Straits Times articles galore

Series of interesting articles...

From The Straits Times:

Jan 16, 2005

The problem with charity

To give is divine but what if the intention behind the giving is less than charitable?

Sumiko Tan

I'VE always been wary of the word 'charity'.

For one, I pray I never have to be in a position where I have to beg for anyone's charity.

This, I suppose, is a result of growing up in a society that eschews handouts and emphasises self-made success.

Another reason is that the word 'charity' smacks of condescension - to me, at least.

It conjures up the image of a rich personage standing in his gilded balcony bestowing his largesse on a quivering, grateful mass of the unwashed below.

I am, of course, being uncharitable (and dramatic), putting it like this.

Don't get me wrong. I've no doubt that the milk of human kindness runs deep in the human species, and it is what has nourished us and kept us going as a race.

What I mean is that the word 'charity', for all its noble origins and intentions, has taken on a I'm-better-than-thou association.

Words like 'compassion', 'mercy' and 'kindness' depict better the values that 'charity' stands for.
But I'm quibbling over semantics.

This column is about how recent events have proven that the world is not short on charity/compassion/mercy/kindness, call it what you will.

Witness the outpouring of help, both monetary and in kind, for victims of the tsunami.
Still, I wonder, what is charity, really?

To give is, of course, divine. But what if the intention behind the giving is a bit more fuzzy? Does the act of charity still stand up to scrutiny, then?

For example, a person who goes out of his way to help a stranger is undoubtedly charitable and should be praised.

But what if this same person turns a blind eye to the needs of his immediate family and neighbours? (And I do know people like that.) Would he still be considered charitable?

If you are willing to take a week's leave from work to fly off to Banda Aceh to help the victims of the tsunami, that is truly laudable and I applaud you.

But how many would take leave to offer their services to, say, the Ren Ci Hospital in Jalan Tan Tock Seng? Or the leprosy home in Lorong Buangkok? Or is that sort of altruistic work less rewarding?

I don't mean to question or devalue the goodness of well-intentioned volunteers. I'm sure the majority offered their services with a pure and compassionate heart. And charity is charity, whether you do it at home or in Trincomalee.

Besides, I who have been sitting on my butt these few weeks and who have done nothing significant to help, should be the last person to criticise anyone.

But the cynic in me does wonder: Could there be slivers of selfishness buried in this great outpouring of help?

How much of it has to do with the 'glamour' of the tsunami tragedy and wanting to be in the thick of 'action'? With wanting to acquire the bragging rights and war wounds of having been involved in modern history's worst natural disaster?

Some of you would tell me to get real: Nobody's perfect. What's wrong with little specks of personal selfishness if actions result in overall good, if help is indeed rendered and lives improved?

I don't know.

Then there is the question of quantifying charity.

Is a person who donates $50 less charitable than one who gives $500? Or should one's charity quotient be pegged to a percentage of his income?

Is Bill Gates, who donated US$3 million to tsunami relief, less charitable than Michael Schumacher, who gave US$10 million? Correspondingly, is Schumacher a 'better' person? And Gates more 'stingy'? Then again, if you announce your charitable deed - presumably to show how generous you are - is that embracing the true spirit of altruism?

If you donate clothes and shoes you no longer have use for, is that charity? Or is the true test giving away something you treasure?

Then there is 'conditional' charity.

Spend $10 and $1 will go to charity, say some shops. Charity? Or cashing in on the situation?
THE problem with charity is fatigue.

As the German playwright Bertolt Brecht once wrote: 'A man who sees another man on the street corner with only a stump for an arm will be so shocked the first time, he'll give him sixpence.

'But the second time it'll only be a threepenny bit. And if he sees him a third time, he'll cold-bloodedly have him handed over to the police.'

The demands of charity today are non-stop and overwhelming.

You get pleas in the mail. Letters are addressed personally to you in pretty cursive font, imploring you to write a cheque to improve the life of a disfigured child whose story is related in the most heart-rending way possible.

You get appeals in the newspaper asking you to sponsor the meals of disadvantaged students.
You get donation tins thrust in your face as you walk down Orchard Road. You get people asking you to buy tissue paper. You get fund-raising shows on TV urging you to phone in a donation.
To be a 'successful' charity today, it's all about branding and marketing.

