Showing posts with label thought. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thought. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

being virtuous

In my last post, I talked about "a virtuous education" and forgetting to explain one of the most important point which is what is this "virtue." I had been thinking about this one big question between the relation of virtue and faith, and had it discussed with some friends as well. I prefer to use the word "faith" here rather than just simply "religion" because people could have a religion without really having a faith in God. Religion is just the identity and faith is the essence. Well if one ask what faith is, I just take this description written in Hebrew 11:

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." -- Hebrew 11: 1-3

It is certain that a real faith will produce virtue. However does that mean no faith will produce no virtue as well? It depends on how do we see this "virtue." People such as Confucius has been frequently called one of the virtuous man ever alive on earth. Indeed his teaching is really wonderful and many of them is parallel with what the Bible teaches us. There are virtues in which individual could attain without any need in having a faith in God, however there are also virtues which God bestowed on those who believe in Him.

Many of us may have heard about what is called the four cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. By being prudent, one is able to take a proper decision and to think out what one's is doing and what is likely to come of that action. By being temperate, one is able to control himself, going the right length and no further, in drinking and in all other pleasures. By being just, one is able to take a proper moderation between self-interest and the rights and needs of others, it includes honesty, give and take, truthfulness, and so on. By being fortitudinous, one is able to confront fears and face dangers. 

Beyond these four cardinal virtues, there are yet other virtues which are argued to be attainable through faith. The first is "charity," in which the current word has already lost its original meaning. "Charity" in this sense is love, it's not just the emotion, it's also not the feeling, but "that state of the will which we have naturally about ourselves and must learn to have about other people" as CS Lewis put it. Loving ourself is easy, of course everyone by their nature or "instinct" will love themselves. Loving others as we are, and even loving our enemies, are we able to do that without God who enables us? Confucius said, "what you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others," but Jesus said do to others as what you want others do in you.

The second is "hope". The view of the eternal soul brings hope for our current short life here in earth. Our faith on Jesus and His promise give us an assurance of the eternal world to come and everything that we are doing here on earth is not in vain. We do not live merely just for instant pleasures, hedonism, or materialism; we do not live as in everything will end when our life here on earth ends! We know what we are here for, we know what we are called for, and we have hope to return back to our Father in Heaven.

The third is "faith," yes faith in itself is a virtue. In his work titled "Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments," Søren Kierkegaard wrote this beautiful remark about his faith:

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy fathoms of water still preserving my faith."

CS Lewis in his book, "Mere Christianity," also wrote several interesting points of faith as a virtue. The summary of which you can find it here, and scroll to the last point.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

on a virtuous education

I would like to share my personal view towards education, which has over time becoming a personal vision as well. I strongly believe in the importance of education, not only to shape the intelligence of the pupil, furthermore education has the role of shaping one's moral virtue and world view, which make it very important in one's character formation.

The current trend which is emerging is the idea of secular education which put away all kind of faith or believes in any religion from the education system. As opposed to this idea, there is religious education in which faith becomes the center that shape the moral and intellectual of the pupil.

In the United States, education is moving towards the direction of secularism. Some surveys on several US Supreme Court cases which is related with this trend and with regards to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"):
  • Limitation on government-directed prayer and / or bible reading in public school: Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) which deemed unconstitutional the New York Board of Regents nondenominational school prayer; Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) which ruled as unconstitutional the practice of reading ten verses from the Bible and reciting in unison the Lord's prayer at the beginning of each day; Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) which ruled unconstitutional the Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public classroom in the State; Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) which deemed unconstitutional the Alabama statute which authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for meditation or voluntary prayer;" Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992); Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) which ruled unconstitutional the policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games; Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004) ruled  that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States are an endorsement of religion, and therefore unconstitutional.
  • Limitation of the use of public funds for religious related educational activity: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) which ruled constitutional the use of publicly funded vouchers by parents in Cleveland to send their children to private and religious schools. However, Justice Stevens in his dissent argued that this ruling "allowed public funds to pay for the indoctrination of thousands of grammar school children in particular religious faiths;" Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004) which ruled the constitutionality of Washington publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a "degree in theology."

Justice Hugo Black in the proceeding of the ruling of Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) which resulted in the incorporation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment against the states stressed the importance of this clause to protect the separation between Church and State:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" -- 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

Well, that's a brief overview about recent trend in the United States. In Indonesia, the condition perhaps is a bit different. The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar 1945) defends that education shall develop one's potential to gain spiritual maturity and develop one's faith (below, emphasize added):

Chapter XIII - Article 31
  1. Every citizen has the right to receive education.
  2. Every citizen has the obligation to undertake basic education, and the government has the obligation to fund this.
  3. The government shall manage and organize one system of national education, which shall increase the level of spiritual belief, devoutness and moral character in the context of developing the life of the nation and shall be regulated by law.
  4. The state shall prioritize the budget for education to a minimum of 20% of the State Budget and of the Regional Budgets to fulfill the needs of implementation of national education.
  5. The government shall advance science and technology with the highest respect for religious values and national unity for the advancement of civilization and prosperity of humankind.

With regards to this, I have a strong believe that faith in God and education is inseparable. When society cannot draw moral meaning and direction from religious belief, it draws it from other sources, and what are the other sources? Secularism, which provides new sources of meaning including self-esteem, consumerism, materialism, feminism, and relativism.

Benjamin Rush, one of the founding father of the United States, in his letter argued that "the only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion," and he further added that, "without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."

Northwest Ordinance 1787 which in effect create the Northwest Territory as the first organized territory of the United States ordered that "religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the mean of education shall forever be encouraged."

It is thus the purpose of education, to make children faithful and virtuous, and this will form them into a good and responsible citizen, able to use their intelligence responsibly upon the right moral foundation. The true virtue is thus the fruits of one's faith on God, and a virtue without faith is as meaningless as a guitar without its strings. The idea of truly non-religious education, for me, is simply unimaginable.

    Wednesday, July 14, 2010

    on knowing and understanding

    Well, I don't really believe in absolute objectivity, perhaps we are still "objective" when we are babies. The entire world was still new to us, thus we could take everything at their respective "face values."

