While reading through a manual on ethics for dentists (unpublished), I was amused to find the following paragraph :

It is recommended that a chaperone be present whenever a dentist examines or treats a patient.  This will protect both the patient’s right to privacy and dignity, as well as the dentist from complaints of professional misconduct.  A dentist should confine the examination to those areas that have direct clinical bearing to the nature of the complaint.  Patients who require examination of anatomically sensitive areas are best referred to an appropriate medical practitioner for the procedure.

Didn’t know that a dental examination could involve "anatomically sensitive areas".  That sure would be one kinky dental examination !

Samuel Morse thinks he can better the Da Vinci Code —

"Why the movie-going public would choose to see a blasphemous fairy tale about Mr. and Mrs. Jesus Christ is beyond me. My code — a real one, mind you — packs enough excitement for one summertime blockbuster and a whole series of sequels and promotional merchandise. To overlook it is an outrage!"

Read all about it here.

Much has been said about the Adrian Yeo saga, a "bright young doctor" who, according to the Straits Times, "threw it all away when he experimented with gay sex and drugs" (8 June 2006).  Singapore narcotics officers sprung a trap on Adrian by asking him to bring controlled drugs to a "sex session" that they had contrived.  Adrian was arrested and convicted for possession of controlled drugs.

Some Singaporeans question if the way Adrian was entrapped was ethically, morally and perhaps even legally correct.  (The legal bit is settled law in Singapore - evidence obtained by entrapment is generally admissible in court).

Others complain that the Straits Times report and the fact that Adrian was targeted by enforcement authorities betrays our bias against gays, and a misplaced view that most if not all homosexuals are also drug addicts.

At the other end of the spectrum are Singaporeans who, by what they say, confirm suspicions that such biases do exist.  Particularly telling is this letter by one Lionel de Souza, who wrote  

Undoubtedly, the CNB undercover agents had done their homework well. They found out about the doctor’s gay-sex preference that included him consuming drugs to boost his libido.

Hence, there was definitely no breach of the doctor’s constitutional rights in the entrapment exercise.

Having said that, it causes me great concern to know that a doctor did not only abuse drugs but also indulged in gay sex with partners he met over the Internet. 

(Straits Times Forum, 10 June 2006)

I’ve yet to see an article about what people think Jesus would say or do.  So let me offer my humble opinion.

Firstly, while engaging in homosexual sex (and consuming drugs) may be morally less acceptable in Singapore, other morally less unacceptable wrongs in our society, such as cheating, lying, pre-marital sex and adultery, are just as sinful by God’s standard.  James 2 : 10 says -

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Secondly, I believe that everyone including Christians are as capable of falling into grievous sin, so there’s really no need to be smug and wag self-righteous fingers at Adrian.  Who is to say that we will not be suddenly siezed by depression, and turn to some kind of addiction - drink, sex, drugs, etc ?  In Jeremiah 17 : 9, God warns that

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

Finally, John 8 (verses 1 - 11) relates an incident where the religious leaders in Jesus’ time brought before Him a woman whom they had caught in the act of adultery.  According to the Jewish religious laws, such a person must be condemned and stoned to death.  They asked Jesus to pronounce judgement on her.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.  When they [ the religious leaders ] kept on questioning him, He straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her".  Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.  Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said. 
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

In the midst of condemnation by society, Jesus offers compassion, love, forgiveness, and hope.

I hope this will be how Adrian’s story eventually pans out.

(Read more about what Singaporeans think here).

Finally figured out a way to embed flash images.  Sure makes the blog look a lot spiffier, compared to just having links that point to the image, or a series of static images.

Jed turned seven months’ old today.

One trick he recently picked up is making a buzzing / "poot" (fart) sound using his lips.  He was finally caught in the act on camera today.

He has also recently learnt, rather clumsily, how to crawl.

Someone ("anonymous coward") on www.tomorrow.sg thinks I am stupid.

Dear anonymous coward,

I think you mean "denigrating".

I’m sorry to hear that you think I am stupid (or hopefully, that only my comments were stupid).  On account of my poor intellect, please allow me to avoid engaging you in respect of the needlessly stupid remark, and explain what I was trying to say.

I agree with you on the point that the writer "brought his (presumably) [B]uddhist perspective as a counterpoint to the woefully inadequate ‘broad understanding’ presented by the talk".  But in doing so he was not, IMHO and without intending offense, being "religiously open-minded" as claimed.  He merely presented just one out of many possible explanations for paranormal activity. 

To borrow the writer’s words, if he had stated that his post was intended for religiously open-minded Muslims, Christians and other persons that did not subscribe to his beliefs, "that I can respect".    But to present merely one out of many possible explanations for paranormal activity - I don’t think that is significantly more open-minded that the seminar speaker(s) that he criticised.

Which brings me to a point which I concede may be somewhat speculative.  I think it is in our human nature to think of another person as "open-minded" only when he is receptive to our ideas or beliefs.  But if he is not receptive, or if he fails to give due consideration to our ideas or beliefs (as the seminar speaker(s) allegedly failed to do), we take offense and think of him as being narrow-minded.  Perhaps that is part of the reason why the writer was so offended by the way that the seminar was conducted.  May I suggest that, maybe, we are ourselves guilty of being narrow-minded when we are offended by an apparently narrow-minded person who is not receptive to our ideas ?

Click here for the link to the article.

This hilarious spoof of the NDP is probably circulating on the internet.  Hope that you watched it first on this blog (and that the NS guys who filmed it don’t get into deep shit).

As I was reading John, I thought of a series of questions that may be used to assess how our spiritual life is progressing.

For each of the following statements, pick a number between 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) which you think best describes your relationship with God.

(a)  I am a believer in God.

(b)  I am a child of God.

(c)  I am a servant of God.

(d)  I am a friend of God.

If there is progress in our spiritual life, the number we choose for each of the foregoing categories (a) to (d) will go up every time we go through the list of statements.  If there is regression, the numbers will go down.

How are each of the four statements relevant as indicators of our spiritual progress ?

I am a believer in God.  In itself, believing in God is meaningless.  James 2 : 18 tells us that even demons believe in God "and shudder".  Therefore, apart from believing in God, our relationship with God must be defined by how we relate to God as a child, a servant, and a friend.

I am a child of God.  The starting point of a meaningful relationship with God lies in our understanding that God has forgiven our sins, and adopted us as His children, because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Romans 8 : 15 - 16 says that "… you received the Spirit of sonship.  And by Him we cry, ‘Abba Father’.  The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children."

I am a servant of God.  Is it possible to be a Christian without being a servant of God ?  Unpleasant as the word "servant" sounds (actually I think a more accurate translation might be "slave" instead of "servant"), Jesus did not mince words in John 15 when He referred to His disciples as "servants" (verses 15 and 20).  The honorific title of "apostle" would be coined by the church and given to these disciples only later, after years of faithful service to God.  I think no less is expected of Christians today.

I am a friend of God.  In John 15 : 15, Jesus tells His disciples that "I no longer call you My servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business.  Instead, I have called you My friends, for everything that I learned from My Father I have made known to you".  These two verses speak of intimacy with God, to the extent of knowing His mind.  God wants more for Christians than to just serve faithfully - merely performing work without knowing the "master’s business".  God desires to know us personally, as friends.  And in a close friendship, God will disclose what is on His mind to us - "… everything that I learned from My father, I have made known to you" (v 15).