It's all about creating a three-hour show or a three-page pamphlet cleverly packaged to tug, not only at the heartstrings, but also purse strings.

Society is becoming so desensitised to suffering that charities have to trot out more and more dramatic images of suffering - real and manufactured.

TV charity shows are an example, juxtaposing sad images of sick people with beautiful actresses sweating with fear as they attempt dangerous stunts.

It also explains why the tsunami got such an overwhelming response. The images of extreme suffering, packaged and shown non-stop on global TV, moved people to action.

The true test of how compassionate one really is will be six months down the road, when Banda Aceh no longer merits a headline.

Will there still be hundreds of volunteers queueing up to help rebuild the lives there?

Call me cynical, but I fear not.

And that, I think, will be another tragedy.

The paragraphs in bold really caught my eye. I do know of someone like that. Exactly the same thing. He acted as though he wanted to go, but he always screws his friends. I will never respect this kind of people. Even if I may seem like a scrooge, but for me, I would rather treat my families and friends well first before I do it for other people. After all, my family and friends are the ones who are important to me.


From The Straits Times :

Jan 15, 2005

FOREIGN MATTERS

Who is deadlier: Man or Mother Nature?

Janadas Devan

MANY articles have appeared, both in these pages and elsewhere, suggesting that the Indian Ocean tsunamis show that terrorism, compared to the devastation nature can inflict, is an exaggerated threat.

The suggestion is misleading.

Natural disasters can indeed be horrendous, but most of them are one-off events and their effects can be contained, although with considerable difficulty.

Social, economic and political upheavals, on the other hand, are often impossible to contain, and their ramifications can last decades, if not centuries. Thus the former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai's famous reply when he was asked about the effects of the 1789 French Revolution. 'Too early to tell,' he said.

Also, it is nonsensical to compare the number of people who have died at the hands of terrorists in recent years to the number who died in the Indian Ocean tsunamis. September 11 took the lives of far fewer people than the tsunamis, certainly, but that is no reason why one should take the threat posed by terrorists less seriously.

If terrorist organisations get hold of a nuclear bomb or some other weapon of mass destruction, they can kill millions. It is not only the harm that we know organisations like Al-Qaeda are capable of inflicting, and have, that should concern us, but the far greater harm that they can potentially inflict.

Finally, the suggestion that non-security-related or natural disasters are more destructive than security-related or man-made disasters is not borne out by the numbers.

The religious wars in 17th century Europe were extraordinarily savage. In 1618, for instance, at the beginning of the Thirty Years' War, Germans numbered about 22 million. Thirty years later, they numbered only 12 million.

The Taiping Rebellion in mid-19th century China was similarly bloody. Led by one Hung Xiu-quan, a variety of Christian with startling notions of establishing a kingdom of God on earth, the rebellion caused the deaths of about 20 million people.

The political wars of the 20th century were as savage as the religious wars of the previous centuries. The civil war following the Russian Revolution of 1917 killed about 15 million. Josef Stalin's purges, labour concentration camps and forced farm collectivisations added another 20 to 40 million to Russia's killing fields.

World War II resulted in 55 million military and civilian casualties, almost half of them in the former Soviet Union, which lost 27 million. These figures do not include the 15 to 21 million who expired in Adolf Hitler's genocidal schemes, including the six million Jews he exterminated.

Mao Zedong snuffed out the lives of between 20 and 60 million people in the course of his many grandiose campaigns to remake China - from the Hundred Flowers' Bloom and the Great Leap Forward of the 1950s, to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. Western experts tend to cite the higher figure, while Chinese authorities cite the lower. But even the lower figure is nothing to sneeze at. It is five times Singapore's current population.

Barring a meteorite smashing into Earth, Man's capacity for destruction certainly seems greater than almost anything nature can inflict. The 1876-79 famines in Asia and South America, resulting from droughts caused by El Nino, are about the only natural disasters in recent history that came close to inflicting as many deaths as man did in the 20th century. Those famines killed an estimated 50 million.

We would have to go back further in history, to the 'Black Death' plagues of the 14th century in Europe and China, to glimpse more horrifying 'natural' possibilities. The plague eliminated a third of Europe's population between 1347 and 1351, and between half and two-thirds of China's in 1353. Some scholars trace China's decline as a great power from this point.

