Morality, Science, Religion

The idea that an intrinsic, universal morality exists within us seems to me to be quaint indeed, almost quixotic. If it were to be true, insofar as a set of moral values are imbued within all of us congenitally, then I see little reason why the World could not have turned out better; but truth is, the World is in a state of disrepair, and steadily worsening. Every act of malice seems to point only towards my belief that the morality is a fluid, subjective process. We derive our set of moral values based on our personal experiences. And I believe, too, that reciprocal altruism, or "do unto others what you want others do unto you", does play an ancilliary role in shaping our morality.

There is an incredible tendency for people to confuse the normative and the positive. While it might be arguably true that, as far as morality is concerned, there definitely is some sort of objective standard we ought to follow, reality entails a rather different scenario. How we are able to discern the right from wrong wihout a proper, meaningful influence, or a sound education is baffling indeed. Do these people mean to say that, before we can walk, or learn the art of communication, we are already garnished with a set of internalised moral code, that is invariable from one individual to the other?

To me it seems queer, for it is extremely difficult to ascertain and even justify the independant nature of morality we all possess. Is it right to say that, every individual have common code of morality, nonwithstanding differences in personality, upbringing and external influences?

Take the case to the extreme. Is it not true that everyone recognises that cetain acts are unpardonably opprobrious? Acts such as murder, rape or even robbery? I would like to say that, as usual the distinction between normative and positive is smudged. And in this case even if we would like to acknowledge in unison the repugnance of such acts, clearly reality doesnt concur. And if we were to have an imbued sense of morality, does it not make sense when there are individuals who stray and commit on intent, knowing fully well the deploration of their acts?And of course, there are even cases whereby serial killers find no wrong in what they do, despite the sheer,naked brutality of their crimes. What has happened to this inherent sense of morality? Has it been casually jettisoned for something more arbitrary, more self-referencing and comfortable?

Moral views might be tangential, or even overlapping, but that does not mean morality in its entirety is congruent. For if we were to assert that a certain common set of moral views is internalised in a child since birth, then this must mean therefore, there is universality and consistency among all individuals, but reality is far from the that. What I am suggesting, is that the underlying reason that actually subdues the barbarianism, the streak of malice within us, and that propels the seemingly orchestrated human nature towards attaining the "standard" as aforementioned, is what many scholars termed as "recirocal altruism". We look at murder and grimace in fear at its raw cruelty. We look at rape and we are shaken with apoplectic rage at the foul nature of it itself. Why so? It is highly probable that we see ourselves, subconsciously,as the victim and our brains are tuned to such a hypothetical scenario when we begin to see vicariously through the plights of victims, and being to experience the feeling of being in their shoes. We look at mass muder such as pogroms or even WW2, and we are filled with sorrow and condemnation because we imagine a world of violence, and subsequently a bitter life of struggle that is elucidated, all the more, by the moving accounts of survivors and victims. Indirectly, our perceptions and sensories are heightened and we take the place of these victims.

Science

Sometimes my scientific knowledge is admittedly inadequate, and I am sorry for it, in all sense of the word. I am sorry because I have missed out on the wonderful repository of scientific knowledge that has defined,shaped and transformed the World for the past centuries. I am thankful for everything that I have today, for all this would not have been possible wihout scientific advancement.

The sheer incandescent brilliance of our scientific predeccessors is arguably unparalled and incontrovertibly breathtaking. As much as I marvel at the intricate wonders of nature and the environment, I hold my breath with just as much awe and trepidation at the millions of advancements made possible by Science. I am thankful, truly, because Mankind is ensconced safely on the net of new medical technology and Science. Millions of illnesses and diseases, of which treatment is nearly unthinkable centuries ago, are now open to new cures and remedies. DNA advancement has made a breakthrough in forensic science, allowing Scientist to solve highly complicated criminal cases with greater efficacy and precision.

And here I shall bring in the main topic of discussion. Recently, a convict was exonerated due to new DNA evidence after 16 painful years in the prison, convicted wrongfully of rape and murder.

Firstly, wihout Sciences, is it possible that he might just be stranded in that squalor for his entire life? Highly probable

2nd, does this introduce some really tricky questions to the sanction of the death penalty? Yes.

Death is a be all and end all situation. Sometimes cases like this points to us so dearly that we are but human beings. Imperfect human beings that are just as capable of making mistakes as one another.Death penalty cases are usually highly controversial and very tricky. And we can never rule out the possibility that somewhere down the road (10 , 20 years?) new evidences or even new scientific technology might actually prove the innocence of the convicted. One might argue that robbing 10 full years from an innocent person is cruel and ludicrous, but how about when you rob an innocent person of his life? 10 years worth of life might be hard to compensate, both in the material or non material sense, but life itself?

A person' life, whether a murder or not, wihout guilty or not, is not up to us to manipulate. It is precisely the kind of mistakes, that once committed fills us with despair and regret, and that can never be atoned, let aloned reversed or salvaged, that is driving us to question the need and the validity of a death penalty.

Death Penalty

It is dejecting when you realise that something as egregarious as the death penalty is still sanctioned in a good number of States. I once thought, rather puerily, that every crimes begets a punishment of some sort, and there are those which almost definitely deserve the death penalty. Its was not until when I reached 15, then I started to question the value in killing as a "solution" to a crime (particularly when killing is the crimes itself), and when I started to learn the virtue of compassionate altruism.

Sometimes the idea of revenge fritters away when the very subject of vindictive hatred gets indicted and incapacitated by the law. Consider a close relative of a murder victim. At the heat of the moment, he/she might be predisposed to emotively violent notions of revenge, and might even wish that he/she might be able to dispose of the killer himself. But what purpose does the killing serve after the victim is already dead, and the killer, already imprisoned? George Orwell,in his essay "Revenge is Sour", remarked rather cryptically and facetiously at the same time, that the condition for a victim to exert revenge on Mussolini,the heinous Italian Facist leader, is that he must be dead. So going along with his argument, what purpose does revenge serve after all when the target of it has already been incapacitated?

Sometimes the notion of revenge is abstract. As time withers off, so does the raging impulse to avenge, and the angst, the pulsating desire to effect vengeance on a particular target slowly subsides and then disintegrates. I am not proscribing punishment altogether; I am merely questioning the need to effect punishment in such a way that it takes someone esle's life away (as if lives lost due to the crime itself is not enough). The erudite Mahatma Ghandi remarked that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind" and if the death penalty were to be dispensed with disregard to human conditions such as compassion and mercy, then the World we live in is a very unstable one indeed. As many opponents have mentioned (and i emphasize), taking away someone esle's life does not offer restituition or an absolute bouleversement of the criminal event itself. As in the case of murder, the only satisfaction comes in the form of superficial, very cursory comfort that the killer has been hanged for his crimse, but in real terms, there has not been redemption of any sort. Redemption and restituition occurs when one makes up for his crime by offering various means of compensation, in other words, doing good to make up for one's bad. This I believe is much more sensible and productive than the death penalty, because in the end it is a zero sum conclusion. What can either party gain from the death penalty itself?

Singapore's unflinching attitude in the wake of greater anti death penalty sentiments is embarrassing, and disturbing too. It reminds me of those time when witches were burnt, adulterors were stoned and even at present, of the Middle East where thieves have their limbs severed and women have their faces disfigured for contravening the extremely dysfunctional Islamic laws, which would seem absurd by any standards in the Modern World. And precisely when we judge the penalty through the same vein ,we realise that Singapore is just as regressive and archaic (in its implementation of the death penalty) as the aforesaid nations. A rather enlightening aphrodism I read somewhere, stated that things that would seem most absurd by today's standard, would be completely quotidian and ordinary during the time in which they were being practised. Public flogging, and even buring people at the stakes, seemed too gruesome for us to stomach, yet during those times, these were totally mundane routine punishments, and the people at those times were unlikely to bat their eyelids or give 2 hoots about these sort of punishment.

Yet the World presently has evolved significantly. The reason is too complicated and tenuous for me to properly explain within the constraints of this post itself, but in essence, Mankind has evolved to such an extent that the standards with which we judge certain actions have changed in tandem with the World. We recognise that stoning and public flogging are barbaric, uncivil actions and it is quite unthinkable to actually prescribe punitives that carries a tone of sexual discrimination, as in the Middle East laws whereby men are more likely to get away with sexual crimes than women.

