Mr Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudical Executions, recently presented his 2009/10 report to the UN Human Rights Council.  One of the addendums to the report was a Study on Targeted Killings, which criticised the US’ use of drone attacks.

The US Central Intelligence Agency reportedly controls a fleet of drone aircraft from its headquarters in Langley, Virginia.  Drone attacks on hostile targets in Afghanistan and Iraq are also remotely carried out from Virginia.

The arguments for and against (mainly against) the legality of drone attacks under international law make an interesting read, though I’m sure that not a few American soldiers who would otherwise have to place themselves in the line of fire will have positive things to say about drones, whatever the academics may exhort.

What I found particularly ironic, was this comment at paragraph 84 of the Study :

"Furthermore, because operators are based thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and undertake operations entirely through computer screens and remote audiofeed, there is a risk of developing a “Playstation” mentality to killing …"

By his use of the word "Playstation", Mr Alston was suggesting that drone operators based in Virginia, far removed from the realities of the battlefield in Afghanistan, would have fewer inhibitions in authorising an attack.

I think the same criticism may be levelled against academics.  Far removed from the realities of the battlefield, would academics also not have fewer inhibitions in advancing narrow interpretations of international humanitarian law, which would place soldiers’ lives at greater risk ?

I just love this quote which Constance Singam, former President of AWARE, borrowed from British Philosopher Stephen Law, for her article "State’s Decisions a Threat to Secular Society" (20 May 2010).  Attempting to define what a secular society is about, Stephan Law (ironically writing in a Journal called Think) proposes -

"It protects freedoms: the freedom to believe or not believe, worship or not worship. It is founded on basic principles framed independently of any particular religious, or indeed, atheist, point of view: principles to which we ought to be able to sign up whether we are religious or not."

It sounds clever but I would like to know what those principles "framed independently of any particular religious or … atheist point of view" are.  If principles are not derived from any religious view or atheist (non-religious) view, where do we get principles from ?

As the "secular society" which Constance Singam is advocating is based on the above flawed if not totally meaningless definition, I’m afraid I can’t take what she says very seriously.

On the same day that the media reports that Iran intends to Islamise the humanities in Iran, because it is too "Western", also comes news that an Iranian couple was fined by the Thai police for having sex on a beach in Pattaya.

In all of India and I’ve noticed in particular Mumbai, there is a tremendous gap between the rich and poor.  The latter live in the most squalid conditions imaginable.  Or to put it another way, it is quite unimaginable that anyone could live like this.  But it is there, in your face, on almost every other street, in Mumbai.

On the second last day of my recent trip to India, a local colleague was kind enough to take me around Mumbai and out for dinner.

Over dinner she told me that when she first brought her son to Singapore for a visit, he asked her "Mummy, are there no poor people in Singapore ?".

Nothing, I told her, like in Mumbai.

Singaporeans don’t seem to have much better to do than to discuss homosexuality these days (I suppose by this post I would be guilty of this), and today’s papers carried reports about how National University of Singapore law academic and former Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li Ann had decided to withdraw from her upcoming stint to teach Human Rights Law and Constitutionalism in Asia, at the New York University (NYU) School of Law.

Prof Thio is notorious in Singapore for her speech in Parliament comparing anal sex to shoving a straw up the nose, and for her views against homosexuality.  Not unexpectedly, when pro-gay students received news of Prof Thio’s visiting appointing at NYU, they circulated information about her anti-gay views so that students could make "informed decisions regarding class registration".  According to the Office of the Dean, a number of "members of the community" (I assume this includes NYU academics) had even written directly to Prof Thio to object to her appointment as visiting professor.

Vigorous opposition to Prof Thio’s appointment can be seen in online articles / debates at Singapore’s The Online Citizen and the US legal tabloid Above the Law.  In the case of the latter, see the Online Petition, NYU Professor not a Fan of Gay Rights, Thio Li Ann : All about Her Mother, and Much Ado About Nothing, amongst many others.  (OK, so the Americans also seem to spend about as much time as Singaporeans discussing homosexuality).

