Regent College's Fall 2006 term has started. While it is nice to see new people, and having new kids on the block, it is more heart-warming to see friends. Holding small-talk takes effort and it is often better to simply catch-up up with old friends, people we have known over the past 2 years. No need to rehash: "Hi, what's your name? Where are you from?"
But, be real. We live in a transient world. People come and people go. The Hi-Bye syndrome that we dread also happens in a theological college. But may every 'Hi' be a recognition of that common bond in the Lord Jesus. May every 'Bye' be a send off of blessing. The task is how to do that authentically and with passion.
Somehow, we need to have a theology of smalltalk. It is absolutely essential in a culture of little time and many 'coincidental' meetings. Maybe, one day we'll learn how to build good and lasting friendships not dependent by the need to spend a long stretch of time together (though still the preferred way), but with multiple snippets of word and short quips that can be sustained over the years. I got that feeling that such will increasingly be the only opportunity available to us. Unless somethiing zaps the technology of the world and slows us back to the stone age. Maybe then, we can seriously build any relationship through face to face interaction rather than via the wire.
kianseng
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
IMF/WB Meetings in Singapore
Wednesday 14th September 2006, marks the start of the much anticipated International Monetary Fund / World Bank meetings. In a nutshell,
"The meetings include two days of plenary sessions, during which governors consult one another and address the assembly to present their countries' views on current economic and financial issues. The boards of governors make decisions on how current international monetary issues should be addressed and approve corresponding resolutions."
The IMF has been very prominent in the recent Asian financial crisis, the Brazilian 30 billion USD rescue package and various other financial help worldwide. These meetings are not simply restricted to policy makers. It has an extremely wide economic impact worldwide. (For example, when the IMF approved a multi-billion dollar aid to Indonesia, one of the requirements was the government reduce subsidy on oil for the local Indonesian consumer. That resulted in overall rise in living costs for Indonesians.)
It is easy to point a finger at policies. But those of us who understand the complexities of culture will also understand that it is one thing to make a policy based on statistics within a comfortable air-conditioned, climate controlled closed door office. It is yet another to walk the streets of poverty and feel with the hands the hardship of people living in poor economies. How then do they come up with a policy that incorporates compassion and shrewd economic planning?
OPTION A - Policy Makers alone
OPTION B - Policy Makers + Civil Society groups (CSGs) input
The Singapore meeting more closely resemble Option A now. It has banned many activists from even entering the country. They see them as troublemakers. Option B is perhaps something closer to what we would say 'fair representation of views' necessary for good policy making. As a result of Singapore's efficient bans, CSGs are essentially muted or controlled. Many organizations have called for a boycott. Even Christian Aid organisation has called for a boycott of the Singapore meetings. My feel is that with the Singapore government's banning of prominent CSGs, it will be a long time (if ever), any future IMF events will be held in Singapore. Just like the University of Warwick (prominent University in the UK) which finally decided not to have a campus in Singapore due to restrictions on press freedom, will the IMF/WB and activists ban Singapore in future, as a host for IMF meetings?
If so, this will be a sad situation as Singapore wants to promote immigration into the country and to attract foreign talent. Attracting international talent would meant learning to be open to the international rules of engagement. Singapore's reputed draconian controls need to be relaxed for the sake of future competitiveness of the country. Perhaps for the sake of future survival too.
It is one thing for Singapore to apply domestic methods on domestic affairs. It is yet another to apply such rules to international gatherings. Hopefully, the future leadership of Singapore will be more open to different expressions. Until that happens, the best way to live in Singapore is to be quiet, submissive and obedient.
ks
"The meetings include two days of plenary sessions, during which governors consult one another and address the assembly to present their countries' views on current economic and financial issues. The boards of governors make decisions on how current international monetary issues should be addressed and approve corresponding resolutions."
The IMF has been very prominent in the recent Asian financial crisis, the Brazilian 30 billion USD rescue package and various other financial help worldwide. These meetings are not simply restricted to policy makers. It has an extremely wide economic impact worldwide. (For example, when the IMF approved a multi-billion dollar aid to Indonesia, one of the requirements was the government reduce subsidy on oil for the local Indonesian consumer. That resulted in overall rise in living costs for Indonesians.)
It is easy to point a finger at policies. But those of us who understand the complexities of culture will also understand that it is one thing to make a policy based on statistics within a comfortable air-conditioned, climate controlled closed door office. It is yet another to walk the streets of poverty and feel with the hands the hardship of people living in poor economies. How then do they come up with a policy that incorporates compassion and shrewd economic planning?