I am not here to be didactic and I am perhaps not qualified to decide whether this changing standards is a progression or a regression, although I am confident that many of us would like to think so. And Singapore, for all her state of art technology and flourishing economy, should know better than most of them that backsliding into archaic territories is not the path we ought to take. We all know how insignificantly small Singapore is and how powerless it is against the overwhelming tides of changes, and when the tide dictates that death penalty is no longer relevant in today's context (and for very good reasons as well), it is time we bite the bullet and concede. This is not about being sycophantically and fawningly obsequetious to the World itself. It is about being able to acknowledge that this piece of our law is indeed a pastiche, an incongruity with our image as a modern nation, an archaic form of punishment that can no longer be justified by today's standards, and no matter how much we try to fight the tides, this fight is ultimately self defeating.

I find it incredibly hypocritical when Singapore argues that each and every country should be left to their own when it comes to enacting the laws that governs them. When Singapore requires trade, foreign talent to bolster its economy, the clarion call for greater foreign trade, investment and even immigration is sounded. Yet when it comes to international consensus and arbitration on issues like this, Singapore remains obstinately enclosed in its own World and defiantly unheeded to international pressure. Singapore is a myrmidon of the World, because her circumstances need her to be so. Is being so resistant to the change damaging to our reputation and our economy? Yes, and I believe the damage is far reaching and manifold.

The death penalty, as argued previously, is an anachronistic piece of legislation that is no longer convincing in Today's world. Singapore leader ought to have been more judicious when reviewing this issue. Right now the damage has already been done. For how long more can we shoulder the effects of the damage before we finally realize the inexorable hurt it has done to our country?

Morality and religion

I find parts of Richards Dawkins "The God Delusion" most enlightening. For example, Richard Dawkins stylishly debunked the popular strawman created by creationist, that some of the most pernicious, noxious leaders in the 20th century, such as Hitler and Stalin, were atheist, and therefore atheism is "Evil". Henceforth, religion is better than no religion.


I find it impossibly difficult to not laugh at such ludicrous beliefs. Hitlers and Stalins were both as short as they are atheist. So by the same vein, being short also implies a causal link to opprobrious, miasmic acts of evil. This fallacy is stupefyingly obtuse, and it speaks volumes of the people who believe,or advance their arguments through the employment of the fallacy itself. Unless people could establish some sort of link between them being aetheist, and the nefarious crimes they commit, (which I doubt they could), this strawman is doomed to crumple. Hitler or Stalin has never invoked "aetheism" as the reason for their indiscriminate persecution, unlike religious wars whereby leaders have invoked the God of Islam, or any other religion, as their trigger point for conflict.

I find it quite interesting though, even though I am a Christian, but nevertheless reading some of the arguments put forth by Dawkins really fascinates me till no end. For example, Dawkins mentioned that the reason why a particular individual is bornt, say, a Christian, and not a Buddhist, mormonist, islamist or any other religious subject, is because we grow up in the particular influence. Our parents carry that sort of religion, and so do our grandparents, and so on ad infinitum. But even though this may be true of America and presumably parts of Europe, what is going on in Asia clearly contradicts his point of view. In Asia, there is an accelerated trend of religious conversion, and more often than not, converts include people who are into adulthood (and hence possess the maturity to make decisions for themselves), who have had religious influence for past many years, and who have been brought up in another religion, usually provincial and traditional in the particular area of living, and which conflicts with the religion to which they switch. The tidal wave of Christianity proselytization in South Korea and China, and even the rest of Asia, is gaining grounds. And this phenomenom defies conventional saying that religion is passed down from one generation to another. Because truly by observing this present trend, one can surmise that these people, thinking conscientious adults, must have had their reasons for choosing that particular religion - Christianity, Islamism etc, especially when they have had many years of past religious teachings imibibed into them and when the scale of conversion is widespread and appears to be gaining greater momentum.

Likewise he mentioned an interesting point, that the reason why Bible is wholly and unquestioningly followed by believers is due to the fact that we have been brought up in a manner devoid of critical thinking, perspective and choices. For example, replace the Bible (while keeping the circumstances i.e teaching someone to believe, to learn in faith etc constant) with any hosh-posh book and the outcome is likely to be very similar, to the point of being predictable. However, what makes the Christian faith so enduring and so widespread is the kind of standing that it has established in modern society. It is not so easy, so to say, that any tosh conjured by any individual, could easily lead to the same effect. There are millions of churches world wide, with even more followers. And theology, especially the Christian faith, is itself a subject with a rigorously researched base and a deep history behind it. So what he said was not entirely right, in the sense that we cannot simply claim that any hosh posh religion conjured arbitarily by any individual (with a certain degree of influence) can achieve the same effect of perpetuity and deep seated beliefs in its subjects, unlike Christianity.

I think one thing noteworthy is that religious followers' unfaltering beliefs in their religions is predicated on one thinking: that their God is true, and his words, absolute. His argument could work only when religious subjects are able to open up to the slightest possibility that their God might be non existent, and then debate from this onwards. But the difference between Scientist and a pious subject is highlighted, in a stunningly crystal-clear description : A scientist will, at the earliest possible time, turned against his own scientific beliefs if there were clear, succint evidence that contradicts it. A religious subject, however, would remain steadfast and resolute in his beliefs, even if all evidence turns againt it. The reason is simple : Science itself is built on evidence and logical reasoning. Religion itself, is built on stilts of faith - unwavering, deep seated faith. How do you use evidence and reasoning to challenge something that has never stemmed from, or established itself on evidence or reasoning?

One thing I definitely concur is that morality and religion are two disparate fields. The argument that the possession of morality is conditional upon one's belief in religion is entirely myopic and is fraught with some measurement of condescension as well as smug, high-handed egoisticism. It is akin to giving a tight slap to non believers, especially decent, civilized ones who have lived their lives honestly and uprightly, only to be labelled as being morally deficient, or in the worst case, bankrupt, just because they did not have any particular beliefs. Richard Dawkins argued quite cogently, using a particular research as his focal point, and advanced that right and wrong are concepts that are almost agreeable between believers and non believers alike. The research results was very telling; save for the slight anomaly of about 3%, most of their views (based on the scenario given to them) were converged and extrapolated to an almost absolute consensus. However, this research isnt very adequate, because the most contentious, disputed fields are left out of his reasoning. Fields such as homosexuality, abortion and cloning, were (perhaps deliberately) left out of the table of discussion. I guess Dawkins has foreseen this point, because he laid a subtle disclaimer that there were certain issues that both believers are non believers believe to an almost unanimous degree. To me it seems kinda ambiguous, as though he is saying that the moral views of both believers and non believers coincide, to the extent that they coincide when contentious, factious issues are left out. I can safely assert that if there ever were such a survey, where non believers and believers are given a questionaire regarding homosexuality, the results are likely to be polarised.

Nevertheless, Dawkins also laid out a long explanation of why religious subject could not possibility construct their morality based on religous teachings. He highlighted various passages from the Bible, describing the sheer malice and repugnance in the contents, and I must admit I was duly shaken. This begets a good question. One cannot possibly derive his morality on such teachings. This led Dawkins to further expound his view that religion is picked and chosen by religious subjects capriciously, and tailored to their wishes and arbitration. For example, he mentioned that peole are likely to gloss over grossly violent texts as being symbols, allegories or with various kinds of dismission. He then expressed his disbelief that people who claimed to follow a particular religion, could actually decide, in a self referencing and discretional way, what to follow in the literal sense and what to follow in the symbolic sense. And further on, since individuals cherry-pick, there must have been a criterion which they follow. This leads him to think that this criterion, is the general, universal morality which we all possess, in spite of religion or not. I must concede that some of the texts in the bible itself is rather distasteful and even unbearably chauvinistic ( as in women are subjects of men), gory( as in the smitings and stonings) and even odiously macabre and morbid ( as in many instances of sacrificial).