Even today, diseases of all kinds - from the preventable and curable, like malaria, to the preventable but incurable, like HIV/Aids - kill many more people than do either wars or earthquakes. Insofar as bugs and viruses are 'natural', pandemics may be considered 'natural disasters', but humanity is no longer as helpless before them as it was in the 14th century. The vast majority of the deaths from infectious diseases in the developing world today are wholly preventable.

The same, of course, cannot be said of the deaths due to calamities like the Indian Ocean tsunamis. Still, within a year from now, life would probably have acquired some semblance of near-normalcy in Aceh and Sri Lanka; and within five years, reconstruction would be more or less complete in the devastated areas. And if it isn't, it would not be because of nature, but because of long-standing man-made conflicts in these areas interfering with the reconstruction.

Is it possible to predict a similar end to the threat posed by terrorism in the foreseeable future? In all likelihood, the world will continue to wrestle with Islamic extremism for another generation at least, perhaps longer. It is a phenomenon which has its roots, according to some historians, in the collapse of the Ottoman empire in 1918, four generations ago, and in the view of others, perhaps earlier still, in Western expansionism going back all the way to the Crusades, 700 to 1,000 years ago. That's how long the rippling effects of human upheavals can last.

The suddenness of the tsunamis, the devastation they caused, reminded humanity of its helplessness before nature. In the wake of that reminder, it was possible to feel man-made disasters paled by comparison with natural ones. Theoretically at least, they can be averted, so why should one think of them as overwhelming?

But that is a deceptive sense born of a sudden shock. Nature, despite the harm it can cause, is capable of a blessed amnesia. Earthquakes and tsunamis are not daily occurrences. History, on the other hand, never sleeps. Its waking nightmares, consequently, can lay waste to life for far longer periods.

I think what this writer said is very true. Though the probability of dying from terrorist activities is very low, much lower than say dying from heart disease etc, it doesn't mean we can afford to ignore it altogether. The loss of lives from such activities is entirely preventable and if the ideological battle is not won, might just end in WW3. Scary...

From The Straits Times:

Jan 16, 2005

Cheers to old school ties

By Catherine Lim Suat Hong

FOR THE SUNDAY TIMES

IN TWO back-to-back evenings in the first week of 2005, I attended, by default, class reunions of almost all my alma maters.

The first was an invitation to a panel discussion on international affairs which I realised upon my attendance was part of an Internet-driven programme for mid-career students. For the group of 38 students spanning the globe from Kenya to Russia, the one-year course included a few weeks of residency at the graduate school in the United States and a study trip to Europe and Asia. Singapore was the venue of the Asia trip.

The first familiar face I encountered was my professor who, despite the fact that the last time we met was something like a decade ago, had no problems recalling who I was. We exchanged warm greetings. The course I took under him was conducted as a seminar where interaction was close-knit. It is in the nature of this man who describes himself as a 'humanist'.

He is in his 70s now. Five years ago, he embarked on teaching a totally new field of study: the oceans and their influences on the movement of peoples and cultures. He has moved from his country home where as students we had been on the receiving end of log fire hospitality, to a new home by the sea so that he could, in his own words, be totally 'immersed in this new course of study'. He remarked it was an exciting new venture to undertake at his age.

I reintroduced myself to another professor whose lectures on war I battled blistering winter winds once a week at 8am to attend. It covered the definitive wars of the modern century, from the civil war of America to the Vietnam war and the two world wars. I was introduced to the major 'war strategists' from Sun Zi to Clausewitz, grappled with the concept of St Augustine's 'just war' on one end and on the other, Machiavelli's total decimation in the pursuit of victory.

This war course has since morphed into 'The Role Of Force'. I gently suggested that there should also be a course on 'The Role Of Peace'. I suspect I too may be a humanist, closeted.

My Professor of War, I suspect, has also become more human. His voice swelled with pride when he told me of his nine-year-old son who has accompanied his parents to more countries than his age. I wanted to tell him something a mother of three sons told me: that children take you to places you never expected to go and force you to become the person you want to be.

The next evening, I attended a wedding of two former classmates from the two schools where I scraped through my O and A levels. The schools are what we called brother and sister schools - a misnomer if ever there was one as some relationships then and now might be viewed as incestuous.

