Trump - withdraw WHO funds

A self-righteous President? 

Trump has always been a trigger-happy president since day one. Most of us just roll our eyes when he talk or jump on a decision without much thought. In a nutshell, he has done many things on a fly, but this time, he has crossed the line. 

Georgetown University global health law Professor Lawrence Gostin said: “People will die because of Trump’a disasterous decision to withdraw WHO funding.”

Public health experts echoed similar sentiments that “withdrawing funding in the middle of a pandemic could cost lives.”

But, how much are we talking about anyway?

Well, America is the single largest donor and main bankroller. “It contributed US$893 million (S$1.27 billion), or about 15 per cent, to the global health agency’s current two-year budget.”

Mind you, the funds are always well spent on polio eradication programmes worldwide, “increasing access to essential health services, and fighting vaccine-preventable diseases.” At this time, the money would also be used to focus on finding a vaccine for the dreaded covid-19. 

But why is Trump doing this, of all time, during this severely difficult time? 

Well, it is about finger pointing, or the pot calling the kettle black. He accused the WHO of “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.” He said: “The WHO pushed China’s misinformation about the virus, saying it was not communicable and there was no need for travel bans.”

But, WHO clarified that travel restrictions would hurt the global economy, “although nations were still free to impose them, which many did.”

In any event, here’s what UN Sec-Gen Antonio Guterres has to say: -

“As it is not that time (to look back and assess how all those involved reacted to the crisis), it is also not the time to reduce the resources for the operations of the World Health Organisation or any other humanitarian organisation in the fight against the virus. As I have said before, now is the time to work together in solidarity to stop this virus and its shattering consequences.”

Lesson? One, and it is about a self-righteous leader; one who cannot accept, and learn from, mistakes. 

Not once in his 3.5-year term did Trump admit to making a mistake. He even said he doesn’t see a need to ask for forgiveness from God. He is practically beyond reproach, and suspending funds to WHO is not only a cowardice act, it is also an extremely selfish act. 

Let it also be known that the second highest contributor to the WHO is Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 

While US gave $893m, the Gates Foundation gave $530.96. And Bill Gates said: “Halting funding for the World Health Organisation during a world health crisis is as dangerous as it sounds. Their work is slowing the spread of Covid-19 and if that work is stopped, no other organisation can replace them. The world needs @WHO now more than ever.”

It is no doubt a unilateral act to suspend funds and Trump is inching ever closer to violating the US spending laws. But the real reason has always been his fragile, childlike ego. Instead of taking personal responsibility and rallying the country to work together as one with other countries, he divides it even further or deeper by deflecting all blame for his own mishandling of the pandemic. 

The reality is, early warning in Jan 2020 by his own intelligent agencies had already been raised, yet, he still boasted that by summertime the harmless covid will all go away like a miracle. He was even loudly supported by his favourite sycophantic news network FOX and Friends. 

So, now the president is desperate to drown all that wantonly irresponsible arrogance by turning the self-righteous turret at WHO. Sadly, a leader like that feeds wholly on approval and praises and he is in his own “lockdown” (or alternate reality) with supposedly intelligent advisors who have failed in their most basic and immediate job to provide sensible, wise and courageous contrarian advice. 

Alas, in a crisis, you see the best and worst of humanity. You see people fighting for rice and toilet paper and you also see many donating their solidarity payouts to those who need it much more. 

You see bosses firing employees as a convenient route and you also see bosses keeping them, providing a roof over the head, and assuring them that they will beat this thing together. 

Trust me, the world doesn’t need any more ideological divide. In a crisis, whatever political views you hold about the most ideal way to manage the world really doesn’t matter even a tad bit.

If covid-19 came with a message in the bottle amidst the turbulent tides, it would have to be this: “People are dying, losing their livelihood, and crying for hope, and the last thing you want to fight over is this, “I am more right than you.”” 

Honestly, instead of burying our dead, let’s bury our pride. 

On this point, DPM Heng said this about Singaporeans donating their Solidarity payouts: “I am very heartened that in difficult times like this, so many of you are thinking of others.”

Let me just put it out there that Trump is a negative example for me. I use him to tell my children how not to act or what not to say. 