    However, as we grow up, the way we see the world will be heavily influenced by our own perception and ideas which we have gathered about the world. Everything is subjective to one's own mind, one's own value, and one's personal world view. Judgments that a rationalist make will be different from what a post-modernist will make.

    In knowing another person, our "subjectivity" will play the role as well. What we had experienced in knowing other person before, our first impression, and things can't go rational anymore. Oh now I'm talking like an empiricist. Although there's no absolute objectivity in the way we perceived our environment, there's still a certain degree of it. Through the process of knowing another person, we could into a certain degree of "objectivity" perceive whether any further relation is possible. However in this process knowing each other, mutual openness is necessary.

    The door was open but now it seems to be closing.. or I don't know, it's just too hard to comprehend one's mind, or perhaps it's just now my cup of tea? If the human brain were simple enough for us to understand, we would still be so stupid that we couldn't understand it.

    Friday, July 2, 2010

    sepadan & seiman

    TUHAN Allah berfirman: "Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja. Aku akan menjadikan penolong baginya, yang sepadan dengan dia." -- Kej. 2:18

    Janganlah kamu merupakan pasangan yang tidak seimbang dengan orang-orang yang tak percaya. Sebab persamaan apakah terdapat antara kebenaran dan kedurhakaan? Atau bagaimanakah terang dapat bersatu dengan gelap? -- 2Kor. 6:14

    Sepadan, dan seiman, dua hal yang menjadi standar yang Tuhan berikan di dalam Alkitab bagi kita memilih pasangan hidup. Melalui beberapa percakapan yang aku alami barusan, aku kembali memikirkan mengenai kata "sepadan" ini. Misalnya saja dalam hal "tingkat intelektual," karena kadang-kadang aku merasa agak "minder" bertemu dengan seseorang yang bisa dibilang lebih "pandai" walaupun bertemu dengan orang-orang seperti itu bisa memotivasi aku untuk belajar lebih banyak lagi. Seperti misalnya kalau bertemu dengan Pdt. Stephen Tong, well belum pernah sih bertemu dia secara langsung dan bertatap muka, pressure-nya mungkin berbeda, hahaha. Indah sekali ya kalau bisa menemukan seseorang yang sepadan dalam hal ini dan juga kedewasaannya, selain bisa saling melengkapi, bisa menjadi teman diskusi yang menyenangkan :)

    Well, jadi teringat akan sebuah artikel yang ditulis di dalam sebuah milis yang aku ikuti di tahun 2006 lalu, semoga menjadi berkat:


    Tentang Memilih Pasangan Hidup
    oleh Bernard Dima
    13 November 2006

    Setelah beberapa waktu merenungkan topik ini dan berbagi ide dengan beberapa teman tentang memilih pasangan hidup, aku mencoba untuk menulis tentang hal-hal yang perlu dipertimbangkan dalam memilih pasangan hidup. Ide-ide ini mungkin tidak biasa atau terlalu ideal bagi sebagian orang. Namun, inilah yang perlu diperjuangkan sebagai orang Kristen yang mencari nilai yang lebih tinggi dari dunia ini.

    Dalam pembicaraan dengan beberapa teman, selalu muncul beberapa pertanyaan sama. Paling menonjol adalah mengenai kriteria orang yang diinginkan menjadi pasangan hidup. Kriteria-kriteria ini misalnya karakter seseorang, latar belakang keluarga, atau kedewasaan baik mental maupun spritual. Aku sendiri tidak suka membuat kriteria seperti ini walaupun tentu ada standar-standar tertentu di dalam memilih. Alasannya karena kriteria-kriteria ini ditentukan berdasarkan refleksi diri seseorang yang lebih dipengaruhi oleh keinginan menyenangkan egonya sendiri. Berapa panjang daftar kriteria yg harus kita buat agar kita menemukan orang yang tepat? Berapa banyak pernikahan yang tidak harmonis dan berakhir dengan perceraian hanya karena anggapan bahwa orang yang dinikahi ternyata tidak sesuai dengan kriteria? Atau mereka menemukan apa yang diidamkan dalam diri WIL atau PIL? Lebih lagi, bukankah tiap orang diciptakan sesuai dengan gambar Allah secara unik yang harus diterima secara utuh bukan parsial?

    Namun, di sisi lain tidak mungkin memilih pasangan hidup tidak menggunakan kriteria. Jadi, letak persoalannya pada dasar pertimbangan kita saat memilih pasangan hidup kita. Di sinilah kita harus mengaku bahwa bagaimanapun juga ini bukan cerita tentang kita. Bukan apa maunya kita atau siapa kita. Tetapi tentang Tuhan, apa yang menjadi kehendak dan rencana-Nya bagi hidup kita. It is not about us. It is all about God.

    Dalam Alkitab, Tuhan memberikan 2 standar penting dalam memilih pasangan hidup. Sebelum kejatuhan, Tuhan berkehendak agar pasangan itu sepadan. Setelah kejatuhan, Tuhan menambahkan satu lagi yaitu seiman. Standar kedua lebih mudah dicari walaupun kadang tidak semudah yang dikira. Seiman artinya mencari pasangan yang sama-sama sudah dilahirkan kembali, menerima Tuhan Yesus sebagai Juru Selamat pribadi dan berkomitmen menjadikan Dia sebagai Raja dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. Tidak mudah oleh karena ini adalah pengalaman pribadi seseorang bersama Tuhan di mana hanya Tuhan yang tahu kebenarannya. Tapi paling tidak kita bisa menanyakan: kapan momen ini terjadi? Bagaimana dengan pertumbuhan imannya? Apakah dia dekat dengan Tuhan dalam doa dan firman? Apakah dia suka melayani Tuhan? Bagaimana nilai hidup kristianinya? Namun perlu diingat bahwa belum tentu mereka yang suka melayani dan rajin berdoa adalah orang-orang yang telah mengalami kelahiran kembali dalam Tuhan. Di sisi lain pun harus disadari bahwa mereka yang di dalam Tuhan pun masih memiliki banyak kekurangan. Oleh karena itu, dibutuhkan pengamatan dan dialog yang mendalam untuk menemukan seseorang yang sungguh di dalam Tuhan.

