A short course in human relations

The least important word: I
The most important word: We
The two most important words: Thank you
The three most important words: All is forgiven
The four most important words: What is your opinion?
The five most important words: You did a good job.
The six most important words: I want to understand you better.

I think my biggest difficulty is the inability or more like the lack of desire to understand certain people better. As harsh as it sounds, I know this happens when I do not respect that person as i do not share their beliefs. I hear what they say without listening to them - their words would not even process in my brain cause something just screams in me, 'utter rubbish'. This situation is amplified if those people think the world of themselves. Perhaps, their false confidence are masked by inner insecurities.

So the question I ask myself today is 'what does it mean to understand a person?' I'm still trying to figure that out. Perhaps I dont have to share their beliefs. I just need to know that the person just like everyone else is trying to be a somebody. That person wants to know that he/she is loved, he/she is important and can make a difference in this world.

To love unconditionally is tough. Pay it forward, He says...

...............


To that formidable place...

Today I woke up with my heart palpitating. The familiar fear rose within me - one which i thought i left behind when I came to Australia. The cold room with a pin-dropping silent atmosphere. A lack of warmth in the room would be an understatement. The frowns on their faces. The intensity in their watchful eyes. Pens ready in hand to mark your destiny. Backs straight. Forceful smiles.

Yes. Piano examinations. Remember those days everyone? Almost everybody who is Asian has probably taken some sort of piano examinations at some point of their lives. Urgh....*shudders*

Perhaps I'm the exception. Maybe piano examinations were not as bad an experience for many of you. But it was for me. I must admit that I'm just not musically inclined. Honestly. Im not trying to be humble here. For a start, I cant remember any lyrics to any nursery rhyme, what more a proper song. Im sure there are people that can vouch to that. I cant sing or play the piano according to rhythm. Yes, its that bad. (Deep down inside, Im glad karoake on Friday night was cancelled :P) Im beginning to wonder whether its because of my irregular heartbeat? Any excuse would be a good enough reason for me.

What does it mean to love?

I love because I was first love by you. It's easy to love when you receive something in return - may it be words of gratitude or a mere sparkle in their eye that expresses everything you need to power on.

Unconditional love is another story altogether. Would you still do the things you do if you were spat at instead of receiving the gratitude you deserve? Would you still prepare the meals in the kitchen if your husband and kids showed no signs of gratitude for the extra effort you put in tonight? Would you still continue your work if it went on unnoticed?

Darlene Zschech from Hillsong once said that, 'Its the unseen heroes that she respects most.' She said that it was much easier for her to power on with her worship ministry because of the flows of emails, conversations, tears of joy that i guess, somewhat contributed to the fulfillment of her ministry.

Unconditional love - its irrational. Therefore, incomprehensible by the meek human mind. We were taught through our formal education to grab, to choose only what benefits us, to win the rat race, to be the survivor of the fittest.

2 lessons learn from this :-

1) Since its against our human flesh to love unconditionally, draw our strength from God. Its only through God that we can truly do so. Jesus did it while living on earth. His biggest sacrifice was clearly his sacrifice on the cross for us.

2) Ensure that we display our appreciation. This is simply to make it easier for the other person to love. Why not make life simpler whenever we can?

Conversations

I love meeting people from all walks of life. I love hearing about their stories, their adventures, how they were mould to become the person they are today. Each story is different. Each story is unique.

On the way to the Sydney airport, I had a mini conversation with the taxi driver. I found out that he was a Muslim from Pakistan. I told him that i spent my time at a Christian conference in Sydney. After a couple of minutes, I asked him whether he was a Australian citizen. He replied in affirmative. It has always intrigued me as to how many low-skilled workers manage to acquire citizenship in Australia. Mind you, Im not looking down on these people. Its just that he does not quite meet any Permanent Residency requirements. So, he unfolded his story. He revealed that he paid this Australian girl a small sum (I think the sum was $1000) to marry him. This marriage is only for show of course. He already has a wife and kids in Pakistan whom he truly adores. Soon after the marriage papers were signed, he divorced the Australian girl and then brought his real wife and kids over. Apparently this is common practice. A whole new world is opened before my eyes. I didnt think this practice was common. I feel like a tortoise living under a shell.

The day before that, I met this gorgeous sales assistant who worked in one of the retail outlets at Bondi beach. I noticed that her accent wasnt Australian. I thought she was American but she said she was Canadian. She has a very interesting life as well. After completing her high school, she moved over to the Big Apple to pursue theatrical studies. After 3 years in the buzzling city, she decided she had enough. She then took a big leap by following her boyfriend across the globe to Sydney. Now she is settled in the Bondi suburb. She's doing a degree in media and communication while working part-time.

