Don't convert me

Ethics vs. Religious Education

2012-02-26T06:42:00.001+11:00

People called into ABC Radio last week to express their view on this subject. Australian public schools currently offer a weekly slot for religious education (RE). Children who do not go to RE can attend an ethics class, or to do nothing. What should children attend? Parents currently make this choice for their children. Should they?

One caller thought it should not be the parents' choice. Children should make up their minds for themselves. However, when the programme host asked the caller how old children would be before they are sensible enough to make this choice themselves, the caller thought of an age closer to to the time at the end of their school years. Ie. children would have missed out on this education by the time they are sensible enough to choose.

Many children choose to attend Buddhism class, if it is offered. The programme said that some parents are looking for an alternative to the Christian norm. Why do people want an alternative to the Christian norm, I wonder? Why Buddhism? Why not Islam or something else, if they are offered?

From what I heard at my daughter's school, I understand that the Buddhist group offered $0.20 to kids who go there. Is this the real reason why the Buddhist group is popular? Should it be?

Ethics class seems to be for make up for something the children might lack if they were left without religion. But does religion make up for ethics? Maybe some religious education promote a form of ethics that society would abhor. Personally, I think that all school children should attend ethics class, regardless of whether they attend RE or not.

What do you think? How do we raise up our children with good ethics and good exposure to religion? Does God play a part in this process? What about parents?

Secular humanism

2012-02-23T10:48:00.002+11:00

Secular humanism is the view that man establishes his own moral values apart from the influence of anyone (including God), and he self-determines his own destiny; he is the "master of his own fate."

The problem with such a life view is that it has no absolutes, but everything is relative; it has no eternal reference point. We can make up our own rules as we go. But how do we know if sexual promiscuity is immoral or not? Why shouldn't we cheat in business? Why should family life be valued higher than career?

The above words are from page 261 of Bob & Emilie Barnes' "15 Minute Devotions for Couples".

What do you think? Is secular humanism your perspective of life and the world around it? Do you agree with it? Do you disagree?

Personally, I think that people need a set of morals higher than what we, ourselves, would want. This is partly because we will disagree with each other about whose point of view is right. God needs to tell us what how to behave and how to view the world around us.

However, I also see that generally speaking, we are proud people who would like to say that we have the wisdom to handle this ourselves. We need to respect each others' perspectives, but we do not need to have morals crammed down upon us.

Do you think so? What do you observe about life and the society around you?

Same sex marriages

2012-02-15T22:20:00.000+11:00

The US state of Washington has become the nation's seventh to legalise same-sex marriage. However, does one really get sexually attracted to another person of the same gender? Is it even real?

An article in this month's issue of the Briefing does not seem to think so. It said that "homosexuality is a modern invention", ie. people in the past saw it to be unnatural and strange to be attracted to another of the same gender. It was rarely seen to happen, if ever. It is only in modern times that people have excused this behaviour as something genetic and the behaviour has become popularised in some circles.

Do you agree with this?

Our forefathers did not use mobile phones or understand about nuclear physics. These things are real, though. Perhaps the gay gene existed in the past, but was not yet understood, so societal pressure surpressed it then. Perhaps it is now in today's enlightened age that it has come out.

Perhaps not. Perhaps it is just people finding excuses for their sin. Romans 1:38-35 says

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Do you think homosexuality is real? Why or why not?

Killing is fun

2012-02-11T09:48:00.002+11:00

Reading Alyssa Bustamante's confession in the news last week was shocking to me. She said that 'stabbing, strangling and slitting the throat of a young neighbor girl wrote in her journal on the night of the killing that it was an "ahmazing" and "pretty enjoyable" experience - then headed off to church with a laugh.'

How do you feel when you read such words?

I thought about what Alyssa said a bit more. I realise that a part of my dismay stems from my belief that life is precious, especially that of a life of people. Butchers, abattoirs, hunters and hobbyists kill animals often. They do not feel any remorse about their acts. I would happily swat a mosquito without feeling any guilt.

(In fact, a recent headline in New South Wales news is about an abattoir operator who killed animals cruelly. Animal activists are outraged at the style of killing, but not the killing itself.)

I also admit that I have not killed a person, nor have I tried to. It is against my personal values to even want to do this. So I cannot relate to Alyssa's feeling. However, a soldier or a doctor might.

Alyssa's lawyers highlighted her troubled childhood to her defence, hoping that the jury would have compassion on her. Can we really blame the circumstances, though? Is right or wrong not absolute, but dependant on the interpretation of the circumstances?

I see that our laws are not consistent on this matter. I think that if a burglar broke into a house in Australia, and the occupant had a gun, the occupant may shoot to warn the burglar, but not to kill. In the laws of some other countries, the occupant would be allowed even to kill as part of defending his own property.

How do you read the circumstances and the laws? What is absolute and what is not? Is it wrong to kill? How wrong?

Fitness fascination

2012-02-05T21:54:00.001+11:00

My observations are similar to that of Tanveer Ahmed, given what he wrote on http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/fitness-fascination-stretches-the-truth-20120202-1qvii.html.

It was said that men take an interest in using the gym in their 40s as their fitness declines. Given the price of casual visits and gym memberships, it is usually white collar workers with office jobs who afford the money to get off their backsides to do some exercise.

Then, in the spirit of competitiveness and not being left out, people spur each other on to exercise more. In a way, it is a good thing.

I am also reminded of a "Born Loser" comic I read many years ago. In this strip,Brutus Thornapple is wearing shorts, cheap sneakers and a singlet and jogging. He is passed by other joggers who look at him strangely. Eventually, one of them slows down to tell him to not to embarrass them, but to wear the right gear for this sport. Apparently, one is to wear branded tracksuits to fit into the crowd - or such was the humour of this strip.

Mr Ahmed sees the fascination for fitness to emanate from the need to lose weight. It also gives people a feeling of pride for having accomplished something for themselves. And, people do need good health, so the fascination is not really a bad thing. However, Mr Ahmed comment is to the effect that fitness is "largely a middle-class obsession that is often about much more than weight loss".

It seems that it is a hypocritical obsession that a particular cross-section of society has adopted - it does not permeate throughout the culture. It seems that the fascination is not for the pure reason of needing to get into shape, there are underlying ulterior motives behind this trend. Either that, or it is an artificial mindset that the people who market gyms and fitness equipment have created in order to generate some business for themselves.

What do you think? Do people exercise for the right reasons? What are the right reasons anyway?

Boat people

2012-01-26T22:10:00.000+11:00

A major topic in discussion on Australian news media this week concerns asylum seekers who come to this country by boat. SBS ran a series that touched on this subject. ABC and Australian of the Year, Geoffrey Rush, also spoke on this topic. I wonder what you think?

A comment I heard is that just about all these asylum seekers become successful in being accepted into Australia anyway. So why bother spending so much money on detention centers and processing costs? Why not just accept everybody that land on these shores?

The other side of the coin, of course, is that every country wants to reserve the right to choose who to accept and who to reject. For some countries, immigration is also an department that generates an income for the government. Ie. to assume that every asylum seeker will be a successful migrant and to give up processing based on this assumption is like announcing to the world that Australia is lax on security, and this is a hole with which terrorists and other bad people may exploit.

Another comment was that the detention centres seem to focus on boat people. Ie. if asylum seekers were to fly in to the country, then they would be fine. It is that they come by boat that is the problem. The person who made this comment seemed to think that this is a bad discrimination based on the asylum seekers resources. I think that it is because the screening at the airports to see that people have passports and visas, and the screening before visas are granted show that security has been covered in these airport scenario where they may not have been in the cases of those who arrive by boat.

I think a lot of the question lies in the attitudes of people. That they be called "refugees" and "asylum seekers" show a sense of compassion among those who have spoken on Australian media. People less sympathetic would have called them "illegal immigrants" or "boat people". I think that a lot also lie in the attitude of the Immigration officers processing the applications of these refugees; ie. how much they will or will not believe this people, given some language barrier even when people speak in Englilsh.

There are values of national security, a nation's right to choose who to accept into their country, and there are issues of compassion and humanity and fairness to contend with. How do you think these questions should be handled? What should a nation (any nation in the world, not necessarily Australia) do for such asylum seekers?

Medical tourism

2012-01-22T22:22:00.001+11:00

This month's issue of Southeast Asia Globe carried an interesting article on medical tourism by Philippe Beco on page 41.

The article noted a trend towards visiting countries like Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand for medical help, and this trend appears to also be spreading to Vietnam and Indonesia.

People from wealthier countries are finding the cost of health care becoming too expensive. They can have their ailments treated more cheaply in Asia. They can also have a little holiday while they are at it.

Meanwhile, the Asians have also trained in the medical profession. They have the skills and can cater them to their more affluent clients. As the region is no longer as impoverished as it used to be, many of their Asian counterparts now can also afford these services.

Given the choice of having their diseases treated by professionals with good reputations against possible malpractice or by doctors with lesser skills, people who can afford the cost will pay to visit apparently good doctors.

Health insurance companies help the trend by selling premiums.

Have you noticed the trend yourself? Do you think it is a good economic trend? How do you think people should be cared for?

Perceptions of responsibility

2012-01-16T01:57:00.000+11:00

A post by Maria Ressa this week helped me to understand "Power Distance Index".

Maria's comment was related to a bomb scare that happened in Manila last Monday. As a lot of devotees were gathered in that area for the "Black Nazarene" event, the President heard about the possibility of a bomb going off to upset the proceedings. He reacted to this threat by shutting off the mobile phone network and tightening up security.

Now, a lot of bomb threats happen in the Philippines. The President does not hear about every one. He trusts his aides, the military and police forces to handle most of the situations. This bomb scare may not have been treated seriously if the President had not (over?)reacted. The action taken was because a person with great authority commanded the action, not because the threat was serious.

Such seems to be Maria's perception of the situation. What do you think? Do you agree with her?

I perceive that it is true that a person who has been entrusted with great power does get to call the shots, even if his perceptions are wrong. This leads to situations like the current impeachment cases that are happening in the Philippines. In my opinion, these situations need not happen, but they do, because of the power distance index there.

I later read Gaasedal's Weblog which talked about a perception of how environmentally-friendly people are in between the generations. Apparently, some of the older people used throw-away plastic bags instead of recycling supermarket green bags. The generation of people who are used to recycling green bags may perceive them as not so environmentally friendly. However, this older generation washed nappies more, drove less, used elevators less, watched smaller screen televisions, etc. so maybe they are more friendly to the environment compared to these people who drive a lot but recycle their grocery bags.

What do you think? Are people's perception of things real? Are people responsible to themselves, their society and environment the way they should? How should people behave? Who should judge them?

Kodak in a digital age

2012-01-08T01:20:00.000+11:00

It seems that Kodak's current financial situation has many news media talking.

I first read about it in the Cambodia Daily. It said that this 131 year-old company is filing for bankruptcy.

ZDNet.com said that they are trying to sell their patents to avoid this situation. I imagine that this is pretty hard. Even if another would want to buy the patents, Kodak would have difficulty surviving without the rights to the many things they have developed.

Apparently, Kodak lost a patent battle with Polaroid in 1986. Polaroid then went on to face bankruptcy. The company that bought its patents decided to resurrect the old name of the company. Now Kodak seems to be about to follow the same path.

Jason Gallagher seems to think that this path is inevitable for Kodak. The photography giant did well in its earlier years, but it is not attracting a sufficiently large market share in today's digital age. Too many people use digital cameras instead of film, and print at photo kiosks instead of buying photo-quality home printers.

Kodak was once one of thirty Dow Jones blue-chip companies. I suppose this was back in its glory days when they sold film and cameras to the movie industry and to photography buffs. Today, it is struggling hard to keep its share price above $1, and the New York Stock Exchange is threatening to delist it.

All this is after many stores display the Kodak logo proudly, and the word "kodak" has made its way into the Taglish language. (The word means "taking a photograph").

How do you feel? Are you sad for this icon of photography? Do you think this is just a "normal" trend that many big American companies follow after a time? Apparently, many other giants have also filed for bankruptcy. Is this "inevitable" for Kodak? How can Kodak survive? Can it? Should it?

Is the change to a digital age a good change, or a bad one? Why?

Kindness of villians

2012-01-03T01:29:00.000+11:00

These verses in Obadiah 1:5 impressed me this morning:

“If thieves came to you,
if robbers in the night—
oh, what a disaster awaits you!—
would they not steal only as much as they wanted?
If grape pickers came to you,
would they not leave a few grapes?

We often think of thieves as bad people who are cruel. Indeed, they are; at least in the sense that they rob you of something that is rightfully yours. However, this verse suggests that they are not all bad. They will spare you something in spite robbing you.

I found this to be true in at least some situations:

Malaysian citizens are required to carry national identity cards. They often carry these in their wallets. If one is robbed and one gets to ask the thief kindly, the thief can return the wallet and identity card as he is usually only after the money. That is, if the thief is not in a hurry and has the moment to feel considerate after achieving his goal.
Mosquitoes feed on me quite often. However, they seem to stop after they have had their fill. Ie. I might get many bites in the earlier hours of the evening, and fewer bites as the evening draws on, as I laze on a couch at home.
Some people would take advantage of tourists and newcomers by charging prices greater than what they would charge a local. Their excuse would be that this is the nature of their business. However, even though the amount they would overcharge by might be a great margin above the norm, it would not be at a level that cleans out the victim entirely or be entirely unaffordable.

I was shown the kindness of the third point last week. The going rate for visiting the Angkor National Museum is $3 for Cambodians and $12 for adults. Children are allowed to go in at half price. This mark-up is not at the discretion of the staff of the museum, but is the typical practice in this country where tourists pay more than locals to visit such places. A staff member was kind to me. There was a promotion was going on, where tourists who arrived at the museum possessing a voucher is able to enter for $10. This staff member gave me this voucher to apply to my entry when she saw that the $12 price almost cleaned out all the money I had on me at the time.

It seems to me that, even though there are very cruel people who would kill and steal, take advantage or take everything away from their victims, that this is not always happen. Their is a sense of honour and compassion even among thieves. There is good in the hearts of most people. Would you agree?

How do you think this came to be? Why do you think there is kindness in the midst of cruelty? Is it because of a person's upbringing? Does God have anything to do with this, or is this entirely just the nature of people?

Meaning of Christmas

2011-12-28T02:08:00.000+11:00

I found this article about the change in the culture of Christmas thought provoking.

I have noticed changes myself, as I saw my third Christmas in Cambodia. More shops are decorating with Christmas trees, or at least, decorations in the shapes of Christmas trees. I still enjoy Christmas here more, as it is far less commercial compared to other countries that I have lived in. However, I have seen that Phnom Penh's society is noticing this event more as more offices have parties in restaurants and schools have Santa Clauses deliver presents.

Is this what Christmas is about, though?

The Phnom Penh Post's article cited above sees that young people are adopting the culture of exchanging gifts, television commercials and hanging out with friends at Christmas time. It laments that the cultural shift seems to be at the expense of Visaka Bochea day being forgotten, and a national identity being lost. It talks about the commercialism replacing the traditional Buddhist culture, to the extent of being religious.

Is this what Christmas is about, though?

Many Christians would say "no", as they think Christmas is about remembering the birth of Christ. However, many Christians I know mix up this remembrance with a heavy dose of commercialised gift-giving and partying. I think that many non-Christians observing the holiday spirit would probably wonder if Christmas were indeed about Christ or about Santa Claus, or neither.

For many Filipinos, it is usually a time for family. This year's news saw a change, as fewer people traveled home by ship. I wonder if this is because more people are flying and driving compared to before. I wonder if many are now having holidays overseas instead. Perhaps people were either turned off, or left too poor to go home, after the recent calamity in Mindanao and the aid that went towards it. The author could be right in her conclusion that fewer people went to the provinces because of the shorter holidays, but I was left to wonder about as these other possibilities also came to my mind. In any case, it seems that the culture in the Philippines might be changing as well, as people may not be returning home for Christmas as much as they did in the past.

What do you think? Are such changes in the culture of Christmas time good or bad? What is the spirit of Christmas all about? What should it be about?

How to help

2011-12-21T03:45:00.000+11:00

I saw a thought-provoking article in the Phnom Penh Post this week.

It questioned the practice of foreigners visiting orphanages in Cambodia. It said that children are not animals, and orphanages are not zoos. It questioned the fact that "there has been a 65 percent increase in orphanages in Cambodia since 2005" while in reality, the situation should have become better instead of worse.

Apparently, the reputation of Cambodia as a poor country where there are children needing help is drawing in money and tourism to the country. Some people capitalise on this to earn a quick buck. Foreigners are drawn to see and support the needs in the spirit of charity. The question is how much is charity, and how much is entrepreneurial profit.

How can a tourist be discerning? How can a poor country draw aid and support if not through publicising the needs? Is it wrong to earn some money while trying to help others?

How can people do about this situation? How can one really help without hurting? What do you think?

Caroling permit

2011-12-15T03:07:00.001+11:00

It was interesting to read that one needs a police permit to go caroling in Malaysia.

I understand that this rule is consistent with the regulations about public gatherings. The government would like to screen the messages that will be presented and who the audience will be. Malaysia has rules against proselytising. After a recent major rally in July, the government just can't be too careful, can it?

Public meetings need to be monitored, especially when people take to the streets to do it. There needs to be an element of crowd control and civil order.