The couple came together after more than 20 years with virtually no contact in between. The catalyst was so horrifying that it makes their love story all the more poignant. She was a survivor of the Marriott Hotel bomb blast in Jakarta in August 2002. I was not in contact with her for many years. But we met on the eve of the anniversary of the blast last year. She is today still undergoing therapy for the burns she sustained.

Before the incident, she was reputed to be a workaholic, difficult to work with but diligent. I listened in horror when told she held handover meetings in her hospital bed. With the support of her family and friends, she has pulled through a very difficult time and emerged a changed person. It is as if the skin grafts she received healed her inside out.

It was from reading news of the bomb blast in the papers that led the classmate, who is now her husband, to contact her. He was not successful in his initial attempts to reach her. She was not ready and protective friends shielded her. Then came the day when he lost a parent. The rest as they say is history. Of her I know she's had her share of serious relationships; of him, I don't know. But I can only conclude he has always held a torch for this classmate of ours.

At the 50th anniversary of his uniformed group last year, he had put together a montage of photographs from his school days. One photo was of him with six girls. The girl on his left is now his wife and she was the only girl in the photo with him in the montage. The rest of us had been unceremoniously and conveniently cropped out.

At the wedding dinner he jested that he had remained a bachelor for as long as he could until she came into his life again. It spoke volumes when the wedding couple chose to sup at their buffet-style dinner with the one couple who were at a table all on their own. I know the bride and her groom would like it to be known that they live in the grace of God and are guided by him.

There were familiar and not so familiar faces at this wedding, where two of my alma maters came together. Some names were instant recall and some a bit more challenging.

At the beginning of a new year, as a whole new cohort of Primary One students embark on their first steps on a long and seemingly endless journey, these are the first steps to lessons in life outside the family, where friendships are forged, mentors found, and where you could very well discover the love of your life. And even if you do not, you will find, as I have, a support group who is there to nurture and nourish you should you need it.

Wonder if I will attend any weddings between my ex-classmates and schoolmates. That would be rather sweet eh?

From The Straits Times:

Jan 16, 2005

S'pore wins Tiger Cup, beats Indonesia 2-1

SINGAPORE -- The Lions beat the Indonesian team 2-1 at the Tiger Cup final at a sold-out NationalStadium on Sunday, making this victory Singapore's first major international title won on home soil.

Indra Sahdan Daud and Agu Casmir both scored on Sunday to give Singapore victory over Indonesia and the Tiger Cup championship.

Playing before 55,000 fans at a sold-out National Stadium, Singapore goton the board earlyand never looked back.

Singapore had defeated Indonesia 3-1 in the first leg of the final on Jan 8 in Jakarta, giving the team a two-goal lead going into Sunday'smatch.

The victory marks the second time Singapore has won the tournament, grouping ten teamsfrom the member states of the Asean.

Indra put Singapore ahead in the sixth minute, collecting a long ball from goalkeeper Lionel Lewis and striking a blazing low drive from 20 metres past Indonesian goalkeeper Hendro Kartiko.

Nigerian-born Casmir doubled Singapore's lead by converting a penalty in the 41st minute after Indonesian defender Aris Indarto brought down Indra inside the area.

Indonesia came out strongly after the break, but were clearly hampered by the absence of star midfielder Boas Salossa, a major force in the tournament's earliermatches who sprained his ankle in the first leg of the final.

Eli Aiboy saved pride for Indonesia with a goal in the 79th minute, setting off brief celebrations among the tiny crowd of Indonesia supporters surrounded by a sea of Singaporefans dressed in their team's trademark red.

Singapore captain Aide Iskandar was sent off in the 88th minute for a second yellow card, but by then the win was sealed.

The loss leaves Indonesia runner up for the third straight time in the biennial tournament.
In Saturday's third place playoff, Malaysia edged Myanmar 2-1. -- AP

Well what else can I say? Well done. By the way have you all heard of 2 damn funny rumours? One was that Indonesia lost because Singapore threaten to withdraw the tsunami relief aid. The second one is Indonesia deliberately lost to express their gratitude. I find it damn funny but I don't believe it. But it shows the deeper scourge of kelong in football in SEA. No matter what competition, there's always the nagging feeling that bookies had arranged the results. Even if Singapore makes it to the World Cup, tongues will still wag. This is bad. I really hope one day we will be able to see a 5-0 scoreline and accept the team who won were better, not because of the dark invisible hand.