This is as much as I can say today, but still I would like to end with a note that what makes religion so unprecedentedly antagonistic, inflammatory, and rancourous is because of the way people are taught, and even more the way people carry their beliefs. Belief itself, reduced to its very essence, is simply the belief in the betterment of the World and the people in this World, and this betterment could be achieved wholly and successfully only through God's might. But lamentably, religion has been distorted, convoluted, caricatured,twisted and manipulated (perhaps unintentionally, since beliefs passed down through generations are bound to be marinated with half truths, unreliabilities and myths) by people themselves. My personal view has always been that of moderation and respect. Faiths should never be imposed and impinged upon other people. More importantly, echoed by Richard Dawkins, faith should never, more so, be spread wihout the individual autonomy and availability of choice. Recently, I have witnessed a strong, aggressive desire from the Church to aggrandize and spread their influences and beliefs. While this itself is not inherently wrong, since from a rather benign view, spreading faith in goodwill, whilst maintaining the individuals autonomy and freedom isnt really a harmful thing. However,rather sadly, I have seen religious factions and groups aggressively, and even antagonistically, advancing their beliefs on other territories and having complete disregard to individuals fundamental right. Such example is manifested in a report I read, where a group of Christians picketed the funeral of a deceased soldier, who was believed to be a homosexual. Religion takes its form in many different shapes and size, but this form is spectacularly deleterious and baneful. The poor solider went to the frontline, sacrificed his life for the country and all he got was this from a group of pharisiac believers. No religion, in my view, can have the monopoly over what is right, what is wrong, what kind of life is worth living etc. Why? 4 simple reasons. One, there are too many religions. Neither can prove itself, or be proven , that it is above all. Two, religion itself is not exempt from internal schism, factions and partisan-ship. 3, religious subjects themselves are as imperfect, and as capable of committing crime and sin, as non religious ones. 4 The veracity of religion cannot be validated. But saddeningly what is happening is that some Christians are getting bellicuse and didactic, expecting or even wanting people to adhere, to their way of teaching, against their will and consent, which is absurb. We should never proscribe the individual's right of choice, as we are no moral authority. We can not assert upon others our beliefs behind the false veneer of God, which is shameful and sanctimonious. God's name should never be exploited or contrived for one's own purposes. I believe in explaining to people the meaning of God, and my religious beliefs if need be, but never press upon others to follow suit, never colour my religion , never provide blinkered, false information ,and most importantly, never hate or strong-arm non believers. I live my my life in the name of God, and truly, why care excessively about other people when we cannot even take care of our own backyards? I am contented to live a quiet life holding a personal fruitful relationship with God in a peaceful, non infringing way. Maybe its just me.

Religion (2)

A couple of days ago, I have a friend launching a personal thrust on my religion. For example, he questioned the validity of its teachings, and the highly dubious nature of the bible, and contended that religion is something we could all do wihout, since, in his opinion, religion has nothing but conflicts to offer to the world in the past century.

I came aross an article by a self proclaimed atheist, who questioned the need for a religion and the veracity of belief that religion is the undergirding of morality, and wihout the former there will be no latter. He brought up the fact that he has brought up his kids in an atheistic, non religios background and how they have turned out to be respectable, decent adults with a reliable and favourable sense of morality. He then questioned the moralities prescribed by the Bible, deemed them as archaic, unrealistic and maleficient , and finally concludes that it is therefore not neccessary to have a religion in order to be morality, in other words, morality and religions are mutually exclusive. Let us examine this.

The grey area between morality and religion is highly contestable. Let us set the record straight, morality does not equate to religion, vice versa. I do agree that morality does not have to depend on religion, and an aetheist can be just as morally upright as a religious subject. But the subtle difference is that while aetheist believes that the ability to tell the right from wrong is imbued in humanity itself, religious subjects believe that human itself is too incapacitated and blinkered to judge the right from the wrong themselves, and hence only a superlative form of being, such as God, is able to guide us towards such an ideal state.

In my opinion, the bible does not so much as steer me towards knowing what was right from wrong. Before I even muttered my first biblical verse, or conducted my first prayer, I knew murder was opprobrious, rape was deplorable, and grieviously wounding other people is unmitigated malice. However, lying to me is conditionally dependant, homosexuality is commiserative and animal torture highly loathsome. I have previously mentioned that the peripheries of morality are sometimes tangential or even overlapping in some case, in which we can all presume that aetheists and religious subjects ought to denounce such unpropituous act as murder. But when it comes to homosexuality, lying and other highly factious divisive issues, is individual autonomy and discretion truly sufficient, or even capable enough, to offer the answers or judgement?

The human mind is quivery and irresolute. And many people, me included, do not wish to yield to the caprices and whims of our imperfect nature. Deep inside, we all know ourselves how inconsistent and flawed our natures are. And because of this and this alone, we would rather submit ourselves in fawning, resolute obsequiousness to a divinely, omnipotent being,God himself, that transcends all human tentativeness, falterings and flaws. For example, let us consider the case of a homosexual. I will have to concede that logically speaking, pro-gays camp are much more terse and lucid in their reasoning. But let me demonstrate the tentative nature of human being, we judge by the context. In the case of a pro gay individual, what is he is sodomised by a gay in a public toilet? Cases like this of course, are far and few between in Singapore but it does happen. Will this change his opinion? Yes. Because he has been victimised and it is difficult for him to dissociate the sexual identity of the assilant from his nature. Truly in all communities there are black sheeps, and the entire gay community cannot be held accountable for an single act of turpitude and perversity, yet in reality this would happen because the fact that the assailant is gay will lend greater malevolence to the act itself and inevitably the whole community gets tarred by the same brush. So clearly this victim will vacillate from a pro gay position to an anti gay one. Such is the faltering nature of human nature, so strictly speaking many will choose to subscribe to their religion as a absolute guide. If it is truly difficult to judge an issue, it is better to leave it in the hands of God who has the autonomy and the power to decide for us.

There have been religious conflicts in the past century, but one must honestly question whether religion is the malefactor or human intolerance and belligerence. Religion is used by many as a refuge for personal tirade, or even in case of national conflicts, scathing crusades in sectarian warfares (such as Sh'ias and shi'ites). Religion do not dictate the killing or the intenion of such; human themselves propagate such misinformation, inflame religious emotions and invoked the word of God to serve their personal agenda against other religions they detest. And in other case, individuals grow up in environment that is intrinsically hostile and aversive towards other religion, and as a result they grow to internalise such hatred wihout even a slightest knowledge of the origins and reasons of hatred. Many have been awashed in such a vehement, pestiferous smog to such an extent that such unfounded hatred and disdains perpetuates down the generations. In my previous post, I suggested a radical proposition - that religion is merely a cloak, a subterfuge for bigotry and prejudice, whether intentional or not. Religion reduced to its most fundamental essence has never prescribed any form of violence, hatred or killing, yet it has served as a platform for people to stir, to mislead, to confound and to divide because of their personal odium and antagonism towards other racial groups.

And while admittedly Christians have yet to muster the bible and fail to conform and accede to the bible in its entirety (I doubt this would ever be possible), and even if we fall short of the highest standards of Biblical teachings, we are still steadfastly moving towards that direction, instead of any other. The Bible is more than just a book of values, it also provides us a dab of objectivity in a World of inconsistency and sentention. True enough, we might not be obeying the Bible, such as not shaving , yet we know that such disobedience is because of the constraints of our age and time instead of our own defiance and intentional disobedience. And even for those who condemn The Bible's highly improbable moral pedagogy, at least we find comfort in the fact that we don't follow in the footsteps of our own unreliable judgement. Many things in life are a result of poor judgement and erroneous lapse in decision making, so how can we extend such acts of judgements to other areas of our lives?

In conclusion, I find it so shallow and parochial to judge other religons because one has such an inadequate and insufficient understanding of such religion. Islamism bans the consumption of pork, The Jehovah Witness bans Military service of all forms, yet it is not within us to decide whether such acts are valid or not. Because the history and the intricacy of such religion far surpass our existence and too complicated for us to stomach. To hold a religion in contempt is to be disrespectful, because unlike normal food critiques, religion is not something one can ever fully comprehend, and it is as sensitive as, say, one's most intimate details such as sexual life. Criticism of one' sexual prowess is deemed as a demeaning indignation and an insult, and this view should also be allowed for religion too.

