Embrace Difference - Celebrate Diversity
"If only gay people could stop feeling guilty for being different" is my tag line for Pink Dot 2011 in Singapore on the theme “Support Freedom to Love.” Credit must go to Boo Junfeng who directed the promotional video. As I repeated the line a number of times in its filming and further reflected upon it, I was made more aware of its meaning and significance.
The situation on homosexuality will most certainly be more favourable if more from the LGBTQ (lesbian,gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer} community could with courage come out of their closets and take pride and carry no guilt about their sexual orientation. If only more straight people could comprehend the wide spectrum of human sexuality and regard homosexuality as normal and natural and step forward to lend their support.
Pink Dot in its brief history has obtained credibility and gained favour. We are on the way to reach the tipping point just as the political rallies of the Opposition have demonstrated in the massive crowds that participated in the recent election. I recall how in the earlier political campaigns, I went sheepishly to join the small crowds who were fearful of standing in solidarity with the opposition. Changes have occurred dramatically and people proudly gave their votes to the opposition candidates. The same is going to happen on the issue of homosexuality. It is really getting better and it is merely a matter of time.
In voluntary service to the LGBTQ community through Free Community Church since its inception over seven years ago, I have observed the people who were assisted in eradicating guilt and achieving self-acceptance . With fear and trepidation they appeared and discovered courage and liberation. I remember a lesbian teacher who pulled her baseball cap down to try to hide her face and now able to stand before the congregation to witness to Christian truth. Likewise, the gay university student who came by himself and sat quietly afraid to engage with others now sings in the musical team to encourage other worshipers.
It is striking that FCC singularly “ affirms that same-sex and transgendered relationships, when lived out in accord with the love commandments of Jesus, are consistent with Christian faith and teachings. Indeed, we find discrimination based on negative judgment of others, fear of difference, and homophobia inconsistent with Christian teachings.” It is a strong statement on freedom to love.
LGBTQ need a secure place to help them to stop feeling guilty and build self-acceptance. Many others in society need a safe place where they no longer need to face discrimination and condemnation. The celebration of Pink Dot is a stage towards a society which is on the road to gay-affirming.
Self-acceptance is essentially what is needed for LGBTQ people. Why do we have to succumb to the dictates of cultural conditioning enforced by anachronistic religious teaching. Much has been attributed to what is taught about same-sex relations particularly in the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Historical-critical studies of these religions and their sacred writings have shown how they themselves are culturally bound and historically related and each claim universal and timeless relevancy. History records that contrary to sacred texts, religions have rejected patriarchy, racism, slavery, and violence. Prejudice based on sex, race, sexual orientation and economic status are no longer just and valid. This came about through the fresh interpretation of the sacred texts from the perspectives of the feminists, racial minorities, poor, and queer people.
We do not have to bear the heavy burden of guilt that the conservative community has placed upon the shoulders of LGBTQ because of its minority and marginalized position. We all must accept ourselves by embracing difference and celebrating diversity.
Due to the inter-connected and globalized community we know now how a growing majority of people are gay-affirming even though LGBTQ remain always a significant minority of the population. That the numbers of LGBTQ people are not increasing proportionately itself is a mystery. We have escalating numbers of those who understand sexual orientation and acknowledge same-sex relationships as natural and normal.
We are making progress in embracing differences. Each one of us is unique and different. A gay professor gave me a gift of a tee-shirt with the line: "Gay fine by me." I took a picture and published it in my memoir to declare my positive view on gays. Just last month I attended a retreat of Methodist pastors from Malaysia and Singapore. I took along a tee-shirt with the words "Same-same" in front and "but different" at the back. A number of the pastors recognized the statement that I was making and quietly agreed with it.
I did not realise that over forty years ago when I was the Bishop, I was appointing gay and lesbian Methodist pastors and missionaries to serve faithfully in the churches and schools throughout Malaysia and Singapore. It was then an unwritten policy of "Don't ask, don’t tell." But it was known then and even now that they were violating the teaching of the Church which still regards homosexuality as a sin. That too is in the process of changing and rather rapidly. I am certain that there are a number of gay and lesbian clergy and laypersons who are serving in different religious institutions today.
This is an exciting time and we are being caught in the tide of diversity in the affairs of men and women, straight or gay. Each one of us is differently gifted and has a contribution to make in the human community both local and global. The appeal is to get rid of guilt. The call is for self-acceptance about who we are and what we can become. It is to maximize our potential and become that kind person who live and work in community which is mutually accepting, caring and supporting one another in the creating of a better future for all.
Those of you in the LGBTQ community who love and accept yourself and relish the freedom that it brings have a special responsibility to help others who are still struggling to resolve their gay identity. You are able to save them from their loneliness, suffering and misery.
Those of us who are straight should regard all people are of sacred worth who deserve respect and ought to have freedom to love and to become who they have been created to be - unique, different and distinctive.
Together we share the awesome task to shape a community which is more caring and compassionate, more free and just that strives for the well-being of all.
Participate in Pink Dot 2011 Support the Freedom to Love on June 18 and make Singapore more open-minded and inclusive.
YAP KIM HAO
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Singapore General Election 2011
ARE YOU LISTENING?
Throughout the General Election campaign and its aftermath the word that kept popping up is LISTEN.
Everyone claims they want to listen. Candidates from the opposition initiated this approach by stating that they have been listening to the voters and responding to their cries. They then listed the litany of woes of those who especially find their present living situation difficult and the future bleak. Government candidates had to defend and even apologise that they have not listened enough to the grievances of the citizens and promise to do better the next time. The opposition pledged further to continue to listen carefully and help them to speak for them. Most of the citizens who have arrived with their different degrees of comfort are indifferent and felt they do not need to listen and support the status quo and voted as they have voted decades ago.
It is necessary for us to listen to all the classes of people in the community. We are pleased to listen to those who succeed and able to manage their lives. We need to listen and empathise with those who are struggling for the basic necessities of life in the midst of our relative affluence. The suffering of others in our human community is also mine as a fellow human being. When one suffers all share in the suffering.
Some issues have surfaced in a stark manner that need to be addressed for the total well-being of the nation. Are we really listening to what the people are saying. All will have to work together in the solving of the issues that we hear about.
