Getting theological

The few minutes I spend with Craig before he turns to his side and falls asleep at night are precious mommy-son bonding moments. I'd ask him about his day at the creche and he'd sometimes sing and rattle on about a story he read or something he saw ("the grasscutters were working hard today, mommy").

Two nights ago, whilst explaining to him that we're talking to God and he should try to keep still while we pray, he asked the million dollar question which we didn't think would surface so early: "Where is God?" Of course I should expect no less from a boy who is constantly in the inquisitive mode! So, backed by my investment in Christian Apologetics studies, I tried to engage this age-old universal concern only to be asked, "Where is God now?"

This engrossing conversation went on to discuss the identity of Jesus ("Jesus is an uncle" "No, honey, Jesus is the Son of God.") and ended with C exclaiming, "I love the Son of God!" While we doubt he fully comprehends all these, we are thrilled to be having such conversations with our little boy and look forward to a future of theological-philosophical talk at the table during mealtimes. Good stuff!

Chivalry isn't dead, apparently

Pix credit: www.travelblog.org

It's just my observation so far and I could be wrong but I think men are more compassionate to pregnant women than women are! The number of men who gave up their seat for me on the train far surpasses the number of women who did the same. I'm pleased to announce that I did get seat today as a kind man stood up as soon as he saw me board the train.

Bus, trains and automobiles

I (I'Ching) started commuting to work from our new home last week. From a mere stone's throw away, now I live 20 minutes away (by car) from the office. There are three options for me: 1) train (30 mins) followed by bus (15 or so mins); 2) bus all the way (1 hr 20 mins); and, 3) taxi: 20 mins but costs $15 or more one way.

I took option one the whole of last week. It was wonderful the first two days as even though the trains were packed, I got a seat - as I'm pregnant. On trains here, there are a few seats designated "Priority Seat" sort of reserved for the elderly, expectant mothers and parents with young children. I say, "sort of" as there is a sign above those seats that read, "Please be considerate - give up your seat for someone who needs it more." So, this means, the occupant of the seat can decide to not be considerate and not give up his seat. A needy person, like my present-self, has no right per se to ask him to get up. In other words, it all depends on the civic-sense (some call it commonsense but I do question how common that is nowadays!!!) of the seat-occupant.

On the third day of my commute, I boarded the train as usual and moved right up to where the priority seats are. Lo and behold, the two ladies occupying those seats did not give a hoot to the fact that I'm 7-month pregnant and need the seat badly (before my feet bloat to size 15). One gave me a look and continued to enjoy her iPod while the other continued to read. I was tempted to ask them for their seat but I remembered a recent story about how a pregnant woman asked a man for his seat and he shouted at her saying that he has no reason to give her his seat: "Why do you deserve this more than I do?" he asked!!!

So, afraid that I'd be publicly humiliated like that poor woman, I decided to stand till someone else with a seat leaves. Thankfully, a few stops later, one of the two UNKIND ladies left and I took her seat.

The same happened the next morning... So, nowadays, I do not take for granted that I will get a seat on the train just because I am a loadful. Kindness can be so rare in this society...

On a cheerier note, we put up our Charlie Brown Christmas tree last night. We made spiced apple cider, listened to carols, put up the tree and afterwards watched A Charlie Brown Christmas on dvd. A wonderful end to my birthday...

Dowry and infanticide

Photo credit:www.indian-baby-names-at-desimums.com

The last two weeks had been good for me (I'Ching) and I'm suspecting that the sunny second trimester of my pregnancy has finally arrived - yay! I've hardly any serious migraine though my sinus still bothers me (apparently stuffy nose is a part of pregnancy). As of today, baby is 22 weeks old and growing fast!

My short trip to India was uneventful - in a good way. As always, I met interesting people along the way, had great food... The driver who works for RZIM India, Jabasingh, was also getting ready to be a father while I was there (they have since gotten a baby girl, born on the morning after I left Chennai).