However, caroling is often a harmless activity where young people go out to sing Christmas songs joyfully. What harm can that do? Isn't that similar to the practice of "trick or treat"-ing at Halloween? Or going camping together on a boy scout activity?

When is monitoring what people sing and say overstepping a boundary of what is reasonable? When does it overstep a limit of privacy? Should this also be a concern in the realm of the videos, audio and text that people post on the internet?

I see these questions applying to some aspects of life and governance. For example:

Which meetings need to be monitored and regulated? Church meetings? Family and friends' getting together? Teachers with their students? All these are possible avenues for airing propaganda; however, governments tend to check on some of these more thoroughly compared to others.

Which items of importation need to be checked more thoroughly? Food? Electronics? Tobacco? Guns? What people carry as luggage when they travel, or what the shippers handle as cargo? It seems that some items that get confiscated are allowed or duty free when carried through by other channels.

When do you think governments need to regulate what their citizens do, and when do you think they can feel at ease to trust their own people to be doing something harmless?

Paying customs duties

2011-12-10T00:09:00.002+11:00

I bought an appliance for my office when I traveled overseas last month. The customs officers talked to me about it in a side room when I tried to bring it into this country.

They told me that it needed to be taxed. However, the tax was worth less than $300. Because of this, they were unable to issue me a receipt for the tax on the spot. I would have to follow up on it at the customs office in the cargo terminal on the next day.

The next day became a few days later because of public holidays. Each time I talked to a different customs officer, the value of the tax would be slightly higher. The customs office at the cargo terminal was confusing, as there were many possible rooms to go to and so many people to see. Eventually, I was ushered to a customs broker who would help me go through the paperwork for a fee. By the time everything was done, the amount I paid was about $300. I had made about four or five trips to the customs office and spent about a whole day trying to walk through this process.

Is it worth this hassle just to pay tax?

Some people do not think so. They tell me that I should have bribed the first customs officers I met to save myself this trouble.

Someone told me that I could have gotten away with paying about $50 or $60 and getting an unofficial receipt instead of going through the process I did. However, nobody offered me this option so I did not know about this.

Other people say that taxes should be paid properly. If this is the correct procedure according to the law of the land, then this is the procedure that I should do.

What do you think?

Why is it hard to pay taxes sometimes? What is the correct way to do it? Are there useful shortcuts that one can take in the process?

Marrying well

2011-12-02T02:26:00.000+11:00

The Chinese desk of Radio Australia reported an interesting statistic yesterday. Apparently, more women in China prefer to have "made it" by marrying somebody successful, as compared to becoming successful in one's own career in one's own right.

Maybe this is a feminine instinct that is generally universal. Maybe it isn't. A friend once told me, though, that the job is important for a guy. I think she was implying that a man (generally) would feel unfulfilled without being able to work for something in this area of life. A woman, on the other hand, can have other priorities in order to achieve the same sense of fulfillment in life.

Is this true? What do you think? What are the other areas in life that a woman might look to in order to feel fulfilled, if it were not her job?

There are many books and websites that help a person understand what it means to marry well. However, the definition of marrying well is also pretty subjective, so, while one person may think he has married well, his best friend may not agree with him.

What do you think marrying well means? How do you think one can accomplish this?

Are these interpretations universal, or subject to each person's cultural perspective? What do you think?

Protecting Cambodia

2011-11-26T01:42:00.000+11:00

I found the story http://www.smh.com.au/world/17-million-deaths-khmer-rouge-chief-insists-he-was-protecting-cambodia-20111123-1ntg1.html to be very sad.

Firstly because so many people died. Secondly because it was people killing their own kind. Thirdly because of the logic of the argument seems back to front.

The accused "deputy leader of the Khmer Rouge deputy leader of the Khmer Rouge regime ... insisted he carried out its policies for the sake of Cambodians and to protect the country from invaders."

People generally trust their own kind. If he was trying to protect his country from invaders, he should have been trying to strengthen his people instead of trying to decimate them.

If it were a team like rugby or basketball, then one would lose if one did not work together with one's team-mates. One does not protect or win if one's team is weaker than the opposition. Similarly, if one were to save one's people and country from invaders, one should not (normally) think of killing off one's own countrymen.

I suspect that the exception to this rule would be if one did not trust one's own people. If one thought that one's own would betray one. To fight for the other side while pretending to be on one's own side.

Does my logic make sense?

I found it sad that Cambodia's leaders turned on their citizens in the way they did for the reasons they did. Do you feel similarly?

How do you think the nation can now heal from these hurts from the past? Do you think the trial is helping the situation?

Qantas airfares

2011-11-20T01:46:00.004+11:00

I realise that Qantas has had a hard time lately. They have had many technical problems that hit world headlines. Their reputation has taken a battering even though they have not crashed.

About a couple of months ago, I heard that their CEO, Alan Joyce, has announced a change in their business strategy. It seems that the Australian airline will not be based in Australia anymore. The airlines' directors saw that the airline was losing out on business to its competitors. Because Australia was geographically a bit out of the way from the rest of the world, people would not transit there to travel to other places. Airlines with hubs in airports like Singapore, or Bangkok, or Hong Kong would have the competitive advantage over an airline based in Australia. So, in order to stay in business, Qantas would need to move its hub into Asia to compete for international routes. As it is, Qantas' offshoots, Jetstar and ValueAir were doing well in their bases in Singapore and Vietnam.

A major industrial dispute arose soon after this announcement.

Today, I checked out Qantas' airfares as I considered my options of airlines and routes for going home. I was disappointed.

Qantas previously ran a service between Manila and Sydney. It did not seem available anymore when I was searching for flights today. I would have to transit in Hong Kong and Brisbane if I wished to travel with them.
The price of flying Sydney-Jakarta-Sydney would have costed my family and I about AUD3692. We would have to transit in either Perth or Singapore as I could not find a direct flight between these cities. If I chose to fly Jakarta-Sydney-Jakarta instead, I would transit through the same city and the price would be about AUD7180. What a big difference!
Qantas also requires that I visit a travel agent to validate my credit card if I were to fly from Manila or Jakarta. (They do not need me to do this if I fly from Singapore.) I appreciate that this is probably to protect themselves against bad customers. However, it is a difficult requirement for me, since I am not in those cities at the moment. Besides, my main reason for wanting to book online would be to avoid the need to brave through Manila and Jakarta traffic to see a travel agent.

Both Garuda Indonesia and Philippine Airlines offer direct flights to Sydney at much lower prices. It seems that if the choices I found available to me is a a sign of the new business strategy of Qantas, then the airline might be digging itself into a hole and becoming less appealing; even though the strategy seemed to make sense.

I found Qantas' price expensive in many scenarios; but they managed to better Singapore Airline's price for the Sydney to Singapore route today.

What do you think of Qantas' marketing strategy? Does it make sense to you? Can Qantas stay in business? Can Australia survive without its national airline?

Does every major nation even need to have its own national airline?

American culture

2011-11-18T02:19:00.000+11:00

On Radio Australia this morning, I heard it said in somebody's speech the words "what is good for the United states is good for the rest of the world". I am sorry I did not listen carefully enough to identify who this person is.

The person went on to say how good it is for the USA and allied nations as Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand to have the values that they do. These values are apparently good universally, so other nations should think similarly.

I am sure people from some nations would have cringed if they had heard this.

Personally, I think the Americans have a good culture. The "Western" mindset has some good values. Some of these were passed down from the Christian era, even though many today do not recognise or acknowledge this.

However, I think it is unrightly proud to say that this sets a good example for every nation in the world. Some people would think that the "Western" mindset is too liberal, too undisciplined, rude, uncaring, individualistic, democratic, etc. I do not think the culture is perfect even though I see that it is generally good.

I see value also in the diversity of cultures around the world.

What do you think? Should the whole world become more American in the way it operates? Or less?

Cheating exams

2011-11-12T02:40:00.000+11:00

The print edition of the Straits Times carried an article about cheating exams last Monday.

Apparently, many Chinese people do it in order to attend the Universities of their choosing in the Western countries. It seems that they would lie about themselves and their exam results in their quest for places at the Universities.

Personally, I am not sure this is a good idea. Firstly because it is shameful to have to return home if one is found out. Secondly because one's aptitude to pass the courses would not be there if one has not gotten there on one's merit. Thirdly because such an action could jeopardise one's future career paths if one lacks the ability to attend those courses.

However, the people who practice this form of cheating have other values.

Perhaps they are struggling in other ways and this is the way out that they see. Perhaps there is pressure from their parents and peers for them to appear successful, even though they are not gifted that way academically. Perhaps the sense of desperation comes from some other root cause.

What do you think? Does the end justify the means?

Horror movies

2011-11-03T03:29:00.000+11:00

It was hard to find a movie on cable television in the last few weeks that was not a horror movie. I suppose the Halloween season might have something to do with this.

Do you like horror movies? I don't. It surprises me that people would want to watch something that makes themselves feel scared.

My daughter used to have nightmares from watching scary things on television. She now enjoys television more. She also scares less easily. I suppose this is all part of growing up. Nevertheless, how desensatised should a person become?

Many people would watch the news, hear of murder and rape and suicide bombings without the feeling of shock. Maybe we should feel shocked. Maybe we should be crying out to God in prayer instead of simply thinking of it as "normal" news.

If we were to see the paranormal, or be attacked or something, perhaps the instinct to flee would protect us. Perhaps making ourselves insensative to the normal feeling of fear is not good for our safety.

On the other extreme, perhaps being scared too easily is not good for us either.

What do you think the right balance is? How do you maintain this balance for yourself and for your children? How easy do you find it to separate your feelings in a fictitious situation compared to reality? How do you feel about such things?

Parental guidance

2011-10-28T02:29:00.000+11:00

My daughter and I watched a Rugby World Cup semifinals match together. My girl did not enjoy the game. Every so often, she would complain.

"He should not do that". "He is mean." "God will not be happy." "He should not snatch." "He should not push." "The New Zealand player should not take the ball like that; if he wants the ball, then he should ask for it nicely." "That man is hurt. See. God does not like that." "The game is so voilent".

I laughed as I asked her if she was seeing that the players were behaving in ways that her mother and I have taught her not to. "Yes", she smartly answered, "and it is bad".

From this conversation, I realised how hypocritical we are as parents. We enjoy watching bad behaviour we would not tolerate in society as we excuse it as a game.

I later extrapolated the phenomenon to other aspects. It is not just in sport, but also in the sex, voilence and horror movies that we watch. It is also in some of the books that we read and in the stories that we tell. We excuse these as fiction, but nevertheless, I wonder what attracts us to them.

Is there something in our psyche that wants to misbehave even though we know proper etiquette in society? Is this our way of disconnecting with reality and letting our hair down once in a while? Or is it because deep down, we are sinful people even though we cover up with a nice exterior?

Are you like this yourself? What do you think?

Videographers in an internet age

2011-10-23T01:43:00.003+11:00

My friends showed me two online videos recently.

The first one, from YouTube, showed a little child playing by a window in an apartment building. She was about 4 or 5 years old, I think, and about 6 or 7 storeys above the ground. As she played, she got outside the window. She hung on to the railings for a time. She pulled herself upward and sideways and eventually let go.

The video did not show it, but I expect that she fell to her death.

I was shocked at the behaviour of the videographer. Had I noticed this myself, I expect that I would have tried to call for help, or, at least, alert the people around me, hoping to quickly get a message quickly to a parent or guardian who might have been in the apartment who might be able to save the child before her fall. I would not have thought of capturing the incident on video or posting it onto the Internet later.

Or maybe try run to a position where it may be possible to catch her, or alert somebody closer to do so.

The other video was from Facebook. It showed some people wading through the floods - I think in Cambodia. The water was above knee-height, but not yet up to the waist. A woman was lifting her skirt up to try to avoid getting it wet. In her awkwardness, she ended up revealing her undergarments to the camera.

My wife wondered why somebody would video that. Couldn't he have acted more decently? Couldn't he be more helpful in the situation than to video an unfortunate woman?

I wonder. Is this a new trend in our era of having easy access to post videos on the Internet? Have people become so engrossed with their digital electronic cameras that they miss the reality of life around them? Can people not be more helpful and more sensative to others, unlike the examples given above? What do you think?

Departure

2011-10-18T01:17:00.000+11:00

How many places have you lived in? Why?

I have many friends in the international community. Some have lived in seven countries. I wonder how they felt as they uprooted from one place and moved to another. Were they sad to say "goodbye" to friends? Did they just take it in stride with no remorse?

Personally, I find goodbyes to be emotionally difficult. I look forward to seeing many friends again, but feel sad to hear that they will be leaving, or that I will.

Why do we feel this way? Life just goes on anyway.

What do you think?

Vitamin suppliments

2011-10-12T02:42:00.002+11:00

Do you take vitamin suppliments? Regularly? Why? Why not?

I was intrigued to read that there is no evidence that these tablets and capsules do anything. Professor Samman of Sydney University questions the efficacy of these pills. His thought provoking question was "if people are otherwise healthy, and adequately nourished, then why are they taking additional supplements?"

Apparently, most Australians have more vitamins than what they need. Nevertheless, there is a high consumption level of vitamin suppliments is that country. Are people misled to believe they need vitamin suppliments when they don't? Are they taking these suppliments just in case they are missing out on something which they are not?

I remember once discovering that I had a high level of iron from my blood test. My family GP recommended that I take vitamin suppliments less regularly, which I did. My blood test results have become more "normal" since.

Professor Samman seems to think that large doses of vitamins actually reduces one's potential life-span instead of increasing it. I think that nobody really knows how long his or her life should be, even though he probably has a point.

What do you believe? Why?

Changes in law

2011-10-06T12:03:00.000+11:00

My friends and I saw the police pull over a motorbike in Phnom Penh yesterday. The motorbike was carrying three people. My friends explained to me that there is a new law, not yet implemented, that says that such a bike should carry two people at the most. The police were probably pulling people over for money under the guise of this new law, I was told.

It is strange when new laws come into effect. People who have been following the news closely might know what they are. Other people might not hear about them in time. Some people may get taken advantaged of in the process.

I heard that Indonesia is wishing to implement new laws about marriage. Radio Australia mentioned this a few days ago. Apparently, the new law gives greater protection to women compared to the old one. I wonder what will happen to the citizens who are already married? Will they need to marry again to put their marriages under the new law? Or will the new law affect all marriages, past and present? What if the couples prefer the old law on marriage?

Is there an absolute that tells the world what law should be? Or is it simply given to the law makers to make it up as committees, based on their conscience, whims and convictions, only to be changed as the values of society changes? Is there an absolute right and wrong that the world should abide to?

What do you think?

Deep survival

2011-09-30T00:11:00.000+10:00

A story about "deep survival" on today's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald was thought-provoking. Why do some people survive through excruciating pain while others are unable to? What causes a person to live through circumstances where most would not survive through?

People have survived extreme cold and pain and blood loss in situations where many others in the same situations would have died.

In fiction, the answer is obvious. The hero of the story would live through bullet wounds while those he shoots die straight away. James Bond would survive jumping out of a plane without a parachute, but his enemies would not. One can hang on to the outside of a plane in mid air without feeling the wind chill.

In reality, it is not that simple.

"Psychologist Jim McLennan from LaTrobe University said two key aspects of "deep survival" were people's ability to control their fears and keep a level head", according to the SMH article. Professor McLennan thinks that people who "looking out for danger and for opportunities to escape" and "don't give up" are more likely to survive compared to those who don't.

The article also cites Dr Paul Luckin, who believes that preparation, training, the ability to help rescuers do their rescuing work, and the determination to survive go a long way, and often makes the difference between life and death.

The article does not say it, but I think there is also an element of God in the equation. I think that prayer matters.

I also think that having something to live for gives one the determination needed for survival, as compared to somebody who feels hopeless and discouraged. I think that often, that something to live for comes from God, although this might not necessarily be always the case.

What do you think? Is there a spiritual element to survival, or is it all psychological? Do you have something to live for that would give you the determination you need if you were in such a critical situation? What is that something?

Women in society

2011-09-26T15:12:00.001+10:00

It became a major headline this morning when Saudi King Abdullah gave women the right to vote. Not only can Saudi women now vote for the first time, but their vote also count as having the same value as that of men's votes.

This is not a new concept for many who live in democratic societies. Many other nations already count women's votes in this way. However, this goes to show that some of the norms in society that we take for granted is not necessarily the norm in other cultures.

I wonder how the Saudi people are taking this? The USA applaud this move, as it gives that nation the sense of right similar to its own. But just because USA does it this way does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. Is this a contravercial topic among the Arab nations? If a poll were taken, and people answered the poll honestly, how many actually support this change and how many are against it? How do women feel?

I remember reading that Australian women found it strange to vote when the laws allowed them to. Previously, it was only male land-owners who were allowed to vote. It has become normal for for every Australian to vote now. In fact, voting is compulsory in Australia. Australians today look back at the old days as though it was quite strange. However, I am sure the feeling would be different if the previous norm had persisted until today.

I think people have an idea of what is right and wrong based on what they are used to. But ethics should be based on something stronger ... eg. the Word of God. The values of society can change, and people's interpretation of law and ethics also change. So is there an absolute value of right and wrong? If so, what should that absolute be?

What do you believe about ethics, women and society?