1. High Salaries. We have reached beyond the embarrassing stage that those who hold political office are paid the highest salaries in the world and beyond comparison with the more developed and larger countries. It is on the scale which is truly “out of this world.” Others even regard it as obscene and a form of corruption. It can no longer be justifiable by any means or measure. The opposition has shown convincingly that they were able to recruit equally outstanding and talented people who were not tempted with astronomical remunerations.
2. Casinos. While it is true that the government revenues have increased significantly and that a large number of new jobs were created, the question remains whether the gambling industry is the one that we need to engage in and the kind of jobs that we need to train workers for. The social costs are alarming and unbearable. The human/family lives are too precious to be squandered. The “house” is calibrated to win always and millions of dollar are being siphoned out daily to the owners of our casinos. Lives are being sacrificed at the casino altars
3. Minimum Wage. Wages need to consider the living wage for our workers and their families. Foreign workers who compare their own living conditions in their own countries are willing reluctantly to accept lower than living wages while there are here by themselves. Corporations in our borderless economic world will seek out countries that pay the lowest wage for workers in order to maximise their profits. Without a minimum age policy we are exploiting poor foreign workers and enriching the companies especially in the manufacturing sector. Human resource is the one that we can provide for we lack natural resources.
4. Gerrymandering. It is obvious enough that there is gerrymandering to ensure the continued control of those in power. Whatever name we use it is a deliberate attempt through the electioneering process to benefit the party in power. The degree and the manner which we have done in the GRC’s have made its continuance highly problematic. We do not train people for political office by getting them to hang on to the coat-tails of successful office holders and bypass the proper election process of having the candidate to contest in his or her own single constituency.
5. Widening Gap. The ever widening gap between the rich and poor has no other option but to narrow. When the poor cannot afford to retire and continue to work in order to survive we see that could be one’s fate when one retires. When we depend upon our children’s medisave to pay our hospital bills we are spending not only our children’s inheritance but their present savings. The need for more equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth is crying out from the more deprived segments of our community.
6. Social capital. When I watch the tremendous crowds attending the political rallies, I look at other massive crowds gathered in many parts of our world today demonstrating for change and succumbing even to the violent overthrow of authoritarian regimes that have been in power for decades. There is an urgency to build up the social capital of people who are committed to peaceful change. We need people to show fairness and to commit to compassion and to engage in caring for one another.
These are the pressing issues that come to mind when we listen to the voices from all directions when we go through a general election. They are the voices for change. If changes do not occur fast enough violence becomes the only option and we all suffer. We listen to the pleas and the cries of the people who suffer from the pressures of these problems. We can eavesdrop and listen to the voices from afar and they are reaching our shores. The listening process must necessarily lead to action to solve these issues in our society. Are you listening?
Throughout the General Election campaign and its aftermath the word that kept popping up is LISTEN.
Everyone claims they want to listen. Candidates from the opposition initiated this approach by stating that they have been listening to the voters and responding to their cries. They then listed the litany of woes of those who especially find their present living situation difficult and the future bleak. Government candidates had to defend and even apologise that they have not listened enough to the grievances of the citizens and promise to do better the next time. The opposition pledged further to continue to listen carefully and help them to speak for them. Most of the citizens who have arrived with their different degrees of comfort are indifferent and felt they do not need to listen and support the status quo and voted as they have voted decades ago.
It is necessary for us to listen to all the classes of people in the community. We are pleased to listen to those who succeed and able to manage their lives. We need to listen and empathise with those who are struggling for the basic necessities of life in the midst of our relative affluence. The suffering of others in our human community is also mine as a fellow human being. When one suffers all share in the suffering.
Some issues have surfaced in a stark manner that need to be addressed for the total well-being of the nation. Are we really listening to what the people are saying. All will have to work together in the solving of the issues that we hear about.
1. High Salaries. We have reached beyond the embarrassing stage that those who hold political office are paid the highest salaries in the world and beyond comparison with the more developed and larger countries. It is on the scale which is truly “out of this world.” Others even regard it as obscene and a form of corruption. It can no longer be justifiable by any means or measure. The opposition has shown convincingly that they were able to recruit equally outstanding and talented people who were not tempted with astronomical remunerations.
2. Casinos. While it is true that the government revenues have increased significantly and that a large number of new jobs were created, the question remains whether the gambling industry is the one that we need to engage in and the kind of jobs that we need to train workers for. The social costs are alarming and unbearable. The human/family lives are too precious to be squandered. The “house” is calibrated to win always and millions of dollar are being siphoned out daily to the owners of our casinos. Lives are being sacrificed at the casino altars
3. Minimum Wage. Wages need to consider the living wage for our workers and their families. Foreign workers who compare their own living conditions in their own countries are willing reluctantly to accept lower than living wages while there are here by themselves. Corporations in our borderless economic world will seek out countries that pay the lowest wage for workers in order to maximise their profits. Without a minimum age policy we are exploiting poor foreign workers and enriching the companies especially in the manufacturing sector. Human resource is the one that we can provide for we lack natural resources.
4. Gerrymandering. It is obvious enough that there is gerrymandering to ensure the continued control of those in power. Whatever name we use it is a deliberate attempt through the electioneering process to benefit the party in power. The degree and the manner which we have done in the GRC’s have made its continuance highly problematic. We do not train people for political office by getting them to hang on to the coat-tails of successful office holders and bypass the proper election process of having the candidate to contest in his or her own single constituency.
5. Widening Gap. The ever widening gap between the rich and poor has no other option but to narrow. When the poor cannot afford to retire and continue to work in order to survive we see that could be one’s fate when one retires. When we depend upon our children’s medisave to pay our hospital bills we are spending not only our children’s inheritance but their present savings. The need for more equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth is crying out from the more deprived segments of our community.
6. Social capital. When I watch the tremendous crowds attending the political rallies, I look at other massive crowds gathered in many parts of our world today demonstrating for change and succumbing even to the violent overthrow of authoritarian regimes that have been in power for decades. There is an urgency to build up the social capital of people who are committed to peaceful change. We need people to show fairness and to commit to compassion and to engage in caring for one another.
