letters to the press

Listening to: Corrinne May's Everything In Its Time

have you listened to this album of hers yet? rather inspiring, i must say. everyone needs a little music in their lives.. try corrinne may's music on a quiet night. If you find that your mind races too often for your own liking, and thus, makes it difficult to sleep, close your eyes to her music. It works :)

anyway, read two letters in ST Forum Page, the first is about how "a little word can make a lot of difference" (hope you guys appreciate the humour in it) and the second is a little more serious: about religion (you may not agree with the views but you can ask if his points are valid :) enjoy!

***********************************************************************************************.

Letter #1: Koh Yoong Liat

THE notice at the entrance of the multi-storey carpark beside Junction 8 Shopping Centre (BE 23) and the one in the Empress Road Market and Food Centre carpark (FR3M) indicate respective ly the number of parking spaces available as 'Lots available...' and 'Vacant lots...'

In the multi-storey carpark in Farrer Road at 2 Empress Road and 4 Queen's Road (BU FR2C/FR2S), the following notice is displayed on the wall: 'Carpark lot Nos 192 to 228...'

At Deck 1B of the same carpark, the notice on the wall reads: 'Hourly parking lots located from Deck 1A to 2A and 4B to 5B'.

The word 'lot' is found not only in these carparks but also in many others in Singapore.

At the same carpark in Queen's Road, a police notice displayed on the parapet wall reads as follows: 'Park your bicycle in a lot and secure with a lock.'

The word 'lot' in these examples has been used wrongly by many Singaporeans to mean 'parking space'.

However, the word actually refers to a piece of land reserved for a particular purpose, for example, to build houses or park cars.

It does not refer to a particular space to park a vehicle. In fact, 'lot' means 'carpark' in American English.

I would be grateful if the authorities could rectify the error by substituting the word 'space' for 'lot' in all carparks where the wrong word is found.

As many Singaporeans think the word 'lot' means 'parking space', it is important to correct this misconception as soon as possible.

************************************************************************************************

Letter #2: From Nigel Hee Dewen (edited)

I feel that being born into a religious family does not necessitate the child taking after the same religion. To insist on such would be to infringe on the fundamental rights of freedom accrued to all by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which advocates: '...the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear...

'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief...'

Why should the child take up the parents' religion? Is a child of suitable age not able to make an informed choice? By insisting on it, are the parents not violating the basic rights that are accrued to all?

Religion is not something that you are born into; it is something that you choose to be involved in.

In response to Mr Ong: Why allow yourself to be restrained by tradition? The decision towards higher education should be made of your own free will.

I agree with Mr Mohamad Ridwan that family should come before money.

But God before family? No matter what miracles that God can or has performed, he does not bring money home for your children's allowances. He does not provide in this material life - which is where we are.

In the article, 'Reaping a rich harvest of converts', it was mentioned that new churches have employed methods similar to modern marketing campaigns.

Mr Matthew Kang of New Creation Church says that 'such elements draw younger people' but insists that otherwise, 'we do nothing to recruit members'.

One can say the same thing of any marketing campaign to sell cellphones. These methods are but glamorous marketing tactics masked in religion. Why do we need to resort to these measures to draw the younger crowd?

Furthermore, why should the Government consider religious beliefs when it comes to making policies?

The usual argument would be that allowing gambling here would open the doors to other sins or crimes. There is no direct causal link between them. The existence of one does not necessarily imply the existence of the other.

Mixing religion and politics is a touchy issue - much like balancing a bottle of nitroglycerin on the tip of a sword. Why complicate things by trying to tap-dance at the same time?

My question concerning the issue of God is similar to that of Mr Esmond Chng, albeit with a twist: How much suffering is enough?

This question is not new, and it may be of interest to note that the Archbishop of Canterbury recently said he had questioned his own faith in God.

We cannot prove - nor disprove - the existence of God. It may be best to wield Occam's Razor here, and cut away the unneeded parts: There is no need for God.