Trust

2011-09-20T19:21:00.000+10:00

My wife recently suffered with a sore tooth. She visited a dentist locally, and was advised that she needed to have root canal treatment on that tooth. This was a procedure that would require several revisits to the dentist, and set her back by $250. I told her to go ahead. I remembered that I previously had a similar experience. The nerves of the tooth needed to be extracted to that the pain will go away. Then the tooth needed to be filled so that can be reused without cracking.

In my wife's case, though, the tooth was needed more work than just that. It needed posts put in and crowning as well. The whole procedure costed $600. She needs to visit her dentist about five times to complete the whole operation.

It was easy to for us to go along with this. We know our dentist. He is a reputable man who attends our church. We might have been more skeptical if somebody else had told us that more work was needed and more money needed to be paid. Especially in this society, where some medics have bribed to get their qualifications.

While my wife was struggling with dental pains, I managed to pick up conjunctivitis in my eyes. My local GP asked me to use "artificial tears" and then to switch to "antibacterial eyedrops" if they don't clear after a couple of days. The GP could not tell for sure if it was a bacterial or viral infection on his first analysis.

Unfortunately for me, my eyes became worse. The GP consulted a colleague and then prescribed antihistermines to help me. However, the first lot of antihistermines were not helpful - I needed to use a different type before I started getting better. I saw this guy three times before we found a treatment to make my eyes better.

I have consulted with this GP before. I have come to know him well enough to trust him to deal with me and my problem professionally. I may have lost confidence if it was a GP that I did not know, especially when his first prescriptions seemed to make the situation worse instead of better. Especially since I have heard that some medics here have paid bribes in order to earn their qualifications.

How about you? Do you feel a sense of trust towards the professionals that you consult? Can these professionals lose your trust quite quickly? How do they earn your trust in the first place?

How about non-professionals? How do other people earn your trust? If you do not know God, then what do you think He would need to do to earn your trust?

Kissing makes a comeback

2011-09-10T19:21:00.000+10:00

It was interesting to read that the office kiss is on the rise. Glenda Cooper wrote this in the Telegraph last month, and this was subsequently reprinted in both The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. I think this implies that kissing is coming back in vogue in both the UK and Australia.

The article said that the practice of kissing "died down in more Puritan times" but has been making a comeback in the last three decades. It also said that "the handshake may be considered the ultimate expression of Britishness". I am not sure that this has been my experience.

I have been working overseas for most of the last decade. In the two decades prior to this, I was employed in several jobs in Australia. I was also studying. I found kissing in the workplace to be rare and handshakes to be common. I found that it was not just the Brits who shook hands, but Australians, Americans, and indeed most professionals of any national background living in the cities practiced thsi form of greeting.

I found it normal to kiss in Australia socially. This would usually be a peck on a cheek, offered by a man and received by a woman. This does not mean that the man would always initiate the kiss though. A woman can offer her cheek to indicate to a man that she is expecting him to perform this gesture. I do not often see kissing happening among people of the same gender.

How about you? What have you observed? Which form of greeting to you prefer?

As I have come to spend more of my time living in Asia, I have also learnt other forms of greetings. The "sompiah" (as it is called in Cambodia) or the "wy" (as it is called in Thailand), the "salaam" and the bow are some examples. What other greetings have you used? Do you prefer these greetings to the kiss or the handshake?

What is the norm in your culture? Should we greet one another with a "holy kiss" as Paul says, or is this an instruction that needs to be contextualised?

How important is English

2011-09-05T01:21:00.000+10:00

My wife told me which cities were listed as the most livable ones this year. I noted with interest that Switzerland, Austria and Germany had their cities among the top ten; ie. that it was not the English-speaking nations that dominated the poll. I had imagined that because English is pretty much the medium of communication in airports, that it would be the language of choice by those who participate in such polls.

The print edition of "Berita Harian" yesterday carried a story on page 12 that featured the upset a customer experienced was when the wrong food was brought to him, by a staff member who does not understand English well. Apparently, Singaporeans regard English as the language for business, but with the influx of foreign workers, they also see that some do not understand that language as well as others.

I noticed in my travels that the language of Singapore is changing. When I was a child, the Chinese dialect of choice was Hockkien. Singaporeans were later forced to speak Mandarin - the international standard for Chinese - as a previous Prime Minister instituted a "no dialect" policy. In spite the influx of Chinese immigrants, the dialects seem to have come back now, as was evident during the election campaigns earlier this year, and from what I observed from my recent visit to that island-city.

I also noticed that less Singaporean speak "Singlish" nowadays. The hybrid-language between Malay and English has decreased as the nation promoted the culture of speaking English properly. Foreigners like me who know that hybridised language, and Singaporeans who have lived abroad for a time, gets caught out when they return to that island-city.

It leaves one to wonder which language should one use as the norm for communicating with others. Hockkien? Mandarin? English? Most multilingual people will just adapt as they communicate with others. However, as one makes choices in orienting and teaching the young ones of the next generation, what language should one focus on?

Why should one language be regarded as superior to another? Which form of that language? What makes a language popular? Why? Is that language actually better than the others? Or is it simply because of culture and orientation that we end up preferring one language to the others?

There has not been a standard language ever since the days of Babel. However, there has been standard international languages - eg. Hindi that unites the Indian continent, Roman and Greek in the days when their empires were strong. Many expatriates like their children to know the tongue of their homeland, and to be able to speak that tongue with the right accent as well. However, many of the next generation do not feel the need to learn their parents' language, but the language of their peers in the land where they live.

How do you handle the communication problem that exists because of the diversity of languages? Do you think the diversity is good?

Consumer confidence

2011-08-30T01:50:00.001+10:00

Two of the big stories on the Sydney Morning Herald last week involved changes in big, household name companies.

One story was about Qantas. This company started as the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services and then grew to become Australia's national airline. It is is widely regarded as a world's leading long distance airline and one of the strongest brands in Australia. Recently, in line with business and competition trends, the company has cut down its staff numbers, and is looking forward to establishing stronger bases in Asia and lessening its focus on international flights from within Australia.

This change gave Elizabeth Knight the impression that Qantas is an aquisition target; although no news of a buyer has been heard. The official word is that the airline thinks it will collapse if it does not follow its present marketing plan. Already, it's off-shoot budget airlines, Jetstar, has bases in Singapore and Vietnam. While there is still a place for domestic air services in Australia, Australia is no longer a good base for the long distance flights.

I remembered reading over the recent years that fewer American and European based airlines fly to Australia nowadays when I heard this announcement. Apparently, there is not enough business for these flights to be profitable. Passenger planes need to be full to maximise profit. Airlines flying to Australia find it generally easier to fill the planes by dropping off and picking up passengers in Asia along the way. Qantas' strategy seems to be consistent with this trend. However, it is a change that made many Australians wonder if they are going to lose one of their national icons.

The other story was about the company Apple. Its founder and CEO, Steve Jobs, stepped down from this top position last week. The company's share prices dropped, as consumers wondered if his successor will carry the brand as well as he did. Meanwhile, Apple is using the courts to block Samsung from manufacturing an iPad rival. I think that it is unlikely that they can stop Samsung altogether, but this attempt to slow them down at a time that Apple is in the process of change might just make the Apple brand remain strong in in the face of competition.

Times change, and companies change with the times. Shareholders and consumers feel these changes. Their emotions are captured in journals as the Sydney Morning Herald to a certain degree. Nevertheless, the tide of change will continue to be there. Some companies survive and thrive, while others do not.

In the same way, change happens at a personal level for us as well. We mature and become stronger at one stage. At another stage, our agility and youthfulness pass away. There are seasons in life that we live through. An author wrote:

There is a time for everything,
   and a season for every activity under the heavens:

a time to be born and a time to die,
   a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
   a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
   a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
   a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
   a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
   a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
   a time for war and a time for peace.

How do you feel about change? How do you cope? Do changes bother you? How do you handle it?

Who is your daddy?

2011-08-23T01:45:00.003+10:00

A headline story in last week's newspapers was about a man's name on a birth certificate. This story was prominent enough to feature a few times in the Sydney Morning Herald.

As the story goes, a man had donated his sperm to a lesbian couple so that they could have a baby. A girl was conceived. She is now 10 years old. The couple split up five years ago. Parental responsibility is now shared by the two women and the man. It seems that the three adults know each other.

Last week, the mother's ex-partner took the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and the man to court. She successfully managed to replace the man's name on the birth certificate of the child with her own name. The man disagrees with this decision but had to accept the decision of the court.

Emma McDonald's opinion page subsequently questioned the purpose of a birth certificate. Should it be a record a summary of the child's genetic and biological history, or should it be a live, changing document that can change like how business deals can change? Should it be an organic, evolving document or a static synopsis?

I wondered the same thing. At the same time, I also realise that although this man wanted his name on the birth certificate, some other sperm donors would not want this. Some other guys would not want to have anything to do with the child - although they donated the seed that made the conception possible, they do not wish to bear any emotional or parental attachment to the child.

I think it becomes hard for birth registries when people have many differing opinions about this situation. The norm is that a man and a woman take the responsibility for every child that is born to them. When we have lesbian relationships, sperm donors, single parents, children born out of wedlock, children conceived through rape or group sex or other situations, it just makes it hard for these birth registries to do what they normally do. Especially when the opinions of the society keeps changing.

How about you? Do you have an opinion? What do you think the right solution and the right procedure should be? If God were to be the ultimate judge on this kind of situation, how do you think He would rule on these situations?

People's choice?

2011-08-18T01:43:00.001+10:00

The topic of having refugees who want to land in Australia processed in Malaysia has been a highlight on Radio Australia's broadcasts for many months already. The Australian Prime Minister has been pushing for this to happen, but there has been concerns about how this processing will be done and how right it is that it should be done this way.

I did not realise until I read yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald that off-shore processing of asylum seekers is a government agenda that the public does not favour. Apparently, 53% of Australians prefer that these people be processed on Aunstralian shores. 43% wanted them sent away. Only 28% support the government's view of having these people processed overseas.

It isn't that Australians love asylum seekers so much ... quite on the contrary. These people are regarded as "queue jumpers and illegals", Australians are skeptical about their claims. However, the nation had undertaken to look into these cases, and the mechanics of processing the people are available in Australia - there is no need to involve Malaysia or the Pacific islands.

So why is the Government pushing this agenda, contrary to the view of the people? The reasons are not clear to me. Maybe the public does not know enough to make a good decision, so its leaders need to absorb the responsibility to do it for them. If you understand this, please help me to understand through your comments.

A tension worth blogging about this evening is how much the government serves and represents the view of the majority in the society. Apparently, this is what democracy is supposed to be. The people elect their representatives into the government. These representatives represent the views of the majority and govern based on these views. However, as we see in the situation of Australia handling the boat people, the government's agenda is not always the same as what the majority of the public thinks is right.

Does the government have the power to decide what is right for the people? Or does the majority of the people decide this for the government? How do you think it works? How do you think it should work?

What is right anyway? Does God play a part in answering this question? Should God even get involved? What do you think?

Volatile money

2011-08-11T01:17:00.000+10:00

I am often amazed at how quickly the stock market reacts to finance related news. It seems as though people are fickle-minded, and would abandon their support and loyalty very quickly. Prices would go up and down based on people's perception on the news ... and the perception need not match reality.

Last week, Standards and Poors downgraded the USA's credit rating to AA+. This caused many to sell off the US Dollar and many other currencies related to the US Dollar. The Australian dollar was among many to plunge at the same time. At the same time, many sold off their stocks and shares, and the stock markets around the world also fell.

It only takes a few cents drop in price for each share. When multiplied over many shares, this amounts to billions to be lost in stocks and shares.

It seems that many put their trust in gold as the value of the dollar became unsteady. People around the world were not only selling off the US Dollar, but also other currencies in favour of bullion.

Then suddenly, as people saw the opportunity to buy into to the market cheaply, prices rose again very quickly!

To traders behind the foreign exchange, bullion and stock market desks, it might feel as though the world was ending in the way large numbers of sell orders were passed through. However, out in the real world, life goes on almost as normal.

A friend commented during our prayer time together, saying that while the changes in the US Dollar might feel like a big thing to economists, it is a minor event in God's eyes. There is a lot more to the world, His world, than people's perception and this artificial unit of measuring value called money.

What do you think? What are the valuable things in your perception of the world? Is money real to you? Is it something you love passionately? Do you fear and panic over your investments very quickly? Why or why not? Where is God in your life and values?

Festivity money

2011-08-05T00:22:00.000+10:00

Monday's print edition of the Star had a few articles that reflected to me about how commercial life has become around festivities.

I noticed it myself, as I saw hotels and restaurants advertising special rates on for the fasting month of Ramadan. During this sacred month, Muslims would abstain from food and drink and other physical needs from sunrise to sunset. It is a time to refocus on God and purify the soul. However, the abstinence aspect is more noticable than the spiritual aspect. I think that hotels and restaurants capitalise on this by offering their hospitality services to refresh the devotees at the end of their daytime fasting period.

The front page of Monday's the Star talked about an "affordable Raya" and a "Mega Sale". It spoke about hypermarkets setting the prices right so that Muslims can afford to celebrate at the end of Ramadan.

Then the cover story of the "North Metro" section of the same newspaper was about the boom in business because of the Hungry Ghost Festival. Apparently, business on paper effigies is expected to shoot up by 70% this year, and the artists preparing for this higher demand are being extra busy at work.

A subsequent story in this same section of "the Star" was about a mosque protesting that Penang's Municipal Council has allowed a Ramadan Bazaar to operate outside its front door. Apparently, this potentially impacts on the bazaar the mosque itself has been running, as there is now more competition for its congregation's money.

These stories remind me of a time when Jesus threw out the traders at the temple. He said that "‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers'".

While respecting that business needs to run and people need to earn money in order to eat, I think that there is also a place for sacredness - a time to honour the spiritual aspects of life. Commercialism has a place, but it should not interrupt people's devotion to God and the cleansing of the soul. I see that while this edition of the Star talked about Raya, Ramadan and the Hungry Ghost Festival, the same can be said about Easter, Passover, the Shabat, and many other religious occasions.

I think business oversteps a boundary when our lives become so busy that we do not have time to quieten ourselves before God. What do you think? Where are your priorities with regards to this matter?

Singapore casinos

2011-07-26T01:06:00.000+10:00

During my last visit to Singapore, people talked to me about the casinos there.

Apparently, there is a new casino that has become the talk of the town. Our taxi driver recommended it. He said that they even have a children's play area, where children can play instead of gamble. This casino is located in Marina Bay, the financial district of Singapore. A beautiful shopping centre and a convention centre share the building. The area reminded me of the Darling Harbour area in Sydney.

This new casino is the second in this island-city-state. There was one in Sentosa Island already. Both serve to attract the tourist dollar to Singapore. Apparently there are also casinos online, but they did not pop up in the conversations I had.

I learnt a few things about these gambling entities from the comments of Singaporean residents. Among these are:

Singapore initially resisted the pressure of having casinos. They thought it was a social ill.
Some of the government cabinet members resigned their posts because of how strongly they felt about this point when the decision swayed in favour of allowing casinos to be built.
The formern Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, and the current Prime Minister (his son), Lee Hsien Loong, were among those advocating having casinos in Singapore.
They enticement of the tourist dollar and the peer pressure from neighbouring countries who have casinos were among the incentives that convinced Sngapore to have these gambling entities in their country also.
Some studies have shown that for every dollar gained from such gambling, seven dollars is lost trying to make right the social ills that arises from this behaviour.
Singapore runs two queues into its casinos - one for its citizens and permanent residents and the other for the foreigners. Apparently, Singaporeans need to pay SGD100 in order to enter and pay. This is supposed to disuade the locals from gambling. However, SGD100 is not a big sum for those high-rollers who really want to play.
People who lose tend to get embarassed and keep quiet. People who win tend to boast of their winnings. This gives the impression that playing at casinos is a quick way to get rich, even if it actually isn't.
Some people who work in Singapore as labourers and construction workers have lost two months of wages in one go at the casinos. This makes life difficult, not only for them, but also for their families.

What do you believe about gambling? Do you think it is a social sin? Why or why not?

Depression

2011-07-19T23:32:00.001+10:00

Larry has been reading Archibald Hart. From this reading, other reading and his own experience, Larry was able to share a few good points on this topic. I shall share the notes I took from his talk with you:

Depression is experienced by about one in five women and one in six men worldwide. The statistics are double this if we only consider people working in Christian ministry.
Medical practitioners describe the feeling as a chemical imbalance internal to the body. They are consequently able to treat this with drugs to some degree. Even so, there is good rationale for the balance to be restored back to normality without drugs.
The process to recovery is slow.
Some recover from depression naturally. Others have trouble finding their way out of it.
It is a feeling of a loss of something (or someone) that triggers depression.
Stress is a main trigger nowadays.
The key to finding the way out is through finding out what caused a finding of loss in the person, and subsequently triggered the depression.
It is obvious from emotion when it is found, but it can often be hard to find initially.

Some of the things that one can do to avoid depression or to get out of it are:

To intentionally do something selfless for somebody else
Allow yourself to make mistakes
Give up expecting others to be perfect
Try to simplify your life
Get enough sleep
Forgive offences immediately
Have time for quiet meditation and reflection each day
Spend time with people we love
List things to be grateful for. Try to remember five each night before going to sleep.
Don't put off having a life
Do creative projects in ones free time. (Have a hobby).

