Strangely, this is what gambling is. Casinos and lotteries are just the joint venture of millions of people who join in to lose money for no proportional benefit. Anyone who sits down to calculate the odds of winning and losing knows that lottery is simply a losing deal. The fact that casinos and lotteries are stupendously profitable and produce no apparent good or service has only one reason: their obscene profit is the gamblers’ loss. In fact, economist call lottery the “stupidity test.”

Ironically, Americans (and certainly not the only ones) spend more in gambling than in all other forms of entertainment combined. The difference is that while in other forms of entertainment, you pay for some kind of satisfaction, in gambling, most people simply lose money with no gain.

Ever since the casinos opened in Singapore, three million visitors have crowded the premises, of which one million were tourists. Simultaneously, Singaporeans have spent 70 millions of dollars only in entrance fees (as of May 2010).

At this point, it all looks like gambling, more than a social or ethical problem is a kind of intelligence deficit problem.  However, we should ask what it is that drives millions of people to gamble and buy lottery.

There is one factor we haven’t mentioned: the hope, slim as it might be, of winning a handsome reward. In fact, it is this possibility alone that gives players the reward they seek. It seems that we are wired to be rewarded while we wait for future benefits. The reward is a chemical. It is called the “happiness hormone” even if it is not really a hormone but a neurotransmitter that the brain produces to make the person feel good while waiting for the delayed gratification. Why Americans buy an average of 150 lottery tickets per person a year, is not only because they statistically hope to win, but because of the very probability of winning, which makes their brains reward them instantly.

It is easy to see why this biological mechanism is a desirable feature of the human make up. Hunting-gatherers need to be steady in hope. Gatherers need to invest lots of time in searching for seeds, roots and bugs. Gatherers need to invest huge amounts of energy and run high risks in pursuing and bringing down prey. All this needs waiting time and a good deal of steadfastness or else one would easily despair and give up all hope of succeeding. What kept hunter-gatherers alive yesterday glues urbanites to computer games and gambling machines today.

We have brains that get excited with the expectations of winning a reward and the game manufacturers it. The key to a popular game is to keep the perfect equilibrium between keeping the expectation (avoiding boredom) and providing satisfaction (avoiding despair).

Gambling is not mere risk-taking, and in that it is different from the risks we take in our everyday decisions. Gambling is or could be considered a form of recreation, and recreation per se is good. St. Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that “just as weariness of the body is dispelled by resting the body, so weariness of the soul must needs be remedied by resting the soul: and the soul’s rest is pleasure,” (Summa theologiae, II-II 168, 2). And, he continues, this pleasure is obtained through games and recreation.

However, Aquinas was very well aware that everything that is pleasurable could turn vicious and addictive when it becomes unreasonable and harmful to the individual. So he acknowledged, that for everyone who engages in games, a special virtue is needed to guarantee a healthy and beneficial use of games. Aristotle called this virtue eutrapelia (Nichomachean Ethics 2 c. 7 # 13). It is certainly not a common word in today’s computer games era, but perhaps it is time to resuscitate the old virtue with new vigor.

Gambling or betting is not intrinsically wrong. That means that it is not wrong in itself, or that one can think of instances in which gambling and betting could be morally not harmful or even a beneficial form of entertainment. Now, something could be not wrong in itself, but be wrong well too often in the real facts of life. And gambling is a good example of that. In fact, casinos largely benefit from the easiness with which people fall victim to the addiction of gambling.

There is a still a more powerful connection between gambling and ethics. Ethics, in its best understanding deals with the fulfillment of the human potential, the art of achieving a good life. Shakespeare make Prospero utter in The Tempest: “we are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our life is rounded with sleep.” (The Tempest, Act IV sc.1). As Country singer, David Mallett, put it, “Man is made from dreams and bones.” Dreams and hopes are the stuff human beings are made of.

Hope is meant to draw man onward with confidence in the future and even to the heights of immortality and spiritual encounter. Gambling taps on the power that hoping has within us. Casinos use that power, not to drive people to loftier goals but to retrieve from them monetary profit. The only word that accurately describes that action is exploitation.

