stillhaventfound.org

International Development:

1) How we’re faring in International Development: the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Progress Chart for 2006.

2) I mentioned before my admiration for Kiva. Here’s a great interview with the people of Kiva on the NextBillion.Net (Development Through Enterprise) website. Also, another article on this innovative microcredit institution here.

3) Bono asks the question, “What can we do to make poverty history?” at Yahoo Answers! and thousands of people respond. Speaking of celebrity activists (I admire) on the Net, the chance to drink tea with Nelson Mandela will be auctioned on eBay later this year to raise money for a Johannesburg hospital.

4) Last month, Craig Borlase went on a dollar a day for a week, or seven days on seven dollars. One dollar a day is the absolute poverty line. People living on less than that are considered living in absolute or extreme poverty. And one in five people in the world actually live such a life.

5) Well done FC Barcelona, the first ever humanitarian soccer team! Ok, that’s a bit of an overstatement… But anyway, my favorite team has decided to carry the UNICEF logo on their kits. This will be the club’s first ever shirt “sponsor”. They’ve also agreed to donate 0.7% of their annual income (the same percentage developed countries have pledged to donate in aid to developing countries) in support of humanitarian / development goals.

Politics:

6) A PBS interview with Francis Fukuyama on “Has Neoconservatism Failed or Succeeded?” Transcripts of part One and Two.

Progressive Christianity:

7) Tony Campolo, the living oxymoron. Why? Simply because at a time when everyone is identifying Christian Evangelicals with Right-wing Republicanism, Tony’s an Evangelical of a socially liberal political persuasion. I like the guy…

8) How Biblical is the Christian Right? from the University of Chicago’s Martin Marty Center.

Others:

9) TED (Technology, Entertainment & Design) is an annual elite event bringing together

more than 1,000 thought-leaders, movers and shakers in Monterray, California for four days of learning, laughter and inspiration. They hear not just the latest ideas in Technology, Entertainment and Design, but also Business, Science and The Arts …in fact, ANY subject area offering something fresh and important.

TED has recently been putting up podcasts (audio/video downloads) of the talks in their recent TED 2006 Conference held in February. My favorites: Sir Ken Robinson’s talk of an education system that nurtures creativity and Hans Rosling’s talk on the developing world using his wonderful program Gapminder.

10) Paying it forward, random acts of senseless kindness, sensless acts of beauty… Whatever the name, how we need more of it!

I’ve been starting to hate Singapore more and more in the past year. I could state many reasons why this is so, but this entry isn’t inspired by all those reasons but just by one - as I read a newspaper article about Singapore’s pragmatic foreign policy.

Let me state first of all that I’ve not always felt this strongly against Singapore. I wrote here about how I could relate better to the Singaporean culture - having been brought up here - than to the culture of other countries (like Australia) and therefore also about how I wanted to live in Singapore. But I guess affection and closeness to a place and culture can be both positive and negative. If you were brought up in a particular country and love what it stands for, you’re doubly in love with it and doubly proud of it as compared to a person who was not brought up in that country but still loves what it stands for. The opposite is true too: if you were brought up in that country and hate what it stands for, your hatred for that country is magnified as compared to if you weren’t brought up in that country. Why? Simply because the fact you were brought up in that country makes you more affectionate for the country and thus more sensitive to its successes and failures.

The article I’m talking about is Size matters - for S’pore’s foreign policy from the 27th July 2006 edition of the Today newspaper:

SINGAPORE does not have the luxury of pursuing a foreign policy of abstract ideals because of a simple reason: The world can do without Singapore.

This was a sombre message some 400 youth got from Transport Minister and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim yesterday.

Speaking at the Temasek Seminar held annually to raise the awareness of security-related issues, Mr Lim drove home the truth about the republic’s vulnerability and called on youth to understand the country’s pragmatic approach behind its foreign policy.

…even though there have been criticisms that Singapore’s positions on global events are not always consistent — or as a student at the seminar put it, “we constantly cater to the views of the superpowers and lose our ‘Singaporean-ness’ as a nation” — sticking up for “abstract ideals” is a luxury that Singapore cannot afford.