Do you agree with what Larry shared? Have you encountered depression before? Do you have a different perspective on this matter?

Who would you go to for help if you suffer in this way?

Decay avoidance

2011-07-15T00:40:00.002+10:00

I heard about this concept on Radio Australia yesterday. Sorry I was not able to find any references to validate what I heard.

On yesterday morning's programme, somebody asserted that we treat our toilet the same way we treat death. We find the topic something to shy away from. It is a topic to avoid talking about. Something to find euphimisms for. Something to dress up and made to look nice, because we do not regard it to be nice.

The person being interviewed said that humans just do not like the subject of decay. We do not like to think about our frailty or our mortality.

I think the interviewee has a point, don't you?

We similarly find food that has gone off to be yucky and wounds that are surrounded by flies and maggots to be gross.

We cover up the signs of our aging with cosmetics and medicine and hair colour. We do our toilet in private (and rightly so, in civilised society). We prefer to think of ourselves as strong and immortal, even though we are not.

Why do we abhor decay, though? Is it because of the disease and contamination factor? Or is it simply that we do not like to think of ourselves as weak and dependant?

I think it is nice that God does not treat us this way. He knows that we are weak, so He lends us His strength. In the eyes of God, this is who we are. We cannot avoid needing to use the toilet forever. We cannot stop ourselves from aging. Death is a certainty, unless Jesus returns for us before it happens.

Why are we like this, though? Do we need to change? In what way?

Anti-corruption

2011-07-09T14:55:00.002+10:00

Some of the major headlines in the last week's news has been about corruption.

In the Philippines, the present government is still accusing the previous one of mishandling its funds. Recent points fueling the accusations had to do with the sale of helicopters to the Philippine National Police and money earned from the Philippine Charity Sweepstake Office being abused or misused.

In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia today, the Bersih supporters are attending a rally at the Merdeka Stadium, as they have approval from the King to do. The word "Bersih" means clean. These guys are calling for clean elections in their country.

The government is offended that they would hold such a rally. They are of the opinion that the elections have been cleaned anyway. They fear that this, and similar rallies only stir up anti-government sentiments among the people, and this is not good for the nation.

The government has chosen to avert traffic from the heart of the city in order to manage the crowds that would attend the rally. Indeed, this is similar to how Sydney would avert traffic when major events like the rugby grand final is on. However, the "Bersih" supporters think that this is a ploy to discourage people from attending.

I think it is natural that citizens expect honesty from their governments; that they people they elect get into power and use the power well for the good of the nation. This means that money is used where it should be used, etc.

How can a government instill such confidence among the citizens, though? I mean, it is possible for the public to be suspicious even if the government were being honest. If you were the government, how would you handle this issue of trust and corruption?

Food wastage

2011-07-05T01:51:00.001+10:00

How many tons of food end up in our garbage?

I googled and asked Jeeves that question, but did not find the answer in the first page of the results I received. However, googling other keywords found me many pages that told me that indeed, a lot of food does get thrown away.

In fact, Jonathan Bloom dedicates a blog to this subject!

One page says that half of US' food goes to waste. Another page reckons it isn't that much; the number is actually between 14% and 40%. I guess it could depend on the time of the year, as the former page was written close to the Thanksgiving season. Another blog thinks that fast food make up 50% of the street litter.

Naturally, many of us would be appalled at this wastage. We were taught not waste our food from childhood, after all. Nevertheless, we don't expect restaurants and hotels to serve us what other customers leave half-eaten, do we?

My wife was especially taken aback to learn what happens to the food in the garbage in Tondo, Manila, in the Philippines. Apparently, the extremely impoverished people of this congested city would dig through the garbage, save whatever food they can from the dogs, recook it, and then sell it at a further discounted price for people who cannot afford anything better. Of course, there are health risks associated with this practice.

A Facebook friend told me of a Japanese laboratory who make meat out of human poop.

Why do we go to such extremes to create food out of our waste when so much of it goes to waste? Can't we share instead of rubbishing? Where is love? What do you think?

Getting attention

2011-06-28T02:05:00.000+10:00

Last weekend's print edition of the Wall Street Journal Asia had two stories that caught my eye.

A cover story spoke of Dutch Anonymous hackers, people who would test the limits of the security of digital information, sometimes without any evil intentions. The world fears these hackers to a certain extent because of the mischief that they can cause. Why do they do it though? Is it because they need the attention? Certainly not, since they wish to remain anonymous and avoid the authorities. However, there is also a wish to be recognise for one's ability to crack another's code.

Today's Sydney Morning Herald mentioned the DefCon conference this August allows children as young as 8 years old in, provided they do not cheat, steal or commit crimes. Indeed, hackers are not necessarily bad people, just people who have the aptitude for solving puzzles and cracking code. The ultimate goal seems to be wanting to draw people's attention towards vulnerabilities in the ICT systems, but not do any damage to themselves in the process of doing this.

The other story spoke of the bizarre things airlines would to to get their passengers to watch their safety procedures demonstrations. Sure, it is for the passengers' good that they know what to do in case of emergency in order to keep themselves safe. Many passengers, though, think that they already know it all from past demonstrations and tune out. So some airlines have tried unconventional tacts to gain their attention during the demonstrations.

Virgin America tried using cartoons of a buck-tooth nun in 2007. Cebu Pacific tried getting their stewards and stewardesses to dance. Air New Zealand did a video their staff wearing only body paint as they did this performance. Amazingly, their staff seemed to be more than willing to appear almost-nude for this video.

Reading these stories got me to think about God. If people would do things like these to try to get other people's attention, then what does God need to do to get our attention?

People often just take creation for granted just as we often take our computer systems and our airline safety for granted. At the same time, though, we should recognise the Creator because of His creation ... we should notice Him, even though many of us don't. What does God need to do to make us notice Him? What do you think?

Robot movie

2011-06-21T22:26:00.002+10:00

I watched the movie Robot, compliments of Thai Airways last week.

The story was about a robotics engineer called Dr Vasi, who created an android who looks like him. This android was called Chitti. Dr Vasi wanted Chitti to be able to serve humanity with a high degree or artificial intelligence, so he trained Chitti that way.

He also wanted Chitti to serve to defend his nation. Dr Vasi reasoned that a robot army could be superior to a human one. For this reason, Chitti was designed not to follow Asimov's First Law of Robotics.

Crunch time came when the army would not accept Chitti as he was deemed to be too dangerous. They saw that Chitti could be brought to turn on his own and kill his commanders since he did not have emotion or conscience.

Dr Vasi solved this problem by designing an emotion chip for Chitti. Unfortunately for him, this created other problems, as Chitti then became passionate for his girlfriend, Sana. Dr Vasi's nemesis exploits this passion to make Chitti evil and to make him hate Dr Vasi.

Chitti eventually created clones of himself and kills many people, including Dr Vasi's nemesis. Dr Vasi then disguised himself as a robot (just as well that he had designed Chitti to look like himself) in order to infiltrate Chitti's army of androids to save the day.

Near the end of the story was a court trial, with Dr Vasi as the defendant. The state wanted to hold him responsible for the chaos and the deaths. Chitti helped to aquit him, before being sentenced to disassemble himself.

For me, the key part of the story was when Dr Vasi was asked how it was that Chitti could have gone so drastically wrong. Dr Vasi answered something to the effect that Chitti's design was deffective since it was based on himself, who was also not perfect. Apparently, Chitti modelled after humans who have impure emotions of jealousy, envy, suspicion, rage and vengence.

For me, the story hints that we need to base our lives on a perfect God in order for us to live in a perfect world.

Have you seen the movie? Would you draw the same conclusion if you had? What do you think is needed for our world to return to God's perfection?

Committed? Or Surrendered?

2011-06-15T19:41:00.003+10:00

When Bob spoke to us at the Men's Breakfast last month, he read a little article and then shared his personal conclusions.

I am sorry, I do not remember the source of his little article in order to share that reference with you.

Anyway, the point of the writer was that the word "committed" sounds like a good word in American English, but it was only relatively recently that this word has become fashionable. The writer did some research. For a word to be newly fashionable usually means that another word has stopped being in vogue. What is this other word? Why the change?

The author's conclusion is that the word that Americans stopped using in favour of the word "commit" is "surrender".

Both Bob and the author pointed out the differences in the meaning of these two words, and why Americans prefer to be "committed" than to be "surrendered".

"Committed" implies that you have a choice. You are in control of the situation. You give yourself to something because you want to. "Surrendered" means you don't have a choice. You are forced into the situation.

"Commitment" is viewed postively because one has freedom to choose. One can make a commitment based on the conditions and benefits. One can weigh out the pros and cons and calculate the cost before one enters into the relationship. One makes a promise, and can withdraw the promise (perhaps with some penalties) if the situation becomes no longer favourable for one.

"Surrender" is seen as negative. It is as though a stronger power forces us to make the choice; ie. regardless of whether we want to choose that or not. It means we have been defeated. We have lost. Americans do not like to think that they have lost.

I suppose this attitude is fine to a certain degree. The point of today's post, though, is to ask if this is fine when we are talking about our relationship with God.

Are we committed to God, or surrendered? Did we choose/do we choose to give our lives to Him, or does He have the right to demand it? Can we back out of our commitment if we want to? (We certainly cannot back out of "surrender".) Are we allowed to get out if the situation feels too tough for us?

Is our attitude to be like that of a "servant" or a "slave"? What should our attitude be? What does God request or demand of us?

Does God deserve us? Or do we deserve God?

A paradox Bob challenged us with is that "the measure of a man's strength is in his surrender to God".

Where do you stand in your commitment or surrender to God?

Obedient wives and sex slaves

2011-06-09T01:35:00.003+10:00

Some of my female friends published their reactions to the story of the "Obedient Wives Club" (OWC) published in the Star on their microblogs. They seemed to have found the concept of the OWC amusing and absurd and even a little offended that others of their own gender would promote such a concept.

I wonder why? Is it unnatural for wives to be obedient? Is it crazy for one to wish to please one's husband? Or is it simply offensive to be compared to "first class prostitutes" as though such is what women should aspire to become? What do you think?

Facebook users soon shared some views to counter-balance the OWC concept. Someone said

“Yes, sex is important, but you can’t say that it will help curb social ills in such a sweeping manner.

and another person said

“Women shouldn’t be women’s worst enemy. Husbands have to take responsibility for their own behaviour,”

Do you agree with these views? What do you think?

It was interesting that a Kuwaiti post on YouTube would carry a similar theme. Apparently, this woman who was formerly a parlimentary candidate thinks that if a Muslim nation conquers a non-Muslim nation, then the female prisoners of war would make good jawari to the victors.

Jawari are concubines. The word was translated as "sex slave" to make the title of the news article more provocative. The person who made that statement thought that legalising such a practice would lessen the temptation for men thinking of straying away from their marriage vows.

What do you think the places of men and women are in society? Should men have access to more women in a sexual way simply because they are tempted to? Should women promote themselves in such a way that men would believe such a behaviour is perfectly acceptable?

Should women be obedient and submissive to their husbands? To what extent should a woman give in to her men's wishes and to what extent should she say that he has overstepped his boundaries? What do you think?

Inferring truth

2011-06-02T00:36:00.003+10:00

A billboard in Australia carries the words "Jesus is a prophet of Islam". It made headlines when it became vandalised.

Why would anybody vandalise such a billboard? What do you think?

The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) described the billboard as provocative. Do you think it is?

The SMH said that the organiser of this billboard received a lot of positive feedback, and that about 10% of the callers were offensive.

I think the billboard serves its purpose in provoking its readers to think. I think it is true that Muslims do regard Jesus as one of the prophets. The difference with the Christian faith is that in this assertion, Muslims regard Jesus as being just a man. A man blessed with a special gift, like Moses, like Elijah, like Mohamad himself, but still, just a man. Christians, on the other hand, regard Jesus as being God himself.

Ie. to call Jesus as just a prophet is only telling a part of the story, inasfar as the Christian perspective is concerned, but it is already the entire story from the Muslim perspective. However, many of the billboard's audience may not realise this difference. Their minds may be led to think something different from the real truth behind the assertion.

This story reminded me of a study in John 18:28-19:16 that a friend led me through. During this study, my friend pointed out that:

The Jewish leaders' accusation (18:29) was not followed up with a logical basis, but with a circular argument.
Jesus answered Pilate's question (18:33) with a question (18:34), as any other answer would have either been untrue or misunderstood.
Jesus asserted that everybody who is on the side of the truth would listen to him (18:37); but Pilate chose not to listen and to walk out instead at that point (18:38).
The Roman mindset told Pilate that it is not good to kill a Son of God (19:7-8). He tried to avoid doing this (19:12), but by this stage, the crowd had him already committed and he could no longer back out.

Who is Jesus?

This is a question that begged an answer, back in the time of Pilate as well as today. We need to believe in the truth about Him. What is this truth though? What do you think? Who is Jesus, according to your understanding?

False prophecy

2011-05-26T01:14:00.000+10:00

Harold Camping and his group, familyradio.com, were predicting that Judgement Day was to be 21-May-2011. Now that this date has passed us, they admit to having had an error in their calculation - God has given us five months to experience hell on Earth before Judgement Day comes. The date is now expected to be 21-Oct-2011.

They admit that they are not financial advisors, and feel sorry for those who have taken out loans or used up their life savings to live it up before the world ends, as if it would have ended a few days ago. Apparently, some people did go and do this.

If you knew when the world would end, would you spend your fortune and go into debt like this? Or would you have used your finances differently - in more altruistic ways, perhaps?

Personally, I wonder why this group got itself to have its credibility doubted in this way. The beginning of one of their Bible studies told them that nobody would know exactly when the Lord would return. If they had stopped at that point, instead of reasoning out "however ...", they could have saved themselves this trouble.

How do you feel about this? Disappointed that Jesus has not come yet? Not surprised that it didn't happen the way Mr Camping and his group said it would? Indifferent?

After this that has happened, would you believe anyone who tells you that the world is going to end, and that Jesus will come again, some day soon? Why or why not?

Sharia Law

2011-05-19T23:24:00.001+10:00

On Radio Australia yesterday was a discussion about introducing Sharia Law into Australia.

Apparently, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils would like this law to be introduced as an alternative code by which Muslims in Australia may live by, instead of being under the same Australian law as everybody else in the country. The Federation is also suggesting that some aspects of Sharia law can substitute the nation's existing law so that the whole country may benefit from these positive points in the law.

Naturally, some critics are against this idea and point out some extreme points that most Australians would find too wild for themselves.

The article set me thinking though. What if every people group argued to have their own law set for their subgroup instead of having a common law for the whole nation. Would it work?

Feminists may live under a stronger matriachal code compared to the rest of the rest of Australia
Christians have a different code of law from non-Christians (there is a strong Christian heritage to Australian culture, but the society is not 100% Christian)
Immigrants may retain the positive aspects of the law of their previous home countries
Etc

Can we generalise this concept to apply to any nation instead of just Australia? Can it work for a nation to be divided to have many laws? Are there positive aspects in common such that the world can live under one law? If so, then what would that one law be?

What do you think the world would be like if every man were to become a law unto himself?

Smart culturally

2011-05-15T19:44:00.000+10:00

Ned Seelye's book Teaching Culture has a section about people being culturally sensative and bicultural. Here are a few examples:

p 242 tells about North Americans valuing people based on their career or profession, and based on their education level. People from some other cultures (eg. South Americans) do not box people up in the same way. Ie. conversations describing people can be awkward.
In p 248, a bicultural American and a bicultural Japanese greet each other. The American bows to the Japanese as the Japanese offers his right hand for a handshake. Each tries to be culturally appropropriate to the mindset of the other, producing an awkwardness consequently.
p 244 ff discusses "intelligence" based on cultural upbringing as well as nutrition. Eg. people from a malnourished background cannot be expected to produce nuclear scientists. People growing up in mountain provinces will not dream of building sea-faring boats.

I find that although these examples are particularly relevant for classrooms in the USA, the principles are more general than that.

Eg. based on my experience in Asia, I see that people tend to box other people based on race or religion or nationality, but this tends to happen less in my home country. I meet people who speak so many different tongues that they sometimes wonder which one to choose when starting a conversation.

What is your experience in relation to this? Is it a blessing or a curse to be bicultural or multicultural? Can you share some of your awkward experiences?

Can people have a consistent understanding of what God is like while their perspectives on life and culture are so different? What do you think?

National security

2011-05-08T01:32:00.001+10:00

While analysing some recent news with a friend during the week, my friend commented about the risk brought in by migrants. Apparently, some people do not look for peace or stability in the country that they are about to consider their new home. They go there to enjoy a "better life", or to destabalise the country by attacking it if they do not get what they want. My friend commented about the behaviour of the Villawood Detention Centre as one example of this. Apparently, there has also been attacks initiated by certain minority people groups in other situations that also give rise to this perception of his.

I was surprised to hear my friend express this. I previously thought that people look for peace and safety, and not to rock the boat in their new country. I think people should have the attitude of asking for, and not demanding the welcome of another nation for themselves.

A man accused of plotting an attack on an Australian military base was on trial during the week. In an outburst, he said

"You kill people for oil, you kill kids, you kill innocent people ... Why you charge us as a criminal? Why don't you charge yourself as a criminal?"

