On Suicide
I was having a conversation re suicide with someone on his blog, and I thought i’ll put it up here, and perhaps get more views… Neither of us are experts on the subject, so pardon the ignorance if you are! (oh do share your views if you are = ) )
( The original author is a post-doc at the Biopolis, originally from China, so his native language is Chinese. He did his own English translation of the original Chinese post)
7天前，7月3日，有位白人男性从新加坡启汇资讯传媒园Fusionopolis的高楼跳下，自杀身亡；
几个月前，南洋理工大学电子工程学院的一位来自中国的研究助理上吊自杀身亡；
又听说几年前，新加坡启奥生物园Biopolis有个来自中国的博士后也是自杀身亡。
据说自杀的情绪是会传染的。公司的人力部发出通知，让因为此事心理受伤的人去接受心理咨询。
我倒是没有什么心理阴影，
但是不由得猜想是怎样的困境让这些高智商高学历高待遇且受社会尊重的人才们走上了绝路？
死都不怕的人，还有什么事情能吓垮他呢？
听说大部分自杀之人从产生自杀冲动到执行自杀的时间很短。
就在这短暂的时间里，他们在强烈情绪的支配下放空理性思考，心一横，珍贵的生命遂随风而逝。。。
但是其实事情往往并没有如他们冲动之下所想的那么糟。
对于热爱生活游戏人生的我来说，自杀是绝对不可能的决定。
在我看来，人生就像我们到一个陌生的地方旅行，一路边走边看美丽风景，当我自然死亡时旅行才会结束。
我这辈子要做的就是多走些地方，多看些美丽风景，多些快乐体验，如果有可能，就多留点功德。
在人生之旅的过程中，遇到困难是不可避免的。
对于困难，能把它解决当然最好；但若无法解决，绕过就是了。
就像我们旅行时来到大山脚下，往前无路可走，那就绕山而行；
若绕山也无路，那就原路返回，直到看到新路再继续探寻。
生命是一次自由无边的旅程! 此处不留爷，自有留爷处！
在一个地方生活不适应，工作不顺利，孤独没朋友，心情糟透了，而我们又无法解决，那就换个地方好了。
最极端的情况也不过是到一个无人认识你的地方，切断与以往生活的所有联系，开始新的人生旅程。
这样极端的决定也比自杀要好过千百倍，死都不怕，还怕到新地方度度假吗？
English Translation:
7 days ago, 3rd July, a male caucasian jumped from high floor of Fusionopolis, Singapore, died from suicide;
Some months ago, a research assistant from China committed suicide in Nanyang Technological University, died;
It says that some years ago, a post-doctoral fellow committed suicide in Biopolis, died too.
It says that the suicide emotion is contagious. The human resource of our company sent an email to suggest people who got affected by the incident go for counselling. There is no shadow in my mind resulting from this incident, but I am curiously wandering what kind of difficulties drove these persons with high IQ, high education, decent income and social respects to the dead end?
When a person don’t fear of death, what kind of things can make him fear and crush?
It says that it is a very short time between suicide impulse and suicide behavior for majority of suicides.
In this short period of time, their rational thinking give way to strong emotions, abruptly make up their mind, the valuable life soon gone with winds…
However, the things are not as bad as they believed when their mind were occupied by impulse.
To me, a person who love life and play in it at will, suicide is an absolutely impossible decision.
To me, the life is like taking a journey to a new place, I am here to watch sceneries as I travel, the journey only ends when I died naturally.
What I need to do in my life is to go to more places, view more beautiful sceneries, get more happy experience and give more contribution to the society when I am capable of.
In the journey of life, it is inevitable to encounter difficulties. It is good to solve the problems, however, when we cannot solve it, we can just pass around it. It is like when we travel to the foot of a huge mountain and no way to climb it, we can try to pass around it; if there is no way to pass around, we can return to the road which we came from and explore again when new roads show up.
Life is a free journey without boundries! There must be somewhere suitable to you!