I long to travel after I complete my degree! I want to have interesting stories to share too ! =) But as for now, I know that my place is in Melbourne.

If someone was to ask me, 'where's my home?', I wouldnt be able to give an honest answer. Thats because I dont know myself. I think, for me, the people I love is where my home is.

To be a woman - Part I

13 May 2006

"We girls and women alike long to be called beautiful. Little girls have pretty butterflies drawn on their faces while older women acquire exquisite diamond butterfly pendants"

“I remember when I was ten asking myself as well as older females in my life how a woman of God could actually be confident and beautiful, yet not portray herself as a feminist Nazi or insecure I-need-attention emotional whore. How can I become a strong woman without becoming harsh? How can I be vulnerable without drowning myself in sorrow?”

I had the pleasure of sharing a meal together with Ann and Wing Yan yesterday. Dinner was fantastic as expected. I haven’t caught up with Wing Yan since the beginning of the semester and I desired to hear about her journey in life.

Ann casually mentioned the book ‘Captivating’ over dinner. Coincidentally, I’ve been thinking about re-reading the book over the past few days. So, I picked up the book and read the first chapter. Every word, every phrase, every quote resonated with the contents of my heart. I was nodding at every sentence. I knew God was speaking to me through the author’s words.

Sue-Lee and Johanna gave me this book for my 20th birthday. I read the book a couple of weeks after that but nothing in that book really struck a chord in me back then. I remember that I felt ‘oh yeah, I can see where the author is coming from. I agree with her’ but nothing quite captivated me.

Over the past few months, God has stretched me and re-streched me beyond what I imagined. However, it did not make me weary but stronger. I love this phase of my life simply because I’m learning what is it like to be me. I yearn to know more about Him, I yearn to know what it’s like to be a woman.

This desire of mine to become a woman has only surfaced about two months ago. Before that, I never wanted to be a woman. I wanted to remain as a girl.

I wanted to still be daddy’s little girl. I wanted to be a princess. I wanted to be called pretty. I wanted to spoilt and showered with presents. I wanted to be doted on. I sought affection and affirmation from the people I loved. I wanted my partner to be there at my every need and my every call. I desired to be called beautiful.

I did not want to grow up because I had the preconceived idea that being a woman was about being independent, was about compromising all the time, was about needing less affection but giving more instead, was about receiving less attention. I did not want all that. So, I feared growing up. I feared losing a part of me when I lose my childish ways. I feared that I would be less playful which I believe is an important part of me. My fear was stopping me from moving forward.

But, I’m learning that being a woman does not mean you do not seek attention or all the abovementioned. Every girl or woman has an innate desire in them to be called beautiful. Each one of us longs to love and be loved. Each one of us craves affection from our love ones. Each one of us desires to be pampered. And no, it is not wrong to have these feelings. God created us this way just as how God created men to have a desire to fight battles.

And so, I’m learning what it’s like to be a woman. I do not want to join the feminist march and wear the pants in my future relationship. I want to submit to my partner and yet be secure and confident in myself. I want to be who God meant me to be – a woman.

I have always been pampered all my life and taken care of by older people around me. (In exception of me being an older sister to my brother of course) I felt happy being the younger one because that means less expectations, less responsibilities. But, I’m turning 21 soon and its time for me to grow up. Its time for me to step up and not think like a pampered princess anymore. I now have this new desire in my heart to raise other people up instead of wanting to be raised up by others. It’s a new feeling that I’ve not quite experience before. Its one thing to look after kids but another thing to take a slightly younger girl under your wing.

I long to find my worth in God and I’m trying to comprehend what it means to be dependent on God. I never really understood. Before this, whenever I had problems, I turned to the people around me. After all, technology allows us that easy access. I turned to others when I had this lonely gap inside me, when I felt a little down or when I seek counsel. However, I’m learning to first seek His face before anything else. That is why I’m trying to not get into a relationship so soon. Cause I need to learn to be independent. Finally, I’m learning what it means to be independent. I don’t want to get into the vicious cycle again where I draw my strength from others. I want to draw my strength from the right source. After all, He is our Creator.

I want to be beautiful
And make you stand in awe
Look inside my heart
And be amazed
I want to hear you say
Who I am is quite enough
I just want to be worthy of love
And beautiful

What say you? On Capital Punishment

THOU SHALL NOT KILL – CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Deterrence of violent crimes – or the opposite?