These are the pressing issues that come to mind when we listen to the voices from all directions when we go through a general election. They are the voices for change. If changes do not occur fast enough violence becomes the only option and we all suffer. We listen to the pleas and the cries of the people who suffer from the pressures of these problems. We can eavesdrop and listen to the voices from afar and they are reaching our shores. The listening process must necessarily lead to action to solve these issues in our society. Are you listening?
Friday, May 6, 2011
BORN FREE
Right to be Free
The Cooling Off Day after a hectic period of political campaigning is a time to pause and reflect. The whole nation became a classroom when issues were vigorously debated in order to capture the hearts and minds of the electorate. Analysis in the new media which naturally embodies more freedom brings about the important and essential role of freedom of expression in the body politic. But the academic community where one would expect should play a more objective role is clouded by the political climate they had to work under.
It is heartening to read the articles especially in The Online Citizen and The Temasek Review and responsible bloggers on salient issues like honour and chivalry, power and responsibility. In the flush of freedom they have shared their candid insights without fear or favour.
In my reading today I chanced to read the Asian classic published back in 1999, “Development as Freedom” by Amartya Sen. It made pointed reference then to what is being reflected at this time.
Amartya Sen in the chapter “The Importance of Democracy” in his book reminded me of the significance between political freedom and economic needs.
They are often contrasted and one is called to trade-off freedom for the sake of wealth. So we hear the cries in the election rallies that life is more than just increasing GDP.
The author argues against the approach to “undermine the relevance of political freedom because the economic needs are so urgent.” He calls this the "Lee Thesis" after Lee Kuan Yew which claims that civil and political freedom hamper economic growth and development. On the contrary, the writer contends there is not only a relevance but an interconnection and that freedom is more urgent and basic and fundamental.
He further refutes the observation that authoritarian governments have a faster rate of economic growth. He believes that there are other factors that we have to take into consideration for growth. Development is not to be measured only in terms of dollars and cents. Hence the shouts for consideration of other factors than the drive for wealth accumulation.
The call is to understand the impact of political freedom in the lives of the citizens. The large crowd participating in the political rallies and coffee-shops indicate its importance when given the opportunity to exercise their right to express themselves. We have to acknowledge especially the new media for making this possible.
The positive value of freedom is in the formation of values and goals. The openness to discuss issues by the people has to be sustained. Those in authority and who serve are to listen to what people say and face their criticisms and ready to apologise always when they are wrong in order to merit their electoral support. It is only beginning to happen. It is heartening that at the beginning of the election campaign the attempts to smear were snuffed out, incivility in personal attacks were crushed and threats were muted. We are moving in the direction of the more gracious level of discourse. The tears shed are signs of care and compassion for the suffering of those who are being discriminated upon and show we have a heart.
Open discussion leads to the formation of values and priorities of economic needs themselves. No one assuming power can claim a personal right to rule and through self-authentication. Credible people have to earn their right to rule. Leaders rule upon the consent of the citizens. People need to be free to choose the kind of government they want and the economic needs they seek.
Essentially political freedom and civil rights are important on their own and need no justification. People must be given the freedom to lead their own lives and to have the opportunity to participate freely in deciding their political destiny.
May the values, priorities and goals that emerge through an election continue to be reviewed, evaluated and decided upon by the free citizens in a free nation.
The Cooling Off Day after a hectic period of political campaigning is a time to pause and reflect. The whole nation became a classroom when issues were vigorously debated in order to capture the hearts and minds of the electorate. Analysis in the new media which naturally embodies more freedom brings about the important and essential role of freedom of expression in the body politic. But the academic community where one would expect should play a more objective role is clouded by the political climate they had to work under.
It is heartening to read the articles especially in The Online Citizen and The Temasek Review and responsible bloggers on salient issues like honour and chivalry, power and responsibility. In the flush of freedom they have shared their candid insights without fear or favour.
In my reading today I chanced to read the Asian classic published back in 1999, “Development as Freedom” by Amartya Sen. It made pointed reference then to what is being reflected at this time.
Amartya Sen in the chapter “The Importance of Democracy” in his book reminded me of the significance between political freedom and economic needs.
They are often contrasted and one is called to trade-off freedom for the sake of wealth. So we hear the cries in the election rallies that life is more than just increasing GDP.
The author argues against the approach to “undermine the relevance of political freedom because the economic needs are so urgent.” He calls this the "Lee Thesis" after Lee Kuan Yew which claims that civil and political freedom hamper economic growth and development. On the contrary, the writer contends there is not only a relevance but an interconnection and that freedom is more urgent and basic and fundamental.
He further refutes the observation that authoritarian governments have a faster rate of economic growth. He believes that there are other factors that we have to take into consideration for growth. Development is not to be measured only in terms of dollars and cents. Hence the shouts for consideration of other factors than the drive for wealth accumulation.
The call is to understand the impact of political freedom in the lives of the citizens. The large crowd participating in the political rallies and coffee-shops indicate its importance when given the opportunity to exercise their right to express themselves. We have to acknowledge especially the new media for making this possible.
The positive value of freedom is in the formation of values and goals. The openness to discuss issues by the people has to be sustained. Those in authority and who serve are to listen to what people say and face their criticisms and ready to apologise always when they are wrong in order to merit their electoral support. It is only beginning to happen. It is heartening that at the beginning of the election campaign the attempts to smear were snuffed out, incivility in personal attacks were crushed and threats were muted. We are moving in the direction of the more gracious level of discourse. The tears shed are signs of care and compassion for the suffering of those who are being discriminated upon and show we have a heart.
Open discussion leads to the formation of values and priorities of economic needs themselves. No one assuming power can claim a personal right to rule and through self-authentication. Credible people have to earn their right to rule. Leaders rule upon the consent of the citizens. People need to be free to choose the kind of government they want and the economic needs they seek.
Essentially political freedom and civil rights are important on their own and need no justification. People must be given the freedom to lead their own lives and to have the opportunity to participate freely in deciding their political destiny.
May the values, priorities and goals that emerge through an election continue to be reviewed, evaluated and decided upon by the free citizens in a free nation.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
May Peace be Upon Us
Sunday April 17, 2011
After the conclusion of the election in the State of Sarawak where the spectre of inter-racial and inter-religious conflicts rear their ugly heads, I am reminded of the following article published over a year ago by Tuanku Sultanah Raja Zarith Sofia binti Sultan Idris Shah issuing an appeal for peace.