Gambling can be just a game; or can ruin entire families. Right and wrong depends on what people make of it. But a realistic approach to gambling should not be oblivious to both the frailty and the loftiness of the human condition. This frailty should never be exploited in the name of business. That loftiness should never be betrayed by playing with our hopes, the very engine that draws us towards our highest destiny.

The words of the Pope in the book “Light of the World” regarding condom use by a male prostitute do not allow for exceptions regarding the teaching of contraception. They simply land onto a soil of misunderstanding. In a world where the church is viewed as stubbornly and irrationally sticking to an obsession against condoms even in the case of preventing the spread of HIV, the statement of the Pope regarding the special case of a “male prostitute” comes as surprise, even a “liberal” surprise. In fact, to those familiar with the teachings of the church, it is nothing new.

Between the choice of engaging in unprotected or protected sex, a prostitute would do better using a condom than not using it and so the Pope calls this “a first act of responsibility,” “a first step on the road toward a more human sexuality.” This is a choice of conscience, which has no bearings on the teaching of the church regarding contraception among spouses.

The teaching of the church regarding contraception intends to protect something precious, namely, the marital act, from its deterioration. A sexual act against marital love (such as marital rape) or against offspring (such as contraception) cannot be a true marital act but its counterfeit. So the church calls couples to “humanize” their sexuality through the avoidance of a rejection of procreation.

In the same vein, that a prostitute regards condomized sex as a more moral option and whether promoting condoms is a true and effective way to battle the pandemic of HIV are two different issues all together. One is a case of particular conscience, the second a case of public policy.

When safety is at stake, there is no room for compromise. Where fires are serious national hazards, public policies do not teach people how to build “safe fires”; they just prohibit fire-building. Where speeding is a common cause of traffic accidents, governments do not invest in aggressive campaigns to teach citizens how to drive safely at high speeds; they forbid “dangerous” speed. Even in the case of such zero-tolerance approach, fires and speeding happen. They would undoubtedly be rampant if public policies would send a confusing or inconsistent message by encouraging risky behavior. The same applies to the spread of AIDS. The realistic policy is “avoid risky behavior” whether it is engaging in extra-marital sex or sharing hypodermic needles.

Condoms are certainly effective in reducing the contagion of HIV, but should their use be promoted as a remedy against HIV? One thing that we do know about condoms is that they do nothing for people’s chastity. If anything, condoms promote sexual promiscuity by giving a false sense of security against pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, it is the idea of condoms are the solution to unwanted pregnancies and sexual transmitted diseases that is greatly responsible for the de-humanization of sexuality in our societies. The consistent answer to the spread of AIDS is to make sexuality more human.

The church and the Pope are often accused of being obsessed about condoms. If all this turmoil is about condoning condom use, the Pope’s statements in Africa and in the, by now, famous book “Light of the World”  sound contradictory. But, what if it is not about condoms after all? What if the church does not care about condoms but about humanizing sex? Who is really obsessed with condoms? the church or the Press?

A friend once asked me, should I pray for this, or do you think God is too busy for these small matters? From today’s gospel, we learn that God in fact loves to be disturbed by our prayers. However this prayer should be made in faith. Not in faith that it will be granted, but in faith in God.

The question at the end of the gospel, “when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” This is what the prayer gives, an increase of faith, even when our prayers are not answered.

Prayer to God presumes faith. Only if we believe not only in God, but in the listening of God, we dare to pray. We don’t pray to inform God of our needs and miseries; we pray to exercise our understanding of a merciful God. The efficacy of our prayers does not lie in getting our way, but in getting into the ways of God. Prayer helps faith and faith informs our prayer of what we truly need to be more adequate instruments of God.

What sustained the consistency of the prayer of the widow was her dire need of self-respect; what sustained the arms of Moses in prayer were the hands of Aaron and Hur. Prayer needs to be sustained. By itself it may succumb to the temptation of despair or self-deprecation (perhaps God is too busy for me). Despair in prayer weakens our image of God.

