Went for a run at 2230 hours to test out my new toy, the Nike Triax C3.  But for the fact that I felt like I was running with a bra (now I can imagine the discomfort women go through), it worked well.  I think I even ran further than usual in 25 mins.  I hope this keeps up.

"Come with Me to a quiet place and get some rest." (Mark 6 : 31)

… to the dark side and got myself a Messenger® account. 

My disaffection with instant messaging had to do with my time in hostel when, plugged into the LAN, I was constantly plagued by the "uh-ohs" from ICQ.  I killed it.  (Though I knew I could turn it off, or the "away" status, I didn’t bother). 

Anyway, after ten years, it’s back.  I figured that it’s the best way to keep in touch with some people.

Now that I’ve left, thought I should blog about the three greatest injustices that I had encountered :

(1)  A boss so insecure that he sabotaged his most trusted deputy’s (actually it is his only deputy - he trusts no one else) prospects for career advancement.  May he happily rule a one-man fiefdom in time to come !

(2)  Officers so cowardly that they refused to stand as witnesses to help victim and family obtain redress.  May they never be placed in similar tragic circumstances !

(3)  A HR officer so anal retentive that in a matter of employee compensation she conducted herself no differently, if not worse, than an insurance company.  May she never have to wrestle with an insurance company !

I wonder why some people are so nasty or unsympathetic.  Will it kill them to show a little more love ?

Went back to office for my last day of work today.  Look what my colleagues gave me as a farewell gift (thanks !  I know some of you are reading this).

It comes with a heart rate monitor.  Cool.  I suppose this would be an incentive for me to start running more regularly, and with greater intensity.  Am getting fat …

Jed surprised us tonight by pulling himself up into a standing position, all by himself !

Walked into the SGH ward reception today to check on whether my dad would have a bed for his treatment tomorrow, and was surprised to be greeted with : "O, you must be Mr Lim’s son.  There’s no bed tomorrow".  (One questions why one’s father makes one run these errands when he can just call up the hospital himself).

Anyway, I don’t recall seeing that nurse before.

My father has quite a reputation at SGH, I see.

Like Jed playing peek-a-boo in these pictures, each stage in Jed’s development just flashes by.  It wasn’t so long ago that Joyce and I were concerned that Jed absolutely hated being placed on his tummy and, apparently behind time, wasn’t able to flip onto his tummy by himself.  Fast forward by two months, and Jed can now crawl, apparently slightly ahead of time, and won’t lie still on his back for more than a moment.  He recently discovered how to pull himself into a kneeling position by grabbing onto nearby objects.

I suppose he might learn how to walk soon.  O, the horror, the horror …

There is a preverse line of religious reasoning that posits that God rejoices whenever His detractors are made to suffer.

Take the teachings of recently released Indonesian cleric Abu Bakir Bashir, for example.  He tried to sound politically correct by saying that (suicide) bombs should not be used in a "non-conflict zone".  But that didn’t hide that he thought God was gratified with the Bali bombings.  He defiantly called the suicide bombers "holy warriors", and said that the attacks "were God’s will" (and I doubt he meant it in the broadest sense of the word, that is, that God had chosen not to interfere in the evil plans plotted by evil men, and allowed those plans to take its course.  He probably believes that God had nudged if not shoved the suicide bombers in the direction of committing those atrocities).

So, is God also rejoicing now that a Singaporean blogger, who blogged under the style of "Char", is being investigated for committing an offence under the Sedition Act by publishing allegedly offensive depictions of Jesus Christ on his blog (Straits Times, 14 June 2006) ?  I believe not.

First of all, Christians believe (or at least are supposed to believe) that God doesn’t want anyone to perish, but for everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3 : 9).  I doubt being squealed on by a complainant who is believed to be a Christian, to the authorities, over a couple of petty images, has increased Char’s affection for Christians, or for that matter, God.

Secondly, and this sounds kind of mushy and a couple of people here (notably Dan81) take issue with being loved without wanting to be loved, but God, uh, loves His detractors too ?  That being the case there’s absolutely no reason why He would take pleasure in a detractor’s gratuitous suffering, and likewise, no reason why Christians should too.

Finally, since many Christians regard proselytism as an important responsibility, this act of using the sledgehammer of the law to kill a fly can only set a negative precedent that may limit future efforts to share our beliefs.  I’m not saying that it’s inappropriate for a person to resort to the law to protect what he believes in and cherishes - in the context of Christianity the apostle Paul resorted to the law several times to keep himself and his followers from further abuse on account of their faith (Acts 16 : 35 - 38, for example) - but I think there should be a real threat to beliefs to begin with.  So if someone comes along and threatens to kill you on account of your beliefs, or to destroy your property or your place of worship, fine - call the police.  Do the publication of irreverent images constitute a real threat to beliefs ?  Dodgy.

So if the complainant was really a Christian, I can only say I’m disappointed.  And to Char - I think you acted recklessly in apparently trying to provoke Christians (or at least the more uptight, anal retentive Christians).  Hopefully this unfortunate episode ends in just a stern warning, or less, for you.