My vote counts: 10 reasons why I cannot vote for the PAP in the next election

That so many Singaporeans behave like sheep and recite the prescribed mantra all the time about our government (namely, that we owe it all to them) really only reveals the plight of our people. Not only are Singaporeans amongst the lowest earners in the developed world in monetary terms, they are also almost definitely the poorest in the faculty to think for themselves, as a result of the education system.

Now that I am of age to vote, I am unable to vote for the PAP in the coming election because there is such an urgent need to send across a strong signal through their very thick skulls that there is a problem in the way it’s running this country. I am not a member of the Opposition, and I do not want the Opposition to take over this country, but because there will always be too many sheep in Singapore anyway, we need every vote FOR the Opposition just to manage to produce a dent in the PAP’s smugly expected results. There will always be the apathetic, the boot-lickers, the cowardly, and the ignorant to ensure they win eventually anyway.

The difference we can make, however, is how much it wins by. Perhaps if it loses a GRC or two (and the GRC is a PAP invention), they will shake off their slumber and start ruling Singapore as a Republic, that is, for the public, for the People (rather than for personal interests).

Remember how LKY said he will send in the army if there ever is a “freak election” and the PAP is voted out of Parliament? In every other country, when the people vote out the ruling party, it is called a mandate. It is only in Singapore that such a vote is called a “freak election”. Also, whose Army is it anyway? Is it the Army of the people of Singapore – who have just voted out the PAP? Or is it the Army of the PAP?

I list here ten out of the many other reasons why I am unable to vote for the PAP:

Love over honour

God is more concerned about His children’s development and maturation than of His reputation. John Paulk made an honest statement after his scandal, explaining how, as an ex-gay minister, he slipped back into sin and went back to a gay bar, but “because God loves me he [was] not going to let me go out on a leash too long and I was discovered in there”. The first natural reaction would be disgust at his attempt to use God to put a spin to his deed, but his statement was a genuine reflection of God’s character.

Of course God is very interested in glorifying Himself – firstly, He is worthy, and secondly, the glorification of His Name has manifold benefits for the development of His children. But above all that, He is willing to compromise His reputation and the reputation of His Church for the benefit of His individual children because He is a personal Father and a long-sighted God. The Temples in Jerusalem were destroyed despite their roles in facilitating the manifestation of His Glory, and the Catholic Church was shamed in the Middle Ages despite its role as His Body. When unbelieving men take confidence in such “disgraces”, however, the One enthroned in heaven laughs and scoffs at them¹.

We are called to always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have², since we do not believe without reason, our Faith being based on the very Giver of wisdom and knowledge, on the One we are required to love with all our minds³. Still, it is not the living, but the dead who need man’s defense. Like Joash said, “If [the idol] Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar”⁴. But our God is not like Baal who needs men to defend him. We do not need to feel like we must defend God, or feel defeated when we fail to do so, since Truth is not altered by arguments. Rather, we ought to love, for that will be our testimony⁵.

Besides, God is less threatened by the “what if some people do not believe“ concern than many Christians. Afterall, Salvation is from God⁶, not our eloquence. Jesus says “do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you”⁷. Let us not defend Christianity out of pride, but out of love, not in thinking we can covert anyone, but that we are mere vessels of the Holy Spirit’s conviction. No one can be brought to saving knowledge unless God draws him⁸, and so our best eloquence and efforts in “defending God” are completely pointless since the Message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God⁹.

————

References:

¹Psalm 2:4

²1 Peter 3:15

³Matthew 22:37

⁴Judges 6:31

⁵John 13:35

⁶Psalm 3:8

⁷Matthew 10:19

⁸John 6:44

⁹1 Corinthians 1:18

Ever bored

Ours is the generation that lived with kilobyte floppy disks and tetrabyte hard drives, cassette tapes and first-generation iPods, cellphones that could do nothing but make phonecalls and cellphones that do everything. Ours is the generation that is never impressed anymore.

Ours is the generation that grew up with video games that ensure our prerogative the main character, which always offer the Start New Game option for us to live a life flippantly. Ours is the generation receiving heightened attention as a result of smaller families. Ours is the generation that are surprised that the world does not revolve around us.

Ours is the generation of relationships without the commitment, of taking without the giving, of profits without the labour. Ours is the generation of enjoyment without the consequences, of passion without the prudence. Ours is the generation that is ever bored, never satisfied, always searching, and never finding.

December 2009

My life in December 2009. I update this post over the month.

