Thursday, July 29, 2010

What's up with India, Myanmar, MM Lee, and Vatican City?

India became friendly with Myanmar despite its earlier disagreement over undemocratic management of the Burmese nation in the 1990s. The Indian state promises to provide altogether $194 million to Myanmar.

Why such sudden friendliness? Here's what Newsweek thinks, "India needs energy to maintain its economic growth, and Burma has massive natural-gas reserves. New Delhi is scrambling for its share before China snaps up everything."

Besides, one has to ask whether do these funds really benefit the Myanmar people and not end up lining up the junta's pocket, which is usually the case, given the serious lack of transparency in the governance?

What was India thinking? Betraying its own conscience, which is evident in its earlier disapproval against the Myanmar government, in order to get a share of Myanmar's energy before taken all by China?

And all these are happening while Aung San Suu Kyi & Myanmar people are suffering. All concerned people, especially politicians and economists, should continuously press on together with Singapore Foreign Minister's call, "We suggested quite strongly to our Myanmar colleagues that they consider having Asean observers at elections, bringing in members of the family into what is really their own domestic affair."

Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew recently commented on the valuation of the workforce, "That's life! You know American Generals - they don't do well, they get fired and they give them a medal, they send a new general! I think we have to develop that approach to life. (When) you have reached the maximum you can do at your age in that position, you move sideways and you take less pay and you move gradually, (getting) less and less pay because you are moving slower and slower, especially when you're doing physical work."

This is intriguing. The proposed approach to valuation of the workforce on such an extreme level of meritocracy that values only the presence or the 'now' has social implication.

Respect and acknowledgment of the contribution of the elderly to the building of the nation cannot be simply overlooked when they can't contribute as much as earlier. To insist on taking this extreme meritocratic approach cultivates the later generation of locals who wouldn't know how to value their predecessors. Appreciation of individuals is reduced only to what we can give now regardless of what we have given in the past.

It would not take long for individuals who grow up under such social-economic sentiment to adopt this extreme meritocracy into their family life and start asking, "Should I care less for my parents and grandparents because they have less to contribute to my well-being NOW?"

Singapore is threading on the fine line between price and value in her society.

The Vatican City is now policing against men's shorts and women's sleeveless top and short skirt. This latest feat resembles in lesser degree the infamous moral policing in Malaysia. As one woman asked, "Given all the scandals the Church has been involved in, what possible right can it have to be preaching about the morality of sleeveless dresses?"

The Vatican reserves her rights to do whatever she wants regardless of others' thoughts. What I am more interested is Vatican's approach to the entire issue on the relationship between morality and the legislation of morality. I believes the Vatican takes the natural law as sufficient to point out what is moral and what is not. Yet it is still to be seen how does shorts and sleeveless top and skirt can be demonstrated by natural law alone that they are inappropriate attire.

This is especially necessary when "The tough dress code also applied to Romans using the Vatican's pharmacy, supermarket and post office."

Personally I don't have problem with people wearing scanty clubbing outfits even to church services. If I get distracted, then that is my fault and not theirs. They have every rights to wear whatever they are comfortable with.

May be some might protest by saying that individuals have the responsibility not to stumble others with their dressing. However, what rights do I have to dictate what others can or cannot wear when I can't even discipline myself not to be distracted?

Those who are easily stumbled are the ones that have to deal with their own issue. Think about it: If you feel stumbled while watching Baywatch, do you switch off the TV or do you write to the producers about the modesty of their actress? Your own pick.


VJ-Writes said...

I think that India being involved in Myanmar is a good thing. Because it wouldn't be good if both junta (which has tacit support of China) and the service providing companies all are from China.

The fact of the matter is that India can do nothing. It is no match for China which is the strength behind the junta. It isn't powerful enough. Good intentions aren't everything. I think this is the best possible move by India in this situation.

Something to think about..US is democratic and says that one of its aims of being in Iraq, Afghanistan is make sure that these countries have a stable, democratic government. Why isn't Myanmar in this list?

Vatican: I think the intention is good...modesty, simplicity but the method isn't. Rules and laws aren't going to bring that about. But the existence of such laws might deter some devout Catholics. Maybe?

reasonable said...

one version of Natural Law can mean that everyone in the congregation should cum to the church service naked when they gather together to worship God - nudist Christians, hehehe

(seriously, there are nudist Christians around, gathering together in the nude to do their Christian spirituality stuff)

Sze Zeng said...

Hi VJ-Writes,

Thank you for your comment.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi reasonable,

That's one stretchy way to understand Natural Law. But who knows.

clement said...


Nudist Christians would be offended by your comment. Nudism is non-sexual, remember? Anyway, most would prefer to be called "naturist".


I agree with you, totally.

reasonable said...

Clement said: Nudist Christians would be offended by your comment. Nudism is non-sexual, remember?

Hey Clement, why do u need to point out to me that "Nudism is non-sexual"?

Did my comment mention anything about nudism being sexual?

Why would nudist Christian be offended by my comment?

Please do not perform eisegesis - please improve on your ability to read text.