I thought it interesting to read this. It appears that although we tend to think of individuals as the offender and the nations as the victims of terrorism, there is also potential hypocrisy in the way we treat the offenders. Apparently, nations can have policies and hidden agendas that upstage the peace and stability for the people we accuse of upsetting our peace and stability.

Maybe the recent killing of Osama bin Laden is an example of this. Yesterday's news mentioned that the US' version of the story has become doubtful, as there was no live video footage of what was happening in spite "a photograph issued by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded". It seems that the well-trained SEAL team was warned to shoot bin Laden on sight for fear that he may have something harmful hidden under his shirt.

I do not know the story behind the story for all these stories. I cannot explain the heart motives of all the people involved. I can only ask the question of where is truth and justice in the hearts of people, and what do people wish for for themselves and their families.

As we let "God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4), what would you conclude about this matter? Do people really look for peace and security? Do national leaders lie to their people? Do terrorists have truer motives compared to the leaders and news media people we tend to believe?

Chinese rise

2011-05-02T13:44:00.000+10:00

Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was in China last week. Apparently, she needed to give some diplomatic speeches in the course of her visit. It appears that she was politically sensative, but uncertain about her views about China's economic rise.

China is now being the second biggest economy. If the trend continues, it will overtake the USA in the near future to become the world's biggest economy.

Somebody told me that Julia's comments on this matter sits on both sides of the fence. In one of the speeches she made, it sounded as though she was encouraging the world not to fear China's rise. After all, it is simply gain through trading, and any country successful enough can end up being on the top. In another speech, she seemed to have said that we need to watch China's rise carefully in case there may be negative repercussions.

I suppose both assertions can be true simultaneously.

How do you think the world should feel though? Should they feel jealous because another nation is taking the lead instead of them? Should they feel upset because of some of the shortcuts China has taken in the past that led to suspiciously dangerous consumables being sold? How much will the world change if USA is no longer in the top place?

Perhaps we have just gotten too used to having USA be the top economy as they have been the leader for a very long time. Perhaps there will be major changes in the way the world runs if a nation that is not predominantly English-speaking and does not carry Western ethics come up to have most of the world's money.

What do you think?

Living off the past

2011-04-28T00:20:00.001+10:00

My friend Patrick quoted Geddes Macgregor in an email yesterday. The line that inspired today's post read:

When secularists accused Christians of "living in the past," the Christians ought to have retaliated by pointing out that secularists were "living off the past."

The point being made was that secularism is like a parasite. Secularists would have nothing to react to if Christians had not established theological and moral foundations in society. This reaction can be overpowering, as it tries to choke Christianity out of the culture. However, it would have nothing to live off if it did that, and it itself would die in the process.

MacGregor makes the point that the word "secularist" would be without meaning if the Christian foundations were not already there. She also makes another point, ie. that the secularists live off the spiritual capital that the Christians had invested from a long time ago.

I understand that MacGregor was probably describing Scotland in her remarks, but I see that the same comments probably apply to other parts of the world as Australia, New Zealand, France and USA.

I appreciate that people feel secure because of a legal and moral system is already in place. I also think it nice that the system is based on Christian values, because I see that these values are good for society in general. However, I also see that many people in these countries think of Christians as being religious and they do not feel a need to be a part of that.

What do you think? Need society's values be "Christian" in order for it to be good and solid and dependable? Can secular society survive if one were to remove the Christian foundations away from it? What role does God have in society?

Rewording the text

2011-04-23T19:56:00.000+10:00

I read during the week about a gay revision of the Bible about to go on sale.

Instead of Adam and Eve, it carries the story of Adam and Steve. Instead of Samson and Delilah, it's story is about Samantha and Delilah.

Do you think these stories would confuse children and other people seeking the truth in Hebrew mythology? Would it be that in a future era, people might not know which is Scriptural truth and which is fiction? Why would people cause confusion by publishing stories that they know are not scriptural pretending that they are?

I think that it would have caused a greater uproar if this was done to other sacred texts like the Quran. However, modern Christians, in the spirit of political correctness with gay people are less vocal. What do you think? Should news headlines express outrage from Bible fundamentalists more than what I have seen this week?

Food price inflation

2011-04-17T00:26:00.001+10:00

The World Bank saw that food prices has risen by about 36% in the last year. This is a rather steep increase, and very close to the steepest that the world saw in 2008. Increase in oil prices and severe weather conditions in some grain producing countries are considered to be the reason for this steep increase.

The increase will naturally make it hard for many. Those who are living below or close to the poverty line potentially face starvation problems. Inflation is not welcome to anyone, espcially when nobody is able to profit from it.

How will the world cope with this problem? Will the World Bank come to the world's rescue to improve nutrition in spite food shortage and inflaton problems? How will you and your family cope?

Is this one of the signs of the end times predicted in the Bible?

Islamic secrecy

2011-04-13T01:16:00.000+10:00

A few weeks ago, I read an article about secrecy within the Islamic religion. I am sorry I have lost the URL and have consequently become unable to share the link with you. However, it was intriguing to read somebody's impression on this matter. The writer was mainly asking the question "if Islam is a true religion, then why does it feel the need to hide so much?" Surely, a true religion would welcome questions from genuine seekers and answer all these openly.

One of the headlines today was about the French government outlawing the wearing of burqas in public. Apparently, this law could be politically motivated and discriminatory towards about 2000 women. However, the French police also fear a campaign of provocation, and feels the need to identify the womenfolk seen in public.

What do you think about this law? Is it provocative and discriminatory? Does Islam really need to have a lot of secrets, including that of what their women look like? How should one settle the difference between the cultural values of these muslims and that of other European continental people without offending either party?

End of the world

2011-04-03T01:30:00.000+11:00

Many thoughts led me to wonder how close we are to the end of this world:

The issue of contamination from the recent nuclear radiation fallout
Flooding in Thailand
Many passages in the Bible that I recently read
A prediction from familyradio.com about the world ending on 21-May-2011, after its study that nobody knows the day or hour

What do you thinkabout eschatology? Do you think the world will end soon? Why? Why not? How soon? How would it affect the way you live today if you knew that the world would end soon?

Policy decisions

2011-03-26T14:37:00.000+11:00

My favourite online dictionary defines "policy" to mean "a set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that has been agreed officially by a group of people, a business organization, a government or a political party".

I think this means that policies are neither law nor strict regulations to abide by. Instead, they are guidelines to describe what people are recommended to do. A few pieces of news in the past week show how tricky it has been for people in our world as we considered some of the policies we have made. Eg:

Japan's health ministry raised the legal limit of radiation for which people may be exposed. The limit was previously 100 millisieverts, as this is what the authorities considered to be a reasonably safe level. However, as the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station was at the risk of overheating, a team of people needed to stay behind to keep the power station cool while other people evacuated the area. If they did not do this, then the power station would blow up and cause even more harm for everybody. The limit was raised so that this team could do its job without breaking the law.
Australians were calling their Prime Minister a "bitch" the other day. This is because she is choosing to reverse a decision about carbon tax. She promised that there would be no carbon tax during her election campaign period. Now, as she considers the circumstances, she thinks there should be. The world needs to reduce on carbon emissions, and, according to Gillard, the way to do this is to tax so that the higher consumers pay more. The opposition holds a different view. They think that a carbon tax would cause Australia to go to overseas sources for certain goods and services, and this is not good because Australians can handle these more efficiently if this tax were not imposed. Ie. they think that although there is a need to reduce carbon emissions, the solution is not through a carbon tax.
Facebook has a policy such that people under 13 years of age should not have accounts. However, some children circumvent this policy by lying about their age. For this, and a number of other breaches to their policy, about 20,000 Facebook accounts become banned daily. I think people can still get around this enforcement method by opening new email accounts and subsequently new Facebook accounts. However, to see that the Facebook company does this does show a sense of seriousness towards their policies.

I think that these issues show that our man-made rules are not perfect. We try to set systems in place based on what we think to be sensible. We try to enforce our policies so that people do what we think is right, so that everything turns out well for society and for the world. However, our thoughts are not always right and situations sometimes become different from what we expect. Then, we question our previous policies and try to adapt them or revise them when we think we know better.

I think we need to do better eventually. We should ask for God's guidance for making policies. God would know better than we do, wouldn't He? What do you think?

Revenge of the Earth

2011-03-19T20:18:00.002+11:00

Boris Johnson wrote:

"A caller rang a London radio station to discuss the lessons of the Japanese earthquake, and said something both death-defyingly stupid and brilliantly illuminating. He knew why there had been a seismic event measuring 8.9. It was because man was forever drilling for oil, and our planet was angry at the intrusion. The Earth, in the view of this caller, was like some vast animal shrugging its pelt at an irritating flea-bite - and mankind was that irritating flea."

The rest of the article carried Boris' opinion that this caller's comment is stupid. I, though, do not agree entirely with Boris.

I think that the Bible speaks the truth when it says that we reap what we sow. The Bible also says that all of us have sinned and we fall short of God's glory.

I do not know what sin Japan committed. Maybe it is not their sin, but the sin of the whole world that caused this problem. I also do not know why the earthquake ans tsunami and the risk of a nuclear meltdown situation happened. I think Boris cited some information that is quite true when he expressed his opinion. Even so, I think that the caller's idea of the world retaliating to what we have done to it is not entirely rediculous either. If we have been cruel to the planet we live in, then there are consequences to this cruelty that we would naturally suffer.

As it is, we have seen problems of landslides when we do not consider the environmental impact of our logging. We fear that a consequence of building reservoirs can affect our farming and fishing. We are concerned about carbon emissions and global warming.

I think that God is gracious and can forgive our sins. However, I also think that that does not excuse us to exploit the world that He created. We need to be responsible and do our duty to care for our planet - to be kind to our fellow men (so not to have wars) and to the environment we live in.

Do you agree? What do you think?

American thinking

2011-03-12T22:10:00.004+11:00

A few things in the last week drew me to think about the way the Americans are perceived by people around the world:

A speech from Libya's strongman, Muanmar Gaddafi, said "America is not the international police of the world". I understand that some people think they should be. I wonder why? Is it because they were a strong power among the allies in both the first and second World Wars? Is it because Superman fights for "truth, justice and the American way"? Or is it something else?
I met a guy at the gym the other day. He is American, and has lived in about fifteen countries around the world. He prefers not to live in though USA though. He thinks that people in Asia are more genuine. He thinks that Americans are more fake because they feel the need to keep up a nice front. Eg. while the Chinese would honestly admit that they are atheists during job applications, many Americans would not.
A very good friend of mine grew up in California, USA. I did not. Nevertheless, we seem to have the same sense of humour, kind of as though we grew up together. My friend and I jokingly attribute this to having watched a lot of MGM and Disney cartoons on television in our childhood. I am not sure whether to take this phenomenon as positive or negative.
Julia Gillard, the Australian Prime Minister, was visiting the USA last week. In a speech she gave, she spoke of Australia's appreciation and respect to the Americans and sang praises to American virtues. So there must be good things about Americans that people like, and some of the people who like Americans are not Americans themselves.

What do you think? Do you like the culture and mindset of the Americans and the way it influences the other nations around the world? Why or why not?

Discrimination

2011-03-05T20:43:00.002+11:00

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine asked the following questions on Facebook:

Why is it when a local is sent out we use Luke 10 but for missionaries Romans 10? When a local received an outside support it's called dependency but for missionaries it's partnership. When there's not much ministry result a local is lazy or don't know how to do it but for missionaries "it's a hard place."

I do not know the answer to her question. I thought, though, to share it here so that you may also share your opinions on this matter.

My friend senses discrimination between the local worker and the foreign missionary. Why did she get this impression? Assuming that her perception is true (I currently have no reason to doubt her, although I have not observed what she has), then what caused this discriminination to happen?

Could it be because people perceive the locals to be "getting" for themselves and for their countrymen, while the foreigners as "giving" to people other than their own?
Related to the above point, could it be that there is a sense of "self-sacrifice" when the missionary goes out, but this sense is not so observable among the locals?
Maybe it is the impression given from the ways the locals use the support given. Maybe the missionaries give a better sense of accountability to the supporters compared to the locals.

Maybe it is for another reason, or for no valid reason at all that such discrimination happens. What do you think?

I am currently reading a book entitled "Teaching Culture" by Ned Seelye. It cites a poem by Natasha Josefowitz on pages 92-94, about the impressions upon men and women in the office. The poem is long, so I shall only quote a few lines of it below:

The family picture is on HIS desk
Ah, a solid, responsible family man.
The family picture is on HER desk
Hmm, her family will come before her career.
...
HE's not at his desk
He must be at a meeting.
SHE's not at her desk
She must be at the ladies' room.
...
HE got an unfair deal
Did he get angry?
SHE got an unfair deal
Did she cry?
...

I think this poem illustrates another side about the point in question. Even though the situation could be the same, people can have different ideas about the people affected. So it may not really matter if it be a missionary or a local worker, a man or a woman, how old or how young a person is, sometimes, people form opinions even though without any substantial reason for the presumption. It could be because of generalisations formed through past experience, or it could just be social stigma, or maybe nothing at all.

What do you think? Do you experience such discrimination? Are you on the giving end or the receiving end of discrimination? Is it fair to discriminate? Is it avoidable? For what reasons do you think you discrimination happens?

Supply & demand problem for nurses in the UK

2011-03-02T01:36:00.002+11:00

I found the story entitled "Nursing dream fades for Filipinos as UK jobs dry up" so sad because the problem is so human.

In my own words, the problem is like this:

About ten years ago, there was a huge demand for nurses in the UK. The demand was so great that the nation needed to import nurses from abroad. Many nurses from India and the Philippines responded, and moved to that country - not only to fulfill a need for the British but also a need for themselves. The nurses wanted money for themselves and their families. Migrating to a "richer" country was a way to achieve this dream.

Human resources agencies in the Philippines were set up to help recruit the potential migrants. The demand for the vacancies became so great that Universities and Colleges needed to offer nursing courses in order to stay in business. Many aspired to be nurses in order to find work abroad in a country where there is not enough jobs for the population.

Eventually, though, the need for nurses in the UK decreased. Now, that there are enough nurses there, the people who go there for nursing jobs have difficulty finding jobs.

However, it is hard to tell the human resources agencies to stop recruiting. The Philippine people still want to apply for jobs there, even though the UK no longer has as many vacancies. The Universities and Colleges cannot close down their nursing faculties as employment needs and public demand for these courses are still high.

Therefore, the recruitment agencies continue to try sending people to the UK. They tell them to go as students instead of employment seekers, assuring them that if they study in the UK then they will be able to find the jobs they desire. However, it is expensive to study there, so these people end up owing a lot of money - to the recruitment agencies for their "placement fees" and to their families in their home country for helping to send them abroad.

The law allowed students to work for 20 hours/week, but is now reducing this to 10 hours/week. The students cannot earn quickly enough to fulfill their debts on these few hours of work. They also have difficulties finding work when they finish studying, as the supply of nurses is now higher than the demand.

A lot of money is wasted, and people fall into disillusion, depression and deception as this practice continues. Some even end up breaking laws.

How do you think this problem can be solved? How do you think it should be solved? Is migration good or bad for the nation? How can a nation handle its supply & demand and human resources problems? What would you do if you were the Prime Minister or the President of one of these nations?

Huge mark-up

2011-02-25T02:17:00.001+11:00

The headline story in today's The Straits Times talked about a surgeon who apparently over-inflated her fees.

Apparently, this Singaporean doctor would send her Brunei patients to specialists for consultations. The specialists would bill her office. She would add her mark-up and then bill her patients to recover her costs. An outrageous example was when the specialist billed her $400, and she charged her patient $211,000. Apparently, she did this many times. Although the other markups were not as high, they were still pretty unscupulous.

I appreciate that she has her costs to recover. Her staff would accompany these patients to the specialists. Her accountants and lawyers also did some work, and should get payed. Nevertheless, I think the mark-up that she charges is way over what is appropriate.

What do you think? Have you been caught out by similar middle-men in your business transactions? What level of markup would you consider fair? (Some consider it fair to charge whatever the customer would pay. This is easier to exploit in the medical profession as people needing medical treatment would often pay anything.)

As I travel and compare the price of groceries in the different places I have been to, it surprises me how much some things cost in one country compared to another. Are market people taking advantage of consumers using similar pricing practices, howbeit unnoticed?

Malaysian suicides

2011-02-21T02:20:00.001+11:00

Yesterday's print edition of the Strait Times featured an article that talked about the suicide rate in Malaysia.

Apparently, there were 290 cases of suicide in 2008. The suicide rate was 445 cases in the first eight months of 2010. More people are committing suicide in recent times compared to before.

The article then talked about young people as the ones who are more prone to committing suicide. They are also the ones who are more connected on internet-based social networking. Are the two trends connected?

Apparently, mental woes and stress are other reasons being blamed as reasons why some people chose to take their own lives. How to help people avoid or get over such issues is unclear from this article. The author did write about an effort to try to help though.

Apparently, an appeal have been published in two Chinese newspapers to encourage people to look up instead of succumbing to the temptation of committing suicide. This appeal came in the form of a cartoon that featured a woman who had jumped from a tall block of flats. On her way down, she sees that her neighbours through their windows. She comes to realise that they also have problems, either similar or worse compared to her own. She then regrets viewing herself as worse compared to them and jumping, but by that stage, of course, it is too late for her to undo her suicidal action.