A successful prayer is not the prayer that is answered according to our will, but the prayer which strengthens our faith.

Homosexuality is a popular topic. Everybody has an opinion on it. We seem to have exhausted all the arguments. For some, it is unnatural and un-reproductive, and that makes it wrong. For others it is a natural expression of love, with a genuine intention between consenting adults, which brings no harm to anyone, and that makes it right. The final verdict seems to be in the hands of science if  it definitively finds out that homosexuals are somewhat “born that way.”

We find ourselves in this dialectical cul-de-sac simply because there are no right answers to wrong questions. And the issue of homosexuality seems to be the paramount example of the wrong question of our age.

Ethical issues do not depend solely on the nobility of the intentions or the harm caused to others. Indeed, the intention to find a cure for cancer should not justify using humans as guinea pigs; and a murderous intent is immoral and criminal even if it does not harm anyone. Even the “born that way” argument is as futile as defending that stealing would be ethically right if kleptomania was  an inborn decease.

The true question about ethical matters should lie on whether the voluntary act in question harms or helps the person’s own dignity, even if it does not hurt anyone or is done with the best of intentions. So, when it comes to discussing the morality of sexual acts, we may easily find ourselves barking up the wrong tree. So what is the right tree to bark up?

The Enlightenment proposed a dualistic understanding of the human person that has uncritically permeated our culture. According to this dualism, humans are minds using bodies, very much like we use cars or computers to accomplish our intended purposes. In short, we commonly think that we have bodies; but we are not our bodies. Our bodies are something we use, not something we are.

If this is the case, sexuality, being a dimension of the body, is only something instrumental that the mind can use to achieve a specific purpose, and its morality would depend solely on that “purpose”. In the same vein, using a knife is morally neutral, but cooking or murdering with it is ethically relevant. A case in question would be that “oral or anal sex” is ethical if used to express permanent commitment and genuine love, just as the coitus is; while it could be wrong if it is just a lustful act, just as the coitus is. It all depends on the meaning the mind assigns to it.

But what if our bodies are not something we have, but something we are? What if touching the intimacy of the body amounts to touching the intimacy of the person? In fact, common sense knows that rape is not a mere “physical violation” of the body, but a deep violation of the person, precisely because the genitals represents the intimacy of the person. Persons are not “minds trapped in bodies”; persons are bodies as much as they are minds.

If the human body is integral to the person, then the intimacy of the body, namely, the genital dimension, is the intimacy of the person and tampering with it amounts to tampering with the dignity of the persons themselves.

In fact, the human body has its own language with its own semantics that our minds cannot change. Smiles means contentment, hugs mean acceptance, slaps mean rejection… our minds can choose to lie with them or to assign them new meanings foreign to the “original” semantics of the body.

Two individuals could convene that, between themselves, a slap on the face would mean tender care and undivided attention. It would be extremely strange or even ridiculous, but not necessarily unethical precisely because they are just tampering with a non-intimate dimension of the body. It would be an entirely different scenario if what they choose to do is tampering with the intimacy of the body; and this is what oral, anal sex or any other utilizing of the genitals do.

It is beyond the scope of these lines to explain how this happens. Our only objective is to point out that the dialogue about homosexuality is simply orbiting around the wrong centre. It insists in focusing on the intentions and the psychological condition of the homosexuals while the ethical issue at stake is whether coitus and other genital acts have the same ethical stand.

The dialogue on homosexuality keeps running the wrong course. The right question should be what has really changed in our culture for this issue to be on the table of most heated debates. The answer we hear is that this is one more case of failing to give “homosexual persons” equal rights. But perhaps the truth of the matter is simply that the parameters of the ethical and bodily perceptions have been changed by the back door and we don’t even talk about it.

The debate about homosexuality will not be clarified until we dare to question the fundamental issues on which it leans. If sex is something we may use, homosexual acts are morally neutral. But if we have never asked ourselves whether our bodies are something we have or something we are, we cannot even know if we do disagree in the first place.