Prof Thio’s two classes were severely unsubscribed (roughly only 25% enrolment), and she withdrew at least partly because of this.

Pro-gay camp, 1.

But wait !  Just a couple of weeks ago, it was announced that former Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong, who is pro-gay, would not be appointed for a second term.  It would be naive to think that the opposition by the anti-gay camp in Singapore to his reappointment was not taken into consideration by the Select Committee.  So there we go.

Anti-gay camp, 1.

And the losers are both camps and everyone else.  By collectively opposing the appointment and reappointment of Prof Thio Li Ann as visiting professor and Siew Kum Hong as Nominated Member of Parliament respectively based on their pro or anti-gay views, the pro and anti-gay camps have cut off from themselves and from others the contributions (in addition to their pro / anti-gay views) which these individuals can bring to the quality of learning and to parliamentary debate.

Are there many other academics as qualified as Thio Li Ann to teach about human rights in Asia ?  Has any NMP spoken as extensively and as intelligently as Siew Kum Hong in Parliament ?  I don’t necessarily agree with all of the views of both, but I think that we are a little poorer without them.

Finally, a word of sympathy for what Thio Li Ann is going through.  Many Internet forumers in Singapore have called her a coward (and worse things) for withdrawing from NYU.  I don’t think this is fair.  Given how vocal the Americans are compared to us Asians, I imagine the opposition that she would have to confront for her views would be several times more intense than anything anyone would experience in Singapore.  The US is not like sanitised Singapore, where debates are polite, protests / demonstrations unheard of, and personal safety generally a given.  Here Siew Kum Hong mentions his wife’s fear that he would be manhandled by security guards, and jeering "where were you", both at the AWARE EOGM, and we Singaporeans recoil at the indignity of the proceedings.

Some of us might not agree with Thio Li Ann’s anti-gay views.  Some of us might think that Thio Li Ann deserves a very public opposition to her anti-gay views.  But she is, like all of us gay or straight, human, and I would empathise and think that any person in the same circumstances as Thio Li Ann would feel the same pressure to retreat.

And the above I think is one of the problems with the pro / anti-gay debate in Singapore.  The parties in both camps have stopped seeing each other as human, "fearfully and wonderfully made", and seen it fit to hurl all sorts of invective as well as death threats and fake (thankfully) anthrax powder at each other.  (Well, the latter two were received by the anti-gay camp courtesy of anonymous persons from the pro-gay camp, but the favour was not returned).

My letter to the Straits Times in response to Felicia Tan’s letter was published on its Online Forum today.

Religiously informed views can make policies better

I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Ms Felicia Tan, ‘Facts outshine faith’.

Ms Tan advances the concept of pure secularism as the superior and only rational option for a multi-religious country like Singapore, believing that this is essential ‘to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual’.

I respectfully disagree. A non-religious policy has as much potential to encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual as a religiously informed one. Even a non-religious policy such as on the integrated resorts will encroach on the beliefs of those who believe the state should not condone gambling, whether out of religious conviction or non-religious experience.

In my opinion, it is precisely because Singapore is multi-religious that it is necessary for a fair opportunity to be given to all views, whether based on religion or not, to be debated by any individual or parliamentarian who cares to raise them. What is essential is that this debate should be carried out respectfully, with the hope that different views will find common areas of agreement, and with the understanding that one view (or certain parts of one view) may sometimes have to give way graciously to another in the implementation of a policy or law.

Ms Tan also argues that, as part of pure secularism, ‘only logic and reason should dominate discourse’.

And that ’scientific, sociological and economic facts’ and not faith should form the basis for a policy or law.

The process of law or policymaking is not so simple.

The death penalty or castration would be highly effective in deterring rapists from re-offending. However, many of us would hesitate to prescribe such severe penalties for rapists. A clinical examination of scientific or economic facts alone does not determine law or policy.