Said Mr Lim: “By necessity, the Foreign Ministry cannot always elucidate the strategic considerations behind our public positions. Some have commented that our positions on global events are not always consistent …

“As someone once said, consistency is the virtue for trains. But what is consistent in our foreign policy is a dogged and clear-eyed protection of our core interests, nothing more or less,” he added.

Nothing in the above is particularly surprising to anyone who understands politics in general or international politics in particular. All countries act pretty much in their own self-interest. (This is realpolitik or realism). After all, they have a responsibility to their own citizens. However, it’s true to say that some do so much more than others. And Singapore happens to be one of the most guilty countries in this aspect.

While Singapore’s relatively tiny size makes it more difficult for her to stand for principles and ideals, I do not think that excuses us from being unprincipled in our actions. It’s precisely our pragmatic, unprincipled and utterly self-interested actions (in both foreign and national policy) that make me sick.

For example, Mr. Bilahari Kausikan, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, once responded to a student’s question regarding Singapore’s support of the US War on Iraq by saying:

The Americans were deluded, it doesn’t mean we supported them because we thought it would work. I believe the question you are too polite to ask is, did we suck up to the US? Well, yes, our basic interest was to show support for the USA, you are right.

So Singapore leaders support America no matter how wrong her actions are. We do so because we would get things in return from them. Never mind the fact that what she does is wrong or that our support for her makes us complicit in her wrongful actions. For our leaders, morality never figured in the equation. It was all about sucking up to America so that they would return our favor in future. What kind of leaders do we have? And what kind of people does Singapore have when the majority (even Christians) just stand idly by? We are a politically apathetic people. Politics do not matter. If our leaders partake in oppressing others, most Singaporeans couldn’t be bothered. The suffering of others does not matter to us. What only matters to us is ourselves and our families. That’s the kind of country and people we are.

Also during this same National Education (NE) dialogue, Mr. Kausikan was asked:

Does that mean if thousands of people are being slaughtered in Burma, we won’t do a thing because it’s not in our self interest?

His answer?

Yes

Full credit to him for his honesty. Politicians are seldom honest, seeking always to hide behind politically correct rhetoric - just compare what Mr. Kausikan said above to what was said about Singapore’s support of the US War on Iraq by another government official here. However, I can’t say the same about him as a person. I’m not sure how he can say the above without feeling guilty or questioning why the hell he’s part of such an unprincipled government. But then again, most politicians are like that, perhaps especially so in Singapore.

As I said above, being small in size does not justify our lack of principles. It does not justify us supporting America in a foolish and unjust war so that they will ultimately sign an FTA with us and be merciful to us in other ways. It does not justify us supporting oppression (or merely ignoring oppression) in other countries in order that Singaporeans will live slightly better lives than if we were not to participate in such acts. Indeed size is not an excuse because there are small countries in the world that do have a backbone and do concern themselves with promoting good ideals - at least they do so much more than Singapore does.

I should add that pragmatism doesn’t just characterize the foreign policy of Singapore. Pragmatism characterizes the whole of Singapore society. I can’t totally blame the leaders of Singapore because they are but doing what the people want. If they are doing something contrary to what the people want, they would have gotten voted out. But the great majority of Singaporeans don’t actually give a shit about what happens to other people. We don’t have any high and good ideals we treasure and would defend. And in a way, I understand why political leaders, as well as people in general, are pragmatic and make decisions based on pragmatism, though I don’t always agree with it.

And, yes, it’s true that it’s not only the people living in Singapore who are pragmatic, but rather the majority of the world’s people live lives ruled more by pragmatism than good ideals. Yet I also believe that Singaporeans (and her leaders) are some of the most pragmatic people on this earth. Because of all this, I’m just not sure how I can feel anything but strong dislike for such a country that stands for nothing but its own self-interest.

International Development:

1) Making aid more effective through ensuring one measures its success.

2) Advice for the Gates Foundation: William Easterly on 4 Ways To Spend $60 Billion Wisely and The Chronicle of Philanthropy on the big challenges it faces.

