Trump: God is on our side.

God is on our side, Trump proudly proclaimed. 

That’s not all. Trump declared: “Evangelical Christians of every denomination and believers of every faith have never had a greater champion, not even close, in the White House, than you have right now.”

In his speech at Ministerio International El-Rey Jesus, a church with a predominantly Hispanic congregation, he said: - 

“We’ve done things that nobody thought was possible. Together, we’re not only defending our constitutional rights. We’re also defending religion itself, which is under siege.”

Actually, if you think about it, Christianity was born out of the furnace, and not at the podium. Jesus himself avoided all that. He walked away from the crowd. He prayed alone in the early hours of the morning. He rejected Pilate’s offer to save himself. He told him his kingdom is not of this world.

That is why Nietzsche once said that the last Christian died on the Cross, not by way of a state funeral, or whose body was preserved in a mausoleum. 

If you want to find enduring faith, transforming hope, you must not forget its birthplace: it’s in a manger, not a palace; it’s in the wilderness, not in the synagogue; it’s at Calvary, not in a political rally.

So, Christianity was born under siege. When the rose of Sharon was trampled on, bloodied, it released a comforting fragrance, and its beauty and majesty became known throughout the world, even today.

But I guess, Christianity today is different. It takes its place in the highest pulpit of the land, at the head of government, the apex of power, fame and wealth. 

Alas, we have given to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and did not stop there. We went further to come together to offer to Caesar that which belongs to God too. 

Our faith is now on a man that has promised us that he “would renew the importance of religion and family” and “had vowed that he would toughen restrictions on abortion and would take action to safeguard students and teachers’ First Amendment rights to pray in our schools.”

Indeed, we have become who we have adored. We have become a quid pro quo believer and our faith is about what we can get in return for casting our favour and vote. It is more transactional, than transcendent, more tangible than intangible, and more self-preserving than self-sacrificing. 

And Trump knows our buttons well. It is in his playbook, The Art of the Deal. He has found an easy bait when he said: “We can’t let one of our radical left friends come in here because everything we’ve done will be gone in short order.” 

Well, the truth of our faith is that nothing we have done is forever. Power corrupts. Fame fades. And no man can serve both God and money. Even our life is but for a season. 

If we as believers wish to pursue after things that are eternal, after a life that has overcome all worldly temptations, and after victory over death that has lost its sting, we look to the Cross, not to the promises of men. We stand on His word, and not on the enticing words of men.

For people like Trump and his promises come and go - only His word has stood the test of time and the worst of it. 

And for this reason, it is never about fearing what we’ve done will be gone in short order. It is always about fearing what we’ve done will cause us to be lost forever. Because in the end, the cost of a lie will cost us everything, whether in a marriage, in our relationship or in our faith.

When we are however prepared to pay the cost of truth, whatever the price, we stand on neither the promises of men nor their enticing words. At times, we stand alone in the footsteps of our Saviour who Himself stood alone before the Cross. 

So, God is not on anyone’s side. He stands as the Rock of Ages, and the question is, whose side are you on?

Having Dinner over the Presidential Reserved Election.

Yesterday, I had dinner with my loved ones, in-laws and parents and we were all uncertain about whom to vote for in the coming EP (if it ever goes to the ballot box).

The reserved election has caused some of us to feel that the whole EP thingy is too contrived, convenient and confusing.

As it stands, only Halimah qualifies. And her independence is surely the least of the qualifying factors in the minds of many Singaporeans.

Raised, bred and nourished in the political womb of the majority-led PAP government, Halimah's weakest link is her seemingly disingenuous claim that she will be independent if elected. Perception is really everything here.

Notwithstanding her stellar credentials and rich experiences, she is unfortunately plagued by three "backfiring" factors beyond her control: democracy, meritocracy and multiracialism.

Many felt that democracy has been tempered with. It is not unfettered  or free. Neither is it open. Puppetry seems to be the common gossip on the street. It gives the impression that the people vote for whomever the government puts on the ballot plate for them.

Alas, I feel that the government is not taking enough risk with the EP because they may feel that the electorate is just not mature enough to appreciate all that they have done for them.

And meritocracy, because of its skewed elitist elements. Of course, merits beat patronages and hereditary rights anytime, and I always believe we are on the right track by choosing merits over privileges. But elitism can mutate into the very problem that it once seeks to eradicate.

When meritocracy becomes institutionalised to favour only those pioneers who have made it in their early struggles, the leviathan can become not only paranoid but also self-serving and self-preserving.

The $500m shareholders' equity bar effectively eliminates the competition. In my view, it institutionalises merit into a gated edifice and keeps it away from the credible handful who have what it takes to be the people's president (save for the equity bar). 

The TCB court saga has already left a bad taste in the mouth of the people and they are clearly disillusioned.

Alas, the last thing we need is an elitist president, engaging regally in waving hands, cutting ribbons and tickling baby's cheek just for the camera. 

What's more, Warren Fernandez (Editor-in-Chief) wrote in today's article that "many in Singapore's Malay community also feel uncomfortable about such a concession being made for them, contrary to the deeply held meritocratic ethos of the country."

And lastly, multiracialism. I know the government has great foresight since independence to keep a good balance on the racial differences. But, there is a risk that the seemingly rushed-job of the reserved election is missing the forest for the trees.

Editor-at-Large Han Fook Kwang wrote an article today entitled "Will reserved election promote multiracialism?" and he said this:-

"The bottom line: There are no serious or pressing problems among the races, though racial biases and prejudices exist and may never go away. Seen in this context, the Government's move to introduce reserved elections for the presidency might seem perplexing. If it ain't broken, why fix it?".

Fook Kwang went on to highlight two more pressing issues like the "growing influence of Islamic teaching from the Middle East" and "China's growing strength" which "will greatly influence Singapore's Chinese population", and how "the confluence of these two developments can sharpen the differences among the races here."

That is the emerging grim reality that will conspire to destabilise the racial composition in our country. And in that light and context, and considering that the recent EP has raised more heat than light, the reserved election may not even be a step in the right direction to deal with the more pressing issue at hand.

At best, it may be a case of looking for your keys under the street lamp because there is light instead of searching for it where you had dropped them. At worse, it may be a case of cutting your nose to spit your face.  

And to compound matters, there is the foregone conclusion of a walkover to consider. Imagine that, our first reserved election for the Malay community and it is a walkover. The celebration will definitely be muted, if at all.

In such an event, Halimah would clearly be the winning candidate, and it is neither because the whole process is democratic nor meritocratic. It is simply because she is Malay, full stop, and the government wants a Malay in Istana for the next six years. 

So, there you have it. Dinner with loved ones can be a tricky terrain to negotiate when it comes to electing the next Malay president for Singapore.

Electing one is like picking a dish on the table, which has already been prepared for you. You have no or little say in the menu.

And if it is a good day, you get variety. If it is a bad day, you get just one dish. But the good thing about getting one dish is that you don't need to think so hard. Just suck it up and munch it down. Cheerz.