I think I agree that everybody has problems. I also think we should not be judging ourselves based on others. It is also my opinion that people should have more hope in their lives, and that suicide is not the ultimate answer to their problems. However, how does one share these beliefs in such a way that is meaningful to those who are needing hope?

What do you think the solution is or should be?

Lost in language

2011-02-15T01:18:00.001+11:00

I listened to Radio Australia last Friday. An announcer told us that the President Mubarak had handed over "some" of his powers to his deputy, contrary to the expectations of the public who really wanted him to leave office.

A little later, another announcer talked about the confusion in that report. Apparently, something was lost in translation. A different translator had told the second announcer that the President had handed "all" his powers to his deputy, not "some". The crowds were dispercing peacefully, not angrily.

"Some"? "All"? I understand that the radio station relies on translators, since their on-air people do not understand Arabic well enough to understand for themselves. These translators have a tough job, catching every word and getting their translations right. They also need to do it quickly to stay apace with other radio stations interested in airing the same piece. It is not easy to get it right all the time; especially since the vocabulary and grammar of one language often does not have a word-for-word equivalent in another.

The problem is compounded in our current online age. The BBC today carried a story with the title "CORRECTED Burmese publisher worried by Australian's arrest". Apparently, as the news site is updated, they realise that the previous story was either wrong or inaccurate, and so they publish subsequent corrections. Obviously, they do not want to publish the something untrue in the first place, lest the false story gets quoted in a way that gives them a bad reputation. However, as knowledge becomes clearer after a time, one does have opportunity to fine-tune and write more accurately.

Do you think so? How much faith do you put in the stories that the news media tell you? Would you feel "cheated" if a story you chose to believe was "corrected" later? What if you miss the correction and passed the story on to your friends? Would that be like passing on bad gossip?

How do you handle the truth in what you hear?

How do you feel?

2011-02-09T01:24:00.002+11:00

Numerous tensions have been reported in the news in the past week or so:

Australia saw cyclones and bushfires, soon after devastating floods
War over the Thailand-Cambodia border
Citizens demanded for the Egyptian President to step down from his role
Philippine army Generals were exposed for the amount of money they received. One of them consequently committed suicide

are among the top stories from my reading.

How did you feel when you heard about these things? Did you feel:

"Oh, I'm glad I was not involved directly."
"I'm glad I was very far away from all those troubles."
Pity for those who were affected.
Indifferent, like "I don't care".
Sorry with a caring heart to contribute to help the people who were affected.
Happy for the people whose lives changed for the better, as God moved in the hearts of some (although these stories were not covered by mainstream media).

How do you think God would like you to be involved, or not involved? Would God have liked you to help anybody?

Christians, please leave

2011-02-03T01:56:00.001+11:00

I heard a rumour the other day, to the effect that the Buddhists in Cambodia wishes to pass a law that requires all non-Buddhist foreign religious organisations to close by the year 2020.

I have not validated this rumour in order to say whether it is true or not. I do not know how to do this. All I can say is that the rumour set me thinking.

From certain points of view, passing such a law might be sensible. Some reasons for this being:

To preserve the Buddhist culture and traditions in the land
To reduce competition and strife between people of religious faiths in the country.

However, for other reasons, passing such a law could meet with other difficulties. For instance:

Cambodia is presently heavily dependant on foreign aid. Certainly, much of this aid does not carry religious ties. However, some do. Can the country survive if a significant fraction of foreign aid gets withdrawn?
The appeal to tourists of other religious persuasions would reduce;
The openness to tests the faiths and discover the truth will lessen tremendously.

Some churches may have to close if such a law were introduced.

What do you think about this rumour? Will it do more good or harm to the country? What of the people and their eternity?

Leading worship

2011-01-28T01:36:00.003+11:00

Tanya visited us a couple of weeks ago. I attended her workshop on leading worship. The following were among the interesting points that she made:

Worship leading is a pastoral role, not musical one. The goal is to lead people to worship God. It is not to entertain people with music.
A challenge is to lead like a servant. Ie. to do it for the congregation and for the Lord, not for self.
It is also challenging to lead worship in an international context.
Choosing songs that people relate to is a part of this challenge.
The phenomenon of "high-volume songs" is such that if the worship leader picks one of these, the volume would double as many will join in.
Be honest - you cannot pick the songs that you hate.
A good worship leader needs balance between what the songs he likes and the songs that ministers to the group.
Why do we have music in worship? It is for harmony, for memory, and for stiring up emotional and physical connection to the worship.
Some people go to church for the message. Others go for the singing or for something else.
There are these 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs; one can substitute the name 'Jesus' with another name, and the emotion would remain the same, except that we would be singing about someone else.
We need to bring heart, mind & spirit into worship.

The heart - some songs too happy for the mood of some. (Not everybody will be happy at the same time as yourself.) It is easier to sng songs about God than happiness in worship sessions since God does not change while moods do.
The mind - reciting a phrase or some words in between singing (read a short Bible passage?) can work. There is so much theology in some songs that these songs are mini-sermons in themselves. Some words like 'halelujah' has become so common that some people don't understand what they are singing. Look at lyrics before choosing the songs for worship.
The spirit - it needs to sing to God. Worship leaders need to be sensative to where people are at.

Creating the atmosphere - invite God to come.
Lead - take peope in appropriate direction. Songs that connect the theme with each other more effective than song that don't.
Choose songs to lay the theological foundational before leading in the songs that responds with love and surrender to God.
It can be mechanical to just sing songs that fit a theme. The flow is also important.
Worship leading is very different from music director or rock concert performer does with music and with people.
Sometimes, disparity in the relationship between musicians in the worship team can spoil the mood for others. Worship leaders need to be careful of this.
Prayer is important.
How to handle distractions like a bird flying through the hall - just acknowledge and move on. Otherwise, people will keep thinking about it. Distractions like a continual buzz in the sound system are harder to handle.
Starting song - a 'we' song that is upbeat is a good start. Such songs bring people to sing about God together.
It is always hard being a guest worship leader since one does not know what church is like and what the church likes.

Do you agree with Tanya's points? What do you think is important in worship? Who or what should be the object of worship, in your opinion?

To assist or withdraw

2011-01-22T14:00:00.000+11:00

It was heartbreaking to read about the recent flood calamities. Philippines, Brazil, Sri Lanka and Australia all saw great devastation and lost lives in the weeks that just past - some of these nations have not seen the end of the problem yet.

What I would like to write about today is not so much the natural calamities, but the man-made economic problems that flow from them.

One article talked about the Australian dollar weakening as a consequence of this calamity. It foresaw that foreign investors would channel their money elsewhere in their quest for higher profits. Obviously, investing in Australia will not be as profitable while they are rebuilding from the recent damages. After all, mines needed to close, and many exports and services are affected. The Australian Tourism industry will also suffer a setback.

Internally, inflation is expected. The floods wiped away crops and livestock, so now there is higher demand for lesser supply. The law of supply and demand says that prices will go up in such a scenario. Not only in terms of crops and livestock, but also the demands for insurance payouts, building materials, automobile and other goods and services will also increase.

There will be a high cost for rebuilding all that has been wiped out. In Queensland, Australia, an area equal to the size of South Africa was devastated by the floods. How is the world expected to react, though? These stories on the Sydney Morning Herald imply that people will pull money out of Australia at a time when Australia is needing the money.

It is just as well that Australia is optimistic and sees itself as a strong economy. The situation would be a lot worse in a less optimistic and weaker economy nation.

Do you find it sad that people react so selfishly, withdrawing their money at a time when others can use their help? How do you think the world should respond to others affected by calamities?

Foreign Debt

2011-01-16T02:47:00.000+11:00

Someone told me last Sunday that for every dollar a poor nation receives in aid, it pays back about $1.30. Someone later asked me how this could be. This is what I learnt during some of my free time reading through the week:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance said that:

Richer nations promised to give 0.7% of their annual gross national income to the poor, but they rarely do that.
When aid is given, it is often given with the condition that the receipient must use services or buy goods from the donor countries.
Aid does not always go to those who need it.
Aid hampers development.

As I gathered from other reading, thinking and other conversations, I added a few extra points:

Besides going to help the needy, a lot of aid also goes to help the corrupt.
Money is also lost in the interest of keeping people out there to do the work. Sure, the labourer should not be denied his rightful wage, but there are cases where the labourers are paid too much (or too little) also.
The richer countries may fund certain aspects of certain projects to help out the poorer countries. This is fair enough, in that the sponsors also need to keep within their budgets. However, this leaves the poorer nations to responsibility to pick up the slack for the other aspects that have not been funded. They may need to consequently need to bear the burden of loans in order to cope with this.
The aid brings development to the poorer countries, but also leaves the burden of running a more expensive infrastructure. While the modern infrastructure is an improvement, the cost of it can be a heavy burden.
Giving out freebie handouts without any aspect of accountability does not really help the poor nations. The money will just be spent and people will just need to ask for more.
This principle is captured in the proverb that goes something like "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he can eat for many days".
However, in the case of helping third world countries, it is not easy to hold the accountability the way the sponsors would like. The mindset, the inability to report back well, the lack of training and the element of corruption makes it more complex than what the proverb captures.
There is also an element of "brain drain", where the gifted ones migrate to the richer countries, and leave the poorer nations a harder task of recovering.

I think that it can difficult to withdraw aid after another has become dependant upon it. However, bearing the cost of aid is not easy either. Can you think of ways of helping without causing burdens? Should richer nations help at all? How will the poorer nations survive without help?

Seeking better life

2011-01-09T02:32:00.003+11:00

Chris Berg seems to be of the opinion that Australia would be better off if we took on more refugees. His comment on SMH asserts that it is not a crime to seek a better life. Chris reckons that migrants are often entrepreneurial and fill a need for workers. Migrants and refugees also send money back to their families in developing countries, and this is a better way of helping the developing world than letting the money go through aid agencies and corrupt governments who take cuts out of it.

I think Chris made a good point However, he overlooked some negative aspects in his argument. Australia really does not want people who lie to our authorities in their pursuit of better lives. If we were to tolerate this, then we should equally tolerate every cheat and liar and thief in our judiciary system. The criminal kind also want better lives; they just go about it in ways that society frowns upon. We do not want to promote such negative attitudes by being overly open to accept anybody who seeks to migrate. We want migrants to respect our laws just like how we know we should respect our own laws.

The Immigration Department is also concerned about other issues such that we do not have such an overly steep increase in population that our infrastructure does not cope. We also want migrants of the required skillsets to enter the country. Admittedly, these issues slow down the intake of legitimate migrants, but I think that it is a rather fine line of decision making that the Immigration Department needs to follow.

An almost related issue in last week's newspapers are the foetus and newborn babies left in planes and airports by people leaving certain Middle Eastern countries. It begs the question "why do people do that"? Do humans not love our young? Are these people trying to give up the evidence of illicit affairs in their quests for "better lives" overseas? Are these actions equivalent to murder or abortion or child neglect, just tolerated because the children are too young to have a say in the matter?

What do you think of people's pursuits of "better lives" abroad? Is it something people should seek, by hook or by crook, regardless of the legal technicalities? What of the negative consequences to their home countries (eg. "brain drain") that has been caused by their departure to hopefully "greener pastures"? What about the affects on families, loved ones and children who may be left behind?

Church/world trends

2011-01-03T14:02:00.001+11:00

A study by the Barna Group found the following trends in the American church:

The church's knowledge of theology is weakening;
The church is reaching out to other people less and less. People are leaving the church because of the influence of atheists and skeptics, but few Christians share their faith with their friends outside the church;
Church members are more interested in finding solutions to their quest for education, career development, friendships, travel, lifestyle comforts, success and personal achievements than they are in spiritual matters;
Interest in blessing the community is increasingly stronger, howbeit without introducing Christ to the community. Also, the interest comes with a self-indulgent motive of receiving joy while giving, rather than from a self-sacrificing mindset.
Tolerance wins over the need to fight for absolute truths as the postmodern paradigm becomes the norm. Church members seem to equate love with the absence of conflict and confrontation.
Christianity seems to have no impact on culture and society and the lives of most individuals.

The friend who shared this article with me believes that this trend is not only in the USA, but also among Christians from many other Western countries. I think I agree with him.

I later read Alfred Taylor's blog that said that "now religion is more dangerous to mankind than peace on earth". Mr Taylor believes that the element of faith that Christianity and other religion insist upon is irrational and only brings misery to people. He thinks that people imagined god or gods in order to enforce a code of morality upon society. Now that our code of morality stands with or without the perception of deities, we can drop the religiosity - and maybe even the morality, if that doesn't work to restrain human selfishness.

I found these articles thought provoking. It seems that if they are to be believed, and if the trend continues, then the people should choose to do good to others without any notion of God or theology.

Do you think this is the way the world should go? Why or why not?

Preconceived judgement

2010-12-27T01:55:00.003+11:00

Two stories among my recent reading troubled my thoughts to a certain degree:

The Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion about how society tends to associate murderers with men instead of women. It appears that both men and women are capable of killing their children, but many people would find excuses for the women in their mind. It leaves me to think that people have understood the generalisation written in the first part of Isaiah 49:15 while forgetting that that the second part imply that there can be exceptions to that general rule.
Yahoo!News carried an article that said that the al-Qaida insurgents are threatening Christians in Iraq so terribly that Christmas will not be celebrated in that country this year. Why would they (or anybody) do that? Isn't Christmas a great celebration that is brings happiness to people? Isn't the celebration pretty harmless in as far as religious and political warfare is concerned? I think that perhaps these people have preconceived ideas about what Christmas means, or what Christians represent. These false conclusions lead them to hate Jesus more than what they should.

In my opinion, many preconceptions need to be retested and questioned, so that one may see the truth instead of believing what is false. Sometimes, things are not according to what we have seen, read or experienced in the past and we need to change our minds. We need to have the openess to relearn in order to absorb the truth.

What do you think?

Do we need God to help us in our quest for truth? Or are philosophy, science and forensics adequate tools?

Christmas presents

2010-12-19T01:40:00.001+11:00

An opinion posted on the Sydney Morning Herald described Christmas gifts as wasteful.

Apparently, a rather worldwide culture (my opinion is that it is also happening in many places, not just Australia) makes people feel obliged to give gifts at Christmas time. People feel the need to give because others are giving to them and they need to return the favour. Or, they need to give because everybody else is giving. Then, as society becomes more affluent, people give more and more expensive gifts. But what does one give to people who appear to already have every material thing they need?

The article cites foot-spas as one of these gifts given that are wasteful. They cost money to produce, money to transport, and is not altogether all that useful. Few people would buy one for themselves, but these items sell in the Christmas season because people will buy them for other people.

How do you think our world came to inherit such a cultural mindset at an era when we need to conserve energy, time and resources by becoming more "green"? Is it to make the bankers and the merchandisers richer? Is it because we have been brainwashed by the Santa Claus marketing campaigns? Is it a way to buy our way out of economic recession?

A comment on FEBC Philippines' blog reflects on the joy of giving. As an organisation that depends on the gifts of others in order to bless their radio listeners, this network of Christian radio stations was happy to have been able to share materially by visiting some people in the community around them.

Could it be that the example of giving Christmas presents came from Jesus, who emptied Himself for people like ourselves? If so, then how should people respond to His gift at Christmas time?

Personally, I think that the practice of giving gifts should be that they come from the heart, rather than because of a feeling of obligation. I also think that gifts as candy that fit into Christmas stockings would have remained adequate gifts, if marketing people had not hyped the ocassion out of proportion.

What do you think?

Damming the Mekong River

2010-12-15T02:42:00.000+11:00

The current print issue ot the South East Asia Globe carries a cover story about the Mekong River being dammed. I read it last weekend, although I do not know how accurately I can represent what I read.

If I remember correctly, the article describes the Mekong as a river shared by the nations of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and China. However, China is the nation that has chosen to put dams on this river.

China sees that dams are useful for water and hydro-electricity. However, the Mekong only occupies a small part of China. The southern nations of Laos and Cambodia have more than 80% of their population depending on the river as the river takes up a big part of the land and livelihood of these countries. Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam has seen less water in their countries. They think that it is because of the Chinese dams, but the Chinese deny this. They think it is because there has been less rainfall.

I wonder what the truth really is. It is easy to accuse something or somebody else rather than to own up to one's problems. It is also easier to be selfishly looking after one's self and one's own people rather than to be altruistic and sharing. But one should remember that God gave the river to bless a few nations.

What do you think?

Building too fast?

2010-12-09T02:00:00.001+11:00

The Cambodia Daily carried a story last weekend, that questioned how well Phnom Penh deserves to be noted as the fastest developing city in Asia.

Apparently, the city has grown rapidly ever since the nation was liberated from the Khmer Rouge era. From the devastation that was left behind, buildings have sprouted. Roads have been paved. Bridges built. People enjoy city comforts in the capital of Cambodia.

The newspaper article asked if it had been too much too quickly, based on the tragedy on a bridge to Diamond Island two weeks ago. The author thought that the bridge was not designed to have had that many people on it. Had it been thought through before-hand, that the bridge of a different design would have been installed. The author thought that if planned better, Phnom Penh could have been a better city.

