Sunday, May 27, 2007

A New Opposition Party for Singapore?

Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam, once the strongman for the opposition Singapore Worker's Party before being rendered bankrupt by the Singapore Government, and thus ineligible to stand for Parliament, has re-entered the political arena after emerging out of bankruptcy.

The 20th May edition of the International Herald Tribune reported that JBJ, as he is commonly known in Singapore, has left his Worker's Party to form a new opposition, which rumours suggest will be called the Reform Party.

The re-entry of JBJ into Singapore Politics represents a step in the right direction, and there are suggestions that Singaporeans themselves are responding positively to this development. After casting their votes behind the ruling People's Action Party for so long, many Singaporeans are growing uneasy with the increasingly blatant acts of corruption on the part of the Government. In recent months, the Singapore Cabinet, in the midst of growing economic disparities and dislocations, voted in favour of giving themselves a massive salary hike. The latest salary revision will by next year nearly double each minister’s current remuneration, and bring it on average to nearly three times that of US President George Bush’s, five times in the case of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s.

Amidst such discontent, it is likely that the stranglehold the PAP has on the Singaporean Parliament (it currently holds 82 of the 84 seats in the unicameral parliament) may be loosened in the next parliamentary "election", with a lot of electoral support going to the opposition, and in particular JBJ. With his training as a barrister, he would prove a more than a match to any of the PAP dropkicks that currently infest the esteemed house. But cold water can be poured on such hopes on several fronts.

Firstly, the entry of the Reform Party would split the already fragmented opposition three ways. Unless these parties go into coalition, none would be able to form a cohesive vision so as to be able to present themselves to be more than just critics on the sideline, and as a viable alternative government.

Secondly, it is unlikely that the opposition would be able to field sufficient candidates to pose any serious challenge to the PAP. The Party has put to good use its utilisation of the courts to stifle opposition by suing for defamation any candidate which criticises the government before, during and after campaigning. If such suits are successful, the damages are often enough to render a parliamentarian bankrupt, thus makng him ineligible to be a member of parliament. The fear of reprisal that this systematic abuse of the courts, which are far from independent, would instill in potential candidates would make them think twice before seriously standing as a candidate. This of course results in the inadequate fielding of candidates to the point that the PAP wins the bulk of the electorates hands down for want of opposing candidates.

Thirdly, one wonders if materialism has sunken so deep into the Singaporean psyche that not enough would care enough about their current state of serfdom. Many may think that having virtually every material want fulfilled, to talk of anything that could jeoparise such a state should be avoided at all cost. This in turn results in a wilful political apathy that could be an even bigger enemy for opposition parties than Lee Kuan Yew's henchmen.

But hope always springs eternal in the hearts of those that are either exiled or royally annoyed with the abuse of power perpetrated by those holding the reins of power in Singapore.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

...How About that Fidelity Stuff?

What better way to celebrate the Solemnity of the Ascension that become the subject of yet another Church-bashing media report?

The BBC today reported on a priest in the French village of Asson, who admitted to authorities that he was having a 22-year sexual relationship with a female parishoner. A paragraph on the web version of the report pretty much sets the tone


"He is twinkly eyed and looks a little like Dustin Hoffman. She seems warm and open and is still a very attractive woman. But in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, Leon and Marga are sinners"

That's right, the narrow-mind of the Catholic Church pounces again with it's rhetoric of sin to destroy the hopes and dreams of two beautiful people, says the BBC.

Needless, to say, this episode is causing a bit of a stir in the tiny village. Many parishoners are out on strike, although many also come into the prebytery (which the priest would soon have to vacate) to give him the odd congratulatory note, or hang out signs on the Church's to protest against the Church's stance on Fr. Leon.

Both Fr. Leon and Marga have expressed "hurt" by the Church's attitude. And the BBC World News reporter ended the report by saying this situation raises questions that go to the heart of Catholicism, whether it should own up to the outmodedness of its ways, or demand blind, unquestioning obedience.

One cannot help but feel insulted at the suggestion that we as Catholics are programmed to be mindless automatons, so utterly lacking in mental capacities to the point of needing someone to do the thinking of us. At the same time, one cannot help but giggle sometimes at yet another demonstration of the media's simplistic portrayal of a multifacted situation so as to fit a soundbyte.

What about the fact that Fr. Leon had on the day of his ordination, made a vow of his own free will to maintain a life of celibacy?

What about the fact that he has essentially broken a vow that he himself made of his own free will?

What about the fact that Fr. Leon is publicly flaunting a sexual relationship that exists OUTSIDE any marriage situation, a standard every Christian, never mind a priest, is by his or her profession of faith expected to strive to observe?