2nd December 2005 was a mournful day for Australia as 25-year-old Nguyen was executed after being caught and convicted in Singapore for trafficking 396 grams of heroin. Hundreds of solemn mourners gathered at Sydney’s Martin Place to pay Nguyen their last respects as Nguyen’s lifeless body hung from the hangman’s noose. Tim Goodwin during his interview with Lateline described the day as a sombre and reflective day.

“I think I've never seen a protest quite like it in all my years of working on human rights. People were coming together in public places and crying openly, hugging each other and laying down flowers and I think just having those few moments silence with their thoughts about those terrible things that were happening…”

Nguyen’s case sparked off impassionate debate about capital punishment throughout Australia and the world. Those pro capital punishment believers argue that death penalty is a means of retribution and acts as a deterrent. On the other hand, those against capital punishment believe that you cannot justify punishing the crime of murder or lesser crimes with murder and that capital punishment does not serve its intended purpose of deterrence.

Theory of Deterrence

The question to be asked here is not whether capital punishment will reduce crime rates. Capital punishment just like any other punishment will instil fear and consciousness in people which will then deter people from committing crimes. Thus, the right question is: Whether capital punishment is a more effective deterrence than other forms of punishment such as life-long imprisonment?

Deterrence is defined by the Webster dictionary as “the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear especially of punishment.” In addition, the punishment must be administered swiftly so that potential criminals will se a clear cause and effect relationship between the crime and the punishment. “General deterrence” is referred to when punishment deters potential criminals from committing crimes. Another kind of deterrence, “Specific deterrence” refers to the inability of convicted criminals to commit further crime as a result of their punishment.


Statistical evidence

Contrary to popular belief, there is no concrete statistical evidence which support the idea that death penalty is a more effective deterrence than other forms of punishment. Hundreds of studies have been done and they consistently show that there is no link between capital punishment and the reduction of crime. For example, in a study done by Archer and Gartner (1984) in fourteen countries that abolished death penalty, it was examined that abolition did not cause an increase in homicide rates. One landmark studies with respect to deterrence and the death penalty was conducted by a nationally renowned sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Thorsten Stellin in 1959. Stellin discovered through a comparison of abolitionist and retentionist states, that homicide rates in abolitionist states were not significantly different than the rates in retentionist states. From this evidence, he drew the inevitable conclusion that executions have no direct effect on homicide death rates. His evidence was then used as a basis theme in the argument presented to the United States Supreme Court in 1971 to support a finding by the Court that the death penalty was a "cruel and unusual punishment."
Based on the above studies, it cannot be concluded statistically that capital punishment will deter violent crimes.

Common sense argument

Some pro capital punishment believers argue that social science cannot prove the effectiveness of capital punishment because of incomplete data and inadequate theory to interpret the data. Thus, they believe that the common sense argument should be the basis of the deterrence theory - it is common sense that people fear death more than life in prison. Thus, if a more fearful punishment is in place, less people would dare to commit crimes. However, for many cases, it takes an average of ten years from conviction to execution because prisoners abuse the writ of habeas corpus, which guarantees appeals of sentences and convictions in state criminal cases. Thus, some have argued that this delay breaks the cause and effect relationship and will not effectively promote deterrence. However, if the appeal process is reformed, perhaps then, capital punishment will be more effective.

In addition, the common sense argument that people have a preference for life is flawed. This argument is based on the assumption that people make rational decisions by considering all possible outcomes when committing crimes. Many crimes especially murders are committed in heated moments.

Capital punishment as a cause of homicide

A more surprising finding is the theory that death penalty has not only failed to deter criminals from committing violent crimes but has also been a cause of homicide. How is this possible? The most plausible reason would be the “brutalization hypothesis”. Researches William Bowers and Glenn Pierce studied homicide records in New York State between 1907 and 1963 and found that the murder rate increased slightly in the months following an execution. To explain this phenomenon, they believe that state-sanctioned executions brutalize the sensibilities of society, making potential murderers less inhibited. In other words, capital punishment encourages homicide by seeming to legitimize killing of people. Thus, the death penalty may, in fact, “lead by example.”

Conclusion

If the above arguments are accurate, this shows that capital punishment does not serve its intended purpose of deterrence. This will leave us with only one other purpose – retribution. If that is the case, would retribution in form of capital punishment be morally justifiable? After all, the law strives to reflect community values. This question is for you to answer.

