AWARE Saga (Part 2)

The second of my 2 unselected letter to the Straits Times Forum

I refer to the ST Editorial on the recent MOE's suspension of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme conducted by external vendors, particularly that by AWARE, and wish to highlight some of the misconceptions perpetuated by both AWARE and ST.

Firstly, post-65er parents like myself are not rubbishing the entire CSE syllabus as it currently stands nor are we advocating an abstinence-only syllabus for sexuality education. If this was the case, we would have objected to the teaching of condom use and the role playing training in teaching a teenage girl how to persuade her partner to put on a condom before sex. This is also to assure current AWARE president Dana Lam that we are “not going to bring sexual education back a couple of centuries”.

We recognised the importance of such teachings since, despite our best intentions and advice, our children faced real internal and peer pressures to keep up with current trends and fads. Our issue with the CSE syllabus, as advocated by AWARE, is their insistence on introducing value-loaded statements contrary to existing societal and moral norms such as “anal sex can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom”, “pain ... becomes positive when there is mutual consent and pleasure” and “homosexuality is perfectly normal ... it's simply the way you are”.

Secondly, contrary to what AWARE and ST would want Singaporeans to take away, these statements are not merely references in the AWARE CSE trainer guide that are not communicated to the students. The quoted statements above came from the ice-breaking activity module where trainers are instructed to ask the students to categorise 20 sexuality terms as positive, neutral or negative. In fact, if the students are 12-13 years-old, the trainers “must take the lead in explaining the meaning of the terms used”. The level of flexibility the trainers have is best inferred from one of the interview questions posed to these trainers - “Do you feel comfortable presenting on material you don’t necessarily agree with?”.

As MOE reviews its internal vetting processes, it should also look into the track record of the external vendors providing such services to see if it conforms to existing societal norms. Beyond the actual CSE syllabus, AWARE's, as well as other external vendor's, continued participation in the schools' CSE programme would need to be scrutinised based on their espoused values, background and wider advocacy focus.

AWARE Saga (Part 1)

This is the first of my 2 unselected letter to the Straits Times Forum

I would like to share my perspective surrounding the recent AWARE saga.

It seems to me that AWARE has been caught up, “blissfully” unaware, in the battle between conservatives and liberals till now. Whatever good works AWARE had done for gender equality in the past 25 years have been hijacked by 2 fringe issues – homosexuality and the approach to sex education.

Whether because of its inclusivity, liberalism or camaraderie, AWARE has thrown its weight, back in 2006/2007, with local NGOs such as Action for Aids, Free Community Church and People Like Us (PLU) to campaign actively for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Former AWARE President, Tan Joo Hymn, said then, “how consenting adults choose to express their sexuality in private should not be a concern of the state… we should be mature enough not to pry into the intimate behaviours of consenting adults”.

Similarly, in the area of sex education, AWARE’s position has been to adopt a “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” (CSE) rather than a pure abstinence approach for teens. Former AWARE President, Constance Singam, said that CSE was to “equip young women aged 12-19 with the knowledge and skills to make healthy decisions about their lives”.

Mr Ho Chi Sam summarised this most succinctly in his online ST Forum letter (14 Apr 09) when he reduced the AWARE saga to these 2 fringe issues.

The new AWARE EXCO, whatever their motives and methods, probably felt that AWARE should not allow itself to be hijacked by these fringe issues and sought, through existing AWARE constitutional processes, to campaign for the society’s leadership and re-focus the organisation back to its original vision of “gender equality for all”.

While former AWARE President, Dana Lim, could state that “ AWARE is not about whether we are for or against Christianity; AWARE is not about whether we are for or against homosexuality”, its public stand has stated unequivocally that AWARE is for homosexuality and AWARE is against what Christianity stands for.

However the AWARE saga pans out, the damage to the society has been done. The Old Guard could wrestle AWARE back from the Young Turks but the Old Guard would need to convince Singaporeans that AWARE have the wider interests of women at the heart of their mission and not just on these fringe issues.

Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril

17 Dec 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum

I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').

The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.

The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.

I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.

Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.

Double standards: In sedition case and DBS charity tie-up

9 Dec 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum

I READ with interest two seemingly unrelated reports last Friday, 'Couple go on trial for sedition' and 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak'.