3) The best way to spend $1 to make the world a better place.

4) Richard W. Fischer on Globalization’s Hidden Benefits.

Politics & Economics:

5) Monthly Review’s On Neoliberalism: An Interview with David Harvey.

6) CounterPunch’s The Threats to Sustainable Democracy: The Four Fundamentalisms.

7) Two articles on the Swedish Welfare State by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and The National Interest. Another on Sweden and Globalization.

8) How conservatives and progressives differ in their conception of freedom. Also Real Clear Politics on Left vs. Right: The Great Divide.

Progressive Christianity:

9) One of the Christian leaders I respect (Brian McLaren) has written A Friendly Note to My Critics. Like him, I’m sick not fond of the fundamentalist, dogmatic and mean spirit that pervades much of conservative evangelical Christianity. Though I haven’t always agreed with McLaren’s theology, I’ve always loved the gracious way he’s interacted with his critics. This is vintage McLaren and truly an example for everyone to follow! I also can’t but help agreeing with his second last paragraph:

One final request. I hope that none of us will spend so much time in internal debate about our beliefs that we neglect putting our beliefs into action. It would be tragic for both you and me if our differences distracted us and others from what religion is supposed to be about: helping widows and orphans and others in need, and keeping ourselves “unspotted from the world,” as James says.

While good theology is important to Christianity, I’m of the belief that the Church needs less Christians involved in debating or doing theology and more involved in just living out our faith. We really need less Bible Study and even less Fellowship (which is own-community centred, not other-community centred) and more action. Most of us already believe in the basic fundamentals of the Christian faith. What’s lacking in our spiritual lives isn’t the appreciation of the nuances of various theological beliefs. It’s very simply the most difficult thing of all - living out what we believe.

Others:

10) Lastly, different takes on Zidane’s famous headbutt: his act would have pleased Camus, proved he’s ultimately just a man like us and showed he could learn something from Aurelius.

A long time ago, I summed up The Outsider in a sentence which I realized is extremely paradoxical: “In our society any man who doesn’t cry at his mother’s funeral is liable to be condemned to death.” I simply meant that the hero of the book is condemned because he doesn’t play the game. In this sense, he is an outsider to the society in which he lives, wandering on the fringe, on the outskirts of life, solitary and sensual. And for that reason, some readers have been tempted to regard him as a reject. But to get a more accurate picture of his character, or rather one which conforms more closely to the author’s intentions, you must ask yourself in what way Meursault doesn’t play the game. The answer is simple: he refuses to lie. Lying is not only saying what isn’t true it is also, in fact especially, saying more than one feels. We all do it, everyday, to make life simpler. But, contrary to appearances, Meursault doesn’t want to make life simpler. He says what he is, he refuses to hide his true feelings and society immediately feels threatened. For example, he is asked to say that he regrets his crime in time-honoured fashion. He replies that he feels more annoyance about it than true regret. And it is this nuance that condemns him.

So for me Meursault is not a reject, but a poor and naked man, in love with a sun that leaves no shadows. Far from lacking all sensibility, he is driven by a tenacious and therefore profound passion, the passion for an absolute and for a truth. This truth is as yet a negative one, a truth born of living and feeling, but without which no triumph over the self or over the world will ever be possible.

So one wouldn’t be far wrong in seeing The Outsider as the story of a man who, without any heroic pretensions, agrees to die for the truth. I also once said, and again paradoxically, that I tried to make my character represent the only Christ that we deserve. It will be understood, after these explanations, that I said it without any intention of blasphemy but simply with the somewhat ironic affection that an artist has a right to feel towards the characters he has created.

(Albert Camus, 8 January 1955)

International Development:

1) NGOs have always faced questions of their accountability. Here’s what a group of big International NGOs came up with: International Non Governmental Organisations Accountability Charter.

2) New Statesman’s Africa: Better off without us?

3) On Agricultural Subsidies by Rich Countries by Gary Becker. Comment by Richard Posner. A Washington Post article on the same topic.

