Search Results

Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? Matthew 17:17 To Tolerate or not to Tolerate, is that Really the Question? It is almost considered axiomatic nowadays to treat tolerance as a virtue. After all, we are taught at all levels of society to tolerate all kinds of things, differing religious beliefs, races, convictions and sexual orientation. It seems sheer madness to question the virtue of tolerance, almost like questioning the moral depravity of infanticide or torture. However, Bernard Williams, a famous atheistic moral philosopher in his paper Tolerance: An Impossible Virtue does have a rather interesting argument demonstrating that tolerance is largely impossible. Now, one must take care to note that he is not arguing that that tolerance is bad or that it is a vice, he's arguing that tolerance is impossible, that it is an inherently self-contradictory idea. Tolerance as a virtue, according to this argument, will be like the idea of non-spatial green objects, an impossibility. By the fact of something being green, it has to be composed of photons and electromagnetic waves, and it has therefore be spatial, so there can't possibly be a non-spatial green object. Naturally the concept of tolerance, like any other concept in moral or political philosophy, is necessarily vague and does not have the same clarity as space-time physics, thus, its impossibility may not be very obvious at first. But yet, Williams by teasing out how the concept of tolerance is commonly employed, has demonstrated that tolerance is as a matter of fact self-contradictory, and often collapses into something else. Tolerating the Intolerable; Or Tolerance as Acceptance First, consider the types of differences we are asked to tolerate. We don't, for example, ask people to tolerate differing tastes in ice-cream flavours or to tolerate differing preferences of pets types or differing hobbies. And why not? Because these are not significant differences, or, in other words, they are not differences that matter to us. To put it another way, they are not differences that makes a difference. It doesn't matter to me if you prefer vanilla while I like chocolate. So what are we asked to tolerate? The answer has to be that we are asked to tolerate differences that matter to us, or differences which would as a matter of fact, offend us. Take an extremely vivid example of what we are normally asked to tolerate: Religious differences. As a Christian, I am asked to tolerate Muslims, because the Muslim believes in claims which differ from mine which is of the greatest and deepest significance to me. It is central to my being and who I am that Christ is God and that he gave his life for me on the Cross, without which I am nothing. While the Muslims is supposed to deny both the divinity of Christ and his sacrificial death. So, in effect, I am asked to tolerate blasphemy of my God. But here comes the contradiction. If, as a matter of fact, I consider the denial of the divinity of my deity to be something central and essential to who I am, this denial is, paradoxically, intolerable. It is deeply offensive to me and strikes at the core of who I am. Whilst I am convinced that Christ my God does have sovereign claims of Lordship over all creation, the Muslim utterly deny what is my deepest conviction, thus, attacking at what deeply matters to me. So, if the proper object of tolerance is the intolerable, then how is this contradiction resolved in practice? Normally, by tolerance, we are asked to accept what is intolerable, to incorporate it into oneself. But how is it possible to accept what contradicts one's own most deepest convictions? By virtue of it constituting the core of one's being, one can't possibly be asked to accept what would go against one ownself. So, normally what has happened is that the object of tolerance is reduced in significance. For example, in the question of race, normally asking to tolerate another race is made based on the fact that race is not a significant part of who one is. One can interact, work with and even marry a person of another race because race doesn't matter. Its not so important to the sense of who one is. Of course, I realise that this is very much more complex than what I've made it out. For example, it could be that the differences do not contradict in the way that religious differences do contradict. To be Chinese is not contradictory to being Indian in the way that being a Christian contradicts being a Muslim. Or racial toleration could also be made on the basis that most activities and forms of life does not involve racial components, thus, tolerance of racial differences is simply a recognition of this fact. Of course, if it is true that most activities in our lives does not involve any racial components, then that just goes to show that race, as a matter of fact, doesn't occupy a large or significant part of our lives anymore, which is simply the initial argument, that we can tolerate "intolerable differences", by rendering the "intolerable differences" insignificant. Stanley Hauerwas once quipped that most Christians nowaday says, "Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour of All, but that's just my personal opinion". But I'm sure you can spot the contradiction by now. If the differences in question are as a matter of fact insignificant, like preferences of ice-cream flavours, then as a matter of fact, there is nothing left to tolerate because we are only asked to tolerate significant differences. So, it seems that we have come full circle. To tolerate is to tolerate the intolerable, and the intolerable is what contradicts a significant and important part of who one is. But in practice, the call to tolerance becomes a call to acceptance, which can normally only be accomplished by reducing the significance of the intolerable. But in so doing, then there is nothing left that needs to be tolerated. So, it seems that tolerance is an impossible virtue. It seems that its path is always towards its own destruction. Suffering the Intolerable; Or Tolerance as Suffering So far I have made no value judgements as to whether tolerance as acceptance is a good or bad thing. May be it is a good thing that differences between people be neutralised and rendered insignificant. I do not know. But then again, I am a moral nihilist and I couldn't care less if it is a good or bad thing. But as a Christian, I definitely cannot contemplate the possibility of accepting blasphemy or heresy. What's the Christian alternative? Today the word suffer has come to have almost purely sensory meaning, to undergo or endure pain. But the older use of the word "suffer" does overlap significantly with "tolerate". For example the 1662 ordination rules of the Anglican Church stipulates that Church of England shall suffer no cleric to perform any ministerial function unless he be ordained according to the form of the ordinal or have episcopal ordaination. Another famous use of this sense of suffer is the famous phrase "I do not suffer fools gladly", which does not mean to undergo the pain or whatever, but simply to put up with them. As Christians, we are called not only to suffer fools glady (which, in case you didn't know, the phrase originated from the KJV translation of 2 Corinthians 11:19), but to suffer all things and all persons gladly. We are asked to tolerate all kinds of offense and repulsive things, not by neutralising their offensiveness via playing down their significance, but by patient long-suffering and endurance. We are called to bear with the unclean, the intolerable, the offensive, the perverse and the repulsive, because Christ himself bore our sins and our curse on the Cross. Did he "tolerate" our sins in the contemporary sense of the word? Of course not. Our depravity and uncleaness is intolerable to his divinity, our corrupt practices and minds open wounds in his Body. He did not and cannot accept it, but his response is to suffer it through patience and long-suffering love, all the way to the Cross. He touched the unclean and dine with the outcasts and sinners. He did not empty their sins and corruption of their significance, but he saw beyond them, he accepted their persons and saw beyond their sins, saw that they had a future and a hope of redemption beyond it, in Him and in His enduring love, which has a depth able to suffer all things. To touch us offends His Holiness, to eat with us demeans His Majesty, but he suffered it with joy, that we might rejoice in Him, he despised the shame of the Cross and accepted the humiliation of his lowliness that he might honour his saints and glorify his sons. And so he patiently suffered their corruption in love that they will recover with his healing touch, for by his wounds suffered by our sinning, we are healed. Conclusion As Christians we must be wary of the rhetoric of the age and not buy into contemporary talk of "tolerance", etc. Our practices and speech must be shaped by the Christian faith, not secular ideology. We are not called to render the intolerable tolerable, but to suffer the intolerable, in the hopes that the one day, the suffering will be healed through the redemption of the Cross. For it is through the Suffering of the Cross that our Saviour draws all man to himself, so likewise are we called to suffer, if we are to draw man towards His Body, the Church, and through this will his Kingdom come and his Will be done.