When we feel not accustomed to certain kinds of life style, works get troubles, lonely, very upset and we cannot figure out how to solve it, let’s just move to another place. The most extreme situation is to go to a totally new place, cutting off all the connections to the old life and start a new one. This extreme situation is much much better than suicide. If we don’t fear of suicide, how can we fear of going for a long term vocation in a brand new place?
mathia Lee wrote:
“I am curiously wandering what kind of difficulties drove these persons with high IQ, high education, decent income and social respects to the dead end?”
Many artists, writers, singers, brilliant minds etc etc suffer from depression, insanity, drug/alcohol problems, eating/sleeping disorders……….
“When we feel not accustomed to certain kinds of life style, works get troubles, lonely, very upset and we cannot figure out how to solve it, let’s just move to another place. The most extreme situation is to go to a totally new place, cutting off all the connections to the old life and start a new one. “
The thing with some successful people is that they thought moving to another place, or getting rich, or achieving their goals would make them happy. When they have succeeded in moving, getting rich or achieving their goals, and they still do not feel happy, things seem hopeless, because they start to feel as if nothing in this world can ever make them happy anymore. That is when all the problems start coming in . The drugs, the depression, the deaths.
If you notice, a lot of religions that stand the test of time and give people hope, tend not to emphasise happiness. What they do instead, is to convince you that suffering is good and meaningful. When people reconcile suffering with living, it becomes easier to move away from death and despair, because happiness is no longer a goal.
阿龙 Along wrote:
1. What I want to know is “what kind of difficulties–the real problem they faced”. The suffering you say about some artists, writers and singers is true, but I don’t think it fits on these three researchers.
2. I agree that many religions try to convince people to be able to bear sufferings, in Chinese it is called 修炼.
I think we are talking about different aspects of the question of “how to deal with suffering?” The suffering I am talking about is the outside difficult environment a person faces, and the suffering you are talking about is the inside struggle a person bears in his mind. That is why I ask the person to get away from the suffering environment and you said the person will still carry the suffering even move to a new place. : )
Even the suffering is becasue of the inside struggle in a person’s mind, I believe when he move to a new place without outside pressure, he can also feel much less struggle in his mind. That is why we normally feel fresh when we go travelling, forgeting the daily troubles after getting out of the old environment.
mathia Lee wrote:
Why do you think that these researchers are facing external real problems and not those inside?
A lot of times, personality is the main determinant.
I know someone (you know also lah!) who was brought up in a family where for 4 generations of women, they are taught to be wary of other people. (not in a consious manner, but because they are unconsciously influenced by the personality of their mother/family. ) They will interpret everyone else’s actions as having the worst intentions they can think of. If they children don’t call or visit, they won’t think “oh, my son is so busy these days, I wonder how i can help him to ease his burden?”. Instead they will think “Even my son doesn’t love me anymore. He doesn’t even make an effort to care or be filial”
When you talk to such people, they will be able to tell you a lot of real external problems. If you just met them, you might believe them. But if you know them well enough, you will know the real reason.
And if you take this person to a new environment, it won’t really help. The same thing will happen. This person will think she has hostile new neighbours. And because of her belief, she might act in an unfriendly way to a new neighbours, and that will make her problem real.
If this person doesn’t realise the root of her problem, or doesn’t want, or is unable to change that root of her problem, she will take her problems with her everywhere she goes, and in everything she does.
After a while, things like depression, alchohol problems, eating/sleep disorders etc etc will set in. Then this person will interpret this in the worst way too, think that she has uncurable illnesses, that her doctors are lousy, and start thinking about suicide
This is just one example.
You, Along, are a happy person. You are very blessed to be. Because I know you personally, I know that your personality has alot to do with your happiness. Even when you see things or experience things that are problematic to most people or even to yourself, you do not see it as a reason to be very upset. You take it in your stride and deal with it. You need something super major —– taiwan bombing xiamen for example (??? hehhehe = ) ) —- to be really upset. Which is wonderful.
Therefore, when you look at other suicidal people and wonder what kind of problems they had, you are looking at them with your personality, where you need real big problems to be that upset. But to understand suicide, you need always to think about their personality and mental state.
