One of the more difficult passages of the Bible is Exodus 5 - 14.  This is the account of the ten plagues which God brought upon Egypt in order to persuade the pharoah to let the Israelites go (the "Exodus").  It is a difficult passage because it says repeatedly that God had hardened the heart of the pharoah, so that the pharoah would not easily agree to let the Israelites go.  In Romans 9 : 17 - 18, Paul refers to this account, and says

For the Scripture says to Pharoah : "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."  Therefore, God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

I recall some of my friends asking me in the past.  In the light of Exodus, how is God fair ?  Do humans really have the freedom to accept or reject God on their own volition ?  If God (pre)determines how we react to God’s message, can we be held personally responsible for accepting or rejecting God ?

I didn’t have a very good answer at that time, and I won’t pretend that I have all the answers right now.  However, reflecting on the passage again today it struck me that God had given pharoah multiple opportunities to relent and repent, each time backed with a visible demonstration of God’s supernatural power to emphasise the severe consequences of disobedience — from the turning of Moses’ staff to a snake to the ten plagues to the pillar of cloud and fire I think at least 12 times if not more — I wonder how many of us would be given so many chances in such obvious terms to avoid a bad decision in life.  This, I believe, was the extraordinary extension of patience and grace by God to a very stubborn monarch.  Viewed in this light, I don’t think God had acted unfairly, or nullified pharoah’s personal responsibility for his rejection of God.

So pharoah screwed it.  Pharoah screwed himself.

Interestingly, Exodus 9 : 15 - 16 confirms this — that God was actually acting with restraint so that pharoah would have the opportunity to relent — and here I have to confess that this is the first time I recall reading these words :

For by now I could have streched out My hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth.  But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

Too bad pharoah blew it.

This appeared in the Straits Times Forum today.

MR CHAN LAI HUAT: ‘I refer to Wednesday’s report, ‘Will local talent flock to foreign firms?’ and the comment, ‘Liberalisation of legal profession worries lawyer-MPs’. If our lowly skilled, poorly educated, older workers can compete with under skilled, lowly paid, highly educated (sometimes) younger foreign workers from Asia, I do not see why our highly educated, over trained, extremely well paid lawyers should be allowed to whine when they are asked to do the same.’

And attracted comments which were equally as dim, such as

"I love what MR CHAN LAI HUAT has commented! Absolutely RIGHT!  Give the lawyers and doctors a run for their money!"

 

"Lawyers are a bunch of kiasu lot."

The fear expressed by several of our MPs was that the entry of foreign law firms, which pay significantly better than local ones, would lead to a migration of lawyers to these foreign firms, with the result that local firms would either lack talented lawyers, or have to match salaries to keep them.  The MPs’ worries have little to do with being unable to compete with foreign lawyers because these foreign lawyers are prepared to accept a lower salary, or because local lawyers cannot match foreign ones in terms of competence.  The worry is the inability to compete because foreign law firms pay too much, that local lawyers will become part of the foreign competition (by joining foreign law firms) !

As it is, law firms are already paying aggressively to keep lawyers in their firms, and in the legal profession.  If these MPs are correct — and I’m pretty sure they are at least on some counts — then Singaporeans have to be prepared to pay more to engage top lawyers, or settle for those lawyers which aren’t the brightest of the crop, as a result of this liberalisation.

Like Rene Artois is the classic Allo Allo, I feel like saying to these writers "You stupid Singaporeans".

—— Postscript ——

The entry of foreign law firms may not only result in a migration of lawyers from local law firms to foreign law firms, but a migration of public sector lawyers (eg. judges, DPPs) to foreign law firms, or at least to local law firms in place of their previous private practice counterparts.  In other words, more tax dollars must be allocated to the remuneration of public sector lawyers, to attract new recruits and to retain current employees.  Not a bad outcome, I suppose, for qualified individuals in the legal profession, but hardly the one which Mr Chan Lai Huat had gleefully imagined.

I’ve been at the new workplace for just over a month, and I’m happy to report that the workload appears substantially more manageable, requiring at most one late night a week.  Add to that the fact that I’m now located next to a shopping mall, where the food and shopping is as exciting as what my wallet and waistline can afford.

Haven’t found the time to blog regularly though.  Will try and work on that …

Published in the ST Online Forum today.

IN HIS National Day message, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said ‘we can create an environment where Singaporeans see (children) as a natural and important part of life, and where young couples get support for starting families’. However, to the extent that the views reflected in last Sunday’s Lifestyle article (’Stroller or battering ram ?’) represent the views of Singaporeans towards babies, I am not so hopeful.

That article reported several Singaporeans - surprisingly, all women - expressing unhappiness with parents who take strollers onto buses and trains. They thought it was inconsiderate of these parents not to take a taxi instead, or at least fold up the stroller. Another woman - upset that strollers had blocked her way in foodcourts - even suggested babies be left at home.

No parent would want to put his baby through the trauma of a crowded bus or train, or a crowded foodcourt, if he could comfortably afford to take a taxi or drive, or dine in a child-friendly restaurant. As for the suggestion that parents fold up strollers, balancing a baby in one arm and a folded stroller with diaper bag in the other while standing in a crowded bus or train (because many Singaporeans still lack the grace to give up their seats) is not a simple acrobatic trick. Nor is eating while holding onto a baby with one arm.

Also, no parent would want his baby to be seen as a public nuisance. But perhaps the real nuisance is not the helpless infant in the stroller or his parent, but other able-bodied adults who lack the grace to give way or lend a helping hand?

The views expressed by the Singaporeans in that article suggest unwillingness to share common space with babies. To stretch their views to the extreme, perhaps we should oppose the use of other common resources such as state land and the tax dollar, to establish playgrounds, children’s libraries, childcare centres and other child-friendly initiatives because these divert scarce resources from the enjoyment of the average, able-bodied adult Singaporean.