Capitalism

I came across a rather interesting Chinese talk show today. Its focus was on capitalism and whether the increasing income inequality was a favourable or acceptable by product of capitalism. Some rather interesting points were brought up, which I would only be too glad to add in this discussion.

China, for its vast land size and large demographical size, is a little overdue for the capitalism bandwagon. Despite having a relatively immature capitalist system, China is already impregnated with some of the adverse effects of capitalism - income inequality, inequity and environmental degradation. The question is, can more be done to cushion the detrimental impacts of capitalism?

In China, the amount of super rich - multimillionaires and billionaires - are swelling. And this trend is heading upwards. If nothing esle, the projected figure is set to balloon by 2 fold in a decades time, which is frankly speaking a rather subdued estimation. Many has feel that with the increase in cost of living, the barriers to wealth has subsequently increased. Wealthy people have considerable leverage in terms of money, influence and even land, and the poor on the other hand faces a playing field tipped in favour of the rich and powerful. Such has led to increase cynicism among the poor and economist, who view the stretch of income gap has a lamentable issue that should be rendered more attention from the government.

Capitalism, even for its pitfalls, is ultimately a paragon of wealth creation. This is not an issue that concerns whether China should dissociate itself from capitalism and hark back to the former days of socialism and communism because it is no longer relevant and realistic. China has, with the benefit of hindsight, recognize that capitalism is what they need to propel the country and fight neck to neck with the West, and Deng promptly steered the country towards capitalism and get the country together from the messy shambles of communism. Rather, it is a question of how much leeway should be accorded and how much should be curtailed to exploit the most of capitalism while minimizing the subsequent ill effects of it.

China has opened up considerably, liberalizing trade as well as business conditions, and the influx on investment and the freeing up of private markets have given rise to a new social cadres of superrich.Most capitalise on the property market and made a sizeable fortune out of it, and this has raised more than one eyebrow since China is after all, living in the shadow of its socialist past, whereby people still have lingering memories of equitable allocation of resources. 20 years is not short, but yet not long enough for people to uncouple themselves from the notions of communism that has been entrenched in their country for far longer than capitalism has. So achieving too much during such a short span of time is indeed a feat that is remarkable, yet rigged with problems. With mega cities slated for construction and impending renovations, many poors are increasingly disillusioned by displacements and erosion of some of the old landscapes and structures. Even the new China demands greater knowledge (shares market, property markets etc) and expertise which obviously is lacking in poorer, less educated people. So with the poor finding themselves edged out of competition, and subsequently stifled and stuck at the lowest rungs, can there be any solutions to address this problem, or is it consigned to a fate of inevitability?

Some has mentioned that capitalism is not a zero sum game. They believed that the rich and the poor need not be polar, antithetical opposites and that the idea of the rich and the poor coexisting is not an incongrurity. The rich has paved a new course for China, and the poor indeed could be beneficial recipients in an age of weath and opulence. They argue that with increasingly affluent Chinese and the sprouting of mega firms all over China, taxes revenue would be boosted and more could be channel to aid the poor. And more consequentially, with richer Chinese, the poor could help themselves as more jobs are created. One of the greatest hurdles of China is the lack of infrastructure and societal conditions, and this increase in affluence could help to bolster and create such favourable conditions neccessary for China to grow.

The truth is, given China's demographics, population and land size, it is impossible for everyone to feast on the benefits of Globalisation. The country's startling, unbridled growth might not be commensurate with the increase in wealth of the average citizen, as is any other capitalist countries in the world. Capitalism offers a cornucopia of riches, but as they say, only those who are worthy of it would be able to partake in the feast of capitalism. There are trade offs in the path of capitalism, and as most will attest, those who indeed make it rich usually possess a keen sense of acumen or a sharp vision that differentiates them from the many who never managed to leap the hurdle. People just don't get rich overnight; and whether one accepts them or not, one ultimately has to concede that these people worked for it, and just for that they deserve a decent level of respect.

THE KITE RUNNER

I have finished reading yet another book titled The Kite Runner. The debut by Afghanistani American author Khaled Hosseini is lauded with numerous accolades, including amongst all, being "third best seller for 2005 in the United States, according to Nielsen. BookScan.[2] It was also voted 2006's reading group book of the year. Hosseini's first novel headed a list of 60 titles submitted by entrants to the Penguin/Orange Reading Group prize (UK).[3]" (Courtesy of Wikipedia).

The Kite Runner is a moving and intimate account of a young boy in Afghanistan, superimposed on the state of affairs in Afghanistan. The story flows with an introspective touch, and in many instances, the author is grappled by the spectres of his haunting past. The intial pages are centered on the protaganist life in Afghanistan. The author gave us a glimpse into the rarefied life of an upper-class household in Afghanistan. Baba, the father of Amir, is a highly successful businessmen with an even more impressive heritage that precedes him. The author introduces him as a formidable figure of austere demeanour, and highlighted especially the estrangement between Baba and his son. This eventually proves to be one of the key undergirdings of the story.

Slowly, the characters of Hassan and Ali are introduced. Ali is a servant of Baba, having worked through 3 decades in the household and having grown up with Baba together. Hassan is the son of ali, a illiterate, yet athletic and sanguine character. From the outset, the author has elucidated and reinforced the close-ness of the relationship between Hassan and Amir. Slowly the readers are given the impression that Hassan and Amir are no longer divided by hierachal milieu but instead are inseperable playmates, spending huge portion of their time frolicking together.

However, slowly the author jerked the readers back to the ambivalence coursing through Amirs mind. In many instances, Amir expressed implicit jealously,and many a times this is succeeded by a sort of passive dislike for, ironically, his "inseparable playmate". As mentioned earlier, the author has lived a childhold mired in negligence and dysfunction, and the author made plenty of effort to illustrate this. Baba always exclude him from discussions, while Amir has to make do with sitting down outside the room and eavesdropping on such discussions. And Baba was always stoically indifferent, and his reserved nature did not help much. All this culminated in one single sentence which reached the ears of Amir, with Bapa saying that had he not seen Amir come out from his mother's womb, he would not have thought this child to be his. This was the clincher, and this subsequently worsened Amirs dislike for Hassan, from a milder form to somewhere near vindictiveness.

From then on, the author superbly leads the readers into a world of guilt, of salvation, of restituition. More importantly, the author has cleverly interweave Afghanistan as a context into the personal experience of Amir, and hence the book served a larger purpose than just offering a story on love, regret, guilt, kindness. It also opened the readers eyes to the shocking travails in Afghanistan, with its languid societal progress, with the tyrannic and brutal Taliban regime, with the far reaching influence of religion, with the economic malaise that purveys throughout the regime, and most importantly, how both external and sectarian wars have torn the country asunder. Through the eyes of Amir, we are able to vicariously see the world of Afghanistan and more importantly, the real insufferable conditions faced by the true victimes of war - the Afghanistan commoners. This is manifested in the frequent displacements (indeed this was the reason why amir and baba moved from their house to Pakistan and further on to America) caused by war disruptions and devastations, and also in the abject poverty that has crippled the entire country.

If nothing esle, The Kite runner deserves a read because of the very humane issues it protrays. Compelling, gripping and moving, The Kite runner promulgates a closet issue that many of us have avidly avoided - all of us live in the shadows of our guilt and regret. There is a dirty linen in all of us and the real barrier to absolving ourselves of such a smear is not so much an outsider as we ourselves. We are the real cumbents, the real barriers, and the inertia to amend and rectify is due to our intrinsic tendency to hide from our less than glamorous past. So despite the ugliness within all of us, the more important thing is not recognise that we are not stainless, and similarly to possess the courage to step forth and take charge of all the wrongs that we have done, because rectifying late, is better than not doing so at all.

Neil Humphrey: Notes from an even smaller island

I read his first book, so I knew what was coming in this book. And so it came, never losing the kind of satirical, and maybe in a way flippant wit that has come to represent him as much as his writing style.

It was contagious and reading through it was sort of reading through an auto-biography, because much of it were brutally honest yet all too true projection of the daily life in Singapore - magnified through his personal quirks and idiosyncrasis, and of course, dabbed with a sense of self deprecating humour. Many of his descriptions quickly transformed into tasteless, almost unremorseful digs at issues such as the local female obsession with expatriates, or even the absurdity when it comes to the government poking their fingers into every single pie they can find. With tongue in cheek, Humphrey displays a admirable sort of intrepidity (presumably because he was bornt and educated overseas) and could be unapologetically and unfetteredly flippant towards issues as he deemed fit. This book might touch a few raw spots or chafe a couple of nerves - but at the end of the day, we all know it is all done in good o'le fashioned fun.