I guess the same can be said of any city. No city is perfect, except for that one described in the Bible. Nevertheless, the it does cause one to think - is there an ideal rate at which one can build a city? Can one build a city too quickly?

Radio Australia today aired a story about Cambodia's road system. Apparently, too many people are utilising the roads faster than what the town planners can keep up with, and this is causing chaos and harm to the people.

An earlier story of the Cambodia Daily spoke of property rights not being given out fairly to the nation's citizens. Apparently, this is another issue which the country needs to get right.

Do you have an opinion about these issues? Are these media sources speaking ill about the country of Cambodia unfairly? Can a country develop too quickly for its own good? How can one set the pace right?

Weather changes

2010-12-05T01:20:00.000+11:00

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201012/s3083882.htm shows some trends in the world's weather patterns, as seen in recent years.

It seems that in general, the world is getting warmer, although some parts are getting warmer faster than others. In fact, some parts are actually colder.

Meanwhile, some parts of the world is seeing greater devastations due to floods while other parts are feeling draught.

How do you feel when you read of weather reports such as this one?

Do you think that it is just one of those changes, just as the world experienced an ice-age a long time ago? Do you think it is a sign of Jesus' second coming?

How will fauna and flora adapt to the changes? Is it a "survival of the fittest" kind of situation as what Darwin once described?

Where do you think we as a human race will be after all these weather changes?

Wikileaks

2010-11-30T19:15:00.001+11:00

A hot item in today's news is that more than 250,000 documents that should have been kept secret by the US government has been leaked out and published on WikiLeaks.

The Philippines thinks that 1,796 of these leaks originated from Manila. Australia is mentioned more than 1,440 times in the leaked cables, and thinks it warrants enough concerns to examine the leaks seriously.

What do you think the right ethics should be in relation to such leaks?

A value of the Internet culture is the belief that "information seeks to be free". However, the UK Guardian thinks that emphasising this too much dangerous.

I think there is value in transparency. It leaves less room for corruption and other evil potentially conducted by the world's leaders. Business can be conducted in good faith where there is trust.

I also believe that there is also value in respecting one's boundaries. Ie. honouring the space and privacy of our neighbours and not peaking too much into other people's affairs.

The question to me is "where should one draw the line"? How much transparency verses privacy should one have? What do you think?

Appalling treatment

2010-11-27T03:06:00.001+11:00

I was sorry to hear about the corpses found at a temple in Cambodia when I read "the Star" newspaper last weekend.

Apparently, about 2000 bodies were found in the basement of a particular temple. Initially, the number was smaller, but as the investigation continued, more and more bodies were uncovered. These bodies were of unborn foetii.

It seems that some mothers aborted their babies, either at the temple, or somewhere else in that area. It seems that the mothers sought atonement with the gods or the spirits by having the bodies of their unborn children placed at the temple.

I found it sad to read of such a large number of dead people stowed away in a place other than a cemetery. It was also sad to know that all of these dead people were killed at a very young infancy stage.

Why would people behave so cruelly to other people?

I think such crimes go against humanity. It seems to me that the severity of such behaviour is similar to holocost, genocide, child-traficking and slavery.

What do you think? Do you find this kind of behaviour acceptable?

Prodigal Son

2010-11-16T02:42:00.001+11:00

Stephen shared his insights of Luke 15:11-32 with us at men's fellowship last Saturday.

He said that there are elements of all three main characters of the story in us men. We are like:

The younger son, in that we lack appreciation for how blessed we are. Our Father has given us so much, yet we insult Him, turn away, and go live in the filth like pigs.
The older son, in that we get so absorbed in our work, that we do not know how to rejoice and party. We can forget to spend money and time on relationships while being too focussed about work.
The father, because we have the aptitude to show grace and love. All men are able to love like fathers even though not all men are fathers.

Besides getting Stephen's point, I also appreciated the way he saw elements of different characters in people. How too often we tend to "box" people up, and label them, and limit our understanding by those labels and boxes. I think that God has given people the ability to be more than what others think us to be.

We just need to live out these abilities to be all that God has meant us to be.

Don't you think so?

Multiculturalism vs monoculturalism

2010-11-10T15:17:00.001+11:00

Sometime last month, the German Chancellor said that "attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed"". She also said that "immigrants should learn to speak German".

I think that most people in my home country would empathise with the latter assertion, except to say that "immigrants should learn English" instead. However, I think that the majority of my people would disagree with the former statement if it were applied to our nation. I think most Australians believe that multiculturalism works and they also enjoy it.

In my conversations with a few people in the last week, I came to understand that not everybody mixes equally well cross-culturally. Here are some points I have gathered from recent conversations on this topic:

Maybe the richer nations should just donate to the poorer ones instead of taking in migrants.
Countries are not so altruistic though. Donations and acceptance of migrants often have a hidden agenda that benefits the giver, not just the receiver.
Maybe the culture of importing slaves has not disappeared but only taken a different form.
We see that people from certain people-groups with enough of a population overseas like to mix among their own more than they mix among people of other cultures. This behaviour seems common to Filipinos, (mainland) Chinese, Koreans and some others. Perhaps it is because not many other people speak their heart language.
There is also the tendency for "birds of the same feather" to "flock together" that we cannot deny.
People from English-speaking nations tend to be more open to accepting of people of other nations ... but then, people from English-speaking nations generally imagine that everybody in the world would speak English to them.
Some communication protocols are specific to the culture. Eg. Australians tend to regard everybody as middle class and equal. Koreans tend to regard their bosses much more highly. Such differences potentially causes tensions, and consequently pockets of monoculturalism even within multicultural societies.

Where do you stand in the multiculturalism/monoculturalism debate? How do you see it practiced in your society? What do you think our appropriate behaviour towards people of other cultures should be?

Remember me

2010-11-04T02:50:00.000+11:00

A pastor at my church said that the words "remember me" represents a cry of desperation. He mentioned two Bible characters as examples: Samson and one of the thieves who was on the cross with Jesus.

This assertion led me to recollect, and inspired the following set of rhyming couplets:

"Remember me"
said Joseph in prison
"Let me speak to Pharoah and reason
if I may be free
please let him hear my plea".
Joseph asked the cupbearer earnestly
after giving him his prophecy
desperately hoping to be acquited
from a crime he had not committed.

"Remember me"
said Samson
in desperation
on his last hour
"Please give me the power,
to revenge my eyes
destroy will I
these foes around me";
this was Samson's plea.

"Remember me"
said a thief on the cross
as he remembered with remorse
the sins he committed
for his life to be forfeited.
He asked in hopelessness
for the Saviour's forgiveness.
The Man on the middle cross was nice
He said "you will be in paradise".

"Remember me"
said Jesus the Messiah
during the last Supper
to His followers called Christians
before his crucifixion.
Unlike the others above
Our Lord said these words in love;
not because He felt any desperation
but because He is the answer for our condition.

What thoughts do the words "remember me" conjur in your mind?

Accountability

2010-10-29T02:07:00.002+11:00

I think that accountability is a two-way relationship. However, people often talk about it as only being one way.

For instance, we think of staff reporting to managers, but we seldom think about it the other way around. Actually, the managers are also accountable to the staff. If the staff submit reports, budgets, project plans, architectural drawings, drama scripts, etc; and their bosses do not give feedback in due time, the staff cannot continue their work. If the staff are not paid, then they will not continue working happily. In this, the manager is accountable to give feedback and wages to the staff as the staff is accountable to be productive in their labours.

At my church, the members nominate and then elect the elders of the church. The pastors oversee this process and make sure that elders do step up to take their responsibilities. However, the pastors are answerable to the pastors in their work, and the elders regard the pastors as their leaders. I think this is another example of how accountability works as a bilateral relationship. The members of the church complete the triangle to make it a three-way relationship in this case, as the body of Christ becomes accountable to each other.

(Then, as we look at the church's accountability on a different plane, we must not forget that the Church is accountable to God.)

I read two recent stories of where accountability has either failed, or is under question:

Free Malaysia Today carried a story about Malaysia's tourism minister being criticised for taking advantage of her position to overspend on travel. From the minister's point of view, she is doing her job promoting her country. From the critics point of view, she is spending a lot of the nation's money to travel without gaining much back for her country. It was even embarassing when her department brought brochures that carried many mis-spelt words to an international convention!
Radio Australia talked about the Cambodian government spending a lot of money on the nation's infrastructure, as roads and trains, but the poor people of the country being as poor as they were before. Corruption is apparently an issue. Other issues may be bad planning or poor investments or situations outside the nation's control. People lost jobs at garment factories because of an economic downturn in the USA. The bottom line is that people are as badly off as they were before in spite there being signs of rebuilding in the country.
A different Radio Australia story talked about China's accountability for cheap exports. The world wants to buy goods cheaply, so China tries to sell cheap goods to the world. However, they find the need to cut corners in health standards in order to achieve such a price standard. In this, the factories in China needs to be accountable for the polution that happens to its rivers, as this affects the people of China, and ultimately, that of the rest of the world. The nation cannot continue producing cheap goods if its people's health becomes affected, although the world does not want to buy overly expensive stuff either.

I wonder how the world will wake up to take responsibility for itself. It needs to - both for itself, and for God. Don't you think so?

Deadlines

2010-10-21T02:22:00.001+11:00

Timothy spoke to us about time management this morning. Here are a few of the key points that he shared:

Drawing Gantt charts and timelines are using tools to project when things will be done. They are not necessarily when things will happen.
List the task you need to do to complete for your project and how long each task will take to do. Start for when you need to deliver its completion. Count backwards from your completion date to know when your start date should be.
It is nice to snap projects to a year, whether it be a fiscal year or a calendar year. Then refine these to quarterly, monthly, daily and hourly targets.
Set dates for special events and public holidays, so to allow for these when estimating how long work will take.
Set some empty dates for contingency purposes.
Follow up is important to see how staff are doing to keep to schedule.
Follow up on both project schedules and human resources (ie. job descriptions, key result areas) to see that these are working the way they should.
Resources are something to take into account when planning.
A project will need to keep within 15% of the estimated schedule. Otherwise, the schedule will fail.
If staff cannot do the work, then the manager will need to help. Managers cannot force staff to keep to schedules.
Managers need to encourage staff.
It is no good to provide excuses when staff fail or to point fingers at people who are to blame. We need to say things in a way that builds up.
We cannot force deadlines, otherwise staff will not do their best.
Project schedules need to be placed somewhere prominent, so that we are reminded of when things are due.

I thought most of these points were pretty obvious, but it was good to be reminded.

I still struggle emotionally, as I would want to do my best to keep my promises of keeping deadlines, even though I understand that this timeline measuring tool is really artificial. I feel a need to meet expectations set out when timelines are drawn. However, my ability to meet deadlines is dependant upon a number of variables outside my control, such as staff, supervisors and people outside the company that I need to deel with.

How do you manage time and deadlines? Do you treat them as seriously set in concrete to meet? Or do you treat them as a joke - as if it did not matter even if you are six months or two years late? How do you manage your stresses and your resources in order to produce your results?

Where does God fit into the picture?

Role of media

2010-10-16T18:33:00.000+11:00

With the rest of the world, I rejoice for the rescue of the thirty-three miners who were trapped in a San Jose mine since 05-August.

The Chilean gold-miners were stuck for a long time when caver collapsed. An engineering team bore holes to provide them ventilation and then to supply them necessities as food, water and shaving blades to keep them alive. The miners were able to return to sunlight just this last week, as the rescuers were persistent in their attempts and as God led them to drill in the right places using the right techniques.

I was sorry, though, to hear about the circus of news journalists hanging around the site to cover the news. 2000 journalists were around to photograph and interview the clean shaven miners as they emerged from the cave, asking them questions like whether they will mine again. The news was beamed to USA, Afganistan and the rest of the world through Fox, CNN, Reuters and numerous other news sources. I heard that the journalists even fought for use of the portable toilets erected for the people covering the story.

Please don't get me wrong - I am happy that the story was reported around the world. I was just saddened to think that the news became a greater priority to some people compared to the lives of the miners. The journalists were happy to see the miners come out alive, I am sure; but instead of giving the miners time to catch their breaths, hug their families, attend to their medical, spiritual and psychological needs, the opportunity to publish stories became much more important.

I wonder how much money the news people put in to fund the rescue?

I see this attitude to be so much different to that of Jesus. When He healed in Luke 8:40-53, He showed love with a personal touch, and did not try to draw much publicity to Himself. He did not look for sponsorship, or for the coverage of AFP or NewsCorp.

I was reminded of the bungled rescue of a hijacked bus in the Philippines when I heard this story. Apparently, journalists were too excited covering this story also, and some of the blame for the death of several hostages and subsequent diplomatic problems the Philippines later faced was laid on them.

What do you think? What role should the media play in reporting real stories? When and how should the media step back from their reporting roles? What about the competition between news companies?

Battles in the mind

2010-10-08T16:29:00.001+11:00

2 Corinthians 10:1-6 stood out among my reading during the week.

It reminded me of what a pastor preached on 1 Timothy 6:11-12 last month. This pastor concluded from that passage that we need to fight for the truth, but we need to fight gently.

2 Corinthians 10:1-6 seems to come from a similar tact. Paul appealed to his readers in "meekness and gentleness" to wage war. He then went on to explain that it is not worldly wars that he is referring to, but wars against "strongholds" of "arguments" and "pretensions". For this reason, we do not use earthly weapons in this war. He said in 10:5 that "we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

As I unpacked these verses, I understood that:

Paul is talking about battles in our mind;
Battles that relate to our

spiritual discipline;
understanding of truth;
deception;
arguments; ie. things like debates, skepticism and agnosticism
knowledge of God;
obedience to Christ; and
mental discipline (ie. our focus on matters we need to concentrate upon).

These battles are both

within our own minds, and
within the thoughts of people in our community.

I saw this passage relating to our current post-modern, computer age, where:

people find it hard to concentrate so well, as our thoughts flutter from one issue to another;
understanding of truth has become uncertain, as people respect each others' perspectives more instead of seeing God's perspective;
issues of individual rights are viewed to be more important than adherance to disciplined, Godly ways of living.

I think that the battles in our minds need to be fought; for ourselves, our families and our societies, in order to honour God as He should be honoured. They are not imaginary battles, but real struggles for truth and discipline.

What do you think? How are you coping with such issues?

Canibalism and concerts

2010-10-03T01:18:00.001+10:00

Something prompted me to think about hunger and starvation last Sunday, so I did some reading on the "worldwide web". In my reading, I found a few websites recommending canibalism as a solution.

Apparently, one's body goes through drastic changes when one is starved for long enough. One would eventually die if one is starved for too long. If one does not die, then other parts of the brain or body could become severely impaired if sufficiently starved.

A few writers recommended that one resort to canibalism if the situation were severe enough. Better that one person die than both die out of salvation; or so they reasoned. I am sorry I did not save the URLs to share the references with you this time.

These authors thought that mindset thinking of canibalism as abhorent is a result of civilisation. Before people were sufficiently civilised, eating the flesh of another human being was not so much an issue. However, we learnt to appreciate life and created ethics against murder and canibalism as civilisation gave us the luxury to do so. It sounds gross, I know, but such was what I understood of my reading that afternoon.

I went for a concert that evening, and enjoyed the singing and the piano. My reading of the afternoon came back to me, as I had opportunity to reflect while enjoying the music. People in greater poverty do not make time for music and such arts. When one is on the poverty heap, searching for food scraps among the piles of rubbish, one barely has time to secure basic education; much less sports and arts and music.

Could it be that our ethics is based on the level of education and the level of civilisation that has a core of our culture? Ie. could it be that somebody who has had a lesser opportunity to learn or who grew up in the jungles would end up with values that we might think of as gross and unacceptable? What do you think?

Are there some core values that everybody would adhere to, regardless of the kind of upbringing they were blessed with? Or do people have more of an excuse to act "sinfully" if they had not been properly brought up?

Korean missionaries

2010-09-26T00:10:00.002+10:00

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1626&Itemid=194&limit=1&limitstart=0 was intriguing to read.

The webpage describes Korean missionaries in the Philippines. Some of the points it seems to make are:

Korean missionaries are insensitive to Philippine culture;
They are too results-oriented and not loving enough in the way they deal with the Filipinos;
Some go to the Philippines for business opportunities and get missionary visas instead of business visas because that is easier;
Some snub the Filipino people, but live in the Philippines and build schools, churches and hospitals on Korean compounds in order to satisfy the expectations of Koreans back home;
For the sake of meeting expectations, the appearance of making converts is more important than quality work;
Some missionaries go to the Philippines untrained and unprepared for their work;
Churches planted by Koreans in the Philippines become abandoned when funds run out;
Some abuse their visa conditions;
Some do not take the time to learn the language and culture and the Filipino people.

I had two opinions about this article:

Although this statement about Korean missionaries is probably true, I don't think all Korean missionaries are like this. I think that there are exceptions to the stereotype that Michael Gibb portrayed in his writing. I think some Korean missionaries are more genuine and better people than what this article suggests;
Although this story talks about Korean missionaries in the Philippines only, the description is probably also be true about missionaries from other lands living in countries other than the Philippines. Cross-cultural work is difficult; and especially so for those who work for a paradigm shift among the people (howbeit a good paradigm shift). It is easy to be tempted to take shortcuts, even when one knows that one should not.