In the case of the sedition trial, while the authorities have rightly taken action to robustly maintain the fragile balance in the areas of race, language and religion, it is disheartening that this action is not applied universally to all. There seems to be a greater tolerance of 'attacks' on Christianity than other major religions.

We have these attacks in cinemas in The Da Vinci Code movie, where insinuations regarding the 'authority' of the Bible abounded and the central tenet of who Jesus is was questioned repeatedly. We have them in bookshops and community libraries as well. Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, labelled the God of the Bible 'a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'.

As a Christian, I am not threatened by such 'attacks' and even welcome such opportunities it gives the Christian community to reflect on what and why we believe, thereby strengthening our faith. I do, however, wonder how the authorities would have responded if these 'attacks' were aimed at other religious groups.

In the case of the DBS charity tie-up case, a group of concerned activists has successfully forced DBS Bank to draw down its support of a local charitable organisation for fear of further negative publicity over a tenuous link the organisation may have had with its American parent, with its strong family-centric and corresponding pro-life and traditional family values.

It will not be long before these activists, bolstered by their success, start to target 'bigger' fish. Religion-based beneficiaries of other charity initiatives (for example, the President's Challenge), which do not conform to the activists' values, will be targeted. Mission schools will also be targeted since, in the views of these activists, public money should not be used to promote any religious viewpoint, subtle or otherwise.

The first incident intimated the seemingly differing treatment in Singapore towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The second incident demonstrated an increasingly disturbing trend by some in Singapore to forcibly remove all religious influences from society.

The potential ramifications of these two incidents, if left unchecked, will bode for an increasingly factious and polarised Singapore society.

Abortion and euthanasia deserve equal debate

25 Oct 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum

IT IS curious to note the contrasting approaches taken by the Ministry of Health on the issues of euthanasia and abortion. The euthanasia issue elicited extensive on-going discussions initiated by Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan who viewed it as a moral dilemma. On the other hand, the abortion issue was definitively concluded, with Mr Khaw saying we should base the decision purely on science and take emotion out.

I suggest the two issues are merely two sides of the same coin, depending on which side one chooses. Euthanasia and abortion are discussions of the relative importance of sanctity (or viability in the case of abortion) of life versus the rights of the individual.

I find it mistaken for the authorities to frame the two issues in such contrasting manner. If viability of life is the dominating principle, we should restrict access to euthanasia and have the same level of safeguards we have for those seeking abortion, that is, simply mandatory counselling. If, however, the individual's rights are paramount, then we should embrace euthanasia and simply allow individuals to decide.

The only difference is that abortion, unlike euthanasia, had been debated at length and decided. To be consistent, we should approach the euthanasia issue as we did with abortion in the 1970s. Convene a Select Committee and determine the viability of people who are suffering from terminal illness.

Recalling then health minister Chua Sian Chin's response regarding the slippery slope of allowing abortion that 'no community anywhere in the present world has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit', the previously unimaginable could become a reality in the foreseeable future.

Recalling also Ms Lynn Lee's column against those calling for a review of the abortion law ('Banning abortion won't mean more babies', July 31), I would like to quote portions with allusion to the present euthanasia debate:

'How many babies suffering from birth defects (elderly suffering from terminal illnesses) should society be prepared to look after?

'Every child (person) deserves a chance at the best possible quality of life... Allowing women (them) the option of abortion (euthanasia) helps ensure that as many babies (people) as possible are wanted and healthy (living quality life).

'In Singapore's case, no adequate secular reason has been advanced in the recent calls to ban abortion (disallow euthanasia).'

On Abortion

My latest foray into ST Forum writing that didn't get published, probably because there were many similar letters castigating the writer for her "emotive" outburst. Looking forward to see her next piece on this issue, if ever.

I refer to Ms Lynn Lee (ST, 31 Jul 08) response to Ms Tan Seow Hon (ST, 24 Jul 08) on the subject of abortion legislation.

Taking Ms Tan’s commentary at face value, Ms Lee’s response seemed almost as emotive as what she had charged A/P Tan’s article for.