Grace & Peace
Yap Kim Hao
Sunday January 10, 2010
May peace be upon us
Mind Matters
By RAJA ZARITH IDRIS
Compared to the people of war-torn countries, we have a lot to be thankful for. But perhaps it is because we are at peace that we bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
AND so a new year begins, carrying with it last year’s “1Malaysia” theme for the country.
It perhaps signifies a realisation that we have many problems to overcome together as a nation. The encouragement for unity suggests that we all, knowingly or otherwise, realise that something is seriously wrong: we have become unhealthily obsessed with petty issues regarding race and religion.
We’ve all heard whispered comments about parents telling their children not to befriend their classmates who are not of the same race or religion. These whispers have become part of conversations, which leave us frustrated.
We are now facing a wall – quite a solid one at that – made up of bigoted remarks which stem from ignorance, intolerance, suspicion, a shunning of our own neighbours, and, yes, even hatred.
Last year, Muslims brought with them the severed head of a cow to a mosque to show their anger over the building of a Hindu temple.
During the second week of this new year, incendiary devices were thrown into churches – the Metro Tabernacle Church in Kuala Lumpur, the Assumption Church, the Life Chapel Church and The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, all in Petaling Jaya.
And yet, it is written in the Holy Quran: “And argue not with the People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians), unless it be in a way that is better (with good words and in a good manner... except with such of them as do wrong.” — Surah Al-Ankabut, verse 46.
In his own lifetime, the Holy Prophet Muhammad S.A.W (May Peace Be Upon Him) dealt fairly with the Christians.
The Prophet ordered two of his followers – Abu Musa Al-Ash’aree and Mu’aadh ibn Jabal – to go to Najran (part of present-day Yemen) to speak to the Christians.
This is recorded in the Hadiths (Islamic Traditions) according to both Al-Imam Muslim and Al-Imam Al-Bukhari: “... he said to them: ‘Facilitate things for the people (treat the people in the most agreeable way), and do not make things difficult for them, and give them glad tidings, and let them not have aversion (i.e. to make the people hate good deeds) and you should both work in cooperation and mutual understanding, obey each other’...” —Kindness & Gentleness by Doctor Fadl Al-Ilaahi, translated by Tarik Preston.
The treaty made then has become the basis of Islamic relations with other religions: “Najran and their followers have the protection of God and the protection of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God, for themselves, their community, their land and their goods, both those who are absent and those who are present, and for their churches and their services (no bishop will be moved from his episcopate, and no monk from his monastery, and no church warden from his wardenship) and for all, great or little, that is under their hands...” — Demystifying Islam: Your Guide to The Most Misunderstood Religion of the 21st Century by Dr Ali Shehata.
After the Prophet’s death, the second Caliph, Saidina Omar bin Khattab, signed a peace treaty with the Christians in Jerusalem: “In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, This is the protection which the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Ruler of the Believers has granted to the people of Eiliya (Jerusalem). The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their co-religionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion ... Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of God and the responsibility of His Messenger, of the Caliphs and of the believers, and shall hold good as long as they pay Jizya (the tax for their defence) imposed on them.” — www.
gawaher.com
It is a sad irony that at an age when there is so much information available to us via telecommunication and the Internet, we have become even more paranoid than ever.
We all call Malaysia home, do we not?
As fellow citizens, we can choose to see what we have in common or we can just look at the differences.
We can choose to remain ignorant or we can ask for guidance from our religious leaders and officials.
A year ago, we saw television footage and news items about the war in Gaza. Every day, our newspapers showed us images of the wounded and the dead. We saw homes and hospitals bombed into broken skeletons of bricks and metal.
Compared to the people of Gaza, we have a lot to be thankful for. We do not have an armed enemy attacking us. Our country is not at war. There are no missiles, no bombs, no air raids.
It is perhaps because we are at peace that we have come to bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
Most families have enough to eat decent meals. We have no shortage of petrol. Our homes remain intact. Because we do not have a common enemy, we have, it seems, the time and energy to destroy places of worship.
Let us remind ourselves that the Muslim greeting or salam is “May Peace Be Upon You”.
> The writer is Royal Fellow, School of Language Studies and Linguistics, UKM, Chairperson of the Community Services Committee of the Malaysian Red Crescent Society, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Oxford.
After the conclusion of the election in the State of Sarawak where the spectre of inter-racial and inter-religious conflicts rear their ugly heads, I am reminded of the following article published over a year ago by Tuanku Sultanah Raja Zarith Sofia binti Sultan Idris Shah issuing an appeal for peace.
Grace & Peace
Yap Kim Hao
Sunday January 10, 2010
May peace be upon us
Mind Matters
By RAJA ZARITH IDRIS
Compared to the people of war-torn countries, we have a lot to be thankful for. But perhaps it is because we are at peace that we bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
AND so a new year begins, carrying with it last year’s “1Malaysia” theme for the country.
It perhaps signifies a realisation that we have many problems to overcome together as a nation. The encouragement for unity suggests that we all, knowingly or otherwise, realise that something is seriously wrong: we have become unhealthily obsessed with petty issues regarding race and religion.
We’ve all heard whispered comments about parents telling their children not to befriend their classmates who are not of the same race or religion. These whispers have become part of conversations, which leave us frustrated.
We are now facing a wall – quite a solid one at that – made up of bigoted remarks which stem from ignorance, intolerance, suspicion, a shunning of our own neighbours, and, yes, even hatred.
Last year, Muslims brought with them the severed head of a cow to a mosque to show their anger over the building of a Hindu temple.
During the second week of this new year, incendiary devices were thrown into churches – the Metro Tabernacle Church in Kuala Lumpur, the Assumption Church, the Life Chapel Church and The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, all in Petaling Jaya.
And yet, it is written in the Holy Quran: “And argue not with the People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians), unless it be in a way that is better (with good words and in a good manner... except with such of them as do wrong.” — Surah Al-Ankabut, verse 46.
In his own lifetime, the Holy Prophet Muhammad S.A.W (May Peace Be Upon Him) dealt fairly with the Christians.
The Prophet ordered two of his followers – Abu Musa Al-Ash’aree and Mu’aadh ibn Jabal – to go to Najran (part of present-day Yemen) to speak to the Christians.