The above example is only one type of personality that puts the person at high risk for suicide. There are other examples. I’m sure there is a lot of literature.
Leo Tolstoy wrote “Anna Karenina” a classic. I am fascinated by his character development. The internal thoughts, feelings, personality are so well described as the characters face different situations. The main character “Anna Karenina” is a woman who has everything — great beauty, style, intelligence, wealth , a lovely son. She doesn’t really love her husband passionately, but she cares about him and is a good, rational wife. Then she meets this man she falls head over heels in love with and leaves her husband. This man also loves her very much. She should be happy, but her personality makes her impossibly demanding of this lover. That creates conflict in their relationship even though they both love each other very much. In the end, she is driven to suicide.
Many readers/reviews I found on the internet hated Anna Karenina. They couldn’t understand how she could think/feel/behave like that, and feel that she is selfish and spoilt. I didn’t think so. I was thinking, given her personality, the way she was, was it even possible for her to escape her fate?
Poverty: the great social injustice
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/107799
I seldom post other articles here, but this one I can’t walk away from
Whether Singapore or Malaysia is better, is not the point.
The point is that this is happening here. Here in a country of wealth.
The social injustice offends me. It offends me that there are people out there, who work hard and honestly all their lives, an live worse than a prisoner. It offends me that in a country boasting of world-class standards, there are people without electricity. It offends me that in a country known for its efficient systems, a single major illness brings a family below poverty lines.
It OFFENDS me.
And I hold myself personally responsible for it.
I think that every single person who KNOWS about it, and claims to be of at least average intelligence, and considers him/herself an able bodied person, ought to be personally responsible for it.
Because everyone of us can do something. And something can be done. If nothing is done, if this continues, it is only because we haven’t bothered to do enough. And we start by asking ourselves that question. If you cannot say to yourself honestly that there is something more you can still do about this situation, then you ought to be personally responsible as well.
============================================================================================
By Vijay Kumar, http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/107799
Jul 3, 09
6:48pm
In between the glamarous buildings and shoppings complexes of this city state, there is huge suffering that the world has never seen. Something that the Singapore government or media will try to hide from the rest of the world. And this is the lives of 80 percent of ‘true’ Singaporeans who live in the republic’s Housing Development Board (low cost) flats.
I, like many young youths, went looking for a better future in this Lion City of opportunity, After four years of working experience in Kuala Lumpur. It was my first experience outside Malaysia and I was very happy to be offered a job in Singapore with a basic salary of S$3,500.
Then, with huge hopes, I started looking for a master bedroom to rent being single. I finally got a master bedroom in Clementi for S$700 a month but only after being rejected by many other landlords for being Indian. The ensuing eight- month ordeal that I spent in this HDB flat really opened my mind to what Singapore is for those who can’t earn.
It made me ask if this is the type of development that I ever wanted in my country Malaysia. This is the first time that I felt gifted to be born in Malaysia. Anyway, I lived with a family of three (husband, wife with one daughter) who rented out their master bedroom to me while they slept in the common room.
It was a three-room flat (but unlike in Malaysia, a three-room flat has only two bedrooms). I did not believe it was the master bedroom that I was staying in until I went into the other room and saw that there is no attached bathroom there. I was given a bed and a mattress and also two fans. Then I noticed that the couple with their daughter sleeping on the floor with a thin mattress in the other room. Not even a fan in that room.
Both husband and wife are born Singaporeans and were employed. It was after one month that I realised that the daughter was not going to school regularly and most of the time there would be a quarrel in the early morning between the father and daughter as there was not enough money to pay for the bus to go to school.
There were times when the daughter was very sick and father had no money to take her to see a doctor. It was a real pain in the heart to hear a small girl suffering through the thin walls of this HDB flat. It was unbelievable for me to see this happening in this ultra-modern city. It took me another two months to realise that what was happening in this flat was not an isolated case of urban poverty in Singapore.