    Kalau standar kedua adalah sesuatu yang mudah dipertimbangkan dan diputuskan karena hanya memerlukan jawaban ya atau tidak, maka standar pertama lebih sulit didefiniskan dalam realitas kehidupan. Sepadan sering ditinjau dari segi kedewasaan baik itu mental maupun spritual.Namun sampai sekarang belum ada alat yang pas untuk mengukur tingkat kedewasaan. Lagipula, pencapaian kedewasaan sangat bergantung situasi yang pernah dilalui dan kadang proses itu bisa terjadi dalam semalam.

    Sepadan juga ditinjau dari sisi karakter yang kemudian digabungkan dengan teori kepribadian. Lalu bermunculanlah pendapat bahwa sama karakter tidak cocok menikah karena seperti magnet kalau sama kutub akan tolak menolak. Sehingga si Sanguin lebih baik menikah dengan si Melankolik karena akan saling mengisi daripada menikah dengan sesama sanguin, dst., dst. Tak heran karakter ini akhirnya menjadi salah satu alasan memutuskan hubungan. Namun, jika karakter ini penting, maka tentunya Tuhan akan berkata, "Mari Kita menciptakan si Kolerik Hawa untuk si Sanguin Adam." Tapi bukan ini yang dicatat oleh Alkitab.

    Selain kedewasaan dan karakter, sepadan pun sering ditinjau dari berbagai sudut pandang. Bahkan ada yang meninjau dari sudut kemapanan ekonomi di mana paling tidak ada kesetaraan ekonomi antara pria dan wanita yang akan menikah. Tapi apa yang sebenarnya dipikirkan Tuhan ketika berkata, "Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja. Aku akan menjadikan penolong baginya, yang sepadan dengan dia."

    Kembali kepada prinsip di atas: It is not about us. It is all about God. Mengerti arti sepadan haruslah ditinjau dari sudut pandang Tuhan. Pertanyaan penolong adalah: untuk apa Adam memerlukan seorang penolong? Di sini saya melihat ada keterkaitan antara penciptaan Hawa dengan mandat yang Tuhan berikan kepada manusia untuk beranakcucu dan bertambah banyak; memenuhi bumi dan menaklukkan itu, berkuasa atas ikan-ikan di laut dan burung-burung di udara dan atas segala binatang yang merayap di bumi. Untuk menggenapi tugas ini, Adam membutuhkan seorang penolong yang sepadan dengan dia dan Tuhan memberikannya. Panggilan tugas dari Tuhan inilah yang seharusnya menjadi dasar tinjauan arti penolong yang sepadan itu.

    Karena itu, mempertimbangkan dan memilih seorang pasangan hidup sebenarnya tidak pernah lepas dari panggilan Tuhan dalam hidup kita. Apa yang Tuhan kehendaki bagi kita dan Dia ingin kita menjadi seperti apa nantinya, akan sangat menentukan penolong sepadan bagaimana yang akan diberikan Tuhan kepada kita. Bukan ini saja, panggilan Tuhan ini juga akan menjadi dasar memiliki anak dan membesarkan mereka sesuai dengan panggilan Tuhan itu. Dan bagi saya, panggilan Tuhan kepada setiap anak-Nya unik dan berbeda satu dengan yang lain.

    Pada point ini, kita bisa melihat juga begitu pentingnya standar kedua dari Tuhan. Sepasang suami istri yang seiman akan sama-sama dipimpin oleh Roh Kudus. Sehingga perjalanan mereka akan terus terarah pada penggenapan rencana Tuhan. Jika nanti ada yang tidak mengarah ke sana, berarti perlu dipertanyaan status iman mereka di hadapan Tuhan.

    Jadi, pertanyaan yang paling perlu dijawab sebelum mencari, mempertimbangkan dan memilih pasangan hidup adalah: apa visi hidup kita? Bagaimana kita melihat hidup kita dalam Tuhan pada 10 atau 20 tahun mendatang? Kemana Tuhan akan memimpin kita? Jawaban-jawaban ini akan menolong kita untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan berikutnya, seperti: mengapa kita ingin menikah? Apa tujuan pernikahan kita? Mengapa kita memilih si A, B atau C dan tidak memilih si D? Mengapa kita memilih seseorang yang cantik atau tampan? Semuanya harus dikembalikan pada apa rencana Tuhan dalam hidup kita.

    Tetapi di sini "terpaksa" perlu dibedakan antara laki-laki dan perempuan. Karena bagaimanapun perempuan dipanggil sebagai penolong maka pergumulan seorang perempuan lebih kepada pasangan hidup bagaimanakah yang akan ditolong oleh dia. Sedangkan seorang laki-laki akan menggumulkan pasangan hidup yang bisa menolong dia mewujudkan panggilan Tuhan dalam hidupnya.

    Sayangnya tidak ada rumus baku untuk mengerti panggilan Tuhan. Bagaimana Tuhan memimpin seseorang tidak mungkin dijadikan dasar bagi yang lain. Karena pimpinan Tuhan unik kepada setiap anak-Nya. Kita diselamatkan bukan hidup seperti biasanya orang di dunia hidup. Dalam Efesus 2:10, Paulus mempertegas hal ini bahwa panggilan Tuhan itu sudah dipersiapkan Allah sebelumnya dan Dia mau kita hidup di dalamnya. Mengerti kehendak dan panggilan Tuhan pun seharusnya bukan sesuatu yang sulit. Masakan Tuhan mempersulit anak2-Nya yang ingin mengetahui kehendak-Nya? Sebenarnya itu tergantung kedekatan kita dengan Tuhan, bagaimana kita memahami prinsip firman Tuhan dan pimpinan Tuhan di masa lalu.

    Tanpa mengerti panggilan Tuhan maka hidup kita akan menjadi bimbang dan tanpa arah. Kita tidak ada dasar dalam menentukan apa yang kita ingini. Kita tidak tahu apa yang telah dan akan kita raih. Nantinya dalam memilih pasangan hidup pun kita akan lebih mengandalkan getaran-getaran yang seringkali disebut 'cinta' dan ketika getaran itu hilang, kita akan berkata kita tidak mencintai lagi. Hidup ini juga tidak bisa dibiarkan mengalir begitu saja. Kemana hidup ini mengalir perlu diketahui supaya jangan sampai saat terakhir baru kita sadari ternyata hidup mengalir ke tempat yang menyedihkan.