Nowhere did Ms Tan allude to banning abortion as her desired end-state for Singapore. In fact, beyond the first paragraph which mentioned rendering access to abortion harder as one avenue of boosting birth rates in Singapore, it was a concise piece revisiting the original basis for legalising abortions and putting forth arguments why a review is timely.

Upfront, I agree with Ms Lee that limiting access to or banning abortion to boost birth rates is a non-starter. However, Ms Lee failed to address A/P Tan’s counter-arguments to the three social goods originally advocated by the government then to support the legalisation of abortion. Saying that abortion option helps ensure that as many babies as possible are wanted and healthy is a personal affront both to the many Singaporeans who respect the sanctity of life enough to commit to bringing up less “healthy” children, and to these children, that their quality of life is somewhat less fulfilling than healthy ones.

There is no need for Ms Lee to steer the debate into one of religion and secularism. Rather than pointing the finger at Ms Tan’s views as religiously motivated, we should ask what secularism’s dogmas on abortion and the beginning of life are. If secularism’s stand is that the woman alone is the final arbitrator on this issue, then we should allow for abortion beyond the current 24-weeks window since medical advances can ensure the physiological well-being of the woman beyond this current limit.

The 24-weeks window was originally articulated based on the medical community’s ability to sustain life outside the womb. Given the medical advances in the last 40 years, it is plausible for us to refresh the legislation based on this medical “definition” from which life “begins”.

Secularism does not have all the answers. If it was the sole basis from which the society makes all decisions, then we would not need to have this debate on the ethicality of stem-cell research. We could, in good conscience, grow petri-dish foetuses for up to 24-weeks for the good of the rest of the living Singaporeans who were fortunate enough to be given the right to life.

Letter to the ST Forum - 'Happy' kids no reason for parental complacency

4 Dec 07 - The Straits Times Forum

I REFER to the report, 'Most S'pore kids are happy: Study' (ST, Nov 30).


The report gave the impression that both dads and mums can and should continue to work without worries (or feel guilty) because (1) 'hours at the office will not affect the emotional well-being of their children' and (2) children who were interviewed in the research indicated that their mums, working or not, often spend time with them.
This report seems to complement recent government efforts to encourage more mothers to re-join the workforce.
The reported findings, based on a highly subjective questionnaire, should not be seen as a blank cheque for couples to abdicate the bulk of their parenting responsibility to childcare services and maids.
Even if we accept that some families may not be able to afford having a parent as the full-time caregiver because of divorce, death or dire financial situations, there are still plenty of couples today who will not think twice about ditching this sacred responsibility for 'lesser' reasons such as professional/career advancement and/or pursuing higher standards of living.
There is nothing wrong in pursuing such things in and of themselves. However, when a couple decide to bring a life into this world, there is a need to critically examine the motives for wanting to do so and evaluate whether they are prepared to make the sacrifices (e.g., giving up on career or luxuries) over the long haul.
My parents separated when I was eight years old and, like Ynez Tan mentioned in the article, I was 'happy' that my working mum was not around so that I could do as I wished. (That the report chose to highlight this girl's views about her mum at work out of the many interviewed spoke volumes about the research's subjectivity).
It was only by the grace of God that I grew up relatively unscathed. Everything else being equal, I would venture to say that children will blossom in an environment where one of the parents is around to provide constant and consistent nurturing love.
Sure, there is no guarantee that children brought up in such an environment will turn out well 100 per cent of the time. However, when they don't and, as parents, you did not make this noble 'sacrifice' when it was in your capacity to do so, it may be too late for regrets over what it could have been.

Letter to the ST Forum - The key difference between homosexuality and abortion/capital punishment