It’s tragically ironic, especially during such times, that a leader of the most powerful nation in the world does not inspire hope, sound leadership, compassion, and most of all, common sense. At such times, he is still pointing fingers, blaming others, instead of taking responsibility. 

Let me end with another President from the other side of the globe. In May 2019, during a dialogue on Asian Civilizations in Beijing, President Xi said: -

“Civilizations don’t have to clash with each other; what is needed are eyes to see the beauty in all civilizations. We should keep our own civilizations dynamic and create conditions for other civilizations to flourish. Together we can make the garden of world civilizations colourful and vibrant.”

I think he has a very good point. Don’t you?

Joseph Prince's rally cry against Covid-19.

When Bilahari Kausikan posted this question on Facebook, “Was it an accident or coincidence that two clusters of coronavirus were found in churches?”, I thought about how Christian leaders are bridging the gap between faith and protection from Covid-19. 

For Rev Wilson Teo of Grace Assembly, who was tested positive and has recovered, he encouraged his congregation, saying, “we are overcomers in Christ, and this virus will not defeat us. Please rest assured that I am recovering well! I am looking forward to my full recovery, when I will share with all of you on Grace Assembly’s journey in overcoming this virus.”

For Pastor Kow Shih Ming of Paya Lebar Methodist Church, where one person was later identified as having the coronavirus after visiting the church, he told church members ”the news filled him with a “gamut of emotions” such as fear, anxiety, confusion, anger and uncertainty.””

Pastor Kow added: “I apologise that our best efforts may not have been able to dispel or soothe these emotions completely.” However, Paya Lebar Methodist Church is not considered a cluster. 

Another Christian leader, Dr Paul Tambyah, the president of the Asia-Pacific Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infection, said this: -

“There seems to be an epidemic of fear that is far greater than the actual epidemic of disease. As Christians, I don’t think we are immune from fear by any means, but we can face these fears confident in the reassurance that we have a resurrected Saviour by our side.” 

Next comes Joseph Prince, the senior pastor of the megachurch New Creation Church. He has the largest congregation in Singapore, 33,000 in weekly attendance.

His message to the masses is to “urge them to find strength from the fact that during the Sars epidemic, none of the then 8,000 regular attendees died, which he said was “a testament to God’s glory””.

To be fair, Prince preached many things, chariot-led by Psalm 91, and all of them, I believe, were meant to build up faith, encourage unity and keep hope afloat. I don’t doubt his intention. 

But I find it curious for him to make mention of the fact that “none of the then 8000 regular attendees died,” which he attributed to “a testament to God’s glory.” 

While all the pastors mentioned above talked about overcoming, having strength and humility amidst the fear, and claiming reassurance in our resurrected saviour, Prince chose a different angle. 

The reality is, a pastor, who visited the first patient who contracted sars at that time, subsequently passed away. A nurse also passed away. 

And a surgeon, Dr Alex Chao, who rushed back to Singapore from a much deserved holiday, to fight the virus at the frontline (at SGH) also gave his life up in courage and dedication. 

His wife, Prof Koh, then 33, said: "When Alex died, I told Beatrice her papa had gone to heaven and would not be back. Many people didn't agree with that approach, but I felt then that she was old enough to know the truth."

Admittedly, when it comes to prayer, the mystery of God belongs to the mystery of God, and with regards to that question posed by Bilahari Kausikan, “was it an accident or coincidence that two clusters of coronavirus were found in churches?”, I trust the earnest believer would be hard pressed to answer it. 

Well, nevertheless, I can expect some of us to adopt the biblical approach and remind the questioner that Jesus’ disciples once asked him this, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind.” 

He replied, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” He then proceeded to heal the blind man. 

That approach just about sums up His mindset, that is, at times like this, stop looking for causes in a fallen world and start focusing on overcoming in a risen Christ. 

Of course, given that the mind of Christ is not unscientific, Jesus is not saying that (in today’s context) we should stop looking for the vaccine to inoculate against covid-19, or accept the notion that when it storms or an earthquake strikes, we should just attribute it to the tempest of an angry god.