The Last Juror : Thoughts on it

I have just finished reading "The Last Juror" by John Grisham, and admittedly it was a fascinating and entertaining read to say the least.

This book was different in a way that it did not offer the run-of-the-mill fast and fury action flick that underlies most of his previous works. In a rather light, almost moderate fashion, John Grisham retreats to a more subtle, meandering approach. He sketches an innocuous story about a young inexperienced greehorn named Willie Traynor and his larger than life experience in a town with a propensity for controversial, to even deadly crimes. Throughout the plot, Grisham was unreservedly candid, mirroring what he deemed as the viccissitudes of life which any average small town citizen would have undergone during the 1970s - racism, religious zealotry, bribery, and even the dichotomy in war sentiments during the Vietnam War Era. I was not least intrigued by his exploration of the rampancy of corruption and bribery as well as even the far reaching, gripping effects of racism - something that was manifested in every nooks and crannies of society; from the schools children attend to even the public water fountain (which a black wouldnt dream about drinking from it). Despite departing from his usual fast paced, shock-and-awe style of narration, this insipidity does impart so invaluable knowledge on the state of affairs of the American judicial system, partly that of a small town, and how the interplay of various factors could influence and even undermine the process itself. Which is both distasteful yet insightful, and to do so in such a nuanced manner markedly displays his flair of writing - especially so when this work is actually a experimential branch-out into newer areas of narrative writing. And in a inexplicable way, this ingenuous piece of story motivates me in a very real way. There are insidious evil social forces at work, but at least there are those that would fight these tides of darkness, who are fiercely preservative of the integrity of society, and who simply, are genuine epitomies of tolerance, graciousness and civility as demonstrated by the affable, endearing and erudite Ms Miss Callie Ruffin.

Religion (1)

The Economist ran an 18 page special on the issue of religion and politics, kickstarting with an article on the influence of mega churches in south korea followed by historical anecdotes and illustration of conflicts, both sparked and ended by religion itself. I will begin to examine, through a series of self imploration and empirical observations, how religion have affected the politics and the world as we know of today.

Religion is such a inundatingly vast and controversial topic that the method of approaching it is itself much of quandary. Perhaps because of the old saying that therein every religion "lies a sacred cow", that many people tend to hold the reins and pull the brakes before deciding whether or not to put forth that kind of unrestrained, unfettered comments they have in mind. Richard Dawkins, one of the most critical, vocal aethist of the 21st century, echoed this point in his book " The God Delusion", by arguing that there was seemingly something so divinely and so sacrosanct in religion that any mere benign arguments against religion is seen as act of disrespect, indignation or blasphemy. In the area of social discourse, the unrestricted freedom to voice one's view is the greatest impetus to change and improvement, but in the field of religion, this freedom is notably absent. Thus in a way religion is quite a rarefied realm of its own, unlike what Dawkin has alluded to, religious comments, or even arguments against religion, are not the usual ubiquitous movie,restaurant critique one can find in any newspaper. Religion is an, quite simply put, exceptional case.





Modern world religion takes the many different shapes and sizes. Christianity for example stresses more on proactive proselytization - and it is little wonder that the South korean christian community, as stated in The Economist, has grown dramatically over the past few years. Many skeptics has posed question to this startling rate of religious growth, accruing this phenomenom to aggressive tactics as aforesaid. Churches are now involved in a drive in a scale larger than ever - and the outreach of church has been favourably bolstered by the increase in the number and scale of churches and the permeation of christianity - related materials. Even the recent connondrum regarding the Christians evangelical groups being held hostage in Iraq has lent a voice to the up and rising Christian community in South Korea. It is hard to resist thie overarching tidal wave of influence, especially, as some critics have claimed, when many people are emotionally yielding, faltering, prostrate and irresolute. Such a quivery form of human nature definitely opens doors to religious doctrines, especially in times of uncertainty.





But one must scratch the surface and go beyond mere cursory observations. In a world that is changing so rapidly - for better or worst - people derive huge comfort in knowing that there is something static and constant amidst the overwhelming drive of change. For overnight merchants could become paupers and technology barriers be overrun; fear is creeping into people who feel that this uncertainty is certainly too much for them to bear. For them, religions provides a source of comfort that amidst a transient and ephemeral world lies an eternal being that is resistant to all changes.





Some people argued that globalisation has taken its toll, both physically and psychologically on mankind. Many people argued that through the pervasive trangression of Western pop culture beyond national boundaries, even beyond cultural markers, religion was the only pivot left that people could cling on to amidst the purported sludge of decadence. People see globalisation, and and the spill over effect of cultural permeation as not only an impugnation on their way of life, but also a derision against their culture and a smack in the face of morality; something that many had believed to be a scarce trait, barely traceable in modern 21 st century. People see this Western influence as invasive, akin to a malignant cancerous cells that spreads throughout the body with such impunity and such audacity, and in short- as a retrogression, into a dismal state of disrepair and decline. Claiming that with the influx of offensive culture by products such as pornography (which is ironic since Asia itself is as culpable for the pornography culture, if not more), such as homsexuality, such as upsized fast food chain and degrading movie which spreads anti establishment values. So it is not quite difficult to see how panicky and disorientated some of them have been - and quite simply, they revel in the solace and comfort that God could provide. In this age where morality is as subjective as it gets, The Bible could just be their answer to a universal code of moraliy - something they believed to be unchanging and cast in stone throughout the various historical nodes. And they believe that such religious teachings could reverse the tide of western erosion of values and even self degradation- for the teaching of Bible focuses on the issue of redemption and salvation. People are becoming increasingly afraid, even to the extent of disillusioned, thanks in no small part to constantly reminders from media, from environment, and even from preachings that mankind is indeed headed for doomsday because humans are irredeemably and unrepentantly sinful. This enchanched the perennial sense of guilt and fear, two very potent ingredients for religiosity. After all, when one sees such casual, loose and florid display of catastrophes in the media - the very sort of news that could sensationalize and captivate - one is predisposed to guilt and repentance. And God would be their answer to the unresolved problems on Earth that seemed never ending.


Of course, then there are those who view religion as more of a personal compass. Religion has for many, become more of a lifestyle where they have an avenue to vent their frustration or seek solace amidst the bedlam of globalisation and even technological progress. Indeed, many pined for the supposed halcyon days when society is much more organised, structured and definitely more ordered. Comparatively, the modern world seems more of a messy and clumsy heap of dischords and incongruity, with no moral diction whatsover to guides its course. People feel there is the presence of an omniscient, omnipotent power that far supercedes and circumvents the limits and boundaries of human capabilities. This superlative form of being is so enamoured by many because people feel gratified that even in times of despair and travail, someone is there to aid, to administer, to remedy. Even the mere thought of it would bring infinite comfort to people - people who question the incapacity of humanity and also humanely beings to transfuse the ultimate values of love and compassion to one another. Only religion is able to offer this.

Of course, religion itself is prone to competition, both from outside and within. As mentioned earlier, Christianity itself is centered on active proselytization, which may be seen as jeopardizing the interest of other religion due to their aggresive push. Buddhism on many other hand relies more on self enlightenment and attainment, and so methods of recruitment are kept at bay and mostly innocuous and less pronounced than Christianity. But as of late, the unusually encroaching, rampant execution of unbridled proselytization has pertubed many religious leaders - in what many see as an encroachment of religious berth and territory. Hence in a rather visceral, knee jerk reaction fashion, Buddhists in Korea , usually receded from public domaina and precincts, have emerged and clamoured to build more monastaries in a bid to breathe amidst stifling greater clout from competing religion. this situation is real - and it is excarcebating. And in time, it might just trigger a potential clash between religions and break the status quo of live and let live. Only time will tell.