Paradox of Wrath and Mercy in the God Luther have always understood that any engagement with God is always a struggle. Just as Jacob had to wrestle with the angel before the angel blessed Jacob, so likewise is any attempt to comprehend and engage with God a laborious and tormenting struggle. Thus, Luther had no easy or simple formulas for holding together the two poles of God's nature, his wrath or anger against sinning man and his grace and mercy towards the same. I remember as a teacher in a methodist school years ago asked by students why does the school keep dishing detentions when as Christians they ought to forgive. When I answered that according to the Bible we can't spare the rod, then they complained that its so inconsistent when they preach mercy and forgiveness in the chapel only later to inflict vengeful punishment in the classrooms. I merely laughed at this point but the question has always remained with me. Truly as the Psalmist says out of the very mouth of infants and children has come wisdom! Of course the common Evangelical/Reformed answer is that on the Cross wrath and mercy meet and God's vengeance is satisfied by punishing Christ on the Cross that God might show mercy to man. Whatever the merits which such an explanation has, (and I certainly think it is doubtful, like my students I would ask, why can't God just forgive without the need to exact punishment, on an innocent man of all people too!) it still does not answer the fundamental question. How is God's wrathful anger against sinners to be reconciled with his grace and mercy, if both are part of his nature, then isn't it completely arbitary which one he decides to be? How can we pray, as Anglicans do in the Prayer of Humble Access, that God is a God "whose nature is always to have mercy" when sometimes he doesn't show any in his rather ruthless punishment? Then it isn't his nature to always have mercy as he sometimes doesn't show mercy, as when the Lord commanded Israel to literally "show no mercy" to their enemies in Deuteronomy 7:2. Luther's answer with regards to this paradox is both subtle and sophisticated and not something which can be grasped easily in a formula, as is his understanding on the nature of Christ's work on the Cross. I do not claim to be an expert on Luther although I have read some of his works. In what follows will be a Lutheran explanation rather than Luther's own thinking per se, a thinking which I have developed along the lines of Luther although strictly speaking it may not be exactly his, but it does follow the trajectory of the Lutheran tradition. The Darkness is in the Eye of the Beholder In Luther's Bondage of the Will, Luther muses that if God were truly in control of all the evils in the world, then God would be worse than the devil. There is a certain contradiction in Luther's thought. On the one hand, Luther insists that God is a God of wrath, whose vengeances burns without mercy against sin. He is a devouring fire, a consuming God. On the other hand, Luther elsewhere insists that God's nature is nothing but pure love; he is not a God of wrath and of anger but only of grace. How does he reconcile these two contradictory statements? Luther has a rather interesting answer in that he argues that the God of wrath is not the real God but something which exists as a pigment in man's imagination. Man sees not the true God but an idol, not God as he is in reality but only a dark cloud covering God's face. As Luther puts it, Anyone who regards Him as angry has not seen Him correctly, but has pulled down a curtain and cover, or even more, a dark cloud over His face Thus, the surprising proposal is as, Paul Althaus, a Lutheran theologian, put it, This cloud... exists in man's heart and is therefore not objectively but only subjectively present. It exists only in the false thinking about God to which Satan constantly seduces man... Scripture when it speaks of the wrath of God only reflects our own subjective impression of God and does not intend to say that God is really wrathful. How can we make sense of this rather extraordinary claim? Has the Scriptures been systematically deceiving us? Is the Wrath of God a mere illusion? Maybe I can propose an interpretation of this Lutheran claim. Luther once mentioned that wrath is God's "alien work", it is does not properly belong to God's nature but he is "forced" into it. Picking up on the idea of "alien work", let me propose the following claim: The God of wrath is what God is to us when we do not see God with the eyes of faith and in the light of Christ. Thus, we see God as the God of wrath when we do not see him in the light of Christ or in faith. Maybe an analogy will help. Imagine that there is a person whose eyesight is so damaged and terrible that without his glasses, he is practically blind and can only make out vague shapes. Let's postulate that he is also practically deaf without his hearing aid and can only hear undecipherable vague or loud sounds without it. Suppose on one unfortunate day, he loses both his glasses and his hearing aid. He stumbles about hopeless and helpless as he tries to get help. Suddenly, he feels someone seizing him and thundering something at him, the poor victim becomes frightened and starts to believe that he is being kidnapped or that he is being man-handled by someone with harmful intent. He struggles and resist in fear, but the person who has seized him is too strong and restricts him movements, causing him pain. The victims becomes terrified and even hates this person. But when the person suddenly puts on a pair of glasses on him and replaces his hearing aid, and to his immense atonishment, the person is actually his father who has come to helped him out and restore his senses, and that his father had restrained him because he was about to walk blindly into a road of heavy traffic. Thus, as mankind who partake of the original corruption of Adam, our perception of God has been darkened and blinded by the devil and our own sinful desires, just as the victim did not perceive his father for who is he, so likewise do we not see our Father in heaven for who he is. When terrible and painful things happens to us, when our conscience or guilt oppresses, we struggle and hate God for inflicting such suffering on us, for frustrating our disordered and sinful desires and we also hate God's punishment for oppressing us with guilt, just as the victim mistrusts and hates the father for restraining him and causing him pain in the process. But when we put on Christ or receive the light and truth of Christ, we see that suffering or the guilt of conscience is not God punishing us, but we see our own suffering and guilt in the light of the suffering Christ, a God who partakes of our sorrows and pain and even bears our sin and death, to take it away that we might also share and partake of his resurrection. We see in Christ God's will for us, and what we ought to desire for true human flourishing instead of our