OPTION A - Policy Makers alone
OPTION B - Policy Makers + Civil Society groups (CSGs) input
The Singapore meeting more closely resemble Option A now. It has banned many activists from even entering the country. They see them as troublemakers. Option B is perhaps something closer to what we would say 'fair representation of views' necessary for good policy making. As a result of Singapore's efficient bans, CSGs are essentially muted or controlled. Many organizations have called for a boycott. Even Christian Aid organisation has called for a boycott of the Singapore meetings. My feel is that with the Singapore government's banning of prominent CSGs, it will be a long time (if ever), any future IMF events will be held in Singapore. Just like the University of Warwick (prominent University in the UK) which finally decided not to have a campus in Singapore due to restrictions on press freedom, will the IMF/WB and activists ban Singapore in future, as a host for IMF meetings?
If so, this will be a sad situation as Singapore wants to promote immigration into the country and to attract foreign talent. Attracting international talent would meant learning to be open to the international rules of engagement. Singapore's reputed draconian controls need to be relaxed for the sake of future competitiveness of the country. Perhaps for the sake of future survival too.
It is one thing for Singapore to apply domestic methods on domestic affairs. It is yet another to apply such rules to international gatherings. Hopefully, the future leadership of Singapore will be more open to different expressions. Until that happens, the best way to live in Singapore is to be quiet, submissive and obedient.
ks
Monday, September 11, 2006
In Memory - Sep 11
If there is ever any good that comes out of the horror of Sep 11, 2001 terrorism on the US, it is described in this picture. Let us pray.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Time Magazine at it again: "Prosperity Gospel" coverage in Sep 2006 issue
In a rather cheeky way, the title for the Sep 9th issue of TIME magazine is eye-catching. On the one hand, I sense that the media is fast running out of ideas to report on. Iraq, Sep 11, terrorism and various other topics have been done before. So they decided to refocus on the evangelical scene in America.A 'Holy controversy' is a tongue in check phrase. Will a holy entity be enshrouded in controversy? Holiness itself is being set-apart, be separate. It is very clear. How can something holy ever be controversial when holiness is absolutely clear-cut. Holiness is purity. Holiness is a single thought and life in God. Like Soren Kiekeggard's memorable words: "Purity of heart is to will one thing.
Perhaps the interpretation of it is controversial. Holiness is not. Only those who wants it all to be holy and yet remain in sin. Isn't it true that Jesus reminds us that it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, than for a camel to go through the eye of the needle?
Let the press stir up the controversy. It makes more money through controversies. For us the Church, be not distracted. Focus on the task God has set before us.
kianseng
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Regent SEA+Friends Gathering - Fall 2006
We had a sumptious gathering today with visitors from Thailand, Indonesia, Japan and even Hawaii! Enjoy the pictures. Thanks to everyone who contributed and made the effort to be present.
Rice Festival! We have Nasi Brani from Victor, Glutinous rice from ZiKang, Pineapple rice and plain steamed rice.
A sample of the dishes. Green beef curry from Wichai, fried noodles, Prawns (hey I missed that!), LoHan vegetables, curry vegetables galore.
Desserts in their varieties. Watermelon, grapes, strawberries, blueberries, Tea-leaf eggs (from Netherlands!), cakes, even durian dodol!
Finally a group picture.
I had a good time.
Rice Festival! We have Nasi Brani from Victor, Glutinous rice from ZiKang, Pineapple rice and plain steamed rice.
A sample of the dishes. Green beef curry from Wichai, fried noodles, Prawns (hey I missed that!), LoHan vegetables, curry vegetables galore.
Desserts in their varieties. Watermelon, grapes, strawberries, blueberries, Tea-leaf eggs (from Netherlands!), cakes, even durian dodol!
Finally a group picture.
I had a good time.
Poseidon Movie
Watched Poseidon movie for free at the UBC SUB. The movie is an Orientation welcome for new and returning students. Free every night until this Sunday. Movie was impressive in terms of its special effects and the heroic attempts to help one another. Yet there seem to be a subtle hopelessness in a hopeless situation. With the Titanic, the problem is hitting the iceberg. With the Poseidon, there was no way to escape the rouge wave or freak wave.Watch it. It's good.
IMF/World Bank Meeting in Singapore (14-20 Sep 2006)
Some news closer to home.
1) KFC Activists barred from Singapore
2) Ban on Protests will affect Singapore's Image
3) IMF / WB Rebuke Singapore
4) Singapore, Unused to Protests, Girds for World Bank meetings
5) Official Request from IMF/World Bank to Permit CSOs
So the Singapore government has decided that it will not be a repeat of what happened in Hong Kong during the most recent IMF/WB meetings when it hosted the delegates. To cut the long story short, Singapore did the expected: Ban protests. Ban activists from entering the country. Ban everything that can be banned. What does that tell you? The interesting thing is that even IMF/World Bank have specifically requested that 'accredited protestors' must be allowed. So the authorities decided to put all of the protestors in a room instead to do their 'protest.' How effective then will be a matter of how well the press is covering them. Note this words from the IMF/WB themselves: "We have consistently opposed any restrictions on full participation and peaceful expression of views. Open dialogue with civil society is also important for the effective operation of our institutions."