Jesus was gay

The very fact that such a statement would draw shock and even disgust is revealing of our erroneous assumption that “gay” is necessarily an insulting term.

In reality, however, being homosexual is a complete acceptable state to be in since it simply means being sexually attracted to members of the same gender as oneself. Just like heterosexuality, this sexual attraction, by itself, is not sin. It is the acting upon these attractions – whether homosexual or heterosexual outside marriage – that is sin. Therefore, one can be homosexual and yet not sin.

Also, since homosexuality is sexual attraction to members of the same gender as oneself, bisexuality is logically a subset of homosexuality. In a Venn diagram, then, bisexuality is where homosexuality and heterosexuality overlap. Therefore, it is not incorrect to say that all bisexuals are also homosexuals.

The Bible, Jesus Himself (since “the Word was God”), tells us in Hebrews 4:15 that He was “tempted in every way”, which means that He did experience homosexual attractions, amongst every other kind of temptations.

This is not merely interesting trivia, but acknowledging that Jesus was gay Himself helps to tear down lies such as “God hates gay people”. Moreover, James 2:10 tells us that whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it – we are all guilty of homosexual sins. But thanks be to God, who hates sin but more than that, loves people with an everlasting love.

Most importantly, this fact is crucial to point out because the very reason Jesus was tempted in every way (and of course, yet did not sin) was so that He could be our high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses. Homosexuals will find confidence in this knowledge as they approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help them in times of need, knowing that their Mediator truly sympathizes because He has been through it all Himself.

November 2009

My life in November 2009. I update this post over the month.

Sureness and certainty

Faith as a gift of God

Even though Faith is the byword of Christianity, how many self-professed Christians really understand what it truly means? Like so many other “religious terms” we use so profusely¹, the frequent use of the word “faith” has eroded its true meaning and effect. Yet Faith is probably one of the most important things in the world, which is why understanding it is so critical.

The Biblical definition of Faith is in Hebrews 11:1 – “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. In a different version¹⁶, it says “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.

So Faith is sureness and certainty, substance and evidence. But how can we be sure and certain of hope, so much that this hope becomes the very matter, the very thing, and, in itself, proof of what we expect? In other words, how can belief and confidence be evidence?

I do not understand, but here’s my guess: Could it be that just like Paul tells us, this Faith is not of ourselves, but is a gift of God for our salvation¹⁵, and its very presence in our hearts and minds, working to convince us of the sureness and certainty of the object of this Faith, is the evidence of the reality of this object of hope, and at the same time is this very same object of hope? That is, is having Faith, in itself, the proof of our salvation and our very salvation?

If this Faith is a gift, then it needs to be received actively and, like the mustard seed, will grow from the smallest and of the most insignificant size – sufficient already for great miracles – to the largest and most imposing element of our relationship with God. The critical part is receiving the mustard seed-sized faith to be sure and certain.

Blind faith and experiential faith with reason

Surely, Faith cannot be blind or it would be, at best, an opinion and, at worst, delusion. Even “having faith in Jesus” requires one to know about Jesus, His life, His death and the significance of His death.

We are told that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness¹². If God came down and spoke, this faith would be founded on something sure: God’s presence and voice. However, if God didn’t come down to talk to him, or speak audibly to him, or at least exist in his life in an experiential way of some sort, then wouldn’t any faith he had in God be mere opinion? Afterall, this “faith” in Jehovah would be the exact same “faith” the pagans had in their gods.

Even if we say that Creation itself is standing testimony to the existence of God¹³, it does not tell us which god, and if we had “faith”, we could place it on any one of the gods in the grand buffet of religions.

Which is why I do not understand what was so commendable about Abraham sacrificing Issac. If another man was told by a pagan priest, or a demon masquerading as an angel of light, that a pagan god demanded the same thing of him, and he did it, just like the Ancient Mayans did, would it also be credited to him/them as righteousness? What, then, is the difference apart from the fact that it was really the true God who spoke? This I truly do not understand and am still seeking for an answer.

Like Jesus said, unless people see miraculous signs and wonders, they will never believe¹⁴. We need to recognise true divinity – like Abraham recognised the voice of the true God, and like the early Christians the miracles of the true Messiah. This experiential element is the crucial difference between faiths because it gives assurance that the object of a particular faith is true and real, setting it apart from all others. Without a tangible experience of God, one cannot have anything more than an opinion that God is real. However, there are many people who struggle with experiencing God, so how can these people be sure of their faith? Is it that God will give us the assurance of heart when we hear His voice and witness His hand? Is this what Faith is?