Jesus carefully points out that only a foreigner was capable of discovering that the giver is more important than the gift. Probably a foreigner would be less tempted to associate the healing with the prescribed ritual of presenting themselves to the priest, and think beyond the efficacy of the ritual to discover the giver behind the gift. Nine lepers were just contented with having their health back. Only one of them discover that there must be something bigger than health at stake; that the giver of the gift is more important than the gift itself.

So, what does this foreigner have that the others don’t? In the first reading an Assyrian King, also a foreigner struck with leprosy, was suspicious of the treatment that the prophet Elisha had proposed. Elisha had asked him to simply bathe seven times into the river Jordan. Surely, this appeared nonsensical to a ruler of a kingdom with the mighty rivers. Only after he was healed did he discover that the God of that land had cured him, and not the bathing.

The therapy was simply the means to discover the God of that land behind the gift of health. And just in case there were doubts, Elisha sternly refused any reward or acknowledgment for the miracle. It was not bathing, it was not the prophet, it was the God of the land who was at work.

The Samaritan grateful leper of the gospel is not only healed. He is saved (“your faith has saved you”). Salvation comes through a personal relationship; not through rituals or activities, no matter how religious. Blessings are good; good enough to make our lives easier; but not good enough to save us. Only if we use the blessings to connect with the Giver, we can be truly saved.

It takes more than human gratefulness to discover the Giver behind the gifts we receive. It takes faith that saves and that is better than the gifts.

Judging by those standards, my faith is certainly smaller than a mustard seed. Or is it?

A faith that can uproot a tree sounds quite powerful… even better, it sounds terribly practical. A faith of that kind would be like a miracle-power on demand. I just want this, I believe with my “strong” faith and voila, it happens. The problem with that kind of faith is that it looks more like Harry Potter’s hocus-pocus than a personal trust in God.

Furthermore a faith that becomes a kind of super-power would make God our servant, a kind of un-bottled genie, ready to fulfill our wishes. This is precisely the idea of faith that Jesus tries to correct. We are God’s servants and at the end of the long tiring working day, we are no more than “useless servants.” And being a “useless servant” is a wonderful feeling.

A couple of Americans were stranded in some remote inaccessible coast and stayed there for a few days without any water. Finally a boat approached the area and rescued them. They tell how the first sips of water they were given were gradually filling their bodies with life. Giving water can hardly be classified as heroic, however, for these two stranded souls, it was a second chance to live again. The “givers” could hardly take credit for their work; but the receivers will be forever grateful.

This is how Christian ministry actually feels. To the one who serves, it is nearly nothing; to the one who receives, it is God himself working, a new kind of life being pumped into his system. The servant is “nearly useless”; the service is divine.

This is why living a life of faith can uproot trees and even move mountains… because God is working, and we are just the “voluntary agents” in His work. We might desire a kind of faith that uproot trees. But to tell the truth, there is no tree I need to uproot lately. In fact, moving communities is certainly harder than moving mountains, and this is what faith does.

We should not be surprised when St. Paul advices Timothy ”to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.” ( 2 Tim 1:6). That is all the servant is asked to do: to fan into flame the gift. Then, the gift will work by itself,  leading the community where God wants it to be led.

Next time we try to measure the size of our faith, we should not count the number of trees we can uproot; but rather, the number of times God has worked through our useless but God-filled contributions.

“Do you sleep with the window open?”

Mickey, “Yeah.”

Ellen, “I don’t like it. You will have to stop that.”

Mickey “Ok.”

Ellen, “Do you squeeze the toothpaste at the top or the bottom?”

Mickey “Top.”

Ellen, “Don’t do that I hate it. If you ever use my car, make sure the mirror is back where I put it.”

Mickey, “Ok, I can do that.”

Ellen,  “All right. Do you want to talk about religion, politics, whether you want to have kids or not.”

Mickey, “Nah, that crap will work itself out, we are fine with the big issues.”

Ellen ends, “Ok, I marry you.”

What is more important, agreement on the mundane but daily issues or conformity about one’s deep convictions? Mickey and Ellen are a couple of our culture. When it comes to marital life, where you press the toothpaste matters more than how many children one likes to have.