When I first found out about his then-expecting wife, I ignorantly asked if they knew the gender of the baby. Of course not! I was reminded that in India, they don't tell you what gender the baby is for fear of infanticide and abortion.

In India, males are favored over females for many reasons. Dowry is one. You see, when a male is of age, his parents would find him a suitable wife. Families of potential brides would then have to meet the demands of the groom's family - usually in terms of cash or big item gifts (furniture, electrical appliances, animals, etc). Though the demand and giving of dowry has been illegalized in India, it is still very much practiced. Sometimes demands from potential grooms are so high that families with girls have to work and save for years to afford marrying their daughters to a husband of fine background.

Due to this, parents prefer to have sons rather than daughters. I hear that in some rural Indian villages, if a girl is born, the baby would be abandoned and left to die. And, if they found out that the unborn is a girl, they would abort the baby (as is practiced in China!). This is inhumane but so commonly practiced! As such, the Indian government tries to curb it by banning doctors from telling parents the gender of their unborn.

So imagine how surprised my India colleagues were when I told them that I know I'll be having a son!

Silver for Malaysia

(Image credit: The Star)

After 3 intense weeks, the Olympics is finally over. Brian and I found ourselves cheering for Team USA and Team Malaysia (naturally!) but only Brian was cheering for Team Singapore. One reason why I was hesitant about my support of Team Singapore is that most of the participants of Team Singapore were not "pure/local" Singaporeans but rather imported talents from abroad (China, Indonesia, etc).

Team Malaysia's strongest bet was its badminton men's singles and while we did not achieve the gold we had coveted, we did get the silver. But silver is not good enough... Following is a letter written by a good friend on why that is the case. The letter which was published in The New Straits Times (one of Malaysia's national newspapers) is self-explanatory on our disappointment in our badminton "hero," Lee Chong Wei:

Like many other Malaysians, I was hoping that Lee Chong Wei will be able to perform to his ability and bring home the elusive Olympics gold. After all, he has provided us with many reasons to believe he can do it (from previous results) while we Malaysians pour out our endless emotional and financial (yup, we pay our taxes don't we) support to him. His only setback would be lack of mental toughness but wait...I believe that weakness have been identified and overcame. Remember? Lee entered the 2006 World Championship as the world ranked number one and as the top seeded player. In the 2006 World Championships, he lost to Bao Chunlai of China in the quarterfinal despite dominating the first game. Prior to losing this match to Bao, their head to head meetings record stood at 8-0 in favour of Lee. After the shocking loss, Lee suffered many more defeats with dismal performances which resulted in the end of his reign as world no.1.

In the Indonesian Open 2007, the old Lee Chong Wei reappeared by winning the title and beating Bao Chunlai in the final. After that, his fine form continued until the 2007 World Badminton Championships in Kuala Lumpur. Yes, again Lee suffered a shocking defeat in the last 16 to Sony Dwi Kuncoro of Indonesia and blamed the defeat on us Malaysians who supported him. Lee blamed us for putting too much pressure on him with our vociferous support for him. Fortunately, it didn't took Lee long to rebound from his second meltdown. From there, he chalked up more impressive wins and it seemed that Lee Chong Wei has finally managed to overcome his mental meltdowns from the loss in the 2006 World Championships and 2007 World Badminton Championships.

Then came the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Prior to Sunday (the fateful day - August 17, 2008), I was quietly confident that Lee could steal the gold medal from the Chinese players. In fact (in my opinion), Lee was the only player who could defeat Lin Dan or at least give Lin a run for his money. Lee has the required skills, power, speed and stamina to match Lin. My only concern was his mental strength but again we are talking about the Olympics. I'm sure BAM would have looked into that area (as I have read in the newspapers) for Lee who has a history to suffer mental meltdown during crunch time. As the badminton competition of the Olympics progressed, my confidence in Lee grew as he showed that he was able to handle the pressure and he has matured. I was indeed impressed with his mental recovery to win the semi final match, after uncharacteristically losing the second game in such tame manner to Lee Hyun-Il.