Of course, these are external concerns. Religion itself is not exempt from parochial provincial concerns. Problems at their doorsteps are a pain in the ass, a nip in the bud. From a orgy of embarrassing scandals to internal strike between competing factions, religion itself may not seem that impregnable after all. Ted Haggard, a former American evangelical preacher, was shamed into retirement due to a string of scandals in which he was alleged to have had sexual transactions with homosexual prostitutes, despite preaching fervently against homosexual and same sex marriage. Even the face of Christianity has seen the never ending distrust and altercation between Protestants and Catholics, a conflict that has only seen the better of the light in recent years, but has yet to subside. Why has religion so ironically been worshipped and revered by people for the supposed immaculate truth and values it upholds, although it itself is plagued with such scandals and unrest?

A former divinity professor in Harvard professes that religion is much akin to a quagmire, while there is no certain path other than one towards strife, distrust, and intolerance. Magnify this, and you get a rancorous, odious conflict between different religions. Why is there such insidious and inexplicable hatred between religions? Some tries to argue that the teachings and dictions of every particular religion does not permit the kind of consensus or compromise that we have, for so long, tried to inculcate and nurture. For example, many religion steers believers towards the existence of the One and Only Almighty God, and such a prescribed form of religious pedagogy cannot possibly offer berth or accomodate the idea of religion coexistence. And as The Economist wisely pointed out, religion just cannot offer that kind of plurality or freedom of speech that raw democracy offers. If one argues that a certain act is divinely ordained as immoral, or that a certain land is divinely ordained as belonging to the particular sect of religion, is any logic or evidence likely to convince them of otherwise.

But religion is not wihout its upsides too. Many believed that religion has awarded a platform that allowed people to discuss in a amiable way, various ways of improving the welfare of mankind. This kind of healthy discussion, they say, is neccessary and defintitely harmless. In more specific ways, religion has springboarded US aid into poverty stricken, or disease stricken countries such as Aid, brought attention to the abject prevailing problems of child trafficking and prostituition in Asia and condemn, rather appropriately, the lack of concerted effort in styming such atrocities.

But efforts of religion to stick their finger into the controversial pies are hamstrung - and deservedly so. The Economist painted a rather plain picture of how religions has rejected some of the notions of modernity, including, amongst many, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, or even to the more technical inanimate issues such as capitalism. Religion argues that chronological snobbery is used to buttress the frittering away of moral values through apertures of globalisation - much like the process of percolation whileby age old commendable, righteous and meritous values are slowly filtered off. This is true in some sense, but let us zero in on the case of contraception in the Philippines. In the poorer parts of the country, many families are unncessarily overburdened by the abundance of offsprings. The "conservation religious teachings" has cast a disapproving eye on contraception, and many of these poor people are hands tied. As one of them put it plainly, asking for contraception device is almost impossible since most of these are banned in their country already. And as a result, these people have far more children than their financial capability could well afford, and these has cost them dearly. Recently, the suicide of a young 11 year old girl has affirmed this point of view : Somethings being unduly religious does open up more to problems rather than solving it, as so they claimed. Such poverty stricken families have become the unwitting lambs to the slaughter. Even a recent case when a medical doctor refused treatment to a rape victim simply because his religion does not permit him to do so has sparked controversy. Despite religious denounciation of abortion, this case was unconvertibly tragic. This was a one off single event of abuse, act of treachery, malignance, unscrupulousness and despicableness, and it is even more opprobrious when one intentionally witholds appropriate treatment and even forced abortion of this ill-fated victim. What has religion done in this instance? A prescient professor of economics once commented that, " It is pharisiacism at the worst when the religious dogmas, that are embraced by pious followers at zero cost, are superimposed on other unwitting individuals who are consequentially faced, counterproductively, with even greater problems than those that these religious texts purportedly claim to solve."

Richard Dawkins has articulated with such panache and semaphoric precision that religion is not so much of a autonomous, discrete choice than a imbibed, trickled-down heritage. By default children are bornt into christian families as christians; and this perhaps blinkers their view to alternative perspectives or prospects, and perhaps explain the aversiveness and abhorence certain religions display to each other. Young children are already at the mercy of religious vitrolia and conflicts - with young Shi'ites being desseminated and indoctrinated religious resentment and antipathies against conflicting religion. This can in a way explain the seemingly in built, predilected and propensity for strife and conflict - and to explain the perpetuality of this state of affairs. Children are bounded and haunted by past spectres of religious fracas, and they believe that it is natural and imperative to continue this line of behaviour and thought that their parents have exercised over their lifetime. Hence the strife prevails.

Of course globalisation, however denounced by religious doctrines, does lend a springboard for religion to spread its influence. One must not forget that wihout globalisation religion would not have been able to spread with such efficacy and ferocity. Globalisation enabled the untrammeled flow of religious text, groups and influence, and allowed the influence of certain form of Islamism - a more austere sombre one - to precipitate. In fact globalisation was unquestionably a catalyst in the spread of religious teachings. Pious subjects could cross national boundaries with unbridled ease, religion was accorded greater avenues for manisfestation, such as the world wide web. The unhampered transnational flow of human traffic has exposed certain religions to people who otherwise would never have encountered them had globalisation not effected such a convenience in cross boundary travel. So it is rather ironic for religions to write off globalisation with such ease.

Many people have argued that religion does not live up to the standards it preached, as echoed by Oxford professor Mailey Jenkins. She argued that religious supposed immaculate and sacred teachings are in fact no more than doctrines of sanctimony and contempt and that the subjects of its teachings in fact cannot stand up to scrutiny. In this age where skeptics and critiques against religion (or even atheist) are bedeviled as perfidious, dissolute and morally deficient infidels, it is perplexing when the religious subjects themselves are not exempt from such wrongdoings or moral miscarriage that their religious teachings have deplored. She also argued that the inconsistency of behavior based on religion doctrines is astounding. Many argued that for religion to be credible or even probable, one has to allow all his behaviours be circumscribed by his religious teachings, unlike the kind of arbitration or discretion in which many people exercise when practicing religion. For critics believed that for religion to truly have a unyielding creditable basis, one has to truly live up to the dictions of his religion, or esle religion itself would be mere ring hollow - vacuous, maladroit and desolote. Under such antes of religion one would be hard pressed to find any religious subjects who would actually fit the bill. In modern day terms such as religion and morality has been bandied about carelessly. Many has casually tailored religion to fit their own needs, to the extent of resonating with teachings that they concur while turning a nelsonian eye or feigning ignorance to texts which obviously do not suit their lifestyles nor their agendas. One cannot possibly canvass his own religious compass and pick and choose - for one to truly lay claim to a certain religion, one has to commit himself resolutely to religion in its entirety. It might sound a little extreme - but if religion loses its objectivity, is it not just a mere human belief rather than something transcendentally and superlatively divine?

Yet herein lies a caveat : Religion itself and its subjects should be seperated. Perhaps religion is not the cauldron of acrimony; Mankind is. Since centuries ago, philosophers have questioned whether religion has been despicably and unscrupulously used by Mankind as a subterfuge for personal agendas. For many religion is merely a platform to voice their displeasure over unsavoury issues such as homosexuality. Oxford professor J Thompson lamented that "Unfortunately religion has become a venue for people to echo their personal disagreements in a more pronounced and a more unified position". Such solidarity unfortunately might not be binded by religion as much as it is by similar antipathies against certain behaviours. Religion lends authority to such voices of displeasure - people may argue that their distaste for certain behaviours is morally right because God said so, and this becomes a cul de sac for democratic discourse. All the rules of discourse would subsequently be thrown out of window because logic just cannot withstand the omnipotence of God himself, and all this happens while people rant behind the veneers of their religion. and they have a reason to be smug about it.

But one thing that we know for sure : religion is here to stay and so it will. Prognostications from previous century that religion would be a "thing of a past" and inexorably recede in the face of modernity have been proven wrong. And nothing is more certain than the incumbency of religion and its place in the modern world. Religion would continue to drive, resolve or interlocute conflicts. And whether we like it or not, mankind still prefers the idea that there is a omniscient being beyond that keeps the Earth in good shape. Because the idea of Earth still surviving (miraculously) wihout the presence of God despite the seemingly imperfectness of human being just does not make sense. So perhaps there really is a God. Or perhaps it is really not that important if there is one or not.Believing that there is one is all that matters.

Myanmar

The travesty in Myanmar has deeply confirmed my prognostication that the world is bounded for a future that is sombre, bleak and devoid of the capacity to love and care for each other as human beings.