6 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum

I REFER to the humorously written letter by Mr Peter Lee Peng Eng (Online forum, Nov 10), who commented that NMP Thio Li-Ann should also speak up equally fervently on other moral issues that the Singapore laws condoned in order not to be branded as a hypocrite.
Specifically, Mr Lee exhorted NMP Thio to speak up against abortion and capital punishment because 'Christianity does not condone killing another human being'.
To correct Mr Lee's confusion, I believe that most major religions do not condone killing of another innocent human being. Hence by logical extension, abortion is frowned upon by most religious orders.
Of course, strong emotive arguments abound between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially with regard to rape victims who become pregnant or when the mother's life is being threatened. On the other hand, most major religions also permit capital punishments though the conditions differ somewhat from religion to religion. As a secular society, we can certainly debate on which crimes are heinous enough to deserve capital punishment.
However, Mr Lee missed the point when he chose to lump the debate on Section 377A with that of abortion and capital punishment.
Perhaps he was too busy to read NMP Thio's parliamentary speech, so allow me to quote one section of her speech - 'It is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalised; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they have done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.'
Similarly, those who had undergone abortion(s) or administered capital punishment (or committed adultery for that matter) are not thumping their chest with pride over what they had done.
In arguing for Section 377A to be repealed, the supporters in Singapore ultimately want homosexuality to be accepted by society and possibly celebrated (in future) as an alienable right, similar to race, language or religion. This is the key difference in this debate that Mr Lee should be cognisant of.

Letter to the ST Forum - Polarisation beginning to show

1 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum

BOTH sides of the recent Section 377A debate have claimed victory and selectively focused on relevant portions of PM Lee's speech in Parliament to back up their stands.
Rather than victory, I suggest that both camps have 'lost' in their recent effort to bring the moderate majority to their stated cause.
For those who supported the retention of Section 377A, and especially the deeply religious, this effort has alienated the moderate majority in their lop-sided emphasis on 'hating the sin' and neglecting the equal call to 'love the sinner'.
While they need not renounce their opposition to homosexual behaviour to welcome the gay and lesbian community, it is a reality that the religious have yet to adopt an openly consistent and compassionate approach with people with homosexual tendencies.
For those who supported the repeal of Section 377A, their insistence on labelling all those who oppose the repeal as bigots and right-wing religious fanatics did little to draw the moderate majority to them either.
The polarisation effects are beginning to surface. Mr Janadas Devan fired the first salvo in his satire piece tearing into Thio Li-Ann's logic and Andy Ho focused his spotlight on PM Lee's assertion that homosexuality is substantially inborn in one single edition of The Straits Times (Oct 27). Alex Au, the well-known gay activist whom the media always turn to for views on homosexual issues, has also taken off the gloves in his Yawning Bread website by portraying the 'religious right' as Ku Klux Klan and writing that there is no need to be civil to those who take an opposing stand from them. While I have my own reservations regarding Thio Li-Ann's fiery speech in Parliament, a local playwright and aspiring teacher's threat to desecrate her grave was not a civil way to debate the issue. More of these vitriol exchanges will cement the current battle line drawn in the sand and PM Lee's warning of a divided and polarised society will become a reality.
Let's maintain the pragmatism, cherish the space, respect the limits, live and let live.

The Desired End-State of Repealing 377A

I sent this letter to the Straits Times Forum just before the parliamentary debate on the Penal Code review but it was not published.

I refer to South Africa’s journey towards removing all forms of discriminations especially for their lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and trans-gendered (LGBT) community (ST, 19 Oct), and the recent petition attempts in Singapore to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.

It took the South Africans ten short years from the repeal of their sodomy laws to the official sanction of the LGBT’s rights to civil union and adoption. Should the Singapore government accedes to the present repeal petitions or similar initiatives in the future, there is a need to comprehensively lay out the roadmap for the full integration of LGBT within the societal and legal frameworks. While the LGBT community has tried to assure Singaporeans that they will push for further LGBT rights only when society becomes more receptive, it did not stop the community from aggressively seeking the repeal of section 377A despite the current lack of societal receptiveness. The experience of countries like South Africa has also shown that the championing of additional rights for the LGBT community is not that far out in the time horizon. Hence it is important for these rights issues to be debated openly and critically now as part of the repeal initiative. Some of these issues include the minimum legal age for men having sex with men (MSM), the assimilation of LGBT world view into our education system and the media, the structure of possible future civil unions between members of the same sex and adoption procedures for such couples, to list a few.