The final day for Olympics badminton competition started with such an exciting match - the bronze medal playoff for Mixed Doubles. The four players were battling so fiercely as if it was a gold medal match and their life was on the line. Then came the gold medal match for Mixed Doubles. Wow an upset! The no. 1 seeded Indonesian pair fell to the Korean pair. Inspiring. In fact, Zhang Ning's win over Xie Xianfang was also very inspiring. Could Lin Dan fall to Lee Chong Wei just like the other top seeds that have previously fell in the Olympics badminton?

Unfortunately, we have to witness an embarrassing defeat of Lee by Lin. Don't get me wrong. I'm not angry or disappointed that Lee lost to Lin. I'm angry and disappointed by the way Lee lost to Lin. It makes me even more upset to find out that Lee was given a hero's welcome and untimely praises by Malaysians. Why are we celebrating? What is there to celebrate? The silver medal is the least that Lee should deliver. Anything less than a silver from Lee would have been a disaster and money wasted. Why are we Malaysians treating him as a hero while Lee was just merely doing his job and performing his responsibility. Malaysia has spent our tax payers' money (all these years) to fund Lee and the badminton team to bring home a gold not a silver. Why are we Malaysians toasting Lee as a champion when he has ended up second best? Are we so desperate that even losing should be a reason for us to celebrate and crowned a hero?

If we do not put a stop to the "loser" mentality, Malaysian sports will never produce another world champion or Olympic gold medalist. It was very obvious that Lin shouldered as much pressure as Lee (if not more - just compare China's population to Malaysia to do the math) but Lin shown the winners' attitude and approach. Lin was determined to win and prepared well for the match while Lee was merely trying to win. The attitude and approach proved to be difference in separating the winner and loser for the match. I sincerely hope that this experience will open up the eyes and mind of all Malaysians that in order to win, it all starts with having the winning mind set. There is no point in giving a wrong illusion by toasting second best and treating them as heroes or Malaysia as a country will never win any area. Lee should be given a pat on the back for a job done but not hero's treatment. The development of badminton in Malaysia is falling into the trap of other sports that are spiraling downward like football and hockey (just to name a couple). The main area that we lose at is lacking the winning attitude and mindset. Datuk Nicol David truly deserves a hero's welcome and Malaysians should learn how to be world champions from her - the only true champion and hero of Malaysian sports.

Me, a feminist???

I (I'Ching) was listening to a Podcast by Serrin Foster, the President of Feminists for Life of America. In the beginning of her speech, she went on to define feminism - according to its historical tradition, that is, according to the first feminists of America - Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Wollstonecraft, etc. Included in the definition is the notion of belief in the strength of women, rejection of violence and exploitation, equality of all human life regardless of gender, race, education, age or any other categories one can think of.

As I reflect on this definition of feminism, I found myself agreeing with Foster. After all, these are exactly some of the values I hold on to strongly - that EACH human life is unique, sacred and hence worthy of protection, love and, most importantly, rights. If that is the case, then I guess I am a feminist in the "traditional" sense of the term - not in the post-60's and post-modern liberal expression of the activism. Now, I've never considered myself a feminist as, for example, it never bothered me that God is refered to as "He" as opposed to a neuter being (besides, God is NOT neuter - male AND female were made in his image); or that women are not to be ordained as the senior minister in some Christian denominations.

However, I would not hesitate to be associated with Feminism if it is in the spirit of Susan B. Anthony:
"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.” (Susan B. Anthony, 1820 - 1906)

I continue to be fascinated by the early American Feminist movement as I learned of their view of human life - both of women and of the unborn; and how they fought verociously for their rights (quotes all taken from Feminists for Life site):

Mattie Brinkerhoff wrote in The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869:
"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton meanwhile classified abortion as a form of "infanticide." In The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868: "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

Then again in a letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library: "There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?" ("The Revolution, 1(10):146-7 March 12, 1868)

The early American feminists saw abortion as the victimization of women and children. Women were the victims of abortion. However, today, most "mainstream" feminists see abortion as the woman's right! How did we get here??? !!! Who deceived us into thinking that yanking out our unborn babies from our birth canals is our right as women???