It was every where in those HDB flats. There was a Chinese neighbour (an elderly man) and his son had no money to get a taxi to send his father to the clinic for daily diabetic wound-dressing. I soon understood that poverty in Singapore transcends racial boundaries. The whole family of my landlord got a shock that I own a car in Malaysia.
My landlord would keep pestering me every time I come back to Malaysia to bring my car over so that his whole family could go sightseeing in Singapore. In all my life, I never believed people in a developed country like Singapore would ever consider car ownership a privelege.
Three months later, one fine day, I came back home and realised that there was no electricity in the house. This time, my landlord did not have the money to pay for the utility bills. I was back in the Stone Age, using candles. This lasted for days until finally he borrowed money from somewhere and settled the bills.
My landlord as a person I have known during that period never come back drunk or looked like a gambler. He had to pay for his mother’s medical expenses, that much I know. This was the time in my life when I learned what is was like to live in that poor quality HDB flat, drying clothes in the rooms and listening to what the couple talked about in the next room via the thin walls.
==================================================================================
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!” — Alice In Wonderland
Religious harmony in Singapore – The Issue & Suggestions
Over the weekend, I had the privilege of attending the 2nd Interfaith Conference on Dialogue & Engagement 2009*. Here are some of my thoughts (greatly influenced by the conversations I had that day) on the kinds of religious conflicts happening in Singapore, why they happen and what can be done.
Why religious conflicts happen in Singapore: Confusion over the new boundaries
Everyone agreed that we want to respect each others religions (including atheism/agnosticsm/humanism). However, the panel dialogue surfaced lots of situations/incidence which subtly screamed: You say you respect me, but here’s when you didn’t!
What that showed, in my view, was that people didn’t know how to behave in order to demonstrate their respect. We need to dialogue and establish what constitutes acceptable behavior; we need to define the boundaries.
In the past (judging from conversations with older people, and from the emphasis in school 20 years ago), there was a lot on religious practices and rituals, amongst the religious followers, in national campaigns and public messaging. These tended to be the source of misunderstandings as well. Religious differences were : Muslims didn’t eat pork. Buddhist/Taoist burnt offerings, Christians celebrated Christmas etc. People got upset when rituals of other faiths affected their lives eg. when ashes flew into each others living rooms.
Over the years of dialogue, we’ve come to accommodate each other’s rituals. When organizing an office party, we know we need to ask if there are vegetarians attending. We happily accept Christmas presents. We have no issues with colleagues wearing tudungs or turbans. We have agreed on the boundaries, and we know how to behave to show our respect for diversity.
Today’s population is more exposed to global issues, which is becoming increasingly ideological. New issues have cropped up. Issues where we haven’t had enough dialogue on, where everyone has a different idea of where the boundary is.
When we think of “inter-religious” dialogue in terms of rituals only, and insist on keeping everything else “secular”, we swept very real and contentious issues under the rug. Many of these issues were touched on during Saturday’s dialogue, and I will briefly outline them here.
Some areas of contention and conflict, which needs discussion:
Religious groups in the secular setting : the school, the workplace
It’s OK to give my colleague Christmas presents, invite them for Deepavali party, wear my tudung. Is it OK to give my colleagues Bible-verse-bookmarks, invite them to church, form office cell groups? It’s OK to talk about religious festivals during Moral Ed class, is it OK to talk about the different Creation stories during Science class?
Religious overtones in policy: Homosexuality, healthcare, advertising
- We accept that we have different dietary restrictions, and we’ve worked out ways to accommodate every kind of diet. Can we accept that we have different sexual practice restrictions and work out a way to accommodate everyone? Same with issues like euthanasia, abortion, HIV subsidies. Where advertising is concerned, does advertising in a religious publication mean that my company is inclusive and respectful of diversity, or does it mean that my company favors a particular religion, or has my company flouted secular principles? Everyone will interpret a gesture differently; we need a dialogue to establish different behaviors mean.
Religious practices at home: Funerals, altars, festivals
This is tricky. It always is when the homes and families are involved. But perhaps here is when dialogue is needed, acceptable behavior established, and rights guarded. What kind of funerals should be conducted when the deceased is of a religion separate from the family members? Are altars offensive or inclusive?