This leaves secular values to mean the values held by the majority on a non-religious basis at a particular time. If so, Ms Tan must be prepared for the possibility that such values may change over time. What the majority perceives as cruel and unusual punishment for rapists today may be regarded as completely acceptable in the future.

Religiously informed values, on the other hand, do not shift with the mood prevailing in society, at least in theory. This is the positive contribution which religious conviction can bring to the debate and formulation of policies and laws.

This is the original text.

Facts Outshine Faith ?

I refer to the forum letter, “Facts Outshine Faith”, by Ms Felicia Tan (28 May 2009).

Ms Tan advances the concept of pure secularism as the superior and only rational option for a multi-religious country like Singapore, believing that this is essential “to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual”.

I respectfully disagree. A non-religious policy has as much potential to encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual, as does a religiously-informed one. Even a non-religious policy such as the establishment of integrated resorts, will encroach on the beliefs of those who believe that the state should not condone gambling, whether out of religious conviction or non-religious experience.

In my opinion, it is precisely because Singapore is multi-religious, that it is necessary for a fair opportunity to be given to all views, whether based on religion or not, to be debated by any individual or parliamentarian who cares to raise them. What is essential is that this debate should (to the extent it is humanly possible) be carried out respectfully, with the hope that the different views will find common areas of agreement, and with the understanding that one view (or certain parts of one view) may sometimes have to graciously give way to another in the implementation of a policy or law.

Ms Tan also argues that, as part of pure secularism, “only logic and reason should dominate discourse”. “Scientific, sociological and economic facts” and not faith should form the basis for a policy or law.

I question if the process of law / policy making is so simple.

Factually, the death penalty or castration would be highly effective in preventing rapists from reoffending. However, many of us would hesitate to prescribe such severe penalties for rapists, and indeed modern societies do not. This suggests that a clinical examination of scientific or economic facts alone should not determine law and / or policy.

In the above example, a common perception that the death penalty or castration for rape would constitute cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of human rights, has resulted in the imposition of more humane penalties for rapists. In other words, clinical facts are sometimes (if not always) weighed against personal values, before a law or policy is formulated.

Ms Tan would argue that these values should be purely secular. Can they ? I have just argued that it may not always be possible to derive (secular) values from a clinical examination of scientific or economic facts.

This leaves secular values to mean the values held by the majority on a non-religious basis at the relevant point in time. If so, Ms Tan must be prepared for the possibility that such values may change over time. That what the majority perceives as cruel and unusual punishment for rapists today, may be regarded as completely acceptable sometime in the future.

Religiously-informed values, on the other hand, do not shift with the mood prevailing in society, at least in theory. This is the positive contribution which religious conviction can bring to the debate and formulation of policies and laws.

On (or about) Thursday 8 January an errant Israeli motar shell hit a UN school in Gaza, killing several school children.  This prompted an AFP report on "257 Palestinian children killed in Gaza" (which title, I would point out, when read with the article’s first paragraph confusingly suggests that the attack on the UN school caused 257 casualties), exerpts (first four paragraphs) as follows :

Tiny bodies lying side by side wrapped in white burial shrouds. The cherubic face of a dead preschooler sticking up from the rubble of her home. A man cradling a wounded boy in a chaotic emergency room after Israel shelled a U.N. school.

Children, who make up more than half of crowded Gaza’s 1.4 million people, are the most defenseless victims of the war between Israel and Hamas. The Israeli army has unleashed unprecedented force in its campaign against Hamas militants, who have been taking cover among civilians.

A photo of 4-year-old Kaukab Al Dayah, just her bloodied head sticking out from the rubble of her home, covered many front pages in the Arab world Wednesday. "This is Israel," read the headline in the Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al-Youm. The preschooler was killed early Tuesday when an F-16 attacked her family’s four-story home in Gaza City. Four adults also died.

As many as 257 children have been killed and 1,080 wounded — about a third of the total casualties since Dec. 27, according to U.N. figures released Thursday.