What do you think? Is the article in Asia Sentinel a fair assessment regarding missionaries? What should be expected of foreign missionaries? How should foreign missionaries (or for that matter, any foreigner) behave in their host country?

Mid Life Crisis

2010-09-20T13:03:00.004+10:00

Jane spoke to us about mid-life crisis last Saturday. There was a good discussion after her talk also. Here are some of the points I gathered:

Although often identified as something men go through, midlife crisis is not exclusively for men only. Women experience it also.
The term midlife-crisis was coined in 1965 and it has stuck. However, it is not exactly mid-life, nor is it really a trauma. It is more traumatic for some compared to others. For many, it is just a reflection phase.
It used to be that people would experience midlife crisis when men are about 35 yo. Nowadays, as people live longer and leave the "youth" phase later in life; so many men face mid life crisis when they are between 39 - 65 yo.
Women often manifest the similar symptoms when they are about 29-34 yo.
The midlife crisis phase in life is when people look back on their lives and think "about half of it has now past. Now how to I make the most of the other half?" This implies:

Possible change in career direction. One's previous job was satisfying, but one does not want to do that for the rest of their lives;
Avoiding past hurts;
Thinking that one may have chosen the wrong spouse and wanting to try another;
Remorse over goals not accomplished, and wanting to set better goals;
Dealing with aging parents or death of loved ones;
Dealing with one's physical symptoms of aging;
Giving a different balance to family vs. career vs. time with God compared to the past.

Some end up abusing alcohol, in divorce, changing jobs, returning to school, etc. as a result of midlife crisis. For others, it is just a time of reflection and moving on.

I think it is a phase similar to the teenage years, when one sees that the childhood years are almost over, ans asks the question "how will one make the best out of life as an adult"? Or, similar to the pre-retirement years, when one wonders "what shall I do in my retirement? Do I have enough money for it?" It is a time of drawing closer to God to seek answers to such questions.

What do you think? Have you experienced such reflective stages in your life before? How did you handle it? What did you do after?

Slumdog Millionaire

2010-09-16T00:49:00.000+10:00

I watched the movie Slumdog Millionaire over the weekend. I think it is an amazing movie.

It is a story of two orphaned brothers and a girl who hung out with them.

The brothers grew up in the streets of Mumbai. After their mother died, they were forced to learn to be streetwise, to live on their wits and petty thefts. They met Latika, a girl in circumstances similar to their own. The younger brother, Jamal, wanted to care for her, but the older brother, Saleem, didn't.

A Fagin-like character recruited these children and others into his care, in order to profit from their street-begging operations. Saleem was chosen to be his leutenant. Saleem saw how he would blind the children in order to profit more from them. He could not let that happen to Jamal. The brothers escape this Fagin-like character, and were consequently separated from Latika.

Jamal sought to be with Latika again after that point in the story. The rest of the story told of the adventures the brothers went through - stealing from train passengers, ripping off tourists at the Taj Mahal, etc. Saleem eventually joins a notorious gang for protection after killing the Fagin-like character. Latika ended up being a wife or mistress to the gang leader. Jamal ended up entering the Indian "Who wants to be a Millionaire" television competition in his hope to reconnect with Latika.

As I watched, I felt sorry for the Indian street-kids, who potentially stand a chance of going through the same difficulties as what was portrayed in the movie. I also felt grateful to God, who spared me from such experiences, by letting me grow up in a different environment.

Some children certainly face tougher challenges compared to others, but God loves them even so.

Have you watched this movie? How did it move you emotionally? Where do you think God is in the story?

Burning the Koran

2010-09-11T13:53:00.001+10:00

A US Pentecostal pastor came under the international news spotlight when he threatened to publicly burn the Koran during the week.

Apparently, he was upset over the Sep 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the USA. Since the attacks were blamed on Muslims, he thought it fair to express his disapproval by burning the Koran. He was also unhappy about the fall-out of the Muslims wanting to build a mosque near the "Ground Zero" site of the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Centre. What better day to launch a retaliation than on Sep 11 again, this time when the holy festival of Aidl Fitr is being celebrated?

However, Muslims regard the sacredness of the Koran differently from how Christians regard the sacredness of the Bible. To most Christians, the Bible is just a collection of books, and what people generally handle are translated reprints of the book. What is sacred are the words within the book, rather than the medium that holds it. To many Muslims, even the paper the Koran is printed upon is sacred. (I wonder how they would treat the online electronic versions?)

For this reason, the Muslims objected strongly to the pastor's threat.

This news reminded me about a Facebook posting I read a few months ago. It said that Christians are peaceful, non-provocative people. Apparently, how this pastor is behaving contradicts what the Facebook person thinks to be normal for Christians.

What do you think? Are Christians peaceful and non-provocative? Should they be? How should Muslims regard Christians? Should there be another "holy war" between the two groups of people?

Amazing God

2010-09-05T14:49:00.000+10:00

Kristin said that by using the word "miracle" narrowly, we limit our understanding of who God is.

He gave a few examples:

In Physics equations have the right constants so that the Universe hold together.
We are neither too close nor too far from the Sun.
Water has the right boiling point, freezing point and viscosity to be useful in our everyday lives.

Kristen said that these are also "miracles" in their own right, even though we take these things so much for granted that we often do not think about them.

As I thought about what Kristen said, I was able to add a few more examples to his list: Eg;

Our bodies recover from injury and illnesses by themselves.
Electrons orbit nuclei without being drawn into them.

All these things go show that we have a great and amazing God. Our view of God is often more limited, as we forget that He holds all these things together. We forget that God is greater than our imagination.

I was reminded of this as I heard testimonies of people this weekend.

One of these stories was of a crippled man who lives in the hills. The World Vision team met him, and heard about how this man wanted to know God. They recommended that he tunes in to FEBC radio. Now the FEBC radio signal should not be strong enough to reach his province, but somehow, it did. The man listened, gave his life to Jesus, who healed him, so he can now walk!

God is amazing, both in the ordinary and in the extraordinary. We sometimes think of things as impossible, but God is greater than what we think. Don't you agree?

What goes wrong

2010-08-28T18:30:00.000+10:00

A friend collapsed while at class last week and was taken to hospital. At hospital, it was found that a parasite had layed eggs in her brain. This apparently gave her a headache she did not realise until it was discovered. She was told that the parasite may have entered her body anytime in the last five years.

This set me thinking. Such a situation is totally unusual. Our bodies generally expel any foreign matter and keep itself functioning well. I suppose the parasite managed to get around the system by pretending it was not a foreign matter. Nevertheless, it is still strange to hear of such a problem.

This reminded me of a story I read in the UK Guardian several months ago, when a woman died because of blood clots. It was not expected that blood clots from her broken toe would travel up her body to her heart or lungs to kill her.

I appreciate that doctors will have a hard time diagnosing and detecting such unexpected problems. I also appreciate that such problems can happen to anybody - but by the grace of God, it doesn't.

You see, ever since birth (and even before birth), the possibility of something going wrong with our body is there. Yet, many of us get to live a good number of years. I call this grace - we get to live, when we do not deserve to.

What do you think? Does the grace of God amaze you similarly?

Sophal Jonathan

2010-08-21T12:44:00.001+10:00

I attended the funeral of Sophal Jonathan last Monday.

Sophal was of Cambodian origin, but lived in France. (I don't know if his citizenship was French or Cambodian). He has a couple of degrees, one of them a PhD. He is a medical doctor.

He came to Cambodia on a short medical mission trip with other doctors from France. Some members of the team hired motorcycles as they went around the province. Jonathan rode on the back of one of these bikes on a wet day, when they encountered a concrete truck coming down the road in the opposite direction.

The guy driving the bike pulled over to the side to let the truck pass. He could not see a deep hole in the road as it was hidden in the wet. The bike went into the hole, causing its riders to fall. Somehow, Jonathan fell in such a way that the concrete truck hit him on the head.

Jonathan died in the accident.

Many French and Cambodians attended his funeral, but his family in France was not able to come out for it.

How does this story make you feel? Pity? Sadness? Do you think it is a waste of a kind-hearted and valuable life?

Where do you think God is in this story?

Conversion

2010-08-14T19:46:00.000+10:00

Stories like http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/09/south-korean-pastor-is-also-a-trained-killer/ always fills me with a sense of excitement.

This particular story is about a former North Korean who sneaked into South Korea in 1968. He was part of a team of 31 people whose mission was to assassinate the South Korean President of that time.

The team was confronted by the South Koreans before they reached the President. In the battle that ensued, all the North Korean commandoes were killed except two. One escaped back to North Korea. The other was captured by the South Koreans.

The prisioner was interrogated and later pardoned and released, when the South Koreans realised that he had neither fired a shot from his gone nor hurt anybody during that assassination attempt. They sympathy and forgiveness touched him so much that he changed. He settled in South Korea. He joined their military, had a family, and later became a pastor.

Mr Kim Shin Ho is now South Korea's symbol of redemption.

Isn't it great what sympathy and forgiveness can do for a person? How much more should it be when the sympathy and forgiveness comes from God?

How do stories as this make you feel?

Asset or liability

2010-08-08T19:04:00.001+10:00

Many articles in last Wednesday's Philippine Star and Philippine Inquirer lamented the loss of many professional people from the Philippines.

Apparently, geologists, meteorolists and pilots have been attracted to better paying jobs abroad. The brain-drain made headlines in the Philippines a few weeks ago, when the winds changed direction and the weather bureau's prediction became wrong. The country's president wondered aloud how PAGASA could have made a mistake on such a serious storm.

More recently, the resignation of twenty five pilots seriously affected the operations of Philippine Airlines, the national carrier.

I thought it ironic how, during the days of a previous President, the nation was proud to have been seeing their countrymen go abroad. The previous President considered the labour force as one of Philippines' great exports. Money sent home from Filipinos abroad accounted for about 10% of the nation's GDP. It is amazing how the view changed so drastically after losing a few very valuable people.

Radio Australia has been featuring other stories in their morning broadcasts. As the date for the next Federal Election approaches, the question of immigration policies is featured. As with many other nations, Australia wishes to adopt mostly the people who would bring value to their country, since they know they cannot accept every interested party.

I think individuals, families and nations view the migration question with very ego-centric intentions. Ie. we ask ourselves "how will it benefit me, my people or my nation" as we think of migrating or accepting migrants. We sometimes think about how to help others, but rarely when compared to thinking about the benefits we would gain for ourselves. What do you think?

If you had to put together an immigration/emmigration policy, what are the main points that you would consider?

Pushing the boundaries

2010-08-03T12:59:00.000+10:00

My brother-in-law and I discussed rules and boundaries last week. We observed that:

As we test the rules to see what we can do in the areas of arts and science, we make new discoveries, and come up with good, creative work.

If we do the same in the areas of law, then we end up being law-breakers; unlawful or downright criminal.

It appears that there are some boundaries that are good to test, but in other areas, we should just be obedient instead of trying to overstep our parameters.

We see that in some societies, people will test their limits without setting limits on themselves. We think that people need to behave more lawfully, even though there is room for creativity in other areas.

What do you think? What is it like within the society you live within?

Manila water supply

2010-07-27T12:02:00.000+10:00

It is nice to hear that the Angat Dam's water level has improved. The Angat Dam supplies 10% of Luzon's electrical power requirements and 97% of Metro Manila's water requirements to the people of the Philippines.

It was surprising last week, that some Metro Manila residents lacked water as the Angat Dam's water supply reached the 50% mark. Apparently, water from the recent typhoon did not get to the dam. Consequently, some households did not have water for bathing. Philippines' news media spoke of people not being able to shower, and foretold of potential health risks (ie. skin problems, food consumption issues) if the draught continued.

Having experienced the draught in Australia a few years ago, I was surprised at how suddenly water was cut to these households. Australia coped with the draught season by warning people ahead of time. The water board then imposed restrictions on the watering of plants, washing of cars, etc. to ease water consumption so that water supply to the citizens did not need to be cut so abruptly.

I wonder if Philippines' water authorities tried to something similar, but their plan was not successful? Maybe the real issue last week was not with the water levels, but with a technical issue in the water delivery system. What do you think?

Regardless of what we speculate, I am pretty sure that being warned of a problem in the future that we can predict helps us to prepare ourselves before the problem hits us. Don't you agree?

Talents

2010-07-20T12:04:00.001+10:00

Trevor talked about the parable of talents at last Saturday's men's breakfast.

He pointed out that:

1. Talents are worth 20 years of wages. The servants received large amounts of money, regardless of whether they received one talent or five.

2. The servants probably did not know what each other received. Ie. they all understood that they had large amounts of money to manage, but they probably were not able to compare and say "he received more than me", etc.

3. The servants did not know when their master was returning. They just knew that they were to be faithful in managing what has been entrusted to them.

4. The point of the parable was about taking risks. Not with "our" money, but with our Master's. He has all the wealth in the world. He chose to entrust us with some of it. We are to be faithful to take appropriate "risks" in handling what He entrusted us.

I think Trevor made a good point, but I am not sure he is exactly right. What do you understand?

Mail-order brides

2010-07-13T01:19:00.000+10:00

Radio Australia's "Connect Asia" programme said that the trends with Asia's mail order brides are changing.

The trend is that thousands of Filipino, Vietnamese, Thai and Cambodian women are willing to leave their countries for spouses and new lives abroad. However, it is no longer true that the majority of husbands come from Western countries. There is also a demand from places like China, Japan and South Korea, where the great disparity in the ratio of men against women forces men to find their brides abroad.

The women look for better lives by taking the risk of moving to a new country to marry foreign men. Some barely know their spouses; others may have met through match-making agencies, or Facebook, or from travel and email and other forms of communication.

However, there remains a risk that they may not be comfortable outside their homeland. There is also the risk of abuse by their spouses. The statistics say that women whose immigration status depends on their marriages are more likely to suffer from domestic violence.

Would you take the risk if you were in the shoes of these women?

Or, would you take the risk of importing a foreign wife?

I understand that it is not always the woman who is the migrant - sometimes, it is the man who goes to live abroad to be with the woman instead. Do you think the risk is greater in the case of such a reversal?

Christian values

2010-07-06T00:39:00.001+10:00

Two of the stories in last Tuesday's Sydney Morning Herald gives us an idea about what Australians think about Christian politicians.

One story describes the new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, as having grown up in a Baptist home, but no longer thinks of herself as a Christian. She is currently in a de-facto relationship, but the speculation is that she may not have him to sleep with her at the Lodge prematurely lest it sends politically incorrect messages to the Australian public. She would test the waters first on this point.

The other story was of the NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally, who was quoted to have said that "Jesus sat with the sinners and the saints" during a discussion about same-sex adoption legislation. Given the context, it was understood that Keneally implied that she thought of homosexuals as sinners through what she said. When asked to elaborate, Keneally explained that "Jesus loves all" instead. Apparently, it is politically incorrect to sound as though one thinks of homosexuals as sinners.

These two stories imply to me that some of Australia's political leaders might uphold Christian values to a certain degree, but do not wish to be labled as hard-line Christians or have to defend strong Biblical values. It seems that Australians like to think of themselves as "moderate", ie. not "too" Christians, but not "unChristian" either. Is this how it appears to you?

What do you think one should do to honour God and country in those situations, though? Should Christians speak out and be cast out of their leadership positions? (Their opportunities to "shine" for Jesus could be hampered if they did this.) Or should they be silent, and not stand up for the values that honour God the most?

What would you do if you were in Keneally's or Gillard's shoes? What do you think Jesus would do?

Gift cheques

2010-07-02T01:31:00.001+10:00

The Philippine Star a couple of days ago reported that Philippines' Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has issued an administrative order removing the expiration of gift certificates, checks and cards.

The story says that the DTI has done its homework and researched the views of the people who will be affected by this change. It appears that the one-year duration that retailers typically give consumers for cashing their gift-cheques is not enough time for many. It appears that the system was too much in the business establishments' favour in the past.

Although I respect the research and the wisdom of the DTI consultants, my personal opinion is that this is a bad idea. I can imagine a paradigm shift happening in the Philippines as a result of this change.

Firstly, more and more people will start to pass off the gift-cheques as cash. People will request their friends to accept their gift-certificates, since they do not frequent the particular establishments that the gift cheques bear the names of. Friends, who would not comply in the past, would be persuaded to do it now, since the bills no longer expire. As more and more people get used to the idea, the gift-certificates will become an acceptable medium of exchange, just like banknotes issued by the Central Bank.

Then one day, the bigger establishments facing the threat of bankcrupcy will pay their employees in gift certificates. Why not? After all, they carry the same value as cash. This, of course, potentially lead to the same economic stagflation issues the world faced when the USA printed money to get itself out of a financial problem many, many years ago.

Finally, counterfeiters know that gift cheques will be easier to duplicate compared to the bank-notes issued by the Central Bank. This, plus the existance of a much greater variety of acceptable bills will make it harder for Filipinos to know which notes and cards are acceptable and which are not.

Eventually the Philippine public would react so strongly to the possibility of fake gift cheques, that nobody will want them. Then, generous givers and business establishments will loose the opportunity of having this convenient entity as a valid medium of exchange. Either way, it would not be a win-win situation, as the newspaper reported.

I admit that the above possibilities come from my imagination. It is possible that DTI made the right choice, and my imagination is simply too far-fetched. What do you think about the impact of this change, though? Do you think it is a good move for the Philippine people? What do you think the right solution might be?