Universal denouncement of the Myanmar pernicious crackdown on Monks and her citizens has been unequivocal, but where art the actions? The tangible, concrete, credible actions that can actively put an end, or at least stall the situation from getting worst through intervention. But this form of initiated intervention has not seen the light yet, and it is no thanks to the cringeworthily selfish behaviour of Aseans, China. India and any other countries which could have done beyond adminstering reproach and censure statements.

It is naive to think that collectively countries have no leverage over Myanmar. What the heck! Myanmar is an appendage of Asean, of China, of India, and yes, an hopelessly dependant, reliant one at that too. If after years of "Asean engagement" all they could offer to the table in light of such atrocities are "statements" that "urge" Myanmar to "desist from the use of force" and to exercise "restraint" then I feel sorry for us all. These statements are shamefully blunt and hidely pack a punch, and hence these "collective efforts" have left nothing more than a whimper of the Generals' ears, and a lingering, thumping sense of choler and ire in our hearts. I believe that Aseans has been fettered and restrained to a fault, and this cop-out method of cheap talks and no actions reeks of ineptness and patronage! Ah yes, as if these little buzz would actually tilt the opinions of the despotic generals in the other a single bit.

Franky speaking, it is appalling no less to witness such inanity and incompetence from the neighbouring countres. What is presented to us is unmitigated raw violence - and leaving Myanmar with possibly nothing to redeem itself out of the savagery and atrocities it has intisgated against the innocent populace. What we witness are cold blooded murders on scores of innocent, what we see are goodwill of the population being returned in kind with oppressive, punitive measures such as imprisonment and even murder. What we see is the impunity and the absence of proper remorse in the course of persecution. And the monks - oh yes the symbols of reverence and sacredness in the Land of Burma - are not spared either. With such a flagrant indiscriminate massacre, it is hard pressed to justify the lack of international intervention from the world community.

What is Asean doing? Singapore continues to provide medical attention to leaders from such a hegemonic state. A state whereby leaders worship astrology and geomancy and whereby the state of economy has been so misfitfully managed by such an corrupt incompetent goverment. The economy remains one the poorest in the world, with most of the population made to shoulder the burden of a trudging, decrepit economy saddled with debts and aggravated by such a inept goverment. The malaise that permeates through the country is staggering - with many who are illiterate, poor, hungry and often subjected to unlawful abuse by a despotic and tyrannic goverment. If such foul gruesome evidences still cannot warrant a collective intervention by the international community, then i am really at lost as to what can. Are we truly going to enscounce ourselves on our rocking chairs, hide in our ivory towers and watch the events unfold and sail past wihout a iota of guilt or indignation? Are we doing justice to mankind when we see fellow humans beings who are subjected to such atrocities? Sadly and most regrettably, Asean has been cowardly in this episode. Yes, in every sense of the word.

China and India have the authority and the bargaining power to pull the reins in Myanmar , but they have yet to do so. Because apparently trade and economic growth supercedes and surpasses all objectives when it comes to policy making. It doesnt matter when people are killed - as long as we continue to get the supplements to keep us going, to nourish us and our economy. This deference to Myanmar from India is unsightly, to the extent of even revolting. India has been the squeakiest of all, muttering little to nothing in face of such a tragedy, a bloody miscarriage of human justice. It is this seflishness, this deep gripping selfishness that has transcended all forms of perversity. What do we get when countries become adamantly clingy to their personal gains, become miserly calculative and contrived and overtly defensive and protective of their own self? It becomes a passive affair of finger pointing and nothing beyond. Shake this potent mix of sanctimony, of cavalier-ness, of superliciousness and pharisiasm and you get the end result of a ugly indifference and considerable self restrain from countries which knew they had much more to offer.

Somewhat I have gotten tired of their never ending denouciations, their back and forth enunciation of the atrocity and heinousness of such acts wihout actually translating words into credible actions. This sort of insincerity and platitude astounds, and saddens me. If anything, the bottom of my heart wishes that the world of the future would be a much better picture than the world as we know of today. Perhaps I am just too optimistic

Freedom of choice : What does it mean?

In any country which proclaims itself as a semblance of true democracy, the veracity in such a claim can be validated by a simple observation - of whether there exist the freedom of choice or otherwise.

Freedom of choice is a not a privilege nor a luxury in a country that calls itself democratic. It is an entitlement, no less. Under the assumption of capitalism when the average citizen has the benefit of choice extended to all areas in the country, the integral part lies in the autonomy of the citizens to exercise their right of decision over crucial matters in their life. Each and every citizen can lay claim to his or her right to such personal discretion, since the consequences or outcome of such decision undertakings are bore by none other than the individual himself. Of course, this is assuming the absence of the commons.

In my opinion, I believe that each and every individual should be accorded the rights to choose whatever they deem fit, because to assume that other individuals are so incapacitated as to lose the rationality to make a personal decision is to demean and debase the intrinsic worthiness and value of humankind. Of couse saying so risk oversimplicity, but the bottom line is clear - in the absence of thirty party implications, the inherent rights on an individual to choose and to decide shall be preserved. Every individual is a personal, unique scenario. In many nooks and crannies of society, certain issues are awfully simple, but mankind has made it out to be confoundingly challenging. The issue is clear cut - No one can claim to have more rights over others in making a decision, or claim that his decision is more "correct than the other". Simply because it is a matter of choice. Some people like to eat with utensils. while others prefer the company of chopsticks. Even if 99% of the society eats in the same manner as the former group of people, does it mean that the latter group is subversive and misanthropic? Is this aberration truly malignant or is it no more than just a difference in choice expressed in our daily actions?

It is hard to outline the demarcation - when should the individual freedom of choice be restrained, fettered and circumscribed? Right now, I have for the sake of convenience precluded the case of externalities implications. My focal point is regarding decision made by individuals on events taking place in the privacy of the individual himself and that has no effect or implication on others. Of course it is not too difficult to satisfy the criterias - except the last one -" has no effect or implication on others."

Let us for the sake of argument bring in two controversial issues, pornography. There are the puritannicals who argued that pornography should be destroyed and all sources be razed, eradicated and snuffed out. For purportedly pornography presents the female body and the notion of sex in its most erotic, adulterated form and this would mislead and defile and taint the mind of the average viewer. Moreover, pornography is, so they claimed, an unmitigated outrageous insult to both the anatomy and dignity of women - something which they claim has been smeared and inappropriately displayed in all forms of pornography.

Now let us hear the otherside of the story. A group of rare liberals have propounded the notion of individual right of choice, especially when pornography is consumed within the privacy of 4 walls, entails the average viewer a considerable level of utility ( in terms of sexual gratification), and unlike what is commonly asserted, private consumption of pornography has little effect on the rest of the society.

How true is that? Is pornography really that pervasively and supercedingly decadent? Can the contents of pornography really permeate through the 4 solid walls and perpetrate the rest of the society? In my opinion, the intangible, ethereal form of harm principle that many has put forth is indeed thought worthy. But in this society, how can we ever alienate the variables from each other? A crucial question that is missing : pornography truly the be all and end all of social decadence? Are there no other tools that are just as responsible?

The nuanced, somewhat subtle idea of harm explains that the distorted contents of pornography - including caricaturizing the act of sex itself, as well as imparting subversive values such as multiple partner sex and unnatural sex acts which can result in great transmission of diseases and more broken families. The former, very possible. The latter, I wouldnt be too fast to agree with them. But is the effects and extent truly so far reaching and so plain penetrating? Has not the prevalence and the improvement of education mitigated, or nullified such effects of pornography? If anything ,pornography might be just the tool of enjoyment, the means to sexual gratification, and not an end in itself. People who are educated, are discerning enough to understand that pornography is just avenue for the derivation and manifestation of pleasure, and cannot be a substitute for real relationships. Can we accrue the presence of unnatural sexual acts to pornography, especially since such acts, emprically and evidently proven, has been existent since time immemorial ? What esle could have contrived to such a culture as we see of today - greater infidelities, casual sex and less observation for the proper rules of game? Is pornography the all encompassing pivotal point that drove such a change or is it merely a by product of something larger at work? I am perhaps lost.