Not unexpectedly, and not unreasonably as well, the attack provoked global outrage.

Now suppose the motar shell had hit a pet shop and 257 hamsters or 257 rabbits died.  Or that it hit a florist and 257 roses perished.  Would there be the same outpouring of anger or grief ?

I ask this not to trivialise the deaths of the Palestinian children,  but to question why human life is regarded as more precious than animal or plant life.  What is the basis for this ? 

Numerous atheists today believe that a random mixture of chemicals got really lucky and that humans evolved as a result.  That essentially, we are no different from animals or plants but for the chemical makeup.  If so, why do we mourn the passing of human life ?  Why do we express outrage when innocent people are killed ?  Why do we not feel the same outrage when animals or plants are killed ?  Why do we feel anger or a sense of loss at all, if all there is to life is a short period of heightened consciousness followed by decomposition of the life form into its chemical constituents ?

I believe that much as we would like to deny the existence of God, or a divinely-inspired moral order, all humans as created beings have a moral compass hardwired into our being.  Therefore except maybe for the most depraved of us, there is a core set of moral standards which we subconciously adhere to, one of which is the sacredness of human life.  In Genesis 9 : 5 - 6, God (re)institutes this moral order when He instructs Noah -

"And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.  Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".

Two truths jump out from this simple passage.  The first is that humans were created to bear the imprint of God — "in the image of God, has God made man".  The second is that human life is not to be trivialised, that God will demand from every person an account for how he has treated his fellow man.  Taken together, this means that every person, male or female, young or old, able-bodied or handicapped, economically productive or not, straight or gay, "red and yellow black and white", is precious in the sight of God.

I suppose there are many who take sides in or protest against the conflict for reasons such as identification with the Jewish or Palestinian cause, or ethnic or religious affiliation, or political advancement.

However, for Christians, the life of every Palestinian child, and of every other Palestinian, as well as of every Israeli, matters because human life is precious in the sight of God.  And when we plead or pray for peace, restriant or justice in this conflict, it should also be because we grieve at how there has so little respect for the sacredness of God-given life.

Here I would deviate to add that this Biblical view on the sacredness of God-given life must, in conjunction with whatever other guidance God has provided in the Bible, inform our views on controversial matters such as the artificial conception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and other like issues.  I think it would be presumptuous of Christians to pretend that the Bible has clear answers to all these new (or maybe not-so-new) scientific developments; it does not.  In the absence of clear scriptural approval (or sometimes disapproval) I suppose a safe position to take would be to object to everything, but I don’t think this is necessarily correct.  Rather, the Christian who supports artificial conception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and other like issues in any general or particular circumstances must do so with reverential awe for the sacredness of God-given life, sincerely believing with good reason that what he supports does not (or does not without good reason) detract from the fundamental principle that every life (no matter how "embryonic") is precious in the sight of God, and with the apprehension that God will call him to account for the impact of his views on the life of his fellow man.

Yesterday’s Straits Times carried an article by John Tierney from the New York Times, on how religion might lead to greater self-control ("Pray, lead us not into temptation").

While I would argue that self-control / self-discipline is a fruit of the Spirit (ie. the outworking of God in Christian life, see Galatians 5 : 22), the article nonetheless makes the interesting point that religion results in greater self-control.

"As early as the 1920s, researchers found that students who spent more time in Sunday school did better at laboratory tests measuring their self-discipline.  Subsequent studies showed that religiously devout children were reated relatively low in impulsiveness by both parents and teachers, and that religiosity repatedly correlated with higher self-control among adults.  Devout people were found to be more likely than others to wear seat belts, go to the dentist and take vitamins."

Though the article also, interestingly, draws a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religiousity, which from a Christian perspective may be read to mean that transformation comes from a genuine faith in God, and not mere observation of outward rituals (or works).

"Does this mean that non-believers … should start going to church ?  Even if you don’t believe in a supernatural god, you could try improving your self-control by at least going along with the rituals of organised religion. 