The importance of Faith

That all said, it is of utmost importance that these questions be solved. Without Faith it is impossible to please God because we must first believe He actually exists and that He is good, rewarding those who truly seek Him².

We are told that everything that does not come from faith – even eating – is sin³. Which is why although Faith is not from works⁴, Faith by itself, if not accompanied by deeds, is dead⁵. That is because everything – every thought, word and indeed, every deed also – ought to come from Faith. It is not so much that our faith should produce deeds, but that all our deeds should proceed from faith. Like Moses said, we are called to love God with all our hearts, souls and strength⁶. All our being is to exist and function in a manner that is pleasing to Him – that is, in faith.

Furthermore, we are saved by God’s grace, but this salvation by grace is through Faith⁷. Our very salvation is based on Christ’s righteousness because we have none of our own, and this righteousness is by Faith⁸ because it is this Faith which justifies us in God’s sight⁹. It is also through Faith that we receive the Holy Spirit¹⁰ who is the seal and guarantee of our salvation¹¹. Ultimately, Faith is crucial for us to be saved.

————

Notes:

¹For example, “open your hearts”, “believe”, “born again”, “hallelujah”, etc, are used very frequently in modern church culture without any explanation, taken for granted without consideration for their true meaning, and used as mere punctuation and fillers instead. Furthermore, the Gospel being taught today is glaringly one-sided, conveniently ignoring or overlooking seemingly “uncomfortable” passages. Who are we to pick and choose what to believe? The Bible is an all-or-nothing Scripture and choosing certain parts to believe only is the first step in undermining one’s faith.

²Hebrews 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

³Romans 14:23 “But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

⁴Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”

⁵James 2:17 “In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”

⁶Deuteronomy 6:5 “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”

⁷Ephesians 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”, Romans 5:1-2 “(…) we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand (…)”

⁸Romans 1:17 “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”"

⁹Romans 5:1 “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,”

¹⁰Galatians 3:14 “(…) so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.”

¹¹ Ephesians 1:13-14 “(…) Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.”, 4:30 “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.”, 5:5 “(…) given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.”

¹²Genesis 15:6 “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.”, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23

¹³Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

¹⁴John 4:48 “”Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”"

¹⁵Ephesians 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”

¹⁶ The King James Version

8 weeks to yet another flight

It’s funny how much life has changed in just 14 weeks. I’ve been saying I don’t at all miss Singapore or its food, least of all its weather. I really didn’t, and I still don’t, but it’s only recently that I’ve begun to think more about Singapore and the wonderful times I had, post-ORD.

I have been so successful at shutting out every memory of and longing for home, fixing my mind wholeheartedly on adapting to life here, because I knew how terrible it would be to long for what you cannot have. I am still very happy with life in Melbourne, but perhaps the careless let-up lately on these thought restrictions have revealed what I long for most.

If there is one thing I miss about Singapore right now, it is the lazy days I let pass so easily just before coming to Australia, like paper planes I allowed to fly from a high story, one after another, hardly without a thought. They flew and I didn’t care where they landed, and my heart was light and easy.

The best of those days were solitude – something at that season of life rare, but now in excess – and I loved best the whole days I spent at the National Library, with lunch breaks on Seah Street, together with the accompanied nights at Orchard Road, just 3 mins away from home. I loved the times we visited museums after museums, art exhibitions after gallery events. Parties and movies and walks. Photography and day trips, reading anything we wanted and for as long as we wished. The slow and unhurried stroll down the River, the schedules that never were. Talking could be the sole agenda, and only because time was at our sole discretion and our whim the only restriction. Good food, excellent cafes, high tea, dinner, brunch and lunch, even money and price weren’t constraining, and we did everything our hearts desired. People came and people went, and it was only good (well, mostly, anyway). It was our world, even though we knew it c/wouldn’t last forever.

And now, in 2 months, let it return. Let it return. Even for just a while.

The View of Things: Peace & the Injustice of Nations

Peace

The idea of peace has evolved over the years to the present-day mainstream view that peace is to be desired above all else and maintained at all costs. However, this is only a very modern view of peace. All through history, war has been justified and accepted as a part of normal life, that while death and carnage are terrible, violence was the understandable manifestation of basic human nature to covet. The reason two men fight in a street squabble is the very same reason why two kingdoms war. Today’s idea of peace – that is is of supreme importance and priority – has been set in stone only because those in power, being already in power, recognize that violence would only hurt their current position more than it can aid it. Individuals and nations in authority have already achieved what violence used to be employed to achieve (power) and so can afford to denounce violence in political correctness, and to prevent the usage of it from threatening them. Moreover, they have discovered that there are new ways to exploit the weak today, in legal ways, in justifiable ways. The greatest evil there has ever been is the evil that calls itself good.