4) Reason magazine’s The President’s Rotten Record on Trade.

Politics:

5) The Euston Manifesto was launched online in April 2006 by academics, bloggers and journalists of the British Left and has created a stir online since then. While progressive and left in orientation, it calls for a “fresh political alignment” in which the left stands unambigiously for democracy, and against tyranny and terrorism. Such a position would differ from those on the left who tend to be sympathetic to tyranical regimes and staunchly against the use of force to overthrow such regimes.

6) The guys at Euston would probably be against Venezuela’s leftist and somewhat autocratic President Hugo Chávez. Venezuela’s ambassador to the US defends Chávez’s benign revolution here. Jeff Cohen tells us not to listen to Venezuela’s and Chavez’s critics but to go to Venezuela to “examine the social transformations for yourself” and to find out “whether his government is improving things.” I would love to one day. I somewhat like Chávez and Castro…

7) Continuing on with Latin America (one of my favorite regions of the world), Nicaragua’s most promising politician - and one with the most potential to get her out of her misery - sadly dies of a heart attack. Speaking of Nicaragua, here’s one of my favorite books: a courageous and inspiring true story of how an ordinary American (Ben Linder) loved Nicaragua so much he went to live there in the 1980s after completing College to help out in the Sandinista Revolution, eventually dying at the hands of the American-backed guerilla/terrorist organization, the Contras. (And they say America doesn’t support terrorism! Right! By the way, for America’s role in supporting the Contras, Nicaragua took America to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and they were ordered to pay between US$12 billion to US$17 billion in reparations to Nicaragua. Of course, America didn’t pay up and who could stop them…) Back to the book, as one of the Amazon reviewers put it, this is “an insightful book that reminds us why people are willing to put their lives on the line for a cause they believe in. ” Respect to Ben, a true hero!

Others:

8) Tyler Cowen on Investing in Good Deeds Without Checking the Prospectus.

9) About the homeless and technology. Also, check out these blogs of homeless people: The Homeless Guy and WanderingScribe

10) Child Free Couples Are Happier! Something I’ve always believed in =)

One detail mentioned about Bartimaeus is more significant than it appears at first. When Bartimaeus jumped up to come to Jesus, he left behind his mantle or coat. Every time that Mark showed someone following Jesus, he pointed out that something was left behind for that person to go with Jesus. Simon and Andrew abandoned their nets (Mark 1:18). James and John left their father with the hired servants in the boat (1:20). Levi walked away from his tax office (2:14). Jesus commanded the rich man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor in order to follow (10:21). Peter pointed out that the disciples had left everything to be with Jesus (10:28). In a similar way, Bartimaeus left behind what he had in order to come to Jesus.

Some interpreters have suggested that it was the custom at that time for beggars to spread out a coat beside the road, so that those who passed by could lay alms on it. Like the fishermen and the tax-collector, Bartimaeus probably left behind his occupation and his means of support in order to follow Jesus.

The last detail that we learn about Bartimaeus from Mark’s Gospel is that he followed Jesus in the way. The word “follow” is often used metaphorically in Mark’s Gospel to indicate that someone has taken on a personal allegiance to Jesus (Mark 1:18; 2:14, 15; 8:34; 10:21, 28, 32; 15:41). After his healing, Bartimaeus accepted Jesus as his master and his Lord; he began to live like a disciple of Jesus. The word “way” is used in Mark’s Gospel to describe Jesus’ journey to his suffering and death on the cross (8:27; 9:33, 34; 10:17, 32, 46; 11:8). The reference to Jesus’ way in this context is a reminder that those who follow Jesus must be prepared to face suffering and difficulty. Jesus taught that those who come after Him must deny themselves and take up their cross, so that they might be ready to lose their lives for His sake (8:34-35).

(Taken from Bartimaeus)

What will you do if you are called to a ministry that, in human terms, has no chance of success?

Until ten years ago, Romania was a Communist country that persecuted true Christians severely. By a miracle, Josef Tson was able to leave the country in the 1960’s; called to the ministry, he studied theology in England. Upon completion of his studies, he announced that he was returning to Romania.

