOUGHTS

By Jonathan Kwok

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong mentioned in his National Day Rally speech that rising religiosity in Singapore could lead to future problems, such as aggressive proselytisation, and people not mixing with those of other faiths.

He advocated a 'live and let live' mantra, tolerance on all sides, and the preservation of common secular spaces.

In a Sunday Times article, columnist Sumiko Tan also said she hoped the deeply religious would not try to impose their religious beliefs on her.

However, a slight conundrum is present, in that some religious people define their faiths in very exclusivist terms. In their world view lies a religious obligation to convert others, and to preserve the purity of their own doctrines.

During my own evangelical Christian upbringing, I was often reminded that 'God desires the salvation (read: conversion) of all peoples', and thus was encouraged to take every opportunity to proselytise people of other faiths.

In addition, some religions decry marriage with people of other faiths, encouraging or insisting on religious conversion before considering marriage.

I have also heard laments that some Christian denominations shun inter-faith dialogues, for fear that they will dilute the faith and compromise their proselytisation activities.

These attitudes show that some fundamentalist and conservative elements do have uncompromising world views, and while practitioners are willing to 'live and let live' and respect the sensibilities of those from other faiths, they may feel it is indeed their religious obligation to spread their views and to convert others.

The fault lines in the United States due to the split between the Conservative Christian Right and the Liberal Left are due not only to social or political factors, but are also a result of doctrinal beliefs.

Here in Singapore, the call is for religious people to examine their faiths critically and with the scepticism that they apply to all areas of their lives.

We need to remember that we live in a pluralist society. Which aspects of faith cannot be compromised, and which aspects need to be re-examined in the light of the realities of modern life?

While I still hold on to the essentials of my Christian upbringing, and rely on the faith to guide my morals, I have come to the conclusion that some aspects are peripheral and can be adapted to the realities of our pluralistic society.

When I meet people, I judge them according to the goodness in them, not whether they belong to my faith.

Personally, I also see nothing wrong with dating a non-Christian girl, and am open to marriage with someone not of my own faith.

I see the central command of my faith to be to love my neighbour, not to convert him.

My view would probably not sit well with some religious people, but it is one way for all of us to live happily in our pluralistic society.

The writer, 24, recently graduated with honours in economics from the National University of Singapore.

--------
[Yes, there are some people with intransigent views and an evangelical bent that borders on the psychotic. And their wrold view, coloured by religious passion does not sit well within a secular society with other religions. Religions evolved as part of the social culture of a people and in the past when homogeniety and monolithic religions were part of the social fabric, it is understandable. But religion is starting to be more a liability than an asset in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society. Evangelistic religion is looking more like a divine pyramid selling scheme.]

Two speeches. Two reactions.

September 14, 2009 Monday, 02:15 PM
Teo Cheng Wee looks closely at the opening speeches of the MIC general assembly.

IN KUALA LUMPUR

IN MIC president Samy Vellu's speech to party delegates at its annual general meeting last Saturday, he asked for more aid for the community and schools, and more job opportunities in the civil service.

It was a routine speech, and he got polite applause.

It was a stark contrast to Prime Minister Najib Razak's address, which came next. He was frequently rewarded with cheers and loud applause, and the crowd was hanging on to his every word.

Datuk Seri Najib touched on winning back support for the Barisan Nasional (BN) and tasked MIC with winning back Indians hearts, which had deserted the party and ruling coalition in droves during the last general elections (GE).

That will be your KPI (key performance index), he said.

He also threw in some light humour. He reminded them of his efforts to connect with Indians. He said he loved to interact with people, and recalled his walkabout among the Indian community in Brickfields, where he ended up at a restaurant called Dewi's Corner.

It is now called Najib's Corner, after the Prime Minister had a meal there. Now a picture of him hangs on the wall, showing the entrepreneurial spirit of the Indians, Mr Najib said.

"I'm going to charge royalties," he quipped, to laughter from the crowd.

But then he moved into what seemed like sensitive ground, telling the delegates that they had to be humble, to do their work seriously and to serve the people.

He even threw in a veiled criticism of Mr Samy Vellu, saying that being popular in a party didn't mean that one would be popular with the people.

Mr Samy Vellu has been leading MIC for 30 years and refused to relinquish power, even after MIC's heavy defeats in the last GE and many signs that he is unpopular in the Indian community.

As a result, observers note that Mr Najib has been bypassing MIC, and choosing to engage Indians directly with walkabouts and visits.

Yet the delegates embraced his message, cheering and clapping even louder, and responding "yes" emphatically when Mr Najib asked them if they could do what he asked of them.