    Kalau visi hidup itu sudah ada dan kita serius mau hidup di dalamnya, maka langkah selanjutnya mencari pasangan hidup yang sepadan. Sejalan dengan prinsip ini, maka setiap orang Kristen yang telah ditebus oleh Tuhan dan belum menikah adalah calon potensial pasangan hidup kita. Ini berarti juga tidak ada yang disebut jodoh di mana Tuhan telah menentukan pasangan masing-masing. Lalu, bagaimana memilihnya? Secara ekstrim, pilih siapa saja ok. Tetapi tentunya orang yang dipilih harus sudah dikenal dan paling tidak kita tahu apa visinya sehingga kita juga bisa melihat rumah tangga yang akan dibentuk. Haruslah juga orang-orang yang terlibat dalam pelayanan. Sulit dimengerti jika seseorang mengaku mengerti panggilan Tuhan tapi tidak melayani. Singkatnya tiap parameter kualitas rohani perlu dipertimbangkan. Di sisi lain, setiap orang tebusan Tuhan haruslah juga mengejar kualitas rohani yang diperintahkan oleh Tuhan. Kalau tidak demikian, sia-sialah penebusan Tuhan bagi kita. Atau kita sebenarnya bukan orang tebusan Dia.

    Selanjutnya dalam proses pacaran haruslah banyak diisi dengan sharing, penyamaan dan bagaimana merealisasikan visi. Jika salah satu belumsampai ke level yang sama, maka menjadi tanggung jawab yang lain untuk menolong dan mengarahkan. Begitupun nanti dalam pernikahan. Sampai sini idealnya tidak ada kata putus bagi orang Kristen dalam berpacaran. Karena perbedaan antara yang cocok dan kurang cocok hanya pada usaha dan waktu. Jika kita memilih dan ternyata cocok, maka proses untuk masuk dalam panggilan Tuhan itu akan lebih cepat dan usahanya lebih ringan. Jika yang kurang cocok, maka dibutuhkan waktu lebih panjang, usaha lebih keras dan mungkin lebih banyak air mata. Tapi akhirnya sama, masuk dalam panggilan Tuhan.

    Kembali lagi kita melihat pentingnya pasangan yang seiman. Kita yang di dalam Tuhan, tentunya mau dibentuk oleh Tuhan. Dengan kata lain, mau berubah dan bertumbuh. Jika ada yang tidak mau berubah dan bertumbuh, maka perlu dipertanyakan lagi status iman mereka di hadapan Tuhan. Dalam Roma 8:29 dengan jelas Paulus menulis bahwa setiap anak Tuhan haruslah mempunyai tujuan menjadi serupa dengan Kristus. Untuk mencapai tujuan ini perlu perubahan dan pertumbuhan.

    Bagi mereka yang telah menikah tapi belum menggumuli panggilan hidupnya, inilah saatnya untuk bertanya kembali apa maunya Tuhan dalam kehidupanmu. Bagi mereka yang telah menikah dengan pasangan yang tidak seiman, kita perlu sekali menanyakan status iman mereka. Apakah mereka sungguh orang tebusan Tuhan yang mengasihi Dia dengan sepenuh hati? Jika tidak, maka yang perlu menjadi kepedulian adalah keselamatan dia di dalam Tuhan. Jika ya, maka perlu diingatkan bahwa mungkin panggilan dia seumur hidup adalah memenangkan pasangannya. Sehingga apapun yang dia lakukan adalah demi hal ini. Panggilan lain hanya bisa direalisasikan ketika pasangannya sudah dimenangkan.

    Lalu, di manakah 'cinta' [1]? Apakah nanti tidak lagi getaran-getaran 'cinta' ketika kita menerapkan prinsip ini? Semuanya tetap ada. Yang berbeda di sini adalah orientasi dalam memilih pasangan hidup. Kalau biasanya pasangan hidup yang diidam-2kan menurut standar dunia yang cantik/ganteng, seksi, mapan, muda, dsb., sekarang yang kita cari adalah yang sesuai dengan panggilan hidup kita. Perasaan yang kita rasakan pun akan sama ketika kita menemukan orang yang sepadan ini dengan perasaan saat kita masih mengidamkan pasangan sesuai tawaran dunia. Tapi panggilan hidup itu haruslah di atas getaran-getaran cinta. Aku percaya Tuhan pun akan bekerja di dalam natur manusia kita.

    Sebagai penutup, aku percaya sekali jika kita telah menangkap panggilan Tuhan itu dan telah melihat bagaimana pasangan yang sepadan untuk kita, maka tidak ada alasan bagi Tuhan untuk menunda mengirim orang yang kita dambakan ini. Namun bukan berarti kita menjadi pasif. Kita perlu taat pada perintah Tuhan, meningkatkan kualitas hidup dan rohani serta memperluas persahabatan dengan orang Kristen lain khususnya dalam pelayanan. Menulis tentang pasangan hidup mungkin tak ada habisnya. Tapi kiranya tulisan ini menolong memberikan paradigma baru dalam memilih pasangan hidup kita.

    [1] Cinta di sini ditulis dalam tanda petik karena sebenarnya tidak ada yang disebut cinta. Cinta itu lebih merupakan tindakan daripada sesuatu.

    Monday, April 12, 2010

    you know you are helpless when ...

    Last Friday was Good Friday...
    Last Sunday was Passover...
    and perhaps the time when I felt helpless and have this I-can't-do-anything-kind-of-attitude
    I thought have been trying my best, but have I given my best?

    God, please grant me wisdom, and fortitude..
    Lead me unto Thy way..

    Friday, March 19, 2010

    exhausted

    Exhausted, yes, I think that's the word that best described myself in the past few days.. I'm exhausted with all the commitments I took, everything seems to be piling up higher and higher and I couldn't even see an end to all of those. Once I wished that I could have all the time in the world, time to relax, read a book, play guitar, sing, and perhaps have an outing somewhere to a nice place, do things that I like to do.