This list is far from exhaustive, but already, we see where the dialogue has to go to.
What can/needs to be done
Our inter-faith dialogue has to move beyond introducing our rituals to one another. We need to establish
1. Boundaries of acceptable behavior, and a common understanding of what each gesture means
2. Terms of engagement. How should we conduct our outreach activities without offense? How should we practice our faith outside the places of worship? What is the criteria for offensive/discriminatory behavior? When we disagree, how should we go about voicing our protest in an amicable way?
Without establishing boundaries and terms of engagement, it is inevitable that I offend you with well-meaning gestures. When you react negatively, I would then feel slighted. A recipe for conflict.
Who needs to be involved
1. Religious leaders/organizations.
Because of how they are looked to as the authorities, they have to be the ones starting the conversation. And then they have to preach in the manner they have agreed to. Representatives of secular/non-religious/minority religion groups need to be included too, to ensure they are not discriminated.
2. The State
It is the State’s responsibility to provide mechanisms through which the agreed upon boundaries and term of engagement are respected and enforced
3. Public & secular organizations – companies, schools, hospitals, NGOs
It came as a surprise to me to learn that NIE does not have a mandatory Race/Religious Sensitization course for the people who influence the thoughts of the next generation 300 days a year. Teachers, HR managers, policy makers, etc need to know how to deal with religious issues sensitively, and how to diffuse issues when they do crop up in a fair and sensitive manner. Telling a child to shut up and sit down doesn’t really help in the long run. Companies need to be aware that how they run their Christmas sales can be offensive or not. Hospital staff need to know how to tell when it is offensive or when it is helpful to offer to pray for the patient. If NGOs, educators, health workers, and religious groups had decided to sit down together to discuss sexuality education years ago, the whole AWARE saga might not have taken place. If clear terms of engagement had been established, perhaps the religious groups would have protested AWARE’s policies in a more civil and acceptable manner.
4. Public education
Going down to the grassroots level with inter-faith dialogues and activities is definitely useful, but only after the religious leaders have established societal norms and conventions, and after the societal infrastructure/mechanisms are in place to bring about this racial and religious harmony we seek.
================================================================
*About
This was organized by the EIF, together with the Buddhist Fellowship. EIF (Explorations into Faith) is a group under the Southeast CDC umbrella, that organizes inter-religious dialogues on a monthly basis, each time partnering a different religious group.
Participants discussed issues of Religion and Race in Singapore in small groups of about 5 – 10 people, and then came together for a forum discussion that saw a panel of 5 religious leaders, representing the Buddhist, Christian, Islam, Hindu, or Taoist faith. .
As part of the National Orange Ribbon Campaign (http://www.aux.com.sg/norc/index.php) to promote racial and religious harmony, the theme for discussion was on exactly that — Racial and religious harmony in the Singapore context.
Why is it illegal to beat your wife but legal to rape her?
In Singapore, it is illegal to beat your wife
it is illegal to hold her against her will
But it is not illegal to forcefully have sex with her when she refuses to.
That’s rape. Marital rape is not recognised by the law, unless the couple is seperated.
Why?
If you can’t think of a reason why either,
Sign the petition here http://www.notorape.com/
Giving Beauty & the Beasts a chance
I recently visited the Vatican City, at the same time when protest marches were being held in Ireland over the child abuse scandals against the Roman Catholic church.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8059826.stm
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXR-X_ibEJhN0lj2Ohgj7q0Dm7WA
The most beautiful thing about the Vatican City that struck me was neither the art nor the architecture – those were pretty but were cloying after a while. The most beautiful thing I saw were actually 2 men. One of them was the ticket seller to the Vatican Museum — he had only one finger and a slight stump of a thumb. Yet he was collecting money, giving change, dispensing tickets, with the speed and efficiency of any other ticket seller.