This brings me back to Prince and his peculiar manner of rallying hope. Sure, none of his then 8000 members died and that should be a source of comfort and hope. 

However, when you put it that way, you cannot escape the inference (that some may have) that there is something about his ministry or his personality, or both, that distinguishes his megachurch from the other churches whose members - either by accident or coincidence - fell prey to the virus. 

Although I don’t suspect that that was his intention, yet when you make a statement that risks the perception of merging/conflating correlation with causation, or at least hint to that merger/conflation, even if you were to caveat it thereafter, the minds of the congregation would be biased towards a certain view of faith that is exclusive to or leans in favour of one church over the other.

Of course, all this would be moot if it can be shown - empirically speaking - that NCC is truly protected by a supernatural makeshift hedge or refuge under Psalm 91 because it is about what you believe, and that is what they believe, which was duly honoured. 

And if so, I would then expect Prince to answer that Bilahari’s question with this rejoinder: “Neither by accident nor coincidence, but by design that there is no death during the Sars outbreak so that the works of God might be displayed for then and now.”

And inevitably, considering that many believers from other churches were infected, even with a pastoral death during the Sars outbreak, the only logical inference is that it is a design that appears rather selective and exclusive. 

Food for thought?

Lee Man-hee, founder of Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony.

There is a virus in this world that is more deadly than corona. It spread fast too like an epidemic but with deceit and division. It is the virus of a cult. 

And yesterday, its founder did what he needs to do to preserve and protect his deluded legacy. He apologised, with head bowed, sporting a gold watch, given to him by the disgraced former president Park Geun-hye. 

Lee Man-hee, 88, is the founder of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony (“SCJ”).

Claiming to be the Messiah, a second Jesus, and promising refuge from the end of times, which happens to be ”akan datang”, a teary Lee said: -

“We did our best, but were not able to stop the spread of the virus. I am really grateful, but at the same time, asking for forgiveness. I never thought this would happen, even in my dreams.” He then bowed twice as a portrayal of humility and regret. 

You must know that Lee, being the messiah, also claimed that he is the only one who can interpret the Bible. And “only those who had the “revealed word” taught by SCJ would be saved during the end times.””

SCJ was founded in 1984. It is organised into ”12 tribes”, each named after one of Jesus’ disciples. If you surf its website, you will discover that it claims to have 300 mission centres in 15 countries, including US, China, Australia, Japan and the Philippines. 

It even opened a branch in Wuhan, “where the coronavirus was first reported, last year.” A church member who was infected, known as patient 31, went on to infect many, and caused a great alarm in Korea. It was “the first wave of infection to hit the country.” 

And due to the way they conducted themselves, in strict secrecy, encouraging its members to leave their family so as to deepen the insidious indoctrination, Lee’s church compounded the epidemic in Korea, causing an outburst of infection. 

FYI, Seoul city authorities have “filed a murder complaint against (Lee) for failing to cooperate in containing the epidemic.”

One mother, Ms Lee Yeon-woo, 54, in a tearful vigil, said that, “she had not heard from her daughter since she joined the church six years ago.” 

It also reports that “some former church members said many young believers were forced to leave home as part of the initiation, breaking ties with their families.”

She said: “I can’t sleep at night thinking my daughter might have been infected and is groaning in pain in seclusion.”

Lesson? One, that is, a memory lane. 

I was once accosted by some members of some Korean God the mother cult.

Thrice, in fact, they trounced on me when I was coming out of the mrt. I was then a little jaded, but decided to indulge them. 

Long story short, they left me alone after some time of trying to win me over. I guess I was a lost cause for them.

But my point is that cult leaders like Lee or Reverend Moon of the Unification Church will prowl the streets for wandering sheep to pen.

In economic terms, the supply of such cults is always there. If not Lee, there will be another Lee of another cult or Moon of some loony church. And if not for some dizzy name like “Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony”, they will come in some much longer and more religiously wacky name. 

So throw all the stones or boulder you want at people like Lee and his cult, and they deserve it anyway. But at times, we as parents and church leaders have to look at our own hands holding the stones and ask ourselves this, “why do they still flourish? Why do the young still flock to them? Is deception the only reason?” 