This is recorded in the Hadiths (Islamic Traditions) according to both Al-Imam Muslim and Al-Imam Al-Bukhari: “... he said to them: ‘Facilitate things for the people (treat the people in the most agreeable way), and do not make things difficult for them, and give them glad tidings, and let them not have aversion (i.e. to make the people hate good deeds) and you should both work in cooperation and mutual understanding, obey each other’...” —Kindness & Gentleness by Doctor Fadl Al-Ilaahi, translated by Tarik Preston.
The treaty made then has become the basis of Islamic relations with other religions: “Najran and their followers have the protection of God and the protection of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God, for themselves, their community, their land and their goods, both those who are absent and those who are present, and for their churches and their services (no bishop will be moved from his episcopate, and no monk from his monastery, and no church warden from his wardenship) and for all, great or little, that is under their hands...” — Demystifying Islam: Your Guide to The Most Misunderstood Religion of the 21st Century by Dr Ali Shehata.
After the Prophet’s death, the second Caliph, Saidina Omar bin Khattab, signed a peace treaty with the Christians in Jerusalem: “In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, This is the protection which the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Ruler of the Believers has granted to the people of Eiliya (Jerusalem). The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their co-religionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion ... Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of God and the responsibility of His Messenger, of the Caliphs and of the believers, and shall hold good as long as they pay Jizya (the tax for their defence) imposed on them.” — www.
gawaher.com
It is a sad irony that at an age when there is so much information available to us via telecommunication and the Internet, we have become even more paranoid than ever.
We all call Malaysia home, do we not?
As fellow citizens, we can choose to see what we have in common or we can just look at the differences.
We can choose to remain ignorant or we can ask for guidance from our religious leaders and officials.
A year ago, we saw television footage and news items about the war in Gaza. Every day, our newspapers showed us images of the wounded and the dead. We saw homes and hospitals bombed into broken skeletons of bricks and metal.
Compared to the people of Gaza, we have a lot to be thankful for. We do not have an armed enemy attacking us. Our country is not at war. There are no missiles, no bombs, no air raids.
It is perhaps because we are at peace that we have come to bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
Most families have enough to eat decent meals. We have no shortage of petrol. Our homes remain intact. Because we do not have a common enemy, we have, it seems, the time and energy to destroy places of worship.
Let us remind ourselves that the Muslim greeting or salam is “May Peace Be Upon You”.
> The writer is Royal Fellow, School of Language Studies and Linguistics, UKM, Chairperson of the Community Services Committee of the Malaysian Red Crescent Society, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Oxford.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Gayle Goh's Vision
My Vision For Singapore, by Gayle Goh
Posted on January 3, 2011 by visa
People have asked me what my vision of Singapore is. But I think I first have to lay out my vision of its people – people who are no longer stranded in the boxes of an impersonal state’s construction, but who are willing to venture out of those confines to lay down the grounds for their own lives and prosperity. People who have ownership of the terms of their citizenship, instead of having those terms dictated to them without so much as a by-your-leave. People who are mature enough to be trusted, who are dignified instead of patronized, who are able to use their ’1st World’ educations not just for material benefit but for the purposes of self-determination, which is fundamental to the nature of human existence.
I envision a people who govern themselves through the constructs of their shaping; independent yet responsible media, judiciary, legislative and executive arms of the state, ballot box, labour unions. Where they are the foremost judge and jury, where the government must be held accountable to them, and prove themselves capable to be their representatives, instead of the other way around. People who are proud to call themselves Singaporeans, engaged and aware of their nation and their countrymen.
Singapore, then, is a nation I have always envisaged as a child who went to sleep and, without knowing it, grew to be a man. In his slumber he aged, matured, became strong-limbed and nimble, powerful and beautiful, and yet remained imprisoned in his lethargy. Sedated by peace and numbed by comfort, he was content to lie mute, deaf, non-assertive. But of late his sleep is restless, disturbed by ugly images. His once-blissful dreams have been tinged with unease. Something has gone wrong. Something is not right. And he stirs – a little finger trembles here, a heartbeat quickens there – and soon he will awaken. His eyes will open and he will discover that he has autonomy over his self, his person, that he has power invested in those hands.
And he must do this before a child’s cradle turns into a man’s grave.
Only Singaporeans can awaken their nation. Only they can unpack the boxes, sort out the mess, throw away the rotten and tidy the dishevelled. Only they have the ability and the sheer will to effect change. Our country is a child no longer. It is a fledgling nation no longer. It has an identity, a consciousness, a name, a face. It must no longer be treated as an infant, unable to discern nor fend for itself. Else, if we turn away, if we stir but do not wake, then we run the risk of losing our chance to see the world – to see ourselves – as who wecan be, not who they tell us we must be.
Labels, labels, boxes and labels. Stayers, quitters, 3rd world, 1st world, old, young, skilled, unskilled, English-educated radicals, Chinese chauvinists, neighbourhood, elite, moderates, dissidents, Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others. I see Singaporeans. And until we see ourselves, how do we staunch the rotting, how do we cease the diaspora, the dispersion of people emigrating from our homeland, disillusioned, discontent, now apathetic?
Until we awaken, how do we learn how to live?
This entry was posted in Singapore, Social Issues. Bookmark the permalink.
← The Challenge.
is there anything at all about yourself that pisses you off? {:
Posted on January 3, 2011 by visa
People have asked me what my vision of Singapore is. But I think I first have to lay out my vision of its people – people who are no longer stranded in the boxes of an impersonal state’s construction, but who are willing to venture out of those confines to lay down the grounds for their own lives and prosperity. People who have ownership of the terms of their citizenship, instead of having those terms dictated to them without so much as a by-your-leave. People who are mature enough to be trusted, who are dignified instead of patronized, who are able to use their ’1st World’ educations not just for material benefit but for the purposes of self-determination, which is fundamental to the nature of human existence.
I envision a people who govern themselves through the constructs of their shaping; independent yet responsible media, judiciary, legislative and executive arms of the state, ballot box, labour unions. Where they are the foremost judge and jury, where the government must be held accountable to them, and prove themselves capable to be their representatives, instead of the other way around. People who are proud to call themselves Singaporeans, engaged and aware of their nation and their countrymen.