destructive and sinful desires which goes contrary to our nature. Thus, when we see God in the light of Christ, we no longer see the God of wrath but the God of love, we see God as he truly is, the Crucified God of Grace and Love who works for our salvation and reconcilation. So likewise when the father puts on the glasses and hearing aid on the victim, the victim recognises his father and sees his restrain and pain in a new light. Thus there is a sense in which God relates to us as we relate to him. If we deny God's gracious promises to us in Christ or attempt to see God apart from Christ, then the only God we shall see is the God of wrath and anger and we shall see it everywhere, even on the very grounds which bears God's curse. But this "God of wrath" does not truly exist, it exists only in the eye of the beholder, because the beholder in sin refuses the light of Christ and the eyes of Holy Spirit, thus, he can only see God as vengeful, punishing and merciless. But once the beholder rejects sins and puts on Christ and the eyes of faith, he perceives God as God truly is, the God of grace and love who bears sins and suffering for the salvation of mankind. Luther would put it in these very strong terms, As you think, so God is. If you believe that God is angry, he is... Thus our thoughts have a great effect. For God will be toward me as I think he is. So that even though the thought that God is angry is false, it will nevertheless be so, although false. There is an interesting Gospel which would illustrate Luther's point about God being whatever we think him to be, "For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, `Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, `Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, `Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, `You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents." Matthew 25:14-28 One might think that this is a very strange parable. Is the Master truly "a hard man, reaping where he did not sow, gathering where he did not winnow"? And did Master confess that he really is like that? Rene Girard has a most suggestive interpretation, The servant who is content to bury the talent that was entrusted to him, instead of making it bear interest, also has the most frightening picture of his master. He sees in him a demanding overseer who 'reaps where he has not sown.' What happens to this servant is, in the last analysis, in exact conformity with his expectations, with the image he has constructed of his master. It does not derive from the fact that the master is really like the servant's conception of him... but from the fact that men make their own destinies and become less capable of breaking away from the mimetic obstacle the more they allow themselves to be fascinated by it. Thus, we relate to God as we imagine him to be. If we relate to him and think of in in accordance to God's self-revelation in Christ, we see God properly and as He is, but if we see him outside of Christ, we shall only invent an idol after our own image, which will self-destruct eventually when God works his wrath. The God of wrath is simply a reflection of the darkness in our own hearts. The Hidden and Revealed God Another thread of thought which runs through this discussion is the idea of the God "who is hidden" and the God "who is revealed". Lutheran thought has a very strong Christological center in that they would always insists the Christ is the "true" God, the incarnate God who is revealed in the flesh, the summit of God's self-revealation after the prophets and the Hebrew fathers. It is in the incarnate God where we find the "true" God, the God who is revealed. But if we attempt to look past God's self-revealtion in Christ, there is only the darkness of sin and God's anger. The "God who is hidden" or the God outside the light of Christ is the terrible God of wrath. If we attempt to find God in creation or in ourselves, we shall only see the curse of God on the very grounds of creation, and the terrible voice of judgement in our sinful conscience when we look within. Thus, to see the true God, we must look in faith outside and towards Christ, and in Christ we see God's heart and God as he truly is, the Suffering Saviour, the Promised Messiah and the Lord of Grace. Luther has a very interesting commentary on a Gospel event which illustrates his point about the necessity of faith to see the true God. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. Matthew 15:22-28 Thus, a Lutheran reading would go like this: Christ in his "rejection" mode is being the "hidden God", the God who seems indifferent and does not show grace, who seems to reject us and even compare us to "dogs". But the woman in faith persists and in faith sees Christ for what he "truly" is, the Lord of love and the God of grace whose nature is always to have mercy, no matter how rejecting or distant and yes, even wrathful God may seem, but this wrath God exists only in our sinful eyes and disbelief, we must in faith "break through" our sinful disbelief and fear of God and reach out to the "true" God in faith and lay hold on his promises. The Preached God Attached to the distinction between the "revealed God" and the "hidden God" is the distinction between the God who is preached and the God not preached. In order to understand Luther's concept of "preaching" properly, one must see it in the light of the Lutheran insistence of God being for you. God did not only die for the world but also for you. This "for you" is one of the key distinctions between Lutheranism and every other Protestant denomination. We can see it running through all of Lutheran theology. In baptism, it is God speaking to you, declaring that you are baptised into Christ's death and body through the minister, in absolution it is the minister declaring that you are forgiven in the name of Christ and by the authority passed down to the minister in the succession of the apostolic gifts. In the Sacrament of the Altar, Christ declares to the congregation that this bread IS his Body which is broken for you, this cup IS the Blood of the New Covenant shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Thus, essential to the Lutheran idea of preaching is the concept of being addressed. Preaching is not a third-person objective exposition or explanation of a Biblical text, it is the minister taking authority to declare God's promises to the congregants, to address God's promises to the world. Thus, in Christ, we see the heart of God, who as He truly is, a God who is for you, a God of promises for you, a God who gives his life for you and for your salvation. Preaching must always be conducted in the second person, it must always be an address. Conclusion I fear that this note has run too long for me to discuss the significance of the Cross and the kenotic Christological innovation in Lutheran thought. But I shall return to these topics may be after I've finished the last section on this series.