Maybe here’s another angle to look at it. 

Shanice, a former member of SCJ, “felt she did not find satisfactory answers to questions and doubts she had in church, the classes (in SCJ) gave her some comfort in the way they addressed apologetics such as the topic of suffering on earth and the reason for difference in Christian denominations.”

Shanice added that “she feels the episode is a reminder to young Christians to find a trusted church or person to discuss their doubts with, and that mainstream churches should engage more with young members, as groups like SCJ try to capitalise in these doubts to win new members.”

Well, I can form a case for gullibility and one against gullibility, but in the end, there is always a pull and push factor for leaving mainstream and joining a cult. 

Take this quote by a philosopher Jason Brennan, for example: -

“Human beings are wired not to seek truth and justice but to seek consensus. They are shackled by social pressure. They are overly deferential to authority. They cower before uniform opinion. They are swayed not so much by reason but by a desire to belong, by emotional appeal, and by sex appeal.”

There is some truth in that, especially about the uniformity of opinion, the belonging, the consensus and the sex appeal part. That’s the same pull factors a cult exploits to draw in unsuspecting young members. But there’s also the push factor. 

The young may be “shackled by social pressure” but they are also turned off by inauthentic leadership or leaders. 

Some church leaders turn scriptures into a honeypot for earthly successes, and repackage faith as a surefire way to personal prosperity. 

Not that Jesus does not want us to prosper, but some preachers go overboard with the bait of prosperity to hide the hook of humanising salvation, which downplays its true Calvary message of what it means to overcome the world, counting the costs. 

In other words, it is not richness in self, but God, not prosperity as an end, but as a means to a redemptive end, and not about gaining the world, bathing in its glory, and then losing one’s soul in the journey. 

The young sees through us. They can tell what is real and what is counterfeit. They can tell whether their parents love God as they profess or love the idea of God with little of Christlikeness to show at home. They can also tell what the church with all its programs aim to achieve, that is, a numerical explosion within a rushed deadline rather than a fruitful nurturance of a young life that often takes time. 

In the end, the push factors make for ready ripening for the plucking, and that is where cults emerge. By then, discerning or not, they get lured into its fancy, empty promises of an escape pod towards some imaginary end of the world timeline. 

So, it always takes two hands to clap, and where the family and church leave the soul stranded, groping for deep relations, the occultic vultures will eventually swoop in for the picking just so as to provide a false sense of belonging to profit the man at the top of this religious ponzi scheme.

Xiaxue and La'Shaunae Steward - obesity beauty.

The thin red line. Did Xia Xue cross it? 

Today’s trending news is about her remarks about “morbidly obese people”. She calls the plus-size La’Shaunae Steward, 23, “morbidly overweight.”

It reports that “she took umbrage at “irresponsible” people who “gorge themselves with 30 burgers a day”, saying that when their health fails, taxpayers have to help them settle their medical bills.””

Xia Xue added: “The morbidly obese (La’Shaunae Steward) should never be seen as attractive. Irresponsibility isn’t attractive.”

This was where La’Shaunae fought back. Weighing in on the issue, she said: -

“Why are thin people this obsessed with letting me know indirectly they think I am unattractive to them, therefore I’m not worthy of love, a career, being visible and literally telling me the age I’m going to die?”

Serving back, Xia Xue said: -

“I maintain my stance. Morbid obesity isn’t attractive because it leads to death and disease. This isn’t personal against anyone so it isn’t fat-shaming. And I did not ever talk about chubby or regular fat people.”

Lesson? Mm...

Returning to the question I first posed, has Xia Xue crossed the thin red line? 

Let me answer that question by saying this, we are product (and perception formed) of our culture. And if you must know, in an early age, in most African countries, being overweight is a sign of richness, health, strength, and fertility. 

But I will not venture into what Xia Xue had described as “morbidly obese” - underscore “morbid” with life-threatening consequences. I will defer that for now.

In any event, some culture views polygamy as normal. And mind you, on a lesser cultural note, Russian spouses don’t count beach resort flights as infidelity, and Japanese businessmen will tell you with conviction that “if you pay, it’s not cheating.” 