Power is subjective, but modern-day authorities have made it look objective – that legitimacy is only what the status quo is. Any potential power that seeks to undo the status quo is seen to be illegitimate and must be put down. All present-day national governments obviously have an interest in preserving and propagating this worldview as it secures their own authority, but it ignores the fact that in the history of every power, violence and strive of some sort have been instrumental in bringing the present authority to power. War and violence then, are justified in history when it brought a current authority to power, or is used to quash a power threat to current authorities. In effect, this obvious double-standard - that one “power” is justified in using war and violence against another “power”, but not the other way around - is the mainstream view being propagated by current governments for their own security, and sub-consciously adopted by people around the world, especially in nations that are considered to be “powerful”, for the very reasons only just recently mentioned.

With the end of WWII, the victors of the War secured their place as the leaders/rulers of the world, writing history to their benefit, legitimizing their unbalanced excess of authority with history, denouncing war – which just before 1941 was accepted as a normal part of life (and in fact, Germany had its reasons for aggression, but these reasons were suppressed and it was the carnage and the atrocities – of which the Allies themselves were not guiltless of themselves – that was harped on over and over till the present-day) – as evil so as to emphasise their moral stature. And this is the world we live in today.

The injustice of nations

All through history, people have come together from their individualistic lifestyles to closer and closer cooperation. They formed nomadic tribes, and then cities, communities within cities, alliances of cities, nations, countries, alliances of countries, and in most recent times, regional blocs. The world has always been shrinking, and everything has also become only more global.

But in every sort of social structure, people have always been divided into the ruled and the rulers. The strongest used to be the king, and then the smartest (physical strength was soon surpassed by communal and then technological strength, taking advantage of which would make one strongest). In recent times, it has become only acceptable to downplay this ruled-ruler relationship, and to emphasise equality instead. And this is the idea on which the ultimate global social structure was built on – or not.

The United Nations was conceived with the expressed aim to acheive and to maintain peace. In the name of equality, every member nation is given one vote in the General Assembly, same and equal. But it is not equal. True power is held by the Security Council, made up of five nations and this Council has the right to decide what resolutions to pass, and any one of these five has a veto with which nothing can be done that the UN wants to do. This is enormous power, and is justified by the fact that these five nations are the most powerful and important countries in the world.

But what right has a people over another people? Why should the citizens of one country have a more powerful voice than those of another country? Countries are artificial constructs and they should therefore not be used as a pretext for proportionate distribution of power. Even if the distribution of power is said to be according to the existing strength of nations, giving the veto (that is, the final say) to the five militarily-strongest countries is grossly disproportionate because that completely ignores the combined powers of the rest of the world, who automatically become subject to the will of the five. Additionally, this arrangement gives 28% of the world’s population final authority over decisions concerning the other 72%. This is not democracy.

UNSC decisions and vetos have been well-documented to be made blatantly in the interests of the member countries (E.g. The US vetoes resolutions condemning Israel too harshly, and China vetoes certain sanctions against Iran because it will hurt its own economy). This is not equality, but a great injustice, that discretion to the decisions made by the world body are in the hands of a few, who are left free to pursue their own interests. In effect, this is nothing but a new form of age-old colonisation, where a group of people come together to be powerful collectively in number, and with that power, exploit the weak groups. They call these groups “countries”, and apart from the size of the groups, they are no different from bandits who come together to rob a lone traveller, to impose upon him their will – he has no choice but to agree, not because he is willing, but because he cannot possibly oppose them, not because they are necessary stronger men than he is, but because they have shrewdly combined their strengths and used the sum of it against him before he can find yet more men to band with and form a greater defense or, more likely if this latter group comes together, a greater aggressor. But are not all men equal to start with? Why then should there be allowed alliances of men to use numbers to effect inequality amongst otherwise equal individuals?

The solution is not an expansion of the UNSC, which is pushed for by the current five members as a quick solution to this increasingly glaring problem, and by potential new members in a bid to win also this unequal power for themselves. The solution is the recognition that countries are artificial constructs, and that while these groupings are beneficial in many ways, it is the individual man that is the common denominator, not unequal groups of men.

October 2009

My life in October 2009. I update this post over the month.