For your information: according to statistics from a few years ago, the life of 4,000 unborn babies are terminated every single day in the US. I've been trying to obtain accurate statistics of abortion in Singapore but this has been an almost impossible task. As abortion on demand is legal in Singapore up till the 24th week, I am curious to know how many babies are discarded daily... and my heart weeps for them...

Avoid suffering at ALL costs!

I (I'Ching) was having a lunch meeting with a few fellas when the topic of abortion came up. We were discussing how there is a general lack of moral reflection on the issue where Christians merely assert that abortion is wrong as the bible says so; or that it is murder, and that's that. But as we all know from real-life experience, such a statement is insufficient as an evidence to support that abortion is wrong - it is merely an assertion, not a valid argument. Besides, nowhere in the bible does it state that abortion per se is wrong or immoral. The conclusion that abortion is wrong comes more from a reflection on what the bible teaches about the human person and when does a human life begin - at conception or at another point of the fetus's life in the mother's womb.

I will not get into the details of the reflection and its conclusion here but if any of you are interested, email me and I will send you a paper I presented last year at a public forum on abortion in Singapore. Suffice to say here that I believe that human life begins at conception and that the fetus is already a human person right from that point. This means, regardless of the "good" reasons for abortion or the time when it is performed, the termination of the life of the fetus is murder of a human being.

So, back to the meeting with my friends. One of them continued to state that he believes abortion is wrong but he still "personally feels" that he would allow for abortion for rape victims. He cited the shame and emotional anguish of the woman as too much suffering for a rape victim to endure. Now, I was surprised to hear such reasoning coming from this friend. So, without cutting him off in mid-sentence, I let him finish what he was saying and then cautiously state my view. I informed him that many reliable surveys have shown that aborting the baby does little to alleviate the pain and suffering of the rape victim. In fact, in most cases, victims who have undergone abortion feel even more anguish as not only do they bear the shame and pain of the crime, they now bear the guilt of terminating the life of one who shares a unique bond with her even though the unborn may "remind" her of the traumatic experience. I also added that the emotional response such as my friend's is understandable. However, if we believe that the unborn is a human being right from the point of conception, abortion is the murder of another human being regardless of the reasons for it.

My friend's view, it seems, was one that is motivated merely by pragmatic reasons i.e. the well-being of the woman. While I am not trivializing the pain and suffering of a rape victim, but authentic compassion would not eliminate the life of another as a means to alleviate suffering itself. If we go along the pragmatic line of argument, does it mean that it is okay for one to terminate the life of his or her child if the child shames him or her or bring much emotional (or even physical) suffering to them? I have heard of parents who have adult kids who borrow much money from illegal loan sharks and gone into hiding and the parents have to bear the violent threats of the loan sharks! Does this kind of suffering justify the murder of one's child? Surely not!

Besides, the unborn baby is just as much of a victim as the mother herself. Should another crime (of abortion) be committed to alleviate the suffering of the rape victim? As Christians, we are always called toward compassion for the sick, the aged, the victimized and the unborn. It calls us to strive to alleviate suffering, BUT always with respect for the inviolable sanctity of ALL human life.

It is understandable for those who have not had an encounter with Christ, the one acquainted with sorrow and suffering, to view suffering as the ultimate evil and hence the relief of suffering seen as the greatest good. Under such a view, suffering is deemed to be meaningless and to be avoided at all costs and by all means. However, I think as Christians, we must be able to see the redemptive quality in suffering and strive to live counter the "culture of death" that is so prevalent and popular in our social spheres. Much can be said about this but I have gone on too long...