Some of his friends counseled him:

Josef, don’t do that! What chance of success do you think you have?

Josef replied:

Success? Success? That’s a typically Western way of thinking. In Romania, when one becomes a Christian, one doesn’t think of success. You think of losing your job, losing your income, of beatings, slander, and possibly martyrdom. I’m called to preach the gospel in Romania. So I’ll go.

…Listen to God’s call. Most of us are like Bartimaeus, blinded to the call of God if it includes discomfort, shame, danger, or a loss of income. The ease of life in this country inures us to the call to sacrifice. Tell God, with Bartimaeus, “Lord, I want to see!” Open your eyes to the joy set before you in this life, the opportunity to serve the king of the universe. What is God calling you to? Does it imply giving up your present career, or career plans? Does it imply selling what you have, and financing a ministry to those who have never heard the name of Jesus? Pray for vision!

(Taken from Suffering and Joy by Coty Pinckney)

International Development:

1) Tim Harford on Why Poor Countries Are Poor.

2) An article about a very important - yet neglected - issue of how we ought to prioritize the spending of our money in solving global problems. See also a similar Economist.com article here.

3) Two articles on organic food by The New Yorker and The Boston Globe.

4) A study says that HIV hits Africa’s rich hardest.

5) A compilation of webcasts and podcasts on Economics and Globalization by Truck and Barter.

Progressive Christianity:

6) Is the medium also the message as Marshall McLuhan maintained? If true, then changing the media or methods always changes the message. Churches thus need to be more discerning when using the power of electronic culture. Great articles here and here.

For Laughs:

7) Hilarious videos from Japan here and here.

8) Entertaining scripts of calls for technical support here.

Others:

9) An interesting article about the role of willpower in the success of one’s life - and about using it with care.

10) I just learnt what scambaiting is. Check out this amazing story of how successful scambaiting can be done.

Three cheers to both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. In the past month, both have announced decisions that can only be good for the world as a whole, and especially the poor. On the 15th of June, Microsoft announced a two-year transition period that would eventually see Bill Gates move out of his present day-to-day involvement in Microsoft into spending more time with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Less than two weeks later, the second richest man in the world (after Bill Gates) decided to donate around US$30 billion to the Gates Foundation - which already has around that amount in assets.

Both men deserve great credit for not passing down most of their money to their children but instead giving it back to society. In an interview with Fortune Magazine, Buffett said:

Certainly neither Susie nor I ever thought we should pass huge amounts of money along to our children. Our kids are great. But I would argue that when your kids have all the advantages anyway, in terms of how they grow up and the opportunities they have for education, including what they learn at home - I would say it’s neither right nor rational to be flooding them with money. In effect, they’ve had a gigantic headstart in a society that aspires to be a meritocracy. Dynastic mega-wealth would further tilt the playing field that we ought to be trying instead to level.

Jacob Weisberg wrote this of him in a Slate article:

At the moral level, Buffett does not believe anyone has the right to be as rich as he is. He described wealth on the scale he has accumulated as a “claim checks on the activities of others in the future”—claim checks that he has long ago recognized would have to be returned to society rather than passed on to his descendants.

On why he didn’t start another foundation in his name, Buffett responded in the Fortune Magazine interview:

The short answer is that I came to realize that there was a terrific foundation that was already scaled-up - that wouldn’t have to go through the real grind of getting to a megasize like the Buffett Foundation would - and that could productively use my money now.

I think this shows truly what a great man he is. That’s humility - something lacking frequently in famous people. So many foundations are named after the philanthropist. Worse still, how many Christian ministries are named after the minister?

What’s most remarkable for me, however, is Buffett’s recognition that his riches boils down ultimately to luck. Jacob Weisberg wrote:

As he made the rounds Monday, he consistently emphasized the role of chance in getting rich. “A member of the lucky sperm club” as he described himself to Charlie Rose, he happened to born in the right country, to the right parents, at precisely the right moment, to absurdly reward his special talent at asset allocation. Few successful businessmen truly believe they owe their rewards to luck, even if they pay lip service to their good fortune.