He worked them up into a frenzy, and they eventually gave him a standing ovation when his speech was over.

One of the last people to stand up - he finally did so near the end of the ovation - was an unhappy-looking Samy Vellu.

Why, Mr Najib looked more like the MIC president than the MIC president himself, one reporter said.

The delegates may have still decided to sweep Mr Samy Vellu back into power, along with his allies in the polling later that day.

But judging from their reactions that Saturday morning, it seemed clear who they liked better.

The fight for the Indian vote is far from over for the ruling coalition. Recent incidents like the Section 23 temple row, in which Malay residents stepped on a cow's head in a provocative protest, will not make things easier for BN.

Mr Najib will be relieved that, through his direct engagements, he seems to have made some headway with the community.

When civil servants turned street sweepers

Sep 12, 2009

When Ong Eng Guan became Mayor between 1957 and 1959, he gave the Singapore public a terrifying preview of what a PAP government might be like

WHEN the councillors trooped into a City Hall room for a meeting and found that there were not enough seats, Mayor Ong Eng Guan summoned R. Middleton Smith, the acting chief administrative officer of the city council, and hollered: 'Go and get chairs.' The British expatriate left and came back carrying one chair after another.

Chan Chee Seng felt compelled to lend a hand. 'I was a witness. I felt so bad I went to help him carry the chairs.' The former city councillor, who related this anecdote, could not help admiring the stoic endurance and phlegmatic patience of British colonial officials who bore the brunt of Ong's berating and bullying. 'They were really good and very cultivated. I could not understand why the Mayor had to treat them in such a way.'

Goh Sin Ee, who was a chief officer in the maintenance department in the city council, recalled attending a meeting convened by Ong for all the heads of departments. When the Mayor commented that the Europeans were passing their work to Asian heads, an expatriate expressed disagreement. Goh was shocked when Ong 'pointed his finger at the officer and asked him to get out'.

Ong's crusade against the establishment has been described by some writers as the nearest to a Singapore equivalent of the fall of the Bastille in 1789, when peasants seized the symbol of royal tyranny and ignited the French Revolution.

Many heads rolled - metaphorically. It was a terrifying situation, Rajaratnam said, when Ong treated haw-kers as top dogs and began sacking staff.

The Mayor was particularly harsh on the expatriates as he wanted to expose their inefficiency and racial prejudice against Asians: a commercial secretary was sacked for allegedly embracing a young Chinese typist; a city engineer was reprimanded for insulting the dignity of the council by bringing his dog into City Hall; and a city analyst was fined $200 a month for a year for allegedly being rude to the Mayor.

Ong abolished the monopoly of a European legal firm which enjoyed all of the city council legal work and rescinded the Malayanisation scheme which allowed for the gradual retirement of expatriates with handsome provident fund benefits.

Local civil servants who incurred his wrath were subjected to the humiliation of a dressing down in front of the people who complained against them. The Mayor did not allow staff to read newspapers or drink tea or coffee at work. He would prowl around the office and eavesdrop on conversations. If anybody was found to be a bookie, he was sacked on the spot. If he was found to be rude to the public, he would have to give a lengthy and satisfactory explanation or face punitive action.

Ong could not tolerate long queues and tardy responses to letters and enquiries from the public. He expected bills to be settled within 15 minutes at the counter. A vehicle inspector with 22 years' service lost his job for allegedly keeping a taxi driver waiting for almost an hour before taking down a report from him. An efficiency officer was appointed to execute policies and investigate complaints.

Civil servants had to obey the Mayor, recalled Goh Sin Ee, 'if not, we had to get out of the job'. If anyone failed to do his work properly, he would be downgraded and would have to settle for less pay, he said.



P. C. Marcus, who was the 'efficiency expert' in the city council and later became the deputy chief administrative officer, summed it up by saying that Ong 'put the fear of God in staff, both expats and local'. Later even Marcus himself, who was close to PAP leaders, fell out with Ong.

The Mayor had no compunction about ordering staff to get out of their offices to clean up the city. Retired civil servants still chafed at the memory, saying it was akin to the hard labour imposed on professionals in communist countries. Forced to do menial labour, some felt as if Ong was behaving like a communist leader and that Singapore was going communist.



Fong Sip Chee recounted an operation dubbed Operation Pantai Chantek ('Beautiful Beach' in Malay) in which frightened civil servants were made to dig up stones and clean up Nicoll Highway.

City council officers were rostered to sweep different roads on different days. Goh Sin Ee found himself in a spot when he was assigned to sweep an area where he was known to most of the shopkeepers. He confessed that he had to buy a 'big Chinese type of hat' to shield him from the sun - and embarrassment.