The following is a facebook conversation which I had with a self-declared gay person, who used to be a Christian but have since left his church, which I believe is one of those fundy evangelical types. (God save us from them!) I thought that it might be instructive and provocative, would like to seek your comments. :) Facebook status of friend: "Shit. Shitty shit shit. Why did I had to re-read the Book of Revelation today? Now I am scared. Don't judge me, but I am brought up in this." Subsequent Comment on Status by him: i believe in the bible. Apparently, there are SEVEN seals. When the sixth seal is open, there will be violent earthquakes everywhere. Sun will turn black. Moon will turn red. This will be the start of more disasters that is to come. Stars w...ill fall from the sky. Mountains and islands will be ripped apart. It will take years. But we could be reaching the seventh seal in the near future. The seventh seal...The greatest even will be a HUGE STAR crashing down on earth called "Wormwood". Keep a lookout for that name. Because when we hear that name in the news, it is time to panic. Then we'll enter the next phase of destruction. I will not elaborate here. But seriously, I am scared. I know many will call me superstitious whore. But I don't care. I am just scared. Me: If you didn't care, you wouldn't be scared... but it is precisely because you do care that's why you're scared... why not care a bit more and try to read it properly? Friend: ...there are so many doctrines out there now. I don't even know which is false or true anymore. It is said there will be any false prophets in the end-times. Which should I believe? I don't know anymore. I feel like crying to God at night...Begging Him to tell me the answer. I need answers. NOT signs... Me: "I need answers. NOT signs..." Ask, and you shall receive. :P Friend: Machina, can i enter heaven with my boyfriend if we start to worship Him and praise Him and still have sex with each other? And I still continuing my live webcam shows? Must I give up anything to fulfill God's pre-requisites to enter that holy place? The bible doesnt teach me that. Except that those who are sexually immoral will not be able to enter. Am I? Me: I believe that even Hitler can enter Heaven. I have no right to set any limits to the lovingkindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ. And it is my hope and prayer that all of Hell will be empty on the Last Day. So, if you're asking... who can and cannot enter heaven, what are the possibilities of God's grace, my answer must be that it is limitless and without boundaries. There are no pre-requisites to entering Heaven, that's what grace means. Friend: Do you know what will crush me inside out? That I worship Him and yet still love my partner. But then...On that day when the groom comes to take His bride, I will be one of them brides who has not made herself ready... Me: *Shrug*, we are commanded to love our neighbour and all mankind, those that mean therefore we are all to be excluded? Friend: Dom, so what you mean is that we are all equal regardless of sexual orientation...? I have yet to reconcile this part...I cannot do it...ARGHHH!!!! Ok, I think perhaps I will start going to church and bring my partner along. And we'll see what happens. I will continue to love both Him and him. And if God forsakes us during the end of time, then I guess...He doesn't accept our relationship. But for now...I will try. Try to love both entities as if it were nothing wrong. That is the best I can do. Although I would want HIM to give me answers before I waste my time. Me: Hahaha... I don't believe in the existence of straight people, and I believe that heterosexuality is a sin. We are commanded to love a particular person, our spouse, not an entire group of people! (Defined by gender or otherwise). Straight people are just as sinful as gay people, because they love whole groups of people of the opposite sex, instead of one person. The only difference that gay people are is that they love whole groups of peoples of their own sex. This is my primary trouble with "sexual orientation" thinking. Sigh... but he already has . It is called the Holy Scriptures. You said you didn't want signs from God, but answers, but how else do he communicate except through signs, through the symbols and signs of the Scriptures? The one goes with the other. God speaks through the Scriptures, and it is there that you shall find the answers. There is no "direct" conversation which he can have with you, and even if he did, he will have to communicate through signs which you reject anyway... Friend: Dom, have you ever considered that the scriptures have been butchered by strict religious christians to make it sound like God condemns gay people and what not. And the scriptures have also been butchered by gay-friendly people to make it sound like God embraces simply everyone? Scriptures are adulterated. Adulterated to satisfy different parties. Making them believe what they want to believe. This is why I don't know anything anymore. I have been to many churches of different denominations and thinkings. So many different ways and methods of giving the sermons. Some talk about LOVE. Some talk about PUNISHMENTS. Some talk about EMBRACING each other. Some WARNS us of our actions. So how do we put it all together if they don't even get along with each other? Me: I agree with you thoroughly that the Scriptures have been used by various factions to justify their own party lines and sects. That different groups of people will interpret the Scriptures to suit their own sect or needs. I've often been very pained by the denominationalism and public split of the Church. But look at it this way. There are many different theories about love. Some say its a feeling, some say its something which you do. Some say love is caring for others without self-interest, and others say that it is self-involving and possessive. But does the different concepts of love stop you from exploring and pursuing it? Of course not. Its one of the most valuable things of life, though there is much confusion about it, you don't stop trying to understand and look for it. It is the same with Christ and His Church. Yes, there is conflict, confusion and differences, but Christ is someone worth grasping, don't let it discourage you from pursuing it. Even if you don't trust much in Singapore churches or theology (I don't think much of them anyway), I hope that I have at least proven myself to be objective and willing to be clear about such things. If you are willing, we can meet up and discuss this. I do often change my mind myself, whenver I read new stuff or something, thus, I am always submitting my mind to the Scriptures and to God, and not rigidly holding on to my own opinion.