Pontification about the validity of equating pornography to cultural downslide aside, one must always remember though that the human right is not a boundless ideal; as of many other things in life, this right of choice has to be juxtaposed against the welfare and wellbeing of the society. it is never easy to configure the society in such a way that all of our rights can be unreservedly retained and exercised wihout wihout, in a lighter tone, posing " inconvenience" to the society as a whole. but it is not impossible. so we must at least try, because we all know, every greater thing that has happened to us starts with a tiny step.

Morality : 1

Today's argument is going to stretch the limits quite a bit. I will attempt to uncover the meaning of morality and what it entails in the society we live today.

Let us approach with a slight philosophical approach. There is a schism of views amongst philosophers regarding morality. Some claimed that there is the existence of a universal, objective truth that is independant of all changes, circumstances and influence. Later on, it was to be disputed by certain renowned philosophers, who argued that morality can never be divorced from the context in which it is construed or interpreted. Basically, the latter, unlike the former, believed that morality is permutated by forces of changes and is contingent on the surrounding circumstances.

Let us start with the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant. A French utilitarian (Benjamin Constant) asks Kant to consider whether, in Kant's mind, it would not be right to lie to a murderer who asks whether our friend, who he means to kill, is hiding in our house. Kant sticks with his opinion and responds that "To be truthful (honest) in all declarations, therefore, is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited by no expediency," including human life.

To the absolute moralist, there are no grey spots, no overlapping regions, no ambiguity regarding what is considered moral or immoral. Referring to the aforesaid quote, it is quite certain that Kant believed lying to be inveteratively wrong, or immoral, nonwithstanding the circumstances. However, Kant seemed to have forgotten that he is conceding to a murderer's request, and has implicitly became the accomplice of crime. He may well have abstained from the immoral act of lying, but he has contributed to an act of great evil, or immorality, by aiding in the murder. For one can certainly claim that if Kant had chosen to lie, it is highly probable that a murder would have been thwarted, and a life saved. So is the context truly irrelevant when it comes to morality?

Absolute morality, as it is defined, carries an extremely vague undertone. Retrospective look at past events immediately indicates how much intepretations or definitions of morality has changed over time. In the past abortion was considered extremely immoral in all forms -including rape victims. In present days, more leeway has been granted in the definition of morality regarding abortion. Should a victim of rape be made to bear, conceive and care for a child that is not borned out of love or wedlock, but out of a event of brutality, malignance, and opprobrium? Should the victim be reminded constantly by her child of the odious act commited on her many years back? How about the children? By default, these children are already denied of proper parents, and the spectre of rape might linger in the mothers heart. This undeniably might led to uncontrollable vent of outburst of rage on the poor child. Who is the victim and who is not?

I have high skepticism and repulsion towards morality embraced by people, which at no cost to themselves, results in impugnation, violation and denigration of other individuals' lives. Such as the controversial case of a doctor who refused adamantly to treat a rape victim, claiming that his religion does not permit the execution of abortion. People like him who expounds on such morality, do not bat any eyelid or care two hoots on events such as this, which quite evidently warrants more judgement than simply what one religion preaches. Is it moral then to preserve a human life, oblivious and disregardful to plight of the victim? I leave it to you to decide.

Can morality ever be absolute? There are certain behaviours, or actions, such as rape and murder, which i can consider immoral and many others, if not all, i believe, would easily concur with. First of all, how do we actually interpret such actions as grossly immoral? Are we congenital moralist, bornt with a set of inexorable moral values? From what source do we derive our intepretations and knowledge of morality and how do we subsequently construct our own values of morality? Note the line in bold. By this, I am going to push the argument abit by putting forth a rather intrepid, audacious point of view. We grow up each in a different environment, and we are subjected constantly to influences from our heritage, from the media, from our parents, from our friends, from the books that we read and the pictures that we see. This will result in very personalised, very arbitary internalisation of what is considered moral and what is not. Some people consider simple acts of smoking or littering to be acts of immorality, while some do not. In a more extreme view, there are recidivious murders or rapist who clearly do not view their acts as immoral or evil. Why so? I can only surmise that our morality is constructed based on our environment. This is only a hypothetical view, but I suspect I might not be too far off. Delving into the circumstances of their childhoold would most likely review one that is devoid of proper parental teaching, excessive exposure to graphic violent images, to convoluted tainted materials, to a socially introverted, misanthropic teenage or adult life. I will be careful not to paint a extremely sleazy generalisation, but in a broader sense statistics and studies have shown it to be manifestly true. When any of the important elements are missing in the equation, the end result would be people like them. People will see little or nothing immoral about killing raping or stealing. To re emphasized my point of view, people are not bornt with a set of moral values. Nor are we in possession of some kind of Bible of morality. Morality, or moral values, if something we derive, construe, construct and intepret based on our environment and the influences it asserts on us.

Some people have pointed out that there has to be a universal absolute form of morality because the recognition that killing is irredeemably immoral is overwhelming and almost unequivocally endorsed by people across the world. Killing is a nefarious act no doubt, and definitely any brutal act of rape will chafe the choler of any sympathetic, righteous individual. But referring to my previous point, it can never be proven that everyone views murder in the same light. For the most extreme example, perpetrators themselves do not even recognize the immorality of the act itself, with the most notorious of criminals, such as the recently indicted criminal who went on a killing spree on prostitutes, elicit a form of joy or stabilising pleasure from the very act of crimes they commit. Perversity aside, it debunks the belief that everyone will inherenly believe that murder is immoral and wrong. Even amongst those who denounce murder, there is a vascillation of views from the more hardline, more unforgiving to the more compassionate. This plurality of views hardly gives evidence that morality itself is an absolute definite notion in the world as we know of today.

No doubt morality itself ought to acknowledge the monstrosity and vileness of certain acts, such as rape. However, what ought to be and what actually is, are two distinct seperate matters really. In the normative sense, most of the people i can assume, are on a consensus when it comes to believing that morality ought to encompass such acknowledgement. But the truth is morality can never be uniform across all individuals. True enough, there are overlapping ambits between individuals who have very subjective, personal codes of morality. One must note that even with 2 people who concur with each other on the immorality of killing or raping, they might also disagree on alcholism, gambling, smoking. I believed, very personally, that our moral views are founded upon both influence, and a sense of intuition and self preservation. We are appalled at the sight of gruesome murderous persecutions or bloodshed, because we instinctively, and subconsciously relate it to our own lives. We begin to cringe because we might just be one of those we see, or our family members might be one of those that we see being culled or exterminated, as in the pogroms or the holocaust against jews. We are also bornt in the world where living, or the struggle for survival, and the continual effort to strive towards prolongment of life itself, or the quality of life (through medical advances and research), is the norm, the order of nature, the status quo of mankind. Henceforth we tend to systematically reject such scenes because it goes against the environment we live in, the thoughts that are imbibed into us. We grow up watching tv shows where the bad guys are apprehended and punished, and where our parents or pastors preached on the sins of murder. The almagamation of both external influence, societal norms and inherent intuitions, compel us to denouce such acts. We are live for the want for survival, and indeed seeing acts of destruction of mutilation, of intrusion, goes against the intrinisic notion of survivability. We recognise such acts of destruction that pose tangible fear, harm and threat to our livelihoods, and we connect with the victims of such immoral acts because we unknowingly place ourselves in their shoes.

Regrettably, absolute moralist has in one fell swipe plainly divided the world into one that is moral or immoral. Truth be told, according to such antes of morality one would be hard pressed to find one single individual that is truly definitve of or adherent to such a construement of morality. The point is ,many people have defined things such as "homosexuality, incest, adultery, pornography and taking drugs" as sinful.How did they construe such a moral view? Morality views are imbibed into people as mentioned through various external sources. So how do we define such objective morality based on subjective influences by their environment in their personal life?

Of course i would like to end it off on a rather controversial note, " One man's morality is another man's immorality." As much as there are tangential overlapping moral values evocated by most individuals, there are also the ambiguous areas where disagreements are prevalent. Many conservatives view homosexuality, or even pornography immoral, while others view it as a right of choice in privacy. So who is right? Is there ever a thing as divinely ordained morality? Are we to decide what kind of acts if worth performing ,what kinds of lives are worth living, or what kind of a person worth being?