Are the local authorities only capable to settling issues by banning? While some may trumpet the city state as a safe and secure place to do business, the banning activities tell us something else. The security framework Singapore has does not know how to deal with the protests (even though it is safe). They might have the text-book knowhow on how to deal with different political expressions. But their experience in dealing with them are sorely lacking. To put it crudely, one might even think that the security forces are in some ways domesticated.
So have a good meeting. Suppress other expressions of protests and movement in the name of 'safety and security.' A sanitized environment will be good. Totally clean, and the best place to be safe in this world will only be Singapore. Outside sanitized Singapore, can the citizens fare as well? I am no friend of violence. Neither I am supportive of blatant suppression of legitimate expression. While showing the world how good and safe the country is, are the actions also telling the world how intolerant the country is? Yes, 'intolerant of violence' you may say. Have one ever wondered that the reason for violence is usually the inability to manage them? I think the opportunity to show the world how to conduct peaceful protests would have been lost. Singapore would have gained greater credibility if they have succeeded in allowing peaceful protests. By banning, I guess it only shows the draconian aspect.
Lest we forget, the protests are not against Singapore or any of its interest. The protests arises out of a genuine concern on the impact of IMF/World Bank policies. They have world implications for the poor countries, for the economically disadvantaged places. While violence from a few is terrible, the majority of protestors are not violent. They just want to make their point heard, which is not helped in a controlled Singapore media environment.
what about the silent injustice that is happening around the world due to policies from rich nations? Maybe, if possible, someone can ban such injustice. If only life is that simple....
Sometimes I wonder, our heavenly Father looking down on us. If He is a 'banning' God, then many of us will not be here today.
1) KFC Activists barred from Singapore
2) Ban on Protests will affect Singapore's Image
3) IMF / WB Rebuke Singapore
4) Singapore, Unused to Protests, Girds for World Bank meetings
5) Official Request from IMF/World Bank to Permit CSOs
So the Singapore government has decided that it will not be a repeat of what happened in Hong Kong during the most recent IMF/WB meetings when it hosted the delegates. To cut the long story short, Singapore did the expected: Ban protests. Ban activists from entering the country. Ban everything that can be banned. What does that tell you? The interesting thing is that even IMF/World Bank have specifically requested that 'accredited protestors' must be allowed. So the authorities decided to put all of the protestors in a room instead to do their 'protest.' How effective then will be a matter of how well the press is covering them. Note this words from the IMF/WB themselves: "We have consistently opposed any restrictions on full participation and peaceful expression of views. Open dialogue with civil society is also important for the effective operation of our institutions."
Are the local authorities only capable to settling issues by banning? While some may trumpet the city state as a safe and secure place to do business, the banning activities tell us something else. The security framework Singapore has does not know how to deal with the protests (even though it is safe). They might have the text-book knowhow on how to deal with different political expressions. But their experience in dealing with them are sorely lacking. To put it crudely, one might even think that the security forces are in some ways domesticated.
So have a good meeting. Suppress other expressions of protests and movement in the name of 'safety and security.' A sanitized environment will be good. Totally clean, and the best place to be safe in this world will only be Singapore. Outside sanitized Singapore, can the citizens fare as well? I am no friend of violence. Neither I am supportive of blatant suppression of legitimate expression. While showing the world how good and safe the country is, are the actions also telling the world how intolerant the country is? Yes, 'intolerant of violence' you may say. Have one ever wondered that the reason for violence is usually the inability to manage them? I think the opportunity to show the world how to conduct peaceful protests would have been lost. Singapore would have gained greater credibility if they have succeeded in allowing peaceful protests. By banning, I guess it only shows the draconian aspect.
Lest we forget, the protests are not against Singapore or any of its interest. The protests arises out of a genuine concern on the impact of IMF/World Bank policies. They have world implications for the poor countries, for the economically disadvantaged places. While violence from a few is terrible, the majority of protestors are not violent. They just want to make their point heard, which is not helped in a controlled Singapore media environment.
what about the silent injustice that is happening around the world due to policies from rich nations? Maybe, if possible, someone can ban such injustice. If only life is that simple....
Sometimes I wonder, our heavenly Father looking down on us. If He is a 'banning' God, then many of us will not be here today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Latest Posts