Singapore, then, is a nation I have always envisaged as a child who went to sleep and, without knowing it, grew to be a man. In his slumber he aged, matured, became strong-limbed and nimble, powerful and beautiful, and yet remained imprisoned in his lethargy. Sedated by peace and numbed by comfort, he was content to lie mute, deaf, non-assertive. But of late his sleep is restless, disturbed by ugly images. His once-blissful dreams have been tinged with unease. Something has gone wrong. Something is not right. And he stirs – a little finger trembles here, a heartbeat quickens there – and soon he will awaken. His eyes will open and he will discover that he has autonomy over his self, his person, that he has power invested in those hands.
And he must do this before a child’s cradle turns into a man’s grave.
Only Singaporeans can awaken their nation. Only they can unpack the boxes, sort out the mess, throw away the rotten and tidy the dishevelled. Only they have the ability and the sheer will to effect change. Our country is a child no longer. It is a fledgling nation no longer. It has an identity, a consciousness, a name, a face. It must no longer be treated as an infant, unable to discern nor fend for itself. Else, if we turn away, if we stir but do not wake, then we run the risk of losing our chance to see the world – to see ourselves – as who wecan be, not who they tell us we must be.
Labels, labels, boxes and labels. Stayers, quitters, 3rd world, 1st world, old, young, skilled, unskilled, English-educated radicals, Chinese chauvinists, neighbourhood, elite, moderates, dissidents, Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others. I see Singaporeans. And until we see ourselves, how do we staunch the rotting, how do we cease the diaspora, the dispersion of people emigrating from our homeland, disillusioned, discontent, now apathetic?
Until we awaken, how do we learn how to live?
This entry was posted in Singapore, Social Issues. Bookmark the permalink.
← The Challenge.
is there anything at all about yourself that pisses you off? {:
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Life is What You Make It
Review of Peter Buffet, Life is What You Make It, New York: Harmony Books, 2010.
When I attended the Credit Suisse Philanthropists Forum 2011 in Raffles Hotel, Singapore I received an autographed copy of a recent New York Times Bestseller book which was given to each of the 150 participants - “Life is What You Make It: Find Your Own Path to Fulfillment” by Peter Buffett. I admit that I did not know anything about the author before and he is indeed the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Bill and Melinda Gates commented that the book captures Peter’s spirit, passion and values beautifully in reflecting on life’s purpose and opportunity.
What a privilege it was to hear him speak at one of the sessions of the Forum which was moderated by Sir John Major, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. How enlightening it is to read his book about his own examination of the way he manages his life – his passion, his wealth, and his commitment to philanthropy. He revealed the contours of his life’s journey given the fortunate and privileged circumstances that surrounded him and sought to motivate others in their own special situations.
It is a book about attitudes, convictions and values that shape every person’s life. His credentials is simply his own life that has forced him “to think long and hard about these matters.”
Peter recalls the opinion of his father about inherited wealth; “that the silver spoon in the mouth too often becomes the silver dagger in the back – an ill-considered gift that saps ambition and drains motivation, that deprives a young person of the great adventure of finding his or her own way.” Another principle that he got from his father is that parents if they have the means should give their children “enough to do anything, but not enough to do nothing.”
His own adventure as a teenager was a vague and confused one even uncertain about finishing high school. His parents approach was that the children could be whatever they wanted to be and they should follow their hearts or bliss wherever they led them.
When he was growing up his parents were not wealthy yet but had some influence to get him admitted to Stanford University although he realised that he did not deserve to be there because of his own academic record and interest. He was naturally curious and benefitted from the broad liberal education without a precise career goal.
At the age of nineteen he received his first family inheritance of about $90,000 in the form of stocks and was told that he should not expect more at that time. This became a challenge for him to use what was given to him. He could have wasted it by spending on luxuries and pamper himself. If he had done nothing and left it alone the stock would eventually fetch seventy-two million dollars. But he chose in what he said to spend the money to buy time.
The time is related to his decision to pursue a career in music. It is to have time and technologies to develop his passion for music. He moved from Omaha to San Francisco. He lived frugally and turned his small apartment to a recording studio and offered his services. He began to write music himself and looking for that distinctive “sound” which identifies his creative work.
He realised the true value of money. Money is replaceable. But what you have done with money in terms of experience, value, fulfillment are important. Peter was able to make his life and find his vocation. He became a composer of music for commercials and for the movies. His pinnacle of success was the “Firedance” scene in the Oscar-winning film, “Dances with Wolves.” He received also the Emmy Award as a composer.
The message that he wants to communicate is that “money should be seen as a spin-off of success, a side effect, and not the measure of success itself.”
He observed his parents who have grown very wealthy. His mother was still the “warm and giving person.” His father still worked “wearing his trance-like concentration along with his khaki pants and cardigans.” Money did not change them for making money was not the prime objective. He wrote: “My father worked extremely hard because he loved what he did, because it challenged and excited him. Money came eventually, but the passion and the curiosity were there from the start. Money followed: it never led.”
On Christmas 1999 Warren Buffett endowed a charitable foundation for each of his three children. Each was given ten million dollars and Peter and his wife Jennifer received further contributions from his parents and by 2004 the foundation they established grew to more than one hundred million dollars. In 2006 Warren Buffet deposited $37 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He added one billion dollars to each of his children’s foundation. While protecting his career as a musician Peter became more involved in philanthropy.
Peter formulated some guiding principles in managing the Foundation that he gave the name “NoVO” which in Latin means change, alter, or invent. He accepts the classic definition of philanthropy according to its Greek roots: philo- which means love and anthropos which means humankind. “Philanthropy means nothing more or less than the expression of the love we feel for one another, the sense of solidarity that makes us want to share.” It is not all about money. All of us each in our way can share whatever we have in the spirit of philanthropy.
Another approach that he wants to avoid is “Philanthropic Colonialism.” It was the first time that I heard it being used when he made a passing reference to it in his presentation. Somehow it resonated with me in my explorations on Post-Colonial theology. I sensed the sentiment behind it which relates to colonial mentality. So I took the opportunity to go up to him and thanked him for his sensitivities. I must have surprised him that I was struck by what he said. Later I read his book that elaborated on this term.
