Is the PAP
Govt the only ones allowed to have Double Standard
Paradoxes?
A couple of
weeks ago, my wife went for a massage in the Spa in the Civil
Service Club in Bukit Batok, so I brought my kids to the children’s
play area to keep them entertained. After a while, a big group of
Indian FT mothers and kids came in and we got overcrowded. I was a
little curious at why such a big group of them appeared together at
the club. As we were leaving, we realized why. An Indian Church
holds services for them at the Wine Bar in the Civil Service Club
on Sunday evenings. There is also a poster near the door
identifying the church.
Recently, a
friend of mine was lamenting that their church was having
difficulties securing a place to hold their services because, last
year, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s MCYS together with URA issued new
guidelines to limit Religious Activities in Commercial spaces.
( http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/PressRoom/CommercialSpacesforReligiousActivities.aspx
)
Since only
existing approved auditoriums, function halls, convention halls and
cinemas located within commercial and hotel developments can be
considered, why is it that church services can be held in a wine
bar inside the Civil Service Club? Why are they allowed to put
up 2 posters on the premises?
Though religious
activities are generally not allowed in commercial buildings, URA
is prepared to exercise some flexibility and allow commercial
premises to be used…
To ensure that
the character and secular nature of commercial premises are not
eroded or displaced by religious activities…
Why Is it that
only the govt is allowed to flout their own rules? Why are
religious activities generally NOT ALLOWED in commercial buildings
but allowed in their Club? Shouldn’t a Govt related building, all
the more, remain secular?
Or does the
govt feel they need to bend over backwards to provide the FT venues
to gather while they persecute the local churches because they feel
threatened by their size? I am not totally against all FT. I
recognise that we need them for certain jobs like construction.
But, shouldn't our Govt show preference to us locals? Also, why
the need to give concessions instead to FT in
providing venues for their gatherings? Didn't the Govt claim
that they are trying to get them to INTEGRATE into the local
community?
Isn’t the
club’s wine bar meant to be for the public to chill over a drink
instead of being blocked as a venue for FT to gather on the
weekends? I wonder, if an opposition party wants to book the place
for their weekly meetings, would the Civil Service Club let them
use it? Or would they call it an illegal gathering? Will they show
the same welcome if an Opposition Party wants to book the Club for
a rally or the Wine Bar for their Victory party after the
elections? Maybe NSP Team for Jurong GRC can consider having an
event at the Civil Service Club at Bukit Batok. It would be a very
“meaningful” event!
In addtition,
since a wine bar should have a liquor license and serves liquor,
how come so many young children are allowed in there?
Isn’t it also
morally wrong for a church service to be held in a bar?
I thought
about writing to MCYS but I suppose Dr Balakrishnan and the
government would again treat this as noise since they have not even
responded to the YOG Budget queries after such a long time. A pity,
because I would really like to hear how they are going explain this
away. Or, more likely, would they change the rules once again for
their own convenience and for the sake of their beloved
FTs?
"FT mothers and kids"? Did you check and confirm that
those indians are foreigners, or FT, I didn't know that indian
construction workers come here with their wives and kids.
"shouldn't our Govt show preference to us locals? "
so It is ok if the church activities are for locals
in the club?
don't mix religious with politics, especially when you don't get
your facts right.