Having grown up in a culture where fetuses are screened and aborted for abnormalities, where disadvantaged persons can only sell tissue paper, where we are taught to pity them with paltry donations into tin cans, I’ve been flooded all my life with messages that disadvantaged persons were a liability to society. In the recent few past years, greater awareness about their abilities have been campaigned for, and I came to think that disadvantaged people could be as contributive to society as any other person could be — all a disadvantaged person had to do was a job that did not depend primarily on the skills he was handicapped for, and for society to give him that chance.
But the Vatican City ticket seller challenged my view completely. It said something about a society who would hire a person with only 1.5 fingers to sell tickets to thousands. It said something about a person who would take a job that primarily made use of a skill he was handicapped for – and excel at it.
The other person who touched me was the locker room (where visitors could deposit their bags and bulky items in lockers and pigeon holes) attendant. Visitors did not deposit their items into the lockers directly – they passed it to the attendant over the counter who then had to make sure everything was in place. This attendant had Downs’ Syndrome (or something similar, by his looks), and was as efficient and orderly as any good attendant I’ve ever come across.
I long for the day where my society would not see cheap foreign labor as the first choice for these jobs, and cease to see disadvantaged people as being disabled.
But I do think we are getting there. In the recent few years past, I have come across people with Downs’ Syndrome travelling by themselves on the MRT, very competently like any other normal person. A decade ago, such people were always accompanied by caregivers. Just seeing these people on the MRT more than convinces me that, if society gave them an education that is every citizen’s right, people with handicaps could be no less functional than a “normal” person. The image of a disabled person staring blankly into space, depending entirely on her caregiver, is one that is the fault of a society which has already condemned the person from birth, and has shirked its duty of investing in that person’s well being and education.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Visiting both the Vatican and Ireland during this period also is a reminder that no organization is perfectly good or perfectly bad. It was at the Vatican that I saw the most beautiful accordance of respect and dignity to people who have long suffered unjust and undue discrimination. Yet it is within the same Roman Catholic church system, that gross widespread child abuse has taken place. It really highlights the importance of not demonizing organizations or people, and the dangers of idolizing organizations of people. We need to look beyond identities, and look at each deed for itself, evaluate each deed for itself, so that the good can be recognized and reinforced, and the bad can be stopped and brought to justice.
It reminded me of a conversation I had with a Chinese friend. When I pointed out the atrocities of the Chinese Communist Party, he pointed out that Communism in China actually brought equality to women by allowing them to equal status in the workforce, that slavery in Tibet was abolished, and that prosperity has grown. Of course, we who have been influenced by the Western media would look at each of these achievements with a raised eyebrow, yet what we really need to do is to stop seeing these organizations as morally responsible persons, but start looking at each deed for itself, because you will find both good and bad.
When the Western and Islamic countries demonize each other, their accusations are probably true. But to the people that belong to each of these groups, they would see themselves for the good that they are, and very understandably feel a sense of injustice done towards them , when they are accused of being the monsters they do not see in themselves, their families and friends. And we all know that injustice and a threat to the safety of your loved ones are the strongest motivations for a person to risk life and limb to fight against the “enemy”. Is there any wonder we’re not going to solve the threat of terrorism in a long long time?
How Advocacy & Private Funding can reduce the Power Asymmetry in Singapore
One of the reasons why power asymmetry exists in Singapore was very pronounced at a recent Health Technology Assessment conference I attended.
Power asymmetries arise when there is asymmetrical distribution of information and resources. It does not matter if you have the best democratic election mechanism in place, as long as information and resources is primarily in the hands of the State only. This also happens within large private organizations and the masses, which is why monopolies can be potentially abusive/exploitative.
One would think that power asymmetries existed in places like India and China because a large part of its population is uneducated and poor. In resource rich countries that exists in much of Western Europe, Australia, Canada, the USA power between the electorate and elected is more balanced. Why hasn’t that happened to the same extent in Singapore, despite us ranking way up there in terms of GFP per capita ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
I’m sure there are many reasons, and one of those came up strongly during this International conference.
In many countries with relatively higher State-people power balance, there are very strong NGOs, filled with experts and professional who were willing to contribute their time and expertise to generating and distributing information. Many of these organizations were privately funded too.