    Even, I am exhausted with all the ministries which I took. Sad, isn't it? You are doing something for God, yet you're exhausted. A paradox? What a terrible state I am right now. Human, fragile.. Human, helpless.. Human, nothing..

    What went wrong? A friend of mine told me, perhaps it's because you rely too much on yourself. "Do not rely too much on self, but rely on God" something that we as a Christian perhaps hear again and again and again...

    I once told a friend of mine, "Pray, in everything, in every struggle that you are facing, pray, in every thing that you do, pray, and bring yourself nearer to God. Pray, so that God leads your way. Pray, so that God shows you what you should do. Pray, and pray..."

    I tried to remember, have I prayed about all the ministries which I took, in the church, in the university's fellowship? No.. not really.. Yes, I actually never bring all of these commitments to God, and let everything done with my own prowness, a futile attempt, sadly... I didn't really rely on God in the first place. So, please help me God.

    Friday, March 12, 2010

    a prayer

    Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
    Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
    Where there is injury, pardon;
    Where there is doubt, faith;
    Where there is despair, hope;
    Where there is darkness, light;
    Where there is sadness, joy;

    O, Divine Master,
    grant that I may not so much seek
    to be consoled as to console;
    To be understood as to understand;
    To be loved as to love.

    For it is in giving that we receive.
    It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.
    It is in dying that we are born again,
    to eternal life.

    Saturday, April 4, 2009

    on the nature of God and sins

    I am writing this in a response to an entry in my friend's blog which can be found here

    This is the citation from my friend's writing which I would like to address:
    "My point is this language allows wars, killings and the use of force to defend the dignity of the religion if threatened. God (not capitalized because it loses my respect) in both text is described as vengeful and destructive. Holy Bible describes god’s anger when he swept out the whole mankind except Noah. This is not justifiable for whatever grave sins human has committed (it is said that god is forgiveful BIG JOKE). Another example is Sodom and Gomorrah incineration (can be found in Quran text as well). I find this god’s character, if not followed, interpreted extensively by both religions. No wonder, it incites so much vengeful character in both congregations."

    First of all, it is about the nature of God. The bible, as Christians accept today, consists of two major parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. I have seen that many people tends to see that the "God" presented in the Old Testament and the "God" of the New Testament to be "two different gods", the basis of this is that, as mentioned in my friend's blog, someone could see the nature of God in the Old Testament to be vengeful, cruel, and so on and so forth. However, in the New Testament, it seems that we can see "a more plausible nature of God in term of His love towards humanities." Is this really the case? Are there really "two gods" in the bible? Of course the answer is no. There's only one true God and from the perspective of the completeness of the bible and of course with an assumption that God exists (note: the discussion the existence of God will be set aside first for now), I would like to present my argument from Christian's point of view.


    How could we “reconcile” these two somewhat “contradicting” nature of God? The Bible should not and must not be interpreted parts by parts, rather as a whole. So, what is the whole Bible all about? The whole Bible only tells us one thing, from the beginning in the book of Genesis to the end in the book of Revelation, on the great redemptive plan that God has on humanities and the restoration of the Kingdom of God. The New Testament itself is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the completion of God's great redemptive plan which is manifested through Jesus Christ that came down to earth, became human in order to bear all of our sins and iniquities.


    We could start from the Old Testament first. In the Old Testament, the first covenant from God was given to Abraham (Genesis 22:17-18):
    "I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
    This is the God's covenant to Abraham so that his descendants will be blessed (one of them is mentioned here is take possession of the cities of their enemies). God also made similar covenant with Isaac, and then Jacob which from him the 12 tribes of Israel were born.


    In Exodus 19: 4-6, God’s purpose for Israel is mentioned:
    “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”
    Israel was chosen to be God’s treasured possession, kingdom of priests, and holy nation. God’s purpose in bringing Israel out of Egypt is that they would worship Him and become a holy nation for Him. Through them, His blessing should reach all the nations of the world. God also wanted to show through them to the other nations (which at that time still worship other gods such as Baal) that He is the one and only God, and no other gods beside Him. God helped Israel in their conquest of Canaan. This is also to fulfill God’s covenant to Abraham: “Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies.”


    However, despite that all the greatness that God has shown to the people of Israel, the people of Israel kept turning away from Him and adore other gods. Israel has failed to fulfill the God’s given role: they failed to spread the Word of God to other nations, they failed to stay holy but rather they turned away to other gods.


    God’s covenant with Abraham is then fulfilled through Jesus Christ, which is the “offspring [on which through Him] all nations on earth will be blessed." Thus, the final fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan was written inside the New Testament. I will now turn into answering the question on the problem of sins and then conclude the discussion on the nature of God:


    Secondly, it is about the question, is it justifiable for God to, for example, swept the whole human kind in the story of Noah's flood? Perhaps we could start the discussion by defining “sin”. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God (Westminster Shorter Catechism). God is holy and His divine holiness sets Him apart from us, it covers all aspects of His transcendent greatness and moral perfection, and is characteristic of all His attributes, pointing to the “Godness” of God at every point. Therefore, the core is that God’s purity cannot tolerate any form of sin. “For the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23). One example on how God could not tolerate sin is shown in Numbers 15:32: “they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day” and the God ordered for that man to be put to death. Even to the chosen people of Israel, God could not tolerate sins. This shows how grave sin is in the eyes of God.


    In the case of Noah, God has given the mankind the time of 120 years to repent, but none turned back to God and “that the every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 5: 6). Only Noah and his family found to be righteous in His eyes and thus God flooded the earth and saved only Noah’s family. In order to answer the question on whether it is justifiable or not for God to do this, we need to understand the nature of sin itself which is totally intolerable for God which is holy.


    These two points show the justice and love of God. God’s justice is shown by His intolerance against sins. God’s love is shown through His Son Jesus Christ which
    “being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Philippians 2: 6-7).
    God’s intolerance against sins, all of His anger, was cast upon Jesus on the cross. Jesus bore all the consequences of our sins so “that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Quoting Heidelberg Catechism,
    “God is indeed merciful, but also just; therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul, [and the only mediator is] Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    However, there's still one last question which perhaps remains. Could we understand God fully and thoroughly? Unfortunately for our own state, the answer is no. Why? If we could really understand God (in term of one-hundred-percent-certainty), what kind of God is that? Won't it be just a god that we created thus we can understand it very easily? But our mind is so much limited and could not (and will not in our current state) grasp God's fully. Adding to it, it's also because of all our logic and our mind has been polluted by sins, as Apostle Paul put it in Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".