This is not just one funny couple acting in a comedy. This is the drama of our society. When it comes to living together in society, deep convictions seem to be invisible in the public forum. There is a conspiracy of silence about the “serious stuff”.

In a pluralistic society, ethical opinions and religion must remain “private”. Discussions on divorce, birth control, euthanasia, homosexuality and the like have become the new taboos in a society that prides itself in having overcome old mythical taboos.

This has caused a kind of inferiority complex among Catholics. When it comes to the controversial ethical views of the church, Catholics are often more comfortable hiding in the dark than willing to present and explain their opinions.

Unlike in the past, people today are not convinced by the tradition or authority argument. Today we need solid reasonable justifications. And here is where the modern day Catholic feels handicapped to articulate his ethical views.

This has disastrous consequences. First Catholics give the impression that they are a ghetto, a private club, with strange opinions whose only argument is “the church thinks so.” Second, it deprives society of being enriched with a “different” Catholic perspective. After all, why would a pluralistic society be reluctant to include the opinions of a Catholic population?

At the bottom of this, it lies a fear of facing fundamental issues, on which the particular views are based. If we neglect to talk about fundamental views, the only sound thing to do is agreeing on the practical matters. As long as we all press the toothpaste in a way that does not irritate others, all is going to be fine.

As long as society keeps avoiding the issue or building itself as if there is no truth about fundamental matters, society is going to suffer. False ideas about economics and politics have killed thousands of people. Ideas move the world. False ideas destroy the world. True ideas build it up.

Vatican II was grateful to the criticism of the world that helped the church to purify herself. Today the world is challenging the church to embark in a new purification: The capacity to be always ready to give a reason of our stand on ethical issues. (Cf. 1 Pe 3:15)

Let us embrace this challenge with courage and confidence. Catholics cannot content themselves with saying “I think abortion is wrong because I am a Catholic.” Abortion is not wrong because the church says so but because it kills innocent people and hurts their parents deeply.

Wrong ethical behaviour is wrong because it is wrong, and not because the church says so. And this applies to all the controversial topics of our age: euthanasia, homosexual acts, IVF, contraception, etc.

This can only mean two things. First, Catholics need to re-learn their beliefs and learn to propose them in an intelligible  manner.

Secondly, Catholics today need to learn to dialogue with non-Catholics in a way in which both parties understand each other better.

Failure to do so, will be a great sin of omission on the part of Catholics who owe to participate in the development of their society and cultural purification is part of that development.

In a pluralistic society, ethical opinions are social issues. Catholics should learn to engage the world in a constructive manner so that society develops properly, which includes also the ethical development of the whole person and all persons.

Perhaps, to live together in pluralistic societies we should learn to sit down and discuss about religious and ethical views, while tolerating that others may press the toothpaste on the wrong side and we can still live together in harmony.

I have always been interested particularly in the idea of what is real and what appears to be real but is not. Einstein did an excellent job in elucidating what we can consider absolute and what should be considered relative. And no, I am not going to start with the issues of moral relativism or whether there is any connection between absolutes in physics and ethics. Although I admit, the topic is just too tempting to forget about it. But that is not what consoled me about Einstein’s lines.

I was surprised to find out that he wrote a book for lay people; for those who, like me, have no specific training in mathematics and physics but may be interested in the subject. Today, we would call it “relativity for dummies” or something along those lines. What surprised me about the book, which I rapidly snatched from the store’s shelf, is that the horse’s mouth is actually clearer than the regular scientist who tries to explain Einstein’s theories to the general folk. Not easy reading, but understandable.

What consoled me, however, was his approach to writing. “I should repeat myself frequently, without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation,” he said, “I adhere scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the cobbler”.

I have pursued the muse of writing for quite a bit now. She has avoided me easily and successfully. So it is time to give up on lost causes and pursue more realistic ones. Let us be clear now. Unfortunately, as I write these lines, I received an email from a reporter seeking clarifications about one of my talks. Sigh. Judging by his questions, the muse of clarity seems to be exclusively devoted to Einstein yet. Nonetheless, from now on, I shall flirt with the muse clarity intensely until she gives in. Is this clear?