Philantrophic colonialism is “the tendency of (generally) well-meaning outsiders to imagine that they understand the challenges facing local peoples better than the local people themselves. Imagine that they understand the problems, they further imagine that they can impose solutions. Not only is this arrogant and condescending, but it usually doesn’t work. So our approach would be to provide support for people who identified their own needs and evolved their own solutions.”
This was the historical folly of colonizers and missionaries who brought Western ideas, clothes, morals and religion itself to the colonies and trampled on local traditions and destroyed local cultures.
The premise that Peter works upon in his philanthropy is that people are equal. “If you believe in the dignity and value of any human life – including your own!- then you should recognize the equal dignity and value of every human life…But if people imagine that they are somehow superior to those they are helping, the result is not true kindness, but condescension.”
Peter continues to grow in his music and philanthropic work and wants to give more of himself and what he has with a grateful heart for the privileged situation in which he is in. He is clear “that all of us should be proud of our lives, because making a life is the one profound and sacred opportunity shared by every person ever born. Life is what we made it. No one else can do it for us; no one else has the right to tell us what it ought to be.
We make our own goals. We define our own successes. We don’t get to choose where we start in life; we do get to choose the kind of people we become.”
He concluded with the question: What are you waiting for?
When I attended the Credit Suisse Philanthropists Forum 2011 in Raffles Hotel, Singapore I received an autographed copy of a recent New York Times Bestseller book which was given to each of the 150 participants - “Life is What You Make It: Find Your Own Path to Fulfillment” by Peter Buffett. I admit that I did not know anything about the author before and he is indeed the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Bill and Melinda Gates commented that the book captures Peter’s spirit, passion and values beautifully in reflecting on life’s purpose and opportunity.
What a privilege it was to hear him speak at one of the sessions of the Forum which was moderated by Sir John Major, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. How enlightening it is to read his book about his own examination of the way he manages his life – his passion, his wealth, and his commitment to philanthropy. He revealed the contours of his life’s journey given the fortunate and privileged circumstances that surrounded him and sought to motivate others in their own special situations.
It is a book about attitudes, convictions and values that shape every person’s life. His credentials is simply his own life that has forced him “to think long and hard about these matters.”
Peter recalls the opinion of his father about inherited wealth; “that the silver spoon in the mouth too often becomes the silver dagger in the back – an ill-considered gift that saps ambition and drains motivation, that deprives a young person of the great adventure of finding his or her own way.” Another principle that he got from his father is that parents if they have the means should give their children “enough to do anything, but not enough to do nothing.”
His own adventure as a teenager was a vague and confused one even uncertain about finishing high school. His parents approach was that the children could be whatever they wanted to be and they should follow their hearts or bliss wherever they led them.
When he was growing up his parents were not wealthy yet but had some influence to get him admitted to Stanford University although he realised that he did not deserve to be there because of his own academic record and interest. He was naturally curious and benefitted from the broad liberal education without a precise career goal.
At the age of nineteen he received his first family inheritance of about $90,000 in the form of stocks and was told that he should not expect more at that time. This became a challenge for him to use what was given to him. He could have wasted it by spending on luxuries and pamper himself. If he had done nothing and left it alone the stock would eventually fetch seventy-two million dollars. But he chose in what he said to spend the money to buy time.
The time is related to his decision to pursue a career in music. It is to have time and technologies to develop his passion for music. He moved from Omaha to San Francisco. He lived frugally and turned his small apartment to a recording studio and offered his services. He began to write music himself and looking for that distinctive “sound” which identifies his creative work.
He realised the true value of money. Money is replaceable. But what you have done with money in terms of experience, value, fulfillment are important. Peter was able to make his life and find his vocation. He became a composer of music for commercials and for the movies. His pinnacle of success was the “Firedance” scene in the Oscar-winning film, “Dances with Wolves.” He received also the Emmy Award as a composer.
The message that he wants to communicate is that “money should be seen as a spin-off of success, a side effect, and not the measure of success itself.”
He observed his parents who have grown very wealthy. His mother was still the “warm and giving person.” His father still worked “wearing his trance-like concentration along with his khaki pants and cardigans.” Money did not change them for making money was not the prime objective. He wrote: “My father worked extremely hard because he loved what he did, because it challenged and excited him. Money came eventually, but the passion and the curiosity were there from the start. Money followed: it never led.”
On Christmas 1999 Warren Buffett endowed a charitable foundation for each of his three children. Each was given ten million dollars and Peter and his wife Jennifer received further contributions from his parents and by 2004 the foundation they established grew to more than one hundred million dollars. In 2006 Warren Buffet deposited $37 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He added one billion dollars to each of his children’s foundation. While protecting his career as a musician Peter became more involved in philanthropy.
Peter formulated some guiding principles in managing the Foundation that he gave the name “NoVO” which in Latin means change, alter, or invent. He accepts the classic definition of philanthropy according to its Greek roots: philo- which means love and anthropos which means humankind. “Philanthropy means nothing more or less than the expression of the love we feel for one another, the sense of solidarity that makes us want to share.” It is not all about money. All of us each in our way can share whatever we have in the spirit of philanthropy.
Another approach that he wants to avoid is “Philanthropic Colonialism.” It was the first time that I heard it being used when he made a passing reference to it in his presentation. Somehow it resonated with me in my explorations on Post-Colonial theology. I sensed the sentiment behind it which relates to colonial mentality. So I took the opportunity to go up to him and thanked him for his sensitivities. I must have surprised him that I was struck by what he said. Later I read his book that elaborated on this term.
Philantrophic colonialism is “the tendency of (generally) well-meaning outsiders to imagine that they understand the challenges facing local peoples better than the local people themselves. Imagine that they understand the problems, they further imagine that they can impose solutions. Not only is this arrogant and condescending, but it usually doesn’t work. So our approach would be to provide support for people who identified their own needs and evolved their own solutions.”
This was the historical folly of colonizers and missionaries who brought Western ideas, clothes, morals and religion itself to the colonies and trampled on local traditions and destroyed local cultures.
The premise that Peter works upon in his philanthropy is that people are equal. “If you believe in the dignity and value of any human life – including your own!- then you should recognize the equal dignity and value of every human life…But if people imagine that they are somehow superior to those they are helping, the result is not true kindness, but condescension.”