I would add that a willingness to share common space with those who are in the minority - with people (including babies) who are different or otherwise disadvantaged, whether in terms of physical development/handicap, wealth/privilege, or religious or political views - is a mark of social maturity. As part of, and looking beyond, this issue of creating a common space for babies, Singaporeans should, in this 43rd year of our independence, reflect how far we are from attaining that.

I was a little disappointed with PM Lee’s National Day message yesterday.  I was hoping for some concrete pronouncement on incentives for couples to procreate.  All he offered instead was a general three-paragraph statement that Singapore needs more babies and that its Government would do something to facilitate that.

To secure our long-term future, we also need enough babies to replace ourselves. Year by year, fewer Singaporeans are getting married, and those who do are having fewer children. We have implemented one measure after another over the years, but we have not succeeded in reversing the trend.

We have to take this very seriously. Marriage and parenthood are personal decisions. But we can create an environment where Singaporeans see them as a natural and important part of life, and where young couples get support in starting families. We have looked at this comprehensively and will take further steps to address the practical problems which couples face.

I hope more Singaporeans will find fulfilment in bringing up children and setting up a happy family. Let’s make Singapore a good home where citizens lead full, meaningful lives, and experience the joys of bringing up a new generation.

I’m not too optimistic about the possibility of a baby-friendly environment.  Last week’s Sunday Times article (3 August 2008) — "A Stroller or a Battering Ram ?" — was a clear indication that a fair number of Singaporeans regard babies and / or their parents with a measure of hostility.  And hey, if you don’t like my kids or my kids in a pram, why would you have your own so that other Singaporeans can dislike them ?

I have to say I find some of the views proferred by Singaporeans are insensible if not insensitive.  One of our learned Singaporean friends, law undergraduate Ms Joanna Lee (in tones reminiscent of Wee Shu Min), was upset that a mother was blocking the bus exit with her baby and pram.  "It just does not make sense to take a stroller with a baby up onto a bus", she said, and asked why the mother didn’t take a taxi or at least get someone on the bus to fold up the pram.

Now, why didn’t the mother take a cab ?  Well, maybe she couldn’t really afford one.  I mean — which mother who would want to lug a 6 - 12 kg baby, and a 4 - 14 kg pram, and a diaper bag, to the bus stop, and up a bus if she could afford to take a cab, right ?

As for the brilliant suggestion of asking a stranger to fold up the pram, Ms Joanna Lee should visit a department store and try her hand at opening or folding up a pram.  Some of these contraptions are nowadays so complex that one could mistake a pram for a missile-launcher.  The pram I have at home has been there for a year already, but my mother has yet to figure out how to open / fold it.  And Ms Joanna Lee expects a stranger in the bus to do this ?

Room attendant Ms Nancy Song expressed consternation at parents who did not fold up their strollers when an MRT train is crowded.  I think it is precisely because a train is crowded that parents find it impossible to fold up a pram.  And even if they could fold up the stroller, I don’t think it makes sense to try and balance precariously a baby in one arm, and a diaper bag and a folded stroller in the other.  Now instead of babies / strollers making way for people, which is what Ms Song cleverly suggests, can people make way for babies for a change ?

Finally there is 17-year old student Ms Marissa Low — it is appalling that all these baby-unfriendly comments are coming from, of all people, women — whom I suspect was never taken out of her HDB apartment by her parents until she reached about 4 years old, because she is of the view that "parents should just leave their baby at home".  Ms Low was upset that strollers block her way in food courts, and concerned that hot food might spill onto babies (which makes sense, except that hot food would spill onto a baby only if you are silly enough to try and squeeze past a stroller when there is very little space).

The above comments suggest to me that Singapore is really getting too crowded a place to comfortably accommodate babies (and strollers).  But since physical space is not something we can control — there is only so much land Singapore can reclaim — we have to find other ways to make Singapore baby-friendly.  Here are my suggestions in response to the views of those women.

1.  Ms Marissa Low said that babies should just stay at home.  Well, maybe she is right.  But if parents can’t leave their HDB apartments to shop for groceries with their babies, or to have a meal, the Government should implement a scheme where food, groceries and other necessities are delivered to homes with babies on a regular basis.  Perhaps some online system which parents can use to order these necessities may be created, and with that, free computers, broadband and IT training as not everyone knows how to use a computer, or has one.

2.  Ms Nancy Song and Ms Joanna Lee think that babies and prams should not be allowed on public transport.  I agree, which is why parents with babies should either be allowed subsidised taxi fares (so that they would pay the same fares as they would for bus / MRT at most), or given cars.  Alternatively, new public transport services with buses / MRT carriages which are exclusively dedicated to ferrying parents with babies, which are as regular and which cost no more than regular public transport, may be established.  All these will allow babies and parents to get around without ruining the experience of other commuters who take public transport.  (Even if you agree with Ms Marissa Low that babies should stay at home, they’ll still need to be brought to the doctors from time to time, hence the need for some form of transport).

3.  Establish adult-free zones in every food court and restaurant which only parents with children and food court / restaurant staff may enter.  All other pesky, whiny adults (add clumsy too, since they are perfectly capable of spilling hot food onto helpless children) would be excluded.

I can see how, with innovative schemes like what I’ve suggested above, I might be tempted to have a third baby.

One of the more amusing anecdotes on marriage that I’ve heard recently comes from a colleague who, after observing her husband at home just after their marriage (not particularly useful when it came to housework apparently) had thought to herself, "O my, why did I make such a poor choice ?".

She remains happily married to her husband for five plus years.