How about the fact that Fr. Leon insists that this relationship has strengthened his mission as a Catholic, while refusing to even ATTEND mass?

How about the fact that Fr. Leon is publicly renouncing the office of priesthood, and his very faith, whilst still enjoying the material benefits being part of the Catholic Church (free room and board, and a salary)?

How about the fact that, as a fellow priest hinted, there are other protestant churches where Fr. Leon's behavior would be considered acceptable; how about the fact that Fr. Leon is just as free to leave the Church as he was in making his vows that he swore to keep for life, but insists on staying in the Church and insisting that the Church changes basic teachings to suit his lifestyle?

It would seem that for the good folk of the BBC, the only thing is Fr. Leon's (and Marga's) "hurt" for not being able to get their jollies, whenever they want it, wherever they want it, in the way that they want it, while expecting material support from someone else while wanting it, and while criticising that someone else for not letting them break their promises so that they can want it.

One seems to forget that in any other situation, and even more so if this situation were an episode of Dr. Phil, a person hearing that story would respond with an admonition for Fr. Leon to "grow up".

Showbusiness can be such a fickle creature...

Friday, May 11, 2007

Who Do You Call...Tracey Rowland!

The Author takes pride in being and having wierd and wonderful combinations. His list was extended this week when he the received happy news that Dr. Tracey Rowland, Dean of the John Paul Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne, will supervise the Author's project on the evolution of Catholic Ecclesiology, Theology and Peacemaking Practice, alongside the School of Political Science and International Studies of the University of Queensland.

Dr. Rowland has enjoyed an illustrious academic career, first as a political philosopher, and now as a theologian. Combining these streams in her book Culture and the Thomist Tradition: After Vatican II, Dr. Rowland is now THE Australian exponent of the Radical Orthodoxy movement, which as the previous wonderpost intimated, bears great potential in engaging in social inquiry on the Church's own terms (that is, without having to apologise for our faith). Through Dr. Rowland, the Church would be able, at least academically, be able to take theology out of its epistemological cocoon and counter the narratives of the (post?)modern world which, as the founder of the NeoCathecumenal Way, Kiko Arguello remarked, threatens to take ever more strident steps towards apostasy.

We are fortunate to have academics like Dr. Rowland in our midst to lead this intellectual charge.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Female Priesthood a Dishonour to Women

Feminism as a political theory has introduced a variety of interesting themes into political analysis. Indeed, a lot of valuable analytical methodologies would not be possible without Feminist political theory.

But somewhere along the way, as a cultural phenomenon, Feminism has become a twin edged sword. On the one hand, it asserts upholding the dignity of women, a laudable goal. On the other hand, unfortunately, the most strident form of feminism in our postmodern culture has sought tirelessly to uphold that dignity by making - and by that I mean almost forcing- women mimic men. This comes from, as Pia De Solenni argued during her April 27 conference at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, a confused notion of power and authority. According to what is an essentially Liberal argument, particular roles, rather than being seen as part of a complementarity of roles within a social organism, are seen as avenues of privilege that in reality, all individuals should be entitled to access. Dignity, seen in this light, is dependent on the acquisition of what is misconstrued to be a position of power, and anything else, even if that fits like a glove, is seen as second-rate.

We in the Church find a shining example of this phenomenon in the ongoing debate about women priests. Rather than see the role of the priesthood as acting as an incarnation of Christ in soul and body, it is seen as a site of official authority and power. Denial of this "position" to women, thus, is seen as a form of sexual discrimination.

According to de Solenni, this line of argument ignores the complementarity of roles within the Church in accordance to the masculine and feminine natures of humanity, which are not incidental and thus insignificant, but rather the core of human identity. The loss of the image of the Church as a truly social reality - a corpus verum in William Cavanaugh's parlance - and instead the misconceptualisation of the Church as merely an institution with individuals scurrying around working their own salvation or political careers, has contributed greatly to this malaise, which de Solenni argues is underpinned by an "overemphasis of the masculine". Talking about ordaining women into the priesthood, thus, is taking on board the feminism of fashion, and forcing a masculine paradigm onto women, thereby undermining the dignity that is due to women qua women.

"No doubt," continues de Solenni, "women need a voice in the Church, but it must be an authentic voice and not their voice made to sound like a man's."

But critique of the feminist line is one thing. Positing an alternative model is another. In this, de Solenni argues that the history of the Church is comprised of a litany of the "active participation of women". Most significantly, "It was the consent, understanding and devotion of a woman that brought the Church to us," and the fact that the Virgin Mary was not chosen by her son to be a priest "indicates that the sacrament does not discriminate on the basis of dignity or merit".