In Singapore, we have many charitable organizations. Most of our very few NGOs are also strongly focused on direct services to the disadvantaged group. That is not a bad thing – that is very commendable in fact. What is very lacking however, is this information generation through research, and information distribution through public education.
We really need 2 things. We need experts and professionals to come forward to volunteer. We need these people to stop doing so much overtime in the office, and start contributing. When I was volunteering at AWARE, I noticed that a disproportionate number of active volunteers are not even Singaporean. In the biomedical research industry, many were foreigners who came to Singapore for the money, and few of those who are Singaporean see the need to be involved in advocacy work.
The second thing we need is government-independent funding. Many NGOs and VWOs in Singapore take government funds to some extent. Once you have government funding, your messages are essentially taken hostage. Government funding is great when you’re trying to feed the poor, but not when you’re coming up with well-research evidence why poor people are being systematically produced.
Private funding has been thought to be a major issue in Singapore for a couple of reasons. Firstly, foreign private funding has always been used as “evidence” for foreign manipulation into Singapore’s politics and internal affairs. There are restrictions on the types and extent of foreign funds for certain activities. Secondly, many rich commercial firms in Singapore depend on themselves being in the good books of the government. Foreign firms who wish to remain in Singapore do not want to offend the government and none of our local firms are either big enough or government-independent enough to disregard the government’s agenda.
However, there is a source of private funding in Singapore that is capable of taking on this role — the religious organizations. Singaporeans are very religious, and see a lot of value investing financially into their afterlives. Many religious organizations already fund much of charity work. We need to start going beyond charity work, and start funding advocacy and research work. We need to convince the decision-makers that advocacy and research work is NOT being anti-government, that is very much pro-people, and that sometimes they really have to be brave. We need to convince decision-makers that researching into what processes in our system create the structurally unemployable is as important as feeding the children of these structurally unemployed. We need to be upfront and say, ‘Yes that sort of research may not go down well with certain powerful groups, but your religious texts that call for you to sacrifice for the greater good, were really talking about such situations, not terrorist activities or militant crusades.’
So we actually do have the expertise within our people, and we do have the funds too. What we need to do next, is to convince people to start using these for the public good.
The basis and boundaries of religion/institutionalised-thinking
I was recently discussing the basis of religious beliefs with a group of christian friends. Many seem to think there’s a huge amount of human influence into exactly what we believe, or in whom we choose to believe (ie. pastors). Non-pastors in the group seem to believe pastors a lot more than the pastors in the group believe pastors (themselves or other pastors) .
Having also been involved other groups – humanist (people who don’t believe you need religion to be/do good) groups, inter-faith dialogue groups, scientific (science researchers who come together to discuss religion/ethics) groups, — I’ve come to notice that many (inclusive of our group) hold a common view : that what we believe in has enough human influence to make us doubt the knowledge we have of the divine.
And yet, despite agreeing on this common view, people make such radically different choices — some to be atheistic, some agnostic, some Hindu, Christians , suicidal, insane etc etc .
Which makes me wonder why.
One of the reasons why I didn’t agree too well with institutionalized religions is that it puts one under ridiculous pressures to conform.
How often have we heard remarks like “How can you do that can call yourself a Christian?” or “A good Buddhist doesn’t do…….” Etc
Which was why I found inclusive, non-judgemental, non-religious groups that worked for the good of humanity, and at the same time encouraged decisions to be fact-based (rather than subjective value-based) very attractive.
However, after joining several of these groups, I find myself back to square one.
Because I’ve added many of these people to my Facebook etc, I find myself in a position where before I want to put anything on my status bar, I’ve to consider what a feminist, humanist, vegetarian, atheist, agnostic, homosexual, environmentalist etc etc etc might think. And I find myself in a position where I can no longer make a joke or even announce my craving for KFC anymore.
I feel so restricted, l feel like I’ve to be politically correct all the time, and after a while I notice people around me doing the same. Pretty soon we’ll sound as homogenous as a fundamentalists.
Is this desirable? Can we work against this? How? Should we even try?