I read with keen interest the news that social mobility in Singapore's education system is still alive and well ("School system still 'best way to move up'"; Monday). It is indeed heartwarming to learn that only 90% of children from one-to-three-room flats do not make it to university. I firmly agree with our Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen, who declared that "education remains the great social leveller in Singaporean society". His statement is backed up with the statistic that 50% of children from the bottom third of the socio-economic ladder score in the bottom third of the Primary School Leaving Examination. In recent years, there has been much debate about elitism and the impact that a family's financial background has on a child's educational prospects. Therefore, it was greatly reassuring to read about Dr Ng's great faith in our "unique, meritocratic Singapore system", which ensures that good, able students from the middle-and-high income groups are not circumscribed or restricted in any way in the name of helping financially disadvantaged students . I would like to commend Ms Rachel Chang on her outstanding article. On behalf of the financially disadvantaged students of Singapore, I thank the fine journalists of the Straits Times for their tireless work in bringing to Singaporeans accurate and objective reporting.Letter published last Friday, March 18th A reassuring experience of meritocratic system I READ with keen interest the news that social mobility in Singapore's education system is still alive and well ('School system still 'best way to move up''; March 8). It is indeed heartwarming to learn that almost 50 per cent of children from one- to three-room flats make it to university and polytechnics. I firmly agree with Education Minister Ng Eng Hen, who said that education remains the great social leveller in Singapore society. His statement is backed by the statistic that about 50 per cent of children from the bottom third of the socio-economic bracket score within the top two-thirds of their Primary School Leaving Examination cohort . There has been much debate about elitism and the impact that a family's financial background has on a child's educational prospects. Therefore, it was reassuring to read about Dr Ng's own experience of the 'unique, meritocratic Singapore system': he grew up in a three-room flat with five other siblings, and his medical studies at the National University of Singapore were heavily subsidised; later, he trained as a cancer surgeon in the United States using a government scholarship . The system also ensures that good, able students from the middle- and high-income groups are not circumscribed or restricted in any way in the name of helping financially disadvantaged students. Does this count has having been published in the Straits Times? I'm not quite sure what to think. After all, I can't really take credit for this! To give me the byline would be an outrageous flattery and a gross injustice to the forum editors of ST, who took the liberty of taking my observations about the statistics and subtly replacing them with more politically correct (but significantly and essentially different) statistics. Of course, ST reserves the right to edit my letter for clarity and length. When said statistics in question were directly taken from their original article, though, one has to wonder if there hasn't been a breakdown in communication over there. I'm dreadfully sorry, forum editors, I should have double-checked my original source (your journalist Ms Rachel Chang) before sending my letter. Then there are instances of editing work that just makes you want to give a standing ovation: take a look at how my pride in our meritocratic system in my original letter has been transfigured into awe at Dr Ng's background, for example! Dear friends, when an editor takes the time and effort to not just paraphrase but completely and utterly transform your piece in both intent and meaning, then what can we say but bravo. There are surely no lazy slackers over at the Straits Times; instead we have evidently men and women who dedicate time and effort to correct their misguided readers, and protect them from the shame of having their real opinions published. It makes me angry to think of how these fine journalists, servants of the public good, are routinely abused by ignorant Netizens for coming in 136th in the worldwide press freedom rankings! Yet they take the criticism, the vitriol and venom constantly directed towards them without once complaining. Oh, the nobility. That straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for me? Notice how in my original letter I dedicated a whole paragraph to saluting these gentlemen and ladies... And yet, not a trace of praise and commendation found in the published letter! The modesty, the humility to censor from the public eye praise for your own work, knowing that the true journalist works not for recognition but for the inherent reward of serving the public... My friends, it brings a tear to my eye. Sources: http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_646303.html

Oh? Really? Look at Myanmar and Zimbabwe and many other African nations. Are their "own" Junta and their "own" Mugabe putting the interest of their nations first? Or are they acting to protect their own power and interests, to the destruction and oppression of their "own" people? This objection is just a piece of nationalistic and anti-colonial rhetoric. It operates on the ideological assumption of "us" and "them", and it propagates the lie that somehow "us" is holier, better, more virtuous, and altruistically works for "our" good, than "them", who are profane, evil, vicious, self-serving, etc. But the hard truth is there are no exceptions to the corruption of Origin Sin. "Us" are as liable to oppression, evil, corruption, selfishness, as are the "them" of colonial rulers. What we want are virtuous rulers, rulers who rule with justice and integrity whatever their race or nationality, "us" or "them" rulers have absolutely nothing to do with the proper qualities for rulership. As such, for dealing with all future anti-colonial rhetoric, I propose the Alternatives Test. I don't deny that there is much that is flawed and wrong about the British rule, but the essential question is, "What's the alternative?" Is the alternative to British rule a Mugabe or Junta? If so, then, bring back the colonial masters PLEASE! In fact, this is precisely what the Zambians are saying with regards to their new Chinese "colonial masters", in the words of their then opposition leader: We want the Chinese to leave and the old colonial rulers to return. They exploited our natural resources too, but at least they took good care of us. They built schools, taught us their language and brought us the British civilisation. At least Western capitalism has a human face; the Chinese are only out to exploit us.2. Having Foreigners Rule over us will make us feel alienated from our Government as opposed to Democratically Elected Rulers And I am suppose to somehow identify with our present government who effectively has a one party dominance over the whole of Singapore and whom I shall probably never vote for in my entire life because they keep walking over most of the GRCs? And even if I do get to vote in a democratic election, what's that to me? Why should I identify with a government who rules over us by virtue of their ability to employ rhetoric, spin the press, manipulate social and political interest groups and sway 51% of the voters? As a monarchist puts it brilliantly, I am always baffled by the claim that republicanism gives ordinary people like me "a say in who should represent our nation." I never voted for George W. Bush, yet he is my head of state. I have no intention of voting for either John McCain or Barack Obama, since as an antiwar right-winger I find the policies of both repugnant, yet one of them will be my head of state whether I like it or not, every bit as much as the Queen is Kris's head of state whether he likes it or not. Why should the fact that other people do support these men be any comfort to those of us who do not? What kind of "choice" is this? I would much rather have a head of state who no one chose, like Queen Elizabeth, than a head of state chosen and supported by others but not by me. Which is more truly fair ? Which is more truly representative ? An elected president is inevitably more representative of those who voted for him than of those who did not. It is precisely because the Queen represents no one faction...that she is more representative of the whole country than a president could possibly be. As Jacques Monet puts it, And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world - the accident of birth - Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over financial and social interest; for the victory of the human person. Now this is a real democracy and true equality. 