    Of course this short text would not be able to answer all of your questions, but it will be good if we have the heart to listen and learn from others. I am also learning and seeking for the truth, I am open for discussions and I would like to further hear other’s view on this matter as well :)

    Monday, December 29, 2008

    writing again?

    It's been a while (not really a while though, two years!) since my last entry here. Many things have happened during that time. Time flies really fast. I'm now in my final semester in NUS (yeah still in NUS). I need to apply for jobs real soon. I really want to continue my study actually. US is my main destination. But still, I have this 6 years (!) working bond in Singapore because of my scholarship. I'm thinking of working for maybe 3 years, saving money, pay up the remaining amount of my bond, go to the States and get my PhD degree there. A bit of idealism.. But yeah I'm also still struggling on my calling, what is the "good works which God prepared beforehand" for me. Yeah, vision. What's the vision that God has entrusted upon me to do. Hmm yeah I still have a lot to learn. Currently I'm doing my FYP. Hope can finish everything in this coming semester. Maybe I'll continue writing here, posting some of my thoughts. Hope I'll have time for that.

    Tuesday, December 5, 2006

    s rajaratnam: a forgotten giant

    This is my first essay in NUS, written as an assignment for my SSA2211 module (Evolution of a Global City State)


    Sinnathamby Rajaratnam is one of the prominent figures in the modern history of Singapore. Recently, on 22 February 2006, he passed away in the age of 90, just 3 days before his 91st birthday. This essay is trying to reconstruct the current collective social memory on Singapore’s founding fathers such as S Rajaratnam, CV Devan Nair, Goh Keng Swee, and Lim Kim San, in the current Singapore society. Afterwards, this essay will try to answer the question on why is it important for us to remembering them. This essay is focusing on S Rajaratnam because of his prominent career in politic and contribution that he has given to Singapore. He is also regarded as one of the founding fathers of Singapore as well as a prominent politician, thinker, and writer1. This essay is then trying to assert whether the current approach in making these great men be remembered is considered to be effective and come up with some suggestions on rectifying the situation of “amnesiacs nation”.


    Although most Singaporeans still can recall the name of S Rajaratnam, most of them are difficult to recall what contributions he has given to Singapore. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong himself complained about Singaporeans lack of knowledge of their founding fathers on his National Day Rally Speech on 20 August 2006, “They didn't know that Mr Rajaratnam wrote the pledge or that Mr Lim Kim San was the reason that we all have homes is HDB flats”2. PM Lee is very much concerned with the fact that even Singaporeans are really shadowed about their own history. Ng Chuin Song, an NUS undergraduate, wrote, “I was not alone. I did a survey and found out that even my fellow political science majors did not know Mr Lim (he referred to Lim Kim San)”3. Many articles written on the newspapers again show the same concern about the lack of the collective memory on the nation's founding fathers4. The current education system is mentioned as one of the causes of this problem as history is taught based on its usefulness for the nation-building, commented Professor Lee Guan Kin, director of Nanyang Technological University's Centre of Chinese Language and Culture5. Some also argued that the continued prominence of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has virtually reduced all of his peers' contribution in Singapore history.6 Although these two factors might be considered influencing this condition, we should look inside the very soul of every Singaporeans. Young generation, who has enjoyed many privileges brought by their ancestors and founding fathers, has reduced the position of the “past” in their memory7. This condition leads to an ignorance8 and lack of eagerness in knowing more on how founding fathers built this country. However, one question that can be raised is that why is it important for us to remember S Rajaratnam. We will now look in closer details on the achievements, contributions, and ideas that he has given for this country.


    S Rajaratnam once lamented that he may not leave any lasting legacies for the coming generations as he said that his “contributions were very abstract as there are no buildings I can point to and say, they were what I did”9. This shows his great humbleness, one thing that is well remembered by Lee Khoon Choy10. He was the one who found out similarities of political aspirations between himself, Lew Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, and Toh Chin Chye, thus pioneering the formation of People's Action Party (PAP) to “overthrow imperialist rule and stop the expansion of communism”11. He was a loyal supporter, old guard of the party's idealism, and ”among the few who articulate and emphasis the PAP’s stand when attacked,”12. He is also known as the supporter of a one-party government as he described a strong opposition as a non-communist subversion to Singapore13, an idea that gave a basis for the current’s successfulness of Singapore. He is also mentioned as the one who gave Lee “a heart to go on fighting”14. He remembered S Rajaratnam as “a tower of strength to all around him”. He added, “My most lasting memory of him was his courage. Never for one moment did he consider giving up the fight”15. S Rajaratnam has showed us a great patriotism and courage, humbleness, and many aspects that we can learn from such a great man. His contribution and continuous support for PAP is invaluable for the party's and nation's development.


    During the turbulent period of 1959-1965, S Rajaratnam who served as the Minister of Culture, spoke out the ideas of “Singaporean Singapore”, a multi-racial society progressing based on merit, not race. He said, “On my identity card, it says my race is Indian. But I don't care if you call me an Indian or an Eskimo. What is important is whether you consider me a good man”16. He stressed out the idea of being Singaporean as a matter of choice and conviction, not as a matter of ancestry17. His view of multiculturalism is heavily influenced by his childhood memory:

    “In those days, I came into contact with many aspects of the different races, such as Malay music and dance, Chinese lion dance during Chinese New Year and the wayang outside the Chinese temples ... I found them interesting and colourful.”18

    Aside from the idea of multiculturalism, he is also a supporter of religious tolerance. He admitted though he is not a religious man, he has “always believed in religious freedom and tolerance”19. Singapore Pledge, which is well known among Singaporeans, is penned by S Rajaratnam as a manifestation of his belief20. The idea of “Singaporean Singapore” along with religious freedom idea, have become the basis of a stable modern Singapore society, a lasting legacy of S Rajaratnam.