Is Christianity necessarily “militant” ?
Imagine if you were going on a plane ride for a nice family vacation with your family, and your family was all on board the plane awaiting take off already.
You go to the bathroom, and overhear terrorists discussing plans to bomb THAT plane.
Now what will you do?
Will you go up to your family and go “I’m going to tell you what I believe, but i respect your choice and decision whether or not you want to believe and get off the plane”?
Will you make tracks and brochures and invite your family to a rally to tell them about terrorism and how their plane might be bombed , and to put up your hands and come to the front, all who wish to be saved?
Will you even nag at them every five minutes to get off the plane?
No way. If you even slightly believed the terrorist has a bomb on the plane, you will be dragging your family screaming and kicking off the plane. Money lost because your holiday is forfeited? Who cares about money!!!
And of course, if you were a bit of a nicer person than Hitler, you would probably be shouting and insisting everyone get off the plane as well.
Now the thing about Christianity is this. Unlike most other religions where the way you get to heaven/paradise/some nice place was to do good deeds and perform some rituals, Christianity demands that you believe a FACT. Christianity demands that you believe the FACT that Jesus Christ was God-incarnate who came to earth at that specific time in history, and that he was crucified, and he later resurrected and ascended to heaven. A Christian must believe these events are FACTS.
Only then can the Christian have FAITH that believing / worshipping God as proclaimed by JC, would get him to heaven and out of hell. In Christianity, THAT and ONLY THAT faith will get you into heaven and out of hell — no amount of good deeds or rituals on your part can even come close to subtituting that faith.
And so if a person was a Christian and by definition believed in that fact, and if that Christian person even cared for someone else / society, a very natural consequence is to behave as my aeroplane story illustrated.
( I’m talking about the AVERAGE person’s behavior; there are always exceptions, which i’m sure YOU are………..And I’m also not talking about people like Thio Su Mien who, I feel, demand others follow her ideology, because that’s the “right” thing to do, and not because she really wants people to get to heaven, or else she would have just had another evagelical rally)
If this Christian REALLY believed his mother, father, wife, little daughter, smart son will go to hell for all eternity if they didn’t believe in Jesus Christ, what would he do??
My friend (a pastor and theologian) said that we’ll end up fundamentalists and terrorists if we behaved like what I suggested we would.
Yeh i agree.
But think about it.
Who’s at fault?
Fascinating case — who’s at fault here?
Man cheats workers here, man blackmails workers here. In order to stop being blackmailed, workers run away. But before they run away, they tie the man up to prevent him from calling the police. If the police gets them, they will be jailed & caned for being illegal immigrants, even though they were cheated by that man.
The next day (3rd day of being tied up) she goes to his flat, but realises she forgot her keys. She leaves after no one answers the door. The next day she returns with the keys, to find his body.
Weekend • May 30, 2009 by Ong Dai Lin (dailin@mediacorp.com.sg)
12,000 abortions, half by married women : that’s why abstinence-only cannot work
12,000 women — meaning out of every 3 pregnancies, 2 are born and 1 is aborted.
Many are unnecessary. As Dr Beh points out in the article, half are done by married women, and because they are misinformed.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/441781/1/.html
“Many husbands do not use condom right from the start of the sexual activity, (they) wait till they are near ejaculation before they put it on, and that defeats the purpose.”
“some inaccurately think that birth control pills may be linked to cancer or weight gain, and others have the misconception that the intrauterine system makes sexual intercourse uncomfortable and carries an infection risk. While this may have had some truth to it with the older copper intrauterine device, the newer hormone-releasing intrauterine system carries less risk.”
Which is why it’s so important to educate women, so that they never have to be in this position where they have to make this difficult decision and choice.
The best opportunity, is while girls are still in school — that’s what school education is for. That’s why a program that equips girls with knowledge for their whole life, rather than just their teenage years, is so important.
Abstinence-only programs teach girls how to protect themselves while they are still teens in school. It leaves them with a knowledge-gap when they get married. Comprehensive Sexuality Education equips them with the knowlege they need TODAY, and FOR LIFE.