3. The British Failed to Protect us during the WWII Ah, this is the most popular rhetoric taught to all Singaporeans. But it also presents an excellent opportunity for me to apply my Alternatives Test. So, if the British were not around to protect us from the Japanese, what's the alternative? Us against the Japanese?! I challenge any male Singaporean who has gone through NS, to ask if they truly believe that our military is capable of stopping a power such as the Japanese, with their advanced technology, their almost insane patriotic zeal, and their tactical brilliance. The fact is that the if there is a power which the British cannot protect us from, then it is HIGHLY unlikely that we would succeed as well. But, the average case is that we just need Britain to protect us from our standard neighbours *hint hint*, and there is not a shred of doubt that this they will be able to perform most admirably. As in the case of the Falkland Islands, a British protectorate in South America who was invaded by the Argentinians during 1982, we got this, So, against our more, erm, petty foes, the military might of the British would do most adequately. (And for all guys, we get to abolish NS!) What's a Protectorate? The overseas territories of the British have three different classifications: Colonies were those areas directly ruled by a governor on behalf of the British government and representing the Crown. The governor was responsible to the Colonial Office in London, although he usually had wide powers of discretion. These were the most common form of imperial control. (E.g. Pre-1997 Hong Kong) Protectorates were territories where the local rulers could continue ruling domestically but they had ceded the foreign and defence aspects of their government to the British. In return, the British respected and were prepared to defend the ruler from foreign or internal threats. (E.g. Falklands) Dominions were those colonies that were granted significant freedom to rule themselves. The settler colonies were afforded this freedom. Dominions were fully independent countries after the 1931 Statute of Westminster, although their Head of State continued to be the British sovereign. (E.g. Australia. New Zealand and Canada) So, I am proposing that we become a British Protectorate, where our local parliament and cabinet will still run the domestic affairs of Singapore, but we cede our foreign and defense duties to the British. A Proposal for the Role of the British Monarchy in Singapore I wish to propose that the British monarch shall have independent control over our judiciary, and the Sovereign's official role over Singapore will be as Guardian of our Constitution and Laws. After all, when Queen Elizabeth II was crowned, her coronation oath included the following, Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ...and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs ?Queen: I solemnly promise so to do. Even British national anthem "God save the Queen" includes the line of ...Long may she reign May she defend our laws And ever give us causeTo sing with heart and voiceGod save the Queen... Philosophically speaking, the Monarch is the incarnation of the Reason behind our Laws and History. As Winston Churchill puts it, Above the ebb and flow of party strife, the rise and fall of ministries, and individuals, the changes of public opinion or public fortune, the British Monarchy presides, ancient, calm and supreme within its function, over all the treasures that have been saved from the past and all the glories we write in the annals of our country. As such, the judiciary must be above and beyond party political interests that they might properly enforce and protect our laws and constitution. In practical terms, this is what I propose. A body of six or eight judges known as the Law Lords will replace our Supreme Court as the highest court of appeal. They will consist of Singaporeans, but they will be appointed solely by the Sovereign in Britain from amongst the lower judges, and they are answerable only to the Sovereign. This will ensure the independence of the judiciary from party political interests. From amongst the permanent secretaries of the civil service, the Sovereign will appoint a Governor-General, who will represent the Sovereign in Singapore. The GG will handle all the ceremonial and administrative functions of the British relations to Singapore, including the foreign affairs and the military. The GG's office will run for four years which will then be subjected to a review by the Sovereign, renewable twice, as it may please the Sovereign, which otherwise the Sovereign will simply dismiss the incumbent and appoint another. The Law Lords and the GG together will review all the laws passed by parliament, and they have the power to conditionally veto any law which they deem to be "unconstitutional", by a simple majority of voting by the Law Lords and GG, with each Law Lord having one vote and the GG having two. The law will then return back to parliament, which, if it passes with a 3/4 majority, will automatically become law. Anything less and it will be vetoed. However the Law Lords and the GG will have absolute veto powers over any proposed constitutional amendment by Parliament. The Governor General will have one additional responsibility. Though the GG may not interfere in the functioning of Parliament or the Cabinet, however, he has the power to hold them to account by being able to set up Royal Commissions. The GG can set up a Royal Commission to study any ministry, policy or project of the government and retrieve any information from them which the GG believes to be in the interest of Singaporeans to know. (A power which our current President is suppose to have when the last President requested the financial accounts of our government) If the government fails to comply, the GG can take them to court to force them to hand over the required information. Any official commission will then have the results published in the press for the information of the citizens. Thus, the GG will keep the government accountable to the people. The GG can also receive any petition directly from citizens to invoke a Royal Commission. Conclusion Ah well, I know its nuts. But one can dream can't one? hahaha... and to leave you with a final image, here's the youtube for Queen Elizabeth II coronation. Admit it, you know its cool to be a British subject and to be part of a monarchy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGLN1kREJ2Q

Ever since the Medieval era, artists and poets have explored the two sides of the human condition. On the one hand, we are bodily and physical beings. We are subject to the laws of physics and to the world at large. We seem vulnerable to the forces of the empirical world. This vulnerability is captured by our experience of eros, of lust for other flesh, of being "driven" by desires and "moved" by beauty. At the kernal of the myth of Cupid is the idea that desire seems to somehow "happen" to someone, its beyond our control, his arrows strike, and we are helpless. We are suffers rather than actors in relation to the forces of desire. On the other hand, we are also person, agents, beings with rational wills and choices. We do not merely act out our desires, we also act for reasons. We make judgements, we reason and we will according to the truth or the facts. In desire, it seems that we are helplessly lead forward by Fate or Destiny. In will, it seems that we seize ownship over our lives and act in accordance to reason. In desire we are suffers, in will we are actors. The Romantics of the 18th century, especially the Germans who re-acquired the medieval paradox, found this divide of the human condition intolerable. The driving ideal of German Romanticism is harmony and wholeness, they sought to reconcile spirit and nature, and their vision was cosmic reconcilation. But how are they going to reconcile the two sides, without denying either of them, like the medieval theologians who elevated charity, at the expense of eros, or Byron who elevated eros at the expense of the will? The Transfiguration of Desire; the Hegelian Tale It was Hegel, the ultimate philosophical reconciler and systematiser who paved the way for a resolution in his "Lordship and Bondage" dialectic. His entire thesis can be summarised in the words of the philosopher Roger Scruton, Sexual desire is not a desire for sensations. It is a desire for a person: and I mean a person, not his or her body, conceived as an object in the physical world, but the person conceived