The Washington Post made an experiment on context, perception and priorities: What would happen if something good catches us “unprepared”? Would people appreciate beauty at unexpected time in an unexpected place?

They asked Joshua Bell, one of the best violinists in the world, to perform anonymously, just like any other street player. Would people tell the difference? Would they appreciate and recognize quality? Leonard Slatkin, music director of the National Symphony Orchestra, guessed that 35 to 40 people would recognize the quality of the performance. Would they appreciate it? He figured, people could give about $ 150.

Joshua Bell’s talent reaches 1000 $ per minute, but this time he agreed to be part of this experiment. He performed with his most cherished violin, a Stradivarius handcrafted in 1713, reported to cost around 3.5 million dollars. At 7:51 a.m., on the 12 of January, 2007, at the exit of L’Enfant Plaza in Washington DC, he interpreted for 43 minutes the finest and most elegant music ever composed.

The video tape of the event showed that a total of 1070 people passed by. Not even for a second he got a crowed. Only seven people stopped what they were doing to hang around for at least a minute and 27 gave a total of 32 $. So much for appreciating a historical performance.

So what does this experiment have to do with Christmas? Simple, enjoying goodness and quality depends on our disposition. Aquinas thought that goodness depends on disposition. A superior glass of whiskey can be very good for an appreciating adult and have devastating effects for a 3 year old child. Perceiving goodness or beauty is a matter of disposition. God being the supreme beauty and goodness is no different. Objective excellence is simply ignored when disposition is lacking.

The introduction of Jesus in the gospels have a common denominator: the world is “indisposed” to receive God as one of us. John tells it openly, “He came to his own domain and his own people did not accept him” (Jn 1:11) because “men have shown they prefer darkness to the light” (Jn 3:19). The gospel of Luke refers to this in a more symbolic way, Jesus was born in a manger because there was “no room for them” in the inn (Lk 2:7). The gospel of Matthew gives us the most dramatic version: the desire of Herod to kill Jesus (Mt 2:13). This rejection will only get worse as Jesus’ ministry progresses and will peak at the cry “Crucify him”. From birth to death the life of Jesus is marked by rejection.

The eruption of God in the human world resembles that cold morning at Washington DC. The world is too busy to pay notice to invaluable excellence for no price. It seems that for God to make himself visible He should do what celebrities do: Announce his performance to a selected group of fans and charge for it. Free, unassuming performance for the man in the street will go unnoticed.

God knows it and still He sticks to giving up his “celebrity status”, wants to be known for who He is. Will God’s performance be wasted for falling into the oblivion of the rabble?

The gospels reveals God’s plan. God will dispose the “undisposed”. The shepherds were not precisely the people most prepared to detect the God’s subtle presence in the child Jesus, but they receive a tip-off from heaven. Of all people, they are informed of the extraordinary performance. They are given a sign: a child in manger.

The magi were foreigners and strangers to God’s dealings in the history of Israel. However they read the sign of the star and came to discover the historical uniqueness of the moment.

Likewise, John Baptist’s mission was to prepare the unprepared. The voice in the wilderness had to announce that something “bigger than him” was already happening, but a change, indeed a conversion, that is a disposition was needed to appreciate it.

God had started to play the best composition ever played. The God who began everything is now communicating his wisdom and love in a way affordable to anyone. There is a catch though. Those must bother to stop and listen.

The church has always maintained a contemplative tradition and, indeed even a state of life for people who renounce to all the worries of the world to devote the rest of their lives to contemplation. In a hyperactive world and church, they remind us that pausing and listening to God’s beautiful performance is a privilege accessible to all who have the courage to give up their mundane worries.

It is ironical that “preparing” for Christmas today means to increase our busyness in one thousand activities. Preparing for Christmas should be about forgetting the daily frenzies, look for the tell-tale signs of God’s music, and simply pause to listen. That is a privilege that only those disposed to hear it will perceive. Like the shepherds, we have been chosen. We have been given the signs of where and when God is performing. Will we dare to stop and listen?