I wrote elsewhere about how I feel arbitrary factors (or luck) play an important role in the spiritual decisions of many people. I think a lot achievements or lack of achievements we see today can ultimately be attributed to luck. Buffett understood that and that’s why he felt he didn’t deserve to keep his money for himself. Both he and Bill Gates were fortunate enough to be members of the lucky sperm club.

That some are born into this club and some aren’t - that some are lucky and some aren’t - seems to be unfair. No doubt this world is unfair in many ways. That’s not to mean that we despair. No, we ought to seek to do our best. If we do well and succeed, we ought to never forget those who didn’t. If we don’t do well, we should try to persevere to the end. Ultimately, I believe all things will be corrected in future. I trust God to dispense justice justly.

Oh that God would raise up missionaries. I don’t wish the same things your parents want for you. They want for you security and insurance and nice homes. They want for you cars and respect. I want for you the same thing I want for my son. That one day he takes a banner…the banner of Jesus Christ. And he places it on a hill…where noone has ever placed the banner before. And he cries out, “Jesus Christ is Lord!” Even if it costs my son his life.

Oh when he’s 18 years old…if he says to me the same thing I said when I was a young man. “I’m going into the mountains. I’m going into the jungle.” And they say, “You can’t go there. You’re insane. It’s a war. You’re going to die.” When that little boy puts on his backpack, I’m going to pray over him and say, “Go! Go! God be with you. And if you die, my son, I’ll see you over there and I’ll honor your death.” (Paul Washer)

The above was taken from Paul’s sermon. Please go and listen to it if you have time. I can’t say I agree with everything he preached in his sermon because of my strong view of grace (bits of which can be found somewhere here). However, other than the concern that some things he said may sound slightly too legalistic for my liking, I wish every pastor preached like him. I’ll admit that one of the reasons why I have not been attending church that regularly for the past few years is that I can’t stand church. I don’t hear from the pulpit what I read in the Bible. The message of Christ was a radical message. Jesus, his disicples and the early Christians lived a radical lifestyle and suffered for their faith. They sacrificed their lives to serve God. They sacrificed their standard of living to help the poor. And they sacrificed their comfortable lives to reach the lost, not being afraid to offend others and suffer persecution. Nowadays, it’s just too difficult for comfortable Christians in the First World to live such a radical lifestyle. And so most pastors obligingly water down the radical message of Christ to fit this modern culture. Paul certainly doesn’t do so in his message. Here’s how he started his message:

I stand here today. I’m not troubled in my heart about your self-esteem. I’m not troubled in my heart about whether or not you feel good about yourself, whether or not life is turning out like you want it to turn out, or whether or not your checkbook is balanced. There’s only one thing that gave me a sleepless night. There’s only one thing that troubled me all throughout the morning. And that is this: within a hundred years, a great majority of people in this building will possibly be in hell. And many who even profess Jesus Christ as Lord will spend eternity in hell. You say, “Pastor, how can you say such a thing?” I can say such a thing because I don’t do my Christian work in America. I spend most of my time preaching in South America, in Africa and Eastern Europe. And I want you to know that when you take a look at American Christianity, it is based more on a godless culture than it is upon the Word of God. And so many people are deceived. And so many youth are deceived. And so many adults are deceived into believing that because they prayed a prayer one time in their life, they are going to heaven. And then when they look around at others who profess to know Christ, and see those people also just as worldly as the world, and they compare themselves by themselves, nothing troubles their heart.

Not only is American Christianity corrupted in many ways, but also the Christianity you get in most of the First World - Singapore included - and also many parts of the Third World. Our Christianity differs little from that in America. The books we read, the Christian leaders we respect and the pastors we invite to speak in our Churches all come from America. I’m not Anti-American. Indeed, if you ask me to name the three Christians I respect the most of whom I am personally acquainted with, all would be Americans. However, most of American (and Western) Christianity is heavily influenced by the materialistic and consumeristic American and Western culture. That’s why the radical message of Jesus Christ is compromised so easily.