as an incarnate subject, in whom the light of self-consciousness shines and who confronts me eye to eye, and I to I. True desire is also a kind of petition: it demands reciprocity, mutuality, and a shared surrender. According to Hegel, the first stage of desire is purely animal, it is the desire which logic is consumption and satisfication. It merely seeks to "satisfy" itself, to relieve its urges. Thus, at this stage, desire is purely "fleshy", the object of desire is merely flesh, it seeks to "consume" its object, to relieve its own lust, it is purely a desire for sensations. Hegel argues that this sort of desire "negates" its object. A person is not mere flesh but also spirit; desire that operates at this level demeans and diminishes its object, by merely treating the other person as flesh and not spirit. Thus, unless this stage of desire is "transcended", what will happen is a power struggle, as one party seeks to dominate the other, and the "winner" will get to subject the other, to degrade and reduce the other to flesh for the "winner's" satisfaction. But never fear, Hegel points out that even the "winner" in this contest will not remain at this stage forever. Eventually, the "winner", in consuming object after object, is fundamentally fragmented, he is not a unified subject with a unified history, he is merely a sort of Humean sum of desires. He desires now this, now that, etc. The winner may have won the power struggle, but even the winner realises that he has is also degraded by his own dominance, how can he achieve personhood as opposed to merely being an animal higher up the sexual food chain? It is at this stage that sexual desire is transformed from being a desire for sensations to desire for a person. The person does an interpretative act, integrating his erotic desires into his reason and his person, the person now realises that his desire, his eros is directed towards another subject, a spirit, who likewise has desires, reason, will, history, purpose and hopes. His desire is not simply a passing fragment of himself, which once satisfied, can be discarded, his desire now becomes part of his history and his personality, this is the beginning of elevating his desire into will. If the other party reciprocates this desire, then what has happen is the union of mutual recognition, the other person, with full personhood, willingly surrenders her entire personhood to him, her history will now be part of his, her person is now part of him, they become "one". Thus, the structure of sexual desire at this stage is strongly intergrative. Sexual desire at this stage desires the entire person, the person's past, present and future, desire and will, etc. What is the meaning of the sexual act then? We must remember, that though desire may have expanded to include the person's spirit, it does not abandon the desire for the person's flesh, in fact, it unites them together. Sexual desire is a desire for a person as embodied, as incarnate. In sexual intercourse, both parties vulnerability to their flesh, the "base" desires which is suppose to wreck so much havoc to their lives, is now instead transformed into willing vulnerability, as paradoxical as that might sound. In sex, his desire is for her complete surrender of herself to him, in both spirit and body, what this act of surrender means is for her to both surrender to her erotic physical vulnerability to his sexual act, and for her to desire to do the same to him, for her to also desire him in his entirely, both spirit and body. I am of course simplifying the story here, and changing it a little from Hegel's original thesis. But the one underlying thread of thought guiding this "story" is the idea of integration, the idea of reconciling personhood with animal nature. Marriage Rite? Of course, you might ask what does this story have to do with the marriage rite? We must remember that the structure of desire is the desire for the whole person, the person's history, present and future. We desire the person to still be united to you in mutual recognition and desire into the future. In the sexual act, we lay claim to the entirety of the person, including the person's future. My trouble with sex before marriage is that, I am not quite sure what is the meaning of sexual desire in such a context. Is it the whole person which one is consummating within sexual desire? Or just a fragment of the person, a "time-slice" of the person as it were, most probably just the present slice. Then, a sense of alienation will infect and disease the very sexual desire itself, and once more, the desire and the sexual act is a degenerating and diminishing act, it is an act of diminishing the person to that time-slice. Or worse, as I think it is most likely the case, it has degenerated back into mere desire for sensations again, with either money or lying rhetoric used as power to subject the other party to animal desires. What the marriage rite does is to seal the sexual desire into a vow of love. During marriage, the two parties united in their mutual desire, comes before a priest, a representative of God, and petitions God to witness their love. God, who transcends space and time, is able to, as it were, to unify both parties entire personhood, the past, present and future in one "gaze" and blesses the union from the perspective of "beyond time" itself and seals the desire between them into a vow. Thus, a marriage vow is "eternity made present", it is consists of the entire personhood, past present and future, which each party will possess, which gurantees the integrity and wholeness of every sexual act and desire between them from hence forth. Unity or Fragmentation? All I have done so far is simply to describe the internal logic of marriage and sexual desire in such a context. Why adopt such a stance, it might be asked? What's wrong with a so-called "fragmented" view of personhood, what's wrong with carpe diem, with living for the moment and with having passing desires? I am not so sure how to answer such a challenge. I could point out that a sexual desire that is strongly integrative to one's personhood is a very good foundation for trust and dependence, by integrating one's sexual desire into one's personhood, one possesses a sort of integrity and continuity which is the basis for trust, as trust depends essentially on "sameness" of identity, that one is the "same" person (as opposed to a fleeting sum of desires), no matter what happens, one will always be there, not disintegrated to a plurality of fleshy whims. (Erotic or otherwise) Of course, it can always be answered that with financial independence and all, we aren't really all that dependent on one another and we are free to simply indulge in passing whims. Well, in such a case, I can only say that I do believe that harmony, reconcilation and wholeness is intrinsically a much worthier vision than fragmentation, and I do not know otherwise how to justify it. I can only say that I believe that the lost of true eros, an eros that is developed fully into mutual recognition and integrative into personhood, is a lost which we must regret, and also that the fragmented animal eros seems to be a pale substitute in comparison, although we can have a lot more of it, but eventually it will be subject to the law of diminishing returns. And on a much more darker note, a descend back into such a conception of sex is a descend back into power play, into the question of who has more money, beauty, charisma, etc, to be able to treat the other as mere flesh without spirit. As the Archbishop of Canterbury lamented in a speech, In a strange way, in this society we have underplayed the reality of eros. Odd to say that, isn't it? Because we often think that eros, in the form of sexual imagery, is absolutely everywhere, and so, alas it is. But it is eros in the sense of the profound desire that makes me who I am, that makes the whole of my life drawn-towards something beyond myself which gives meaning, the other person that I love, the God I seek to love, that's not quite so clear in our society. We privilege the consumer mentality and we also fail to ask some of the deep questions about the direction of the desire at the root of our being. But I am a sort of Hegelian Romantic, and as a Christian, I do believe fundamentally in wholeness and cosmic reconcilation, as Colossians 1:19-20 would put it, "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." And it is because of this vision of the reconcilation of all things, earth and heaven, flesh and spirit, past, present and future, reason and desire, which causes me to continue to advocate and promote the institution of marriage, as a courageous and romantic revolt, against the fragmenting and diminishing nihilism of our time.