Peter continues to grow in his music and philanthropic work and wants to give more of himself and what he has with a grateful heart for the privileged situation in which he is in. He is clear “that all of us should be proud of our lives, because making a life is the one profound and sacred opportunity shared by every person ever born. Life is what we made it. No one else can do it for us; no one else has the right to tell us what it ought to be.
We make our own goals. We define our own successes. We don’t get to choose where we start in life; we do get to choose the kind of people we become.”
He concluded with the question: What are you waiting for?
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Philanthropic Colonialism
Credit Suisse held an Inaugural Philanthropists Forum in Singapore in Raffles Hotel. It was opened by Senior Ministry Goh Chok Tong. The theme was “The Road to Giving.” The bank invited philanthropists, practitioners and thought leaders of the field who travelled on that road to this Forum.
Among the impressive list is Peter Buffet (Musician and philanthropist and son of Warren Buffett, Jamie Zobel de Ayala II (Chairman and CEO of Ayala Corporation), Somsook Boonyaancha (Sec-Gen of Asian Coalition for Housing Rights). Rt Hon Sir John Major (former Prime Minister UK), HRH Raja Zarith binti Almarhum Sultan Idris Shah (Sultanah of Johore), Niu Gensing (Chairman Lao Niu Foundation), Apolo Ohno (Winter Olympian and Supporter of Special Olympics).
It is to the credit of the Bank for organizing such an event as an act of Corporate Social Responsibility and lifting philanthropy from the level of charity in giving to the poor and needy to the higher level of development in solving the problems of humanity in our already crowded planet earth. The further need is for more clarity about the social vision or the goals of social transformation – moving from individualism to a sense of community and crossing the boundaries that divide our society.
Peter Buffet made a reference to what he termed “philanthropic colonialism.” I resonated with that observation and went up to him to express appreciation for his sensitivities of the question of power which are in the hands of those who hold economic wealth. The responsibility to travel the road to giving is greater than the road to gaining wealth.
When the HRH Raja Zarith shared about her philanthropic acts she does not just distribute gifts but also engaged the poor villagers and interact with them in order to understand their plight and their needs. I had the opportunity to compliment her and also on her published comment on the current controversy between the Christians and Muslims appealing for more mutual respect and understanding.
I was reminded of an account in my recent reading of a Congress of Disability in 1981 in Winnipeg, Canada. Among the 3,000 delegates only 200 were disabled. The disabled participants requested for more participation in the proceedings but was refused. So they left the hall and held their own meeting. The issue is that in addressing the issue of disability they did not fully consider the views and feelings of those who are differently-abled. The tag line of the differently-abled people is “Nothing about us without us.” Practitioners of philanthropy must take into account the voices of the people whom they want to help. The approach in that situation was a shift in emphasis of awareness of disability from a medical diagnoses and viewing disabled people as patients with a problem to that of people who are differently-abled as normal human beings with rights. One model is for the individual to adjust to those in power in society, the other is for the need of society to adjust to those who have less power.
This is what philanthropic colonialism can lead to. People in need are not to be marginalized, silenced, disempowered and become passive recipients of the largesse of the advantaged practitioners of philanthropy.
The rules of engagement is to socially embrace and celebrate the differences we have with one another. We are all differently-abled with wealth, intellect, physique, emotions. We are all disabled in one form or another and no one is perfect. The catchword that I caught from another conference of handicapped people is “My handicap is visible what is yours?”
Let us abandon the temptation of being patronizing in our philanthropy and seeking self-interest as an individual or corporation. Let us be truly socially responsible and support one another and mutually evolve a more caring and compassionate society.
Among the impressive list is Peter Buffet (Musician and philanthropist and son of Warren Buffett, Jamie Zobel de Ayala II (Chairman and CEO of Ayala Corporation), Somsook Boonyaancha (Sec-Gen of Asian Coalition for Housing Rights). Rt Hon Sir John Major (former Prime Minister UK), HRH Raja Zarith binti Almarhum Sultan Idris Shah (Sultanah of Johore), Niu Gensing (Chairman Lao Niu Foundation), Apolo Ohno (Winter Olympian and Supporter of Special Olympics).
It is to the credit of the Bank for organizing such an event as an act of Corporate Social Responsibility and lifting philanthropy from the level of charity in giving to the poor and needy to the higher level of development in solving the problems of humanity in our already crowded planet earth. The further need is for more clarity about the social vision or the goals of social transformation – moving from individualism to a sense of community and crossing the boundaries that divide our society.
Peter Buffet made a reference to what he termed “philanthropic colonialism.” I resonated with that observation and went up to him to express appreciation for his sensitivities of the question of power which are in the hands of those who hold economic wealth. The responsibility to travel the road to giving is greater than the road to gaining wealth.
When the HRH Raja Zarith shared about her philanthropic acts she does not just distribute gifts but also engaged the poor villagers and interact with them in order to understand their plight and their needs. I had the opportunity to compliment her and also on her published comment on the current controversy between the Christians and Muslims appealing for more mutual respect and understanding.
I was reminded of an account in my recent reading of a Congress of Disability in 1981 in Winnipeg, Canada. Among the 3,000 delegates only 200 were disabled. The disabled participants requested for more participation in the proceedings but was refused. So they left the hall and held their own meeting. The issue is that in addressing the issue of disability they did not fully consider the views and feelings of those who are differently-abled. The tag line of the differently-abled people is “Nothing about us without us.” Practitioners of philanthropy must take into account the voices of the people whom they want to help. The approach in that situation was a shift in emphasis of awareness of disability from a medical diagnoses and viewing disabled people as patients with a problem to that of people who are differently-abled as normal human beings with rights. One model is for the individual to adjust to those in power in society, the other is for the need of society to adjust to those who have less power.
This is what philanthropic colonialism can lead to. People in need are not to be marginalized, silenced, disempowered and become passive recipients of the largesse of the advantaged practitioners of philanthropy.
The rules of engagement is to socially embrace and celebrate the differences we have with one another. We are all differently-abled with wealth, intellect, physique, emotions. We are all disabled in one form or another and no one is perfect. The catchword that I caught from another conference of handicapped people is “My handicap is visible what is yours?”
Let us abandon the temptation of being patronizing in our philanthropy and seeking self-interest as an individual or corporation. Let us be truly socially responsible and support one another and mutually evolve a more caring and compassionate society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