While it is true that the non-criminalisation of lesbianism did not open these “flood-gates”, I half suspect it was for a lack of vocalisation by the lesbian community and solidarity considerations with their gay counterparts that these issues have yet to be championed. It will be naïve to think that the repeal of section 377A will be an end in itself purely for equality and acceptance. Let us bring to the table all the necessary implications for such repeal and avoid a “slow-boil” outcome if we are serious about according equal rights to the LGBT community in Singapore.

"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" - An Illogical Truism?

On 1 Oct 07, an article appeared in the Straits Times YouthInk section speaking about the hypocrisy of the principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin" when applied to a homosexual. I wrote a letter in response to the article which I re-produced here. The ST forum decided not to publish this in the Forum page and choose to re-direct the letter to YouthInk for their possible use. I am not sure whether there is a general LGBT fatigue on the part of the Forum editor but I guessed the fatigue is not wide-spread given that YouthInk had decided to discuss the NTU survey as a preamble to the article as well.

I observed a familiar strain in Miss Tessa Wong's article in YouthInk (ST, 1 Oct) with that of Mr Janadas Devan's attempt to mould societal attitude towards homosexuals (ST, 7 July). While Mr Devan reminded people to "judge not, that ye be not judged" and concluded that “clever people cannot abide intolerance”, Miss Wong advised people not to “love the sinner, hate the sin” and concluded that it would be “pure hypocrisy” if one attempted to live up to this truism.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" was a truly revolutionary ideal in the ancient of days. Unfortunately, precisely because of its idealism, Miss Wong, like many others, has decided that it is not humanly possible to meet this ideal, leading to her conclusion of hypocrisy.

Unlike Miss Wong, I do not have friends who are espoused homosexuals but I do have friends who have had pre-marital sex, underwent abortions and committed adultery. The friendships that I have are no less genuine or sincere just because I do not condone their actions. I am not sure which part of her friend's homosexual lifestyle has so permeated the friendship that she felt the need to renounce the sin before she can love the sinner.

The leaders of the many religious groups in Singapore have put aside their irreconcilable differences to forge understanding to engender religious harmony for the society's greater good. Despite the fruits of their labours, the doctrinal differences amongst them are insurmountable. Are these people similarly hypocritical going by Miss Wong's argument?

If Miss Wong cannot accept all the moral principles of the Christian faith, she can certainly choose to embrace another faith which agrees with her values system. Cherry picking which principles are do-able and which principles are “illogically flawed” will ultimately cause her to assume the very same character she spoke against in her article.

My 1st Published Letter to the ST Forum

11 Jul 07 - The Straits Times Forum

MR JANADAS Devan's article, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7), suggested that Singapore should, in the long run, come to accept homosexuality on the basis of statistics, genetics and helping Singapore become one of the creative cities of the world.
To cite the example of a lesbian friend who is observed to be in a stable relationship with a same-sex partner, and who are loving parents to well-adjusted children and are model citizens and then invoking demographics to suggest that homosexual behaviour is more prevalent than one thinks do not make it acceptable.
This line of argument, taken to its logical extreme, suggests that one day in the future the world should also come to tolerate and accept other alternative lifestyles involving loving relations between consenting adult siblings or parents and their children (with adopted children thrown in to avoid defective genes being transmitted) when they become demographically prevalent.
Positive examples and high statistics cannot be the factors by which we decide what are acceptable, in the same way that negative examples and low statistics do not make the same behaviour unacceptable.
Raising the possibility that homosexual behaviour may be proven in future to have a genetic basis as a reason for acceptance is gaining ground, given that even Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has articulated this line of argument recently on two occasions.
If that happens, should we believe that those with the same DNA (as in multiple births) containing the 'homosexual genes' would all necessarily turn out to be gay? Should we not then take the argument to its logical conclusion and suggest that God is to be blamed for implanting defective genes that caused the many degenerative diseases and medical conditions?
Many, Mr Janadas included, have seized on biblical passages selectively to question the Church and its beliefs. The same Lord Jesus Christ that Mr Janadas quoted in the article also said on the same occasion that he affirmed all the Laws that had been laid down in the past and one of them included God's abhorrence of homosexual practices, as stated in the Old and New Testaments.
If actively catering to talented and creative homosexuals is critical to Singapore's desire to become one of the most creative cities of the world, this Singaporean would rather pass and stick to a traditional family-based Singapore.