I’m just started reading Deepest Differences, which is a compilation of friendly e-mails exchanged between its Christian (James W Sire) and atheist (Carl Peraino) authors, on their faith / non-faith.

At the beginning of the book, the co-authors pen in the final paragraph of the acknowledgements page -

"Finally, Jim [ the Christian ] thanks God for giving him a long life with a mind fascinated by the mysteries of God and his universe.  Carl [ the atheist ] feels fortunate that he emerged into sentience in a relatively benign environment via the concatenation of innumerable chance events spanning millions of years of evolution."

I find the second sentence amusing.  The book looks promising.

If you’re wondering why there are as many kids’ pics as animal pics, it’s because I think the kids are more interesting.  Of course, I’m biased.

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 ?

On Monday (31 May), news that several leaders and members of City Harvest Church were being investigated by the Commercial Affairs Department made the headlines in Singapore.  I am no authority on what Christians (or for that matter, non-Christians) should think about or pray for in regard to this matter, but here are a few of my humble thoughts as a Christian :

1.  I am thankful for the fact that the state has both the capacity and the courage to probe religious groups and similar organisations in the public interests.  City Harvest Church has a huge membership and is hugely influential.  There is nothing wrong with this; it is highly admirable and the good work of the church is praiseworthy.  However, as NKF and Ren Ci have shown, there is potential for individuals to abuse their influence in such organisations.  Just as religious groups can have the influence and moral authority to check corruption and abuse of Government power, the state should have a role in ensuring that religious groups do not abuse their influence or misuse their resources, in the public interests.

2.  Whatever has been done, is done.  If anything has been done which is dishonest, reckless or negligent, or even if there was an innocent mistake, my prayer is not that the authorities will fail to detect it.  Rather, regardless of whether there has been any criminal offence, my prayer is that the Christians under probe will conduct themselves truthfully and graciously, which is what the Bible demands.  An individual can be innocent yet behave like he is guilty.  Or he might be responsible for wrongdoing yet live in denial.  My prayer is that the individuals in this case will not be guilty of either.

3.  I pray that we will remember that it is individuals who are being investigated, not God.  We often closely associate (prominent) churches and / or Christian leaders with the Christian faith.  However, while they may represent a facet of the Christian faith, they are not God.  That they are being investigated does not mean that God is lousy or bad.  It is, on the other hand, a reminder that we, including our Christian leaders, are imperfect, and in need of God who shows us the way to perfection.

4.  I pray that the faith of Christians will remain strong.  When leaders fall, or their apparent infallibility is questioned, it is normal for their followers to lose faith.  However, the root of the Christian faith lies in Jesus, "the author and perfector of our faith" (Hebrews 12 : 2), and not the apostles in the Bible, early church leaders or our current Christian leaders.  Christian leaders have an important role to play in nurturing our faith, but the Christian faith should ultimately rest on Jesus.

5.  I pray that Christians will be wise and gracious, when speaking to each other and to non-Christians, about this matter.  Everyone has something to say about City Harvest Church — good or bad — because of its size and prominence.  It is easy in a time like this for anyone to criticise the church.  Some Christians might feel that their faith is under attack.  Members of the church might feel that their church is under attack.  The human inclination is to respond ungraciously, but the Bible asks Christians to do the opposite, to "bless those who persecute you" (Romans 12 : 14), "prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have … with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3 : 15 - 16).

6.  I pray that churches will learn from this incident and strengthen their internal governance.  All large churches today were once small "start ups".  However, the church is not a family business, and a system of governance which might have been satisfactory ten, twenty or even a hundred years ago, would no longer be satisfactory today in view of the large finances involved, the change in the regulatory environment, and the complex operations that a church might nowadays choose to get involved in.  With growth in members and prominence, comes great responsibility, and churches need to put in place the appropriate systems and processes, to properly discharge at least the legal aspect of that responsibility. 

In a sure demonstration of our maturity as a democracy, it appears that one of the few demonstrations which will be held in Singapore’s recent history will be the protest at Hong Lim Park on 5 June 2010, against the high cable TV prices for subscription to watch the 2010 World Cup.

I can’t wait to read Jed’s history textbook when he enters secondary school six years from now.  While demonstrations are being held in other parts of the world over issues such as democracy (Bangkok), environment (Missisipi), or unilateral aggression (South Korea), our history books will record this protest against high cable TV prices as one of the Singapore’s first demonstrations.

I don’t think it is fair to blame the local cable TV service providers for the high subscription fees.  FIFA is apparently charging an enormous fee for broadcast rights.  Several reports note that FIFA will earn more revenue from broadcast rights for the 2010 World Cup, than the two previous world cups combined, without any significant increase in viewership : read this and this.  FIFA has stated in its 2009 Financial Report that in the preceding year,

"FIFA’s events generated USD 1,022 million of the total revenue of USD 1,059 million, i.e. 97%. The lion’s share of this figure was attributable to the sale of television (USD 650 million) and marketing (USD 277 million) rights …"

and that its massive 2011 - 2014 budget would financed by a future revenue stream, of which USD 3.2 billion is already almost certainly in hand

"The budget for the 2011-2014 period was drawn up as part of the comprehensive, detailed budgeting process which began in June 2009.  The process involved firstly calculating future revenue, which is made up on the one hand of revenue from contracts that have already been concluded, to the value of USD 3.2 billion, and on the other from projected additional revenue potential of USD 0.6 billion."

(Incidentally, FIFA has registered trademarks in apparently non-descript combinations of words such as "2010 South Africa", "South Africa 2010", "SA 2010" and "ZA 2010"). 

So who is profiteering here ? 

If Singaporeans wish to make a point, we should boycott the 2010 World Cup or better yet, any FIFA broadcast or merchandise, altogether.  That means not watching a single World Cup match, whether by subscribing to cable TV or at the pub (or community centre).  And as a purely symbolic gesture, Singapore should refuse to participate in the next World Cup.  (Note : Singapore was trounced 0-7 by Palestine in the qualifying match, so our participation or non-participation really doesn’t make a difference).

The wisdom underlying the Government’s decision to (allow / encourage the) set up two private cable TV providers in such a small market, in the same way that it had (allowed / encouraged the) set up of two private mass transport providers operating separate subway lines, for the purposes of creating some form of "competition", still eludes my finite mind, and the current unhappy outcome may perhaps be attributed to this wisdom-which-eludes-my-mind.

However, some of the most bizarre comments which I’ve read on the Internet to date, are Singaporeans blaming the Government for failing to intervene so that we can watch the World Cup more cheaply. 

I can see why we would demand limited Government intervention to help poor families place food on the table and to send kids to school. 

But to watch the World Cup ?