And the real shocker (for us at least) is that the young (aged 6 to 10) in the tribe of Sambia in Papua New Guinea go through 6 ritual phrases to become men, and one of the phrases is to perform fellatio on adult men and then, ingest their sperm.

In Singapore, if you are caught doing that, the minimum sentence you can expect is 8 years upward.

My point is, we live at a time of exclusive (if not predatory) culture where we have idolised and glamorised an ossified way of thinking, living and believing such that anyone who differs from that standard is deemed as different, excluded, discriminated and even stigmatised.

This is made worse by the internet, youtube and social media, where you see beauty defined and personified most superficially, conveniently and materially. 

This is also where people like model La’Shaunae comes in. 

From her point of view, the backlash reaction is this, why shouldn’t people like her be considered attractive, have a career too, be loved, be visible in society, be embraced for who they are, have true friends, and have a flourishing life and peaceably coexist with the rest?

For if you cut La’Shaunae and Xia Xue at the same spot, after removing all the makeup, fake lashes and lavish body accessories, don’t they (and we) all bleed the same crimson desires for love, for acceptance and for authenticity?

And FYI, this is La’Shaunae’s mission in her own words: -

“I want fashion to change, and I want to be the person that changes things! I want to be on magazine covers, I want to see my fat black model friends on magazine covers. I want us in high-end, high fashion campaigns and shoots and editorials, and I want the world’s biggest, most incredible brands to finally wake up and realise we matter and that we deserve their beautiful clothes. I wanna be in Dior and Westwood already!”

Can you blame her? Can you understand where she’s coming from? Can you understand the years of being bullied, the stares of disgust, and the silent tears shed in hidden corners and dark alleys? 

In a society that is unidimensional, even shallow, with one synthetic gold standard for defining what is bankably beautiful and what is plain ugly, people like La’Shaunae strive in vain to be accepted. In other words, she wants to be loved the way Xia Xue wants to be loved too, and she wants to no longer be invisible, shunned and even despised.

At this juncture, l would not say that Xia Xue doesn’t have a point when she said: “Morbid obesity isn’t attractive because it leads to death and disease. This isn’t personal against anyone so it isn’t fat-shaming.”

Alas, beauty in this society is regrettably skin deep. Yet, we must not forget that anything that is taken to the extreme, as in being “morbid”, whereby one’s life is threatened, we must unquestionably stand up against that. 

But, where Xia Xue has crossed the line is when she makes obesity personal, that is, in an individual she had singled out, over the very public internet, thereby risking misunderstanding, deepening division, and causing hurt. 

On this, she is a product of culture too, that is, a culture where she - as a fashion icon, the queen of bloggers - thrives on or needs to occasionally make a statement, a raw, controversial and blunt one, in order to raise her profile, rile up her followers and polarise society. 

That culture is also her own making; for initially the leader maketh her followers, later her followers maketh her - via a feedback reinforcing loop. 

Not to mention, she is paid for endorsements based on maintaining and keeping her finely manicured cultural image, which is about being someone who speaks her mind, whether you like it or not. 

Because if you think about it, reasoned diplomacy is expected in politics, court rooms and mediation sessions, but not in the ether space of social media. 

On the contrary, it is largely about stoking populist sentiments to make a big splash with the hope of engineering it to go viral. It is therefore essentially about quantity over quality, bluntness over tactfulness, and hardcore binary over nuances, empathy and mutual understanding. 

Think about it. If Xia Xue took the time to befriend La’Shaunae, spend time with her, understand what she has gone through, and quietly write encouraging notes to her, away from the public glare, wouldn’t that be more enduring, more meaningful and more empowering, for both of them? 

Yes, she maintains her stand that morbid obesity isn’t attractive, leading to disease and death. We all know that. We agree to a large extent. 

But when those same words were used unthinkingly to describe La’Shaunae most exclusively, for whatever social media brownie points she hopes to score, it becomes a personal, character attack at someone whom she doesn’t even know at all. It becomes a hit for populism rather than a precaution issued to show genuine concern. 

That is where in my view she has crossed the thin red line - not that Xia Xue would bother anyway.