But that probably wouldn’t work eitiher … because personality studies have identified a difference between true believers and others who attend services for extrinsic reasons, like wanting to impress people or make social connections.  The intrinsically religious people have highser self-control, but the extrinsically religious do not."

The article finally makes the interesting suggestion that agnostics and atheists could try to attain greater self-control by holding certain personal values sacred even if they are non-religious.

"So what’s a heathen to do in 2009 ?   … try replicating some of the religious mechanisms that seem to improve self-control, like private meditation or public involvement with an organisation that has strong ideals.  Religious people … are self-controlled but simply because they fear God’s wrath, but because they have absorbed the ideals of their religion into their own system of values, and have thereby given their personal goals an aura of sacredness.  … non-believers [ could ] try a secular version of that strategy. … ‘You can spend time thinking about what values are sacred to you and making New Year resolutions that are consistent with them’."

The suggestion is appealing, and one blogger in fact wrote that

"This article makes a distinction between intrinsically religious and extrinsically religious. So religions works only if you truly believe, or as this study found have internalised the ideals and values of the religion. Non-believers can also develop their own "personal religion" with their own values and ideals, but religion comes "prefabricated" as a packaged deal. Which is what I have always believed. Religion serves a purpose and most people would benefit from that purpose. But some people don’t benefit from religion and are happier crafting their own set of values and ideals and the rationale for those ideals."

However, I’m personally not certain of how much more self-discipline a person, who is not by nature self-disciplined, can instil in his life without the supernatural outworking of God.

That aside, I’m also quite curious to know what use there is to being self-disciplined if the values in relation to which the discipline is exercised are questionable.  If one of my "sacred" values is to commit genocide, or to be sexually indulgent, is discipline in relation to my terrorist training, or Kegels exercises, of any good ?  The values in the Bible (eg. "love your neighbour"), on the other hand, don’t pose the same problems.

The global economic crisis has claimed another high profile victim, this time in the form of a distraught Madoff investor who committed suicide after losing $1.4 billion of client money.

This is sad news.  Christmas should be about hope, not suicide.

It just struck me a few days ago that in these uncertain times, Christians have been given the greatest assurance ever.  This is the Person of Jesus Christ, whose other name is Immanuel or "God with us".

In Romans 8 : 31, 38 - 39, Paul wrote about God’s reassuring presence (in the context of persecution not financial trouble, but I believe the principles apply to our present day), as follows :

31 … If God is for us, who can be against us ? … 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Of all the Christmases in my short existence, the one this year feels the saddest.  Never has the world appeared more hopeless, and never have I felt more helpless to do anything to improve it.  The global economy, teethering on collapse, threatens to drive the many poor below the poverty line and into starvation, the excesses of overconsumption have sent the global climate reeling, terrorism scored a massive victory in Mumbai (taking the life of numerous innocents including one Singaporean), Hong Kong and Indonesia struggle with the bird flu, and more and more people appear to be rejecting or abandoning the church.

It seems sometimes, that we are regressing into a world without God, where there is no reason or hope to life other than our chemical composition.  Not that God doesn’t care about our world, but that the world no longer cares for God, squeezing out the sacred and spiritual out of its secular existence as much as possible.

Times like these, I pray that God will send a new revelation. Not ‘new’ in the sense of a new gospel (for there are none apart from those already revealed in the Bible), or a clever repackaging of the Christian message using the latest gimmicks.

But "new" like the fresh dawn air on the mountaintop.  While air is not new to us because we breathe every minute of our lives, there is a refreshing and revitalising quality about crisp dawn air that is instantly distinguishable from stale city air. 

"New" like the breaking of light at dawn after a long and dark night, as the life and ministry of Jesus is described in Isaiah 9 : 2 -

The people living in darkness have seen a great light;
On those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. 

We need a new revelation.  So that we may have hope.

The church needs a new revelation.  So that it’s testimony and ministry may stand apart from stale alternatives.

The world needs a new revelation.  So that it may be saved from itself.