Written by: Joanne Khoo





What say you? All comments welcomed

Abolishing the defence of provocation - A better future ahead?

The defence of provocation can be traced back to 16th and 17th century England when drunken brawls and fights arising from ‘breaches of honour’ were common. At that time, the notion of honour was of great importance to society. Thus, if one was insulted or attacked, anger was expected and the person was expected to react. The failure to produce a response of anger would then be considered cowardly. Therefore, anger was considered reasonable and rational response in the circumstance.

The modern law of provocation shifted from being based on the idea of anger as a justified response in some situations, to being based on the idea of ‘anger as loss of self-control.’ Provocation is generally justified on the basis that the Accused could not properly control his or her behaviour in the circumstances, and an ordinary person might react similarly. A person kills due to a sudden loss of self-control after being provoked is regarded by some as being less morally culpable than someone who kills ‘deliberately and in cold blood.’

However, this defence seems to pose many problems. One of which is that the defence is seen as gender biased. Because the defence was originally framed to deal with male aggressive responses to provocative conduct, the sexless ordinary person, it has been argued, is in fact male. Accordingly, women are seen to be significantly less successful in their claims of provocation. Whatever the old law's intent, in practice it disadvantaged women, particularly women who suffered domestic violence - who generally do not directly confront violent, stronger partners at a time of imminent threat. It is much easier for male defendants to plead a "crime of passion" — and seven out of 10 murders in Victoria are committed in intimate or family circumstances.

The landmark case of Heather Osland clearly reveals the problem of gender biasness of that defence. Heather Osland and her children were subject to 13 years of physical, emotional and sexual abuse by her husband. During the 13 years of violent abuse, Heather tried to leave but each time she was forced by threats from her husband to return to the family home. She knew that there was an escalating level of threat. As she believed she and her son’s lives were at risk, she took steps, what she believed was necessary to protect them. Heather Osland mixed sedatives in Mr. Osland’s food prior to the killing and Heather and her son also dug a hole a day before the killing to bury his body. Because the killing was considered premeditated and not at the spur of the moment, Heather was unable to claim provocation.

The suddenness element of the defence which is more reflective of male patterns of aggressive behaviour is unfavourable to women as seen in the Osland case. Women, unlike men cannot strike out in the spur of the moment because of an imbalance of power, both physically and emotionally. Thus, they have to plan the kill as they believe that it is necessary to defend themselves. Accordingly, the defence is not designed for women.

Also, a loss of self-control is seen by many as an inappropriate basis for a partial defence. Individuals should be able to control their impulses, even when they are angry. A violent loss of control should not be excused. Practically, the law made it too easy for men to blame their partner for provoking them, enabling them to "get away with murder”.



Victorians on trial for murder will no longer be able to use provocation as a defence following changes to Victoria’s homicide laws which include the abolishment of the defence of provocation. However, defensive homicide, imposing a maximum of 20 year’s jail will be introduced. Men who kill their partners in a jealous rage will no longer be able to use the partial defence of provocation to escape a murder conviction. The question of provocation will simply be taken into account, if relevant, alongside a range of other factors in the sentencing process.

The offence of defensive homicide aims to take account of situations where people believe, albeit unreasonably, that they must kill protect themselves against an inevitable threat. Under the proposed changes, the law will take into account situations where a person kills in response to long-term family violence, even if they were not facing immediate harm. This means that if a person believes his or her conduct is necessary to defend oneself or another person (such as her child) from death or really serious injury, and this belief was reasonable, that person can argue self-defence. Importantly, where a killing occurs in the context of family violence, the legislation will affirm that she can argue self-defence even if the threat from which she is defending herself is not immediate, and even where her response involved greater force than the harm with which she was threatened.
However, some have argued that abolishing the defence of provocation would create more problems. Cases that involve a question of provocation in its purest form might cause injustice for the Accused. For instance, in the case The Queen v R, the short time before the killing, Mrs R found out that her husband of many years had been raping their daughters as they grew up. Her feelings of rage grew, and on the fatal night, he came home and said, ‘You know dear, I’ve always loved you’, and gave her a kiss and went to bed. That final act sent her over the edge. She went to a shed, got the axe, came back and killed him. The jury, overwhelmed by the circumstances of the case acquitted the Accused. However, if that particular case was to be judged under a law that excludes the defence of provocation, the Accused might be convicted of murder which is considered by some to be an unjust outcome.
The betterment of Victoria’s homicide laws could only be tested in time to come.

Written by: Joanne Khoo