Colonies were those areas directly ruled by a governor on behalf of the British government and representing the Crown. The governor was responsible to the Colonial Office in London, although he usually had wide powers of discretion. These were the most common form of imperial control. (E.g. Pre-1997 Hong Kong) Protectorates were territories where the local rulers could continue ruling domestically but they had ceded the foreign and defence aspects of their government to the British. In return, the British respected and were prepared to defend the ruler from foreign or internal threats. (E.g.Falklands) Dominions were those colonies that were granted significant freedom to rule themselves. The settler colonies were afforded this freedom. Dominions were fully independent countries after the 1931 Statute of Westminster, although their Head of State continued to be the British sovereign. (E.g. Australia. New Zealand and Canada) I shall develop the changes to be adopted based on how drastic they are. Becoming a British Dominion Let's consider the least drastic change. Singapore could become a British dominion. We would still be an independent country, like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc except that our Head of State will no longer be the President but the Queen of England instead. Governor General of Canada, Michaelle Jean inspect the guardsHere is a relatively simple consideration. We pay an exorbidant amount of money to our SM, MM and President to perform what seems to be merely ceremonal functions (entertaining foreign dignitries, commission our army, and other ceremonies), and to give advice to the government. I do not see why we cannot simply just abolish all three offices, and we pay the British monarch 50% of their combined salaries as a token sum for them to appoint a Governor General in Singapore to represent the Queen here and perform all the functions of the Head of State and all other related ceremonies. Not only does this save good money, but it is also a tribute to what unifies us Singaporeans together, our common English language, and our common British heritage, regardless of our many and diverse ancestral origins, it is the British who laid the foundations for Singapore and made it what it is (later Singaporeans would have to build on that foundation), and making our Queen our Head of State is a tribute to their work for Singapore. Protectorate Scheme (Minor) We might want to consider instead becoming a Protectorate, whereby Singaporeans will continue to be in charge of all domestic affairs, but we'll cede all foreign related affairs, i.e. our foreign relations and military, to the British, inclusive of all the changes cited under the dominion scheme. Now, the first thing most Singaporeans will go is to repeat that mantra drilled into us that the British failed to protect us during WWII. However, let us honestly ask ourselves, if the British were not around to protect us from the Japanese, what's the alternative? Us against the Japanese?! I challenge any male Singaporean who has gone through NS, to ask if they truly believe that our military is capable of stopping a power such as the Japanese, with their advanced technology, their almost insane patriotic zeal, and their tactical brilliance. The fact is that the if there is a power which the British cannot protect us from, then it is HIGHLY unlikely that we would succeed as well. But, the average case is that we just need Britain to protect us from our standard neighbours *hint hint*, and there is not a shred of doubt that this they will be able to perform most admirably. As in the case of the Falkland Islands, a British protectorate in South America who was invaded by the Argentinians during 1982, we got this, So, against our more, erm, petty foes, the military might of the British would do most adequately. Secondly, we already spend a whooping 20% of our GDP on National Defense. 20%! This is simply outrageous, besides being totally pointless. Let's face facts: Singapore cannot reasonably hope to win any war which might break out between us and our neighbours. Why? The reason is simple. We might have the greatest weapons, the most advanced technology, the best trained soliders, but the fact is still that we do not produce any of our essential supplies. The minute our neighbour cuts off our supplies of water, fuel and food, we're doomed. We cannot survive a protracted war. And if we strike them first, and if they are smart, they will practice scorched earth policies, and we'll still be screwed. And of course, 21st century warfare is no longer about army to army clashes, it is about guerilla warfare, (see Iraq and Afganistan). We do not have the essential supplies and resources to attempt to occupy such an area with them engaging in such tactics. We will not win any war by ourselves. But if what I heard is correct, that our mission in any war is not to win but to hold out long enough for a Western power to save us and resupply us... then, well. I think that pretty much settles it. Why go one whole big circle, when we ultimately are still dependent on them? Thus, I propose the abolishment of the SAF, and we pay the British government, say, 10-15% of our GDP to defend us? We save money and we get to ride on the deterrent pluses which would come from riding on name of the British royal army. Protectorate Scheme (Major) This scheme will include all the changes proposed above, in addition to providing a constitutional role to the British monarch. I wish to propose that the British monarch shall have independent control over our judiciary, and the Sovereign's official role over Singapore will be as Guardian of our Constitution and Laws. After all, when Queen Elizabeth II was crowned, her coronation oath included the following, Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ...and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs ? Queen: I solemnly promise so to do. Even British national anthem "God save the Queen" includes the line of Long may she reign May she defend our laws And ever give us cause To sing with heart and voice God save the Queen Philosophically speaking, the Monarch is the incarnation of the Reason behind our Laws and History. As Winston Churchill puts it, Above the ebb and flow of party strife, the rise and fall of ministries, and individuals, the changes of public opinion or public fortune, the British Monarchy presides, ancient, calm and supreme within its function, over all the treasures that have been saved from the past and all the glories we write in the annals of our country. As such, the judiciary must be above and beyond party political interests that they might properly enforce and protect our laws and constitution. In practical terms, this is what I propose. A body of six or eight judges known as the Law Lords will replace our Supreme Court as the highest court of appeal. They will consist of Singaporeans, but they will be appointed solely by the Sovereign in Britain from amongst the lower judges, and they are answerable only to the Sovereign. This will ensure the independence of the judiciary from party political interests. From amongst the permanent secretaries of the civil service, the Sovereign will appoint a Governor-General, who will represent the Sovereign in Singapore. The GG will handle all the ceremonial and administrative functions of the British relations to Singapore, including the foreign affairs and the military, which the GG can appoint Secretaries for each office. The GG's office will run for four years which will then be subjected to a review by the Sovereign, renewable twice, as it may please the Sovereign, which otherwise the Sovereign will simply dismiss the incumbent and appoint another. The Law Lords and the GG together will review all the laws passed by parliament, and they have the power to conditionally veto any law which they deem to be "unconstitutional", by a simple majority of voting by the Law Lords and GG, with each Law Lord having one vote and the GG having two. The law will then return back to parliament, which, if it passes with a 3/4 majority, will automatically become law. Anything less and it will be vetoed. However the Law Lords and the GG will have absolute veto powers over any proposed constitutional amendment by Parliament. The Governor General will have one additional responsibility. Though the GG may not interfere in the functioning of Parliament or the Cabinet, however, he has the power to hold them to account by being able to set up Royal Commissions. The GG can set up a Royal Commission to study any ministry, policy or project of the government and retrieve any information from them which the GG believes to be in the interest of Singaporeans to know. (A power which our current President is suppose to have when the last President requested the financial accounts of our government) If the government fails to comply, the GG can take them to court to force them to hand over the required information. Any official commission will then have the results published in the press for the information of the citizens. Thus, the GG will keep the government accountable to the people. The GG can also receive any petition directly from citizens to invoke a Royal Commission. Conclusion Ultimately, I see no reason why these proposals should be rejected off hand, as they make eminent sense, including a substantial financial saving and making Singapore a part of a larger history, ultimately, to the providential rule over history of God himself.