We routinely divide the world between developed and developing nations; a more “politically correct” terminology than the outdated first and third world countries.

But who decides when one country stops being “developing” and becomes “developed”? Which criteria do we use to determine what development means? Do we look at the per capita GDP? At the political regime? At the competitiveness of the nation? Do we judge it by economic standards? Citizen’s contentment? The quality of its infrastructures? Government service? All of the above?

Little more than a month before Singapore celebrated its 44th birthday the church issue the latest papal encyclical “Love in Truth”. The topic? Development. It may come as a surprise to many that the Church worries not only about spiritual matters but about secular issues such as development.

In fact, in 1967, Paul VI wrote Populorum Progressio (the development of nations), precisely on the same issue. Benedict XVI wants that document to be a landmark for successive documents to constantly promote the true development of nations. A political agenda or undeniable duty of the church?

So what does the church say about development? And even more importantly, is Singapore considered developed by the church’s standard?

The church tirelessly teaches that persons, not systems, are the point of reference in all social issues, development included. In the words of Fr. Lebret O.P., quoted by Paul VI in Populorum Progressio n. 14: “what counts for us is man—each individual man, each human group, and humanity as a whole.”

One sentence summarizes the whole understanding of the church’s teaching on authentic development: Development “cannot be restricted to economic growth alone….; it must foster the development of each person and of the whole person.” (PP 14). In the latest encyclical, the Pope defines development as the progress “from less human conditions to those which are more human” (Caritas in veritate, 8 )

So, is Singapore developing properly? The first thought that comes to my mind is that in Singapore, some persons are more developed than others. If we need to look at the development of “each person”, each person counts, and that means, even the worst off.

I cannot help but thinking about the conditions of “foreign workers” in Singapore, which are even named differently from “expatriates”, who are, I thought, also foreigners, and also working. Many people seem to be concerned about the “in-humane” way in which they are transported to their working sites, and there have been some measures to fix this embarrassing problem.

However fixing the transport problem only avoids the serious issue. Do this workers live in humane conditions? Do they have proper housing, like a Singapore citizen is entitled to have? Do they earn enough to support themselves and their dependants? I am sure that if the last question was answered satisfactorily, there would not be transportation issues.

In other countries –developed, that is—foreign workers are entitled to a minimum wage that serves them to have normal housing, transportation, schooling and health care like any other citizen.

According to the understanding of the church, all workers deserve a “remuneration… to cultivate worthily his own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his dependants.” “The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a “just wage.” (Compendium… 302). Regarding migrants, the social doctrine of the church believes that “host countries must keep careful watch to prevent the spread of the temptation to exploit foreign labourers, denying them the same rights enjoyed by nationals… and the right of reuniting families should be respected and promoted.” (Compendium… 298)

The latest encyclical expresses the dignified work in the following terms: “work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one’s roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living. (CV  63)

So back to our question, is Singapore truly developed? Or in other terms, is Singapore developing each person and the whole person? In team racing, what decides which team is the winner, they clock the time of the last member of the team. So what matters is not that they have good runners, but that the worst runner of their team is better than the worst runner of other teams. In sports, that is considered a fair “measurement.” It marks the difference between individual and team competition.

Applying this to development means that a country is only so much develop as the least developed of its inhabitants. In a country with no basic salary, the remuneration for work is at the mercy of the labour market. Other developed countries respect those rights of the worker. To go “ahead” in the development race with different standards of dignity is simply cheating. And if the developing of Singapore needs to achieve the right standards, there is still some room for improvement.

Certainly, Singapore has gone beyond the economical achievement. Racial and religious harmony should be counted as one of the most impressive social development and due credit should be given.

In the end, the question should not be, Is Singapore already developed? As if Singapore, or any other nation for that matter, could afford to sit down and dwell in their successes. The proper question should be, Is Singapore developing properly in the right direction towards true development? Statements or labels do not answer that question. Rather, actions to improve the dignity of all in Singapore are the only appropriate response.