    On 8 August 1967, ministers of foreign affairs from five Southeast Asian countries signed the document that provides the basis of the foundation of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). S Rajaratnam, at the time was the incumbent Singapore's Minister of Foreign Affairs, was one of those pioneers21. The formation of ASEAN is later considered crucial as he mentioned the importance of a self-sustained regional community as a pillar to support the world globalisation:

    “Should the new regional efforts collapse, then globalism, the final stage of historical development, will also fall apart. Then we will inevitably enter another Dark Ages ...”22

    However, the early reason of the formation of ASEAN is not because of that view, but as S Rajaratnam affirmed, ASEAN is formed in the midst of fear of disintegration following the Vietnam War which subsequently led to the rise of communist power in the region23. At that time, the idea of regional community as a pillar of world globalisation was not yet exist. ASEAN is also a path for the manifestation of a self-sustained Southeast Asia, an idea voiced out by S Rajaratnam in 1970s. However, he didn't refute the fact that until 1970s, the region’s economy was still very much depending on the west24. He observed that the region can stand to importance if they have “the vision and courage”25. This can only be achieved through mobilisation of the collective strength and potential resources of ASEAN; something that can be actualised if all the Southeast Asian countries settle down their clashes and unite. His vision on ASEAN is proven to be true as ASEAN now stand as one of the most influential regional community alongside the European Union. His contributions toward regional politics are very great considering all his ideas and support he has given to ASEAN during his lifetime.


    During his time as the Singapore’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, S Rajaratnam had contributed much to the Singapore’s foreign policy and drew much of the outline on how Singapore positioned itself in the international society. He designed a friendly and open policy for all countries that are trying to make such kind of relationship with Singapore26. He also stressed out not to formulate foreign policy based on permanent enemy as the world is changing very fast, thus need a consistent review on the relationship made with another countries. He was then categorised countries into three categories to judge the level of friendship that Singapore can build with that country27. His idea has been a basis for the Singapore’s foreign policy for years as acknowledged by Minister of Foreign Affairs George Yeo28. Besides continuing a “friendly policy”, S Rajaratnam is also concerned on the main ideal of Singapore’s foreign policy as a safeguard of Singapore’s independent from external threats29. In order to fulfil this ideal, he supported a non-aligned policy thus placing Singapore in the neutral position. At that time, Cold War is on its height and the rivalry between the Western and Eastern Block is at large30. He emphasised and re-emphasised the importance of non-aligned policy several times on his parliamentary speech:

    “Our foreign policy and our defence policy must ensure that we do not become, or even appear to become, the pawn of any outside power”31

    “Singapore is genuinely convinced that a non-aligned policy is the correct one for itself and for the peace of Southeast Asia”32

    S Rajaratnam has contributed much for Singapore’s foreign policy. He is known as the “architect” of Singapore’s policy and much of his ideas still become the runway for Singapore’s foreign affairs.


    We have now examined several answers behind the question on the importance of remembering S Rajaratnam. Thereafter, this essay is trying to look deeper towards what that has been done to remember him. Recently, the Nanyang Technological University is announcing a new school named after S Rajaratnam as a form of tribute to him33. On the other hand, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) has launched a biography project on the leaders who often referred to as members of the old guards34. They are now working on it, especially on S Rajaratnam's, said the Director of ISEAS, K Kesavapany35. As this essay mentioned earlier, education system is mostly blamed for lack of awareness of Singapore's history among Singaporeans, but Dr. Cherian George, assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University’s School of Communication and Information, mentioned not to turn the entire burden to the school but to refer back to the society to give the children a sense of history36. Indeed, the one who shape the young and nurture them with the spirit of nationalism and understanding of their country is first done by the society. We need to create this awareness in the older generations as their view will eventually influence the young. However, there’s still a need to revise the current history curriculum offered from the primary to the secondary school to emphasise more on the post-war history as to increase the pupils’ awareness and appreciation of the post-war struggle for independence. The National Education programme that is started on 1997 to increase this awareness is considered ineffective as it is too limited and selective37. Another factor that reduces this awareness is that only a few of retired politicians and other distinguished persons shared their experience in form of books or memoirs38. Books are important as the source of knowledge for the young to understand their country's story. Therefore, there is an urgent need to stimulate writing of memoirs among the outstanding persons in the Republic. Their writing will be invaluable resources for the next generations of Singapore. However, it is unfortunate that S Rajaratnam himself never leaves us with any personal memoirs.


    S Rajaratnam contributions towards this country are very special. He has together with other nationalists, struggled for the Singapore’s independent and has built this country through his ideas, writing, and thought. His contributions are long lasting contrasting the fact that the memory of him has faded away from most young generations of Singapore. In order to keep this social memory intact, there is a need to revise the current history curriculum, encouraging the retired politicians, civil servants, and other imminent figures to share their experience with the young through their writings and memoirs, and increasing the awareness of the society to nurture the sense of history on the young generation.


    1 Lee Kuan Yew on “Minister Mentor's Eulogy for Mr S. Rajaratnam”, 22 February 2006. In this eulogy, Lee Kuan Yew spoke about S Rajaratnam, “His strength was as a thinker and a writer, a man of honour, with great moral courage.”

    2 “Keeping the Singapore story alive”, Straits Times, 21 August 2006.

    3 Ng Chuin Song, “Even Undergrads are Blur about Singapore's History”, Straits Times, 5 August 2006.

    4 Many newspaper articles dated after the death of S. Rajaratnam show this fact. Sue-Ann Chia and Li Xueying wrote in “A Nation of Amnesiacs?”, Straits Times, 4 March 2006:

    “Some had no idea the Singapore Pledge they used to recite daily in school was penned by Mr Rajaratnam. As Ms Monica Yap wrote in The Straits Times Forum page: 'If it was not for the death of Mr Rajaratnam, would we know all the past historic events and the writer of our Pledge? My plea is, please do not wait till the death of another great man before we learn about him and his impact on Singapore's history.' ”.

    Sue-Ann Chia, in another article, “Know the Founding Fathers of Singapore”, Straits Times, 4 March 2006, wrote: “But beyond that, younger Singaporeans are hard pressed to list these leaders' contributions. Some historians describe Singapore as a nation of amnesiacs, with little curiosity about the past. “ Another quotations from the newspapers that show this lack of social memory are listed below:

    “There is a consistent ignorance among the very young and the older of the post-independence cohort about the milestones of the Singapore story and of its principal characters. Is the deficiency important enough to think about? Most assuredly, yes. What can be done?” (Anonymous, “No Sense of History”, Straits Times, 6 March 2006)

    “My peers and I reacted to news of Mr S. Rajaratnam's death with a certain degree of detachment. I remembered him only because of passing references in my history textbooks.” (Kenny Tan, “The Detached Generation”, Straits Times, 6 March 2006)

    “Until he died and I read about it in the papers, I did not know he had penned the Pledge.” (Chua Muhammad Taufiq Muhammad Hadi, “Why had I not known about him earlier “, Straits Times, 6 March 2006)

    “When a friend told me recently that Mr S. Rajaratnam had passed away, I found the name vaguely familiar but I could not put a face to it.” (Eisen Tao, “Make men like Raja come alive in classes”, Straits Times, 6 March 2006)

    5 Sue-Ann Chia & Li Xueying, “A Nation of Amnesiacs?”

    6 Ibid.

    7 Albert Lau, “The National Past and the Writing of the History of Singapore,” in Imagining Singapore, edited by Ban Kah Choon, & others, (Singapore: Times Academic Press, 1992), p. 46. Albert Lau mentioned in this paper that Singaporeans has mostly neglected the past as they searched for the meaning and for their destiny in the present and in the future.

    8 Kenny Tan, “The Detached Generation”, Straits Times, 6 March 2006. He write that: “We see the older generation in a rather distant light, and many of us says: ‘If it doesn’t affect us, why should we be bothered?’” This statement shows an increasing of ignorance happening in the young generation.

    9 Hong Lysa, “Making the History of Singapore: S Rajaratnam and CV Devan Nair”, in Lee's Lieutenants: Singapore's Old Guard, ed. Lam Peng Er & Kevin YL Tan. (Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1999), p. 108.

    10 “Former Minister of State Lee Khoon Choy Remembers ex-DPM Rajaratnam”, Straits Times, 28 March 2006. He mentioned S Rajaratnam as a man “always maintained his own self and he never showed off.”

    11 Ang Hwee Suan, Dialogues with S. Rajaratnam, Former Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office (Singapore: Shin Min Daily News, 1991), p. 7.

    12 Ibid., p. 97.

    13 S Rajaratnam, “Non-Communist Subversion in Singapore”, in Trends in Singapore: Proceedings and Background Paper, ed. Seah Chee Meow (Singapore: Singapore University Press for ISEAS, 1975), p. 118. On this paper, he mentioned that “Given a one-party government, the capacity of such a government to act is far more independently than if it were harassed by an opposition and by proxies ...”

    14 Ibid., p. 108.

    15 Lee, “Minister Mentor's Eulogy for Mr S. Rajaratnam.”

    16 Chua Mui Hoong, “Singapore Pioneer Rajaratnam Dies”, Straits Times, 23 February 2006

    17 Hong, “Making the History of Singapore”, pp. 105-106.

    18 Ang, Dialogues with S. Rajaratnam, p. 88.

    19 Ibid., p. 89.

    20 S Rajaratnam wrote Singapore Pledge against the backdrop of racial riots in the 1950s and 1960s. The Pledge emphasises that these differences can be overcome if Singaporeans cared enough about their country. Extracted from http://www.sg/explore/symbols_pledge.htm

    21 Jamil Maidan Flores and Jun Abad, “The Founding of ASEAN, ” <http://www.aseansec.org/7069.htm>, 8 August 1997

    22 S Rajaratnam, “ASEAN: The Way Ahead,” <http://www.aseansec.org/13991.htm>, 1 September 1992

    23 Ibid.

    24 S Rajaratnam, “Politics of the Global City”, in The Future of Singapore: The Global City, ed. Wee Teong-Boo (Singapore: University Education Press, 1977), pp. 28-29.

    25 Ibid., p. 29.

    26 S Rajaratnam, The Prophetic & the Political, p. 280.

    27 Ibid., pp. 280-281. In this speech, S Rajaratnam outlined the three categories of countries exist in the world:

    “… if a country does not like us as a matter of principle … should not preclude normal relations between us and them. So long as they do not translate their theoretical disapproval of us into hostile deeds … The second category of countries are those which may have to be unfriendly with us in theory … while developing friendly and normal relations with us in practice … The third category of nations are the nations whose foreign policy of words is as hostile and dangerous to our national interests ...”

    28 George Yeo on “Minister for Foreign Affairs Statement on the Passing of Mr S Rajaratnam”, 22 February 2006. He mentioned that S Rajaratnam has “shaped Singapore's foreign policy in its crucial formative years, made us many friends and helped transform us into a global city”

    29 S Rajaratnam, The Prophetic & the Political, pp. 282-283.

    30 S Rajaratnam, “New Cold War in the Pacific”, Asia Pacific Community Quarterly Review, 3 (Winter 1978), pp. 1-3.

    31 S Rajaratnam, The Prophetic & the Political, p. 283. S Rajaratnam’s parliamentary speech on 16 and 17 December 1965.

    32 Ibid., p. 285

    33 Liaw Wy-Cin, “NTU’s New School to be Named after Rajaratnam”, Straits Times, 6 August 2006. This article mentioned that the new school will be called S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).

    34 Sue-Ann Chia & Li Xueying, “A Nation of Amnesiacs?”

    35 “ISEAS to set up research fellowship in memory of late Rajaratnam”, Channel NewsAsia, 25 February 2006 06:58 pm. K Kesavapany mentioned that, “We are now in the process of bringing out a book on Mr Rajaratnam, a collection of memorial essays and a research fellowship, to really go into depth what his philosophy meant. Our younger generation is at the point of forgetting what our pioneers have done, so it is important we record this for posterity.”

    36 Ibid.

    37 Chua Muhammad Taufiq Muhammad Hadi, “Why had I not known about him earlier?” He wrote: “National Education is too limited and selective. Mr Rajaratnam is a classic example of someone who has not been given enough importance in our history syllabuses.”

    38 Anonymous, “No Sense of History.”