I’ve written a letter to the Straits Times and TODAY responding to the forum letter by Ms Felicia Tan (see bottom of this post).  If it gets published it would probably come out tomorrow.

NMP Thio Li-Ann must have made several people in the Straits Times very, very upset when she stood up in Parliament on 26 May and said

"The feedback I received from friends and strangers on the reporting of the Aware controversy was that much of the reporting, particularly in one paper, was biased. It largely lacked a diversity of views in singing the same chorus that religious groups should not get involved in secular organisations."

Because the majority of print and online letters that followed in the two days after that were hostile to her views.  I think the substance of those letters leaves much to be desired, though.

Family Ties : NMP Thio’s advocacy inappropriate (Print, 29 May)

Given that two of Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Thio Li-ann’s relatives were closely linked to the saga (her mother, Dr Thio Su Mien, admitted playing the key role in bringing about the leadership change after monitoring Aware’s affairs for a year, and her cousin-in-law Josie Lau was the ‘new’ Aware president for several weeks), it is highly inappropriate for the NMP to use her position in Parliament to address an issue in which she has a personal stake.

I fail to see how NMP Thio’s speech was inappropriate.  She did not devote her speech to defending her mother’s or the Josie Lau’s conduct and, even if she did, there would be no issue of abusing her privilege as Josie Lau and committee have resigned after losing a no confidence vote at the AWARE EOGM.

Disingenuous Absence of a Vital Fact in NMP’s Speech (Online, 29 May)

Had [ Josie Lau's ] assumption of power been left unchallenged, their religious beliefs would have severely compromised Aware’s primary mission of addressing women’s issues regardless of religious background.

This is the same, tired story which the AWARE Old Guard and its most ardent supporters sold to new AWARE members, to great success as they obtained sufficient votes to pass the no confidence motion against Josie Lau’s EXCO.  However, it takes quite a bit of imagination (of which there was no short supply in the AWARE saga) to conclude, from the fact that Josie Lau, et al, were Christians mostly from the same church, that they would severely compromise "AWARE’s primary mission of addressing women’s issues regardless of religious background".  Admittedly Josie Lau and committee might be biased in favour of certain issues (or against certain issues, such as homosexuality and a liberal sexuality programme), but unless those issues constitute the primary mission of AWARE, then there is little reason to believe that they would compromise it.  Anyway, the fact remains that it is now impossible to prove that Josie Lau and committee would have compromised AWARE’s primary mission because they are not in office.

Trusting God not the same as trusting Godly human beings (Online, 29 May)

READING excerpts from Nominated MP Thio Li-ann’s speech on Wednesday (’No ‘bright line’ between religion and politics’), I am amazed that an accomplished woman of her calibre cannot fully perceive the danger in mixing religion with politics.  While she enthuses her preference for hearing and reading diverse views, does she honestly believe her faith is willing to embrace diverse opinions which may be crucial to the survival of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural group of women who need help?  How many people throughout history have been persecuted in the name of religion ?

This writer is guilty of trying to discredit NMP Thio’s authority by calling her an accomplished but stupid woman for wishing to mix religion and politics.  All of us of course agree that mixing religion and politics is tricky business, but NMP Thio’s speech was a lot more sophisticated than just "let’s mix religion and politics".

Then there is the unfair question which NMP Thio will not be able to respond to — "does she honestly believe … ?".  Readers are invited to conclude that she does not (and is being disingenuous) or that she does (and is stupid).

Finally the "how many people … have been persecuted in the name of religion" question is another unfair question inviting readers to conclude that because evil has been done in the name of religion, religion is bad, which is total nonsense.  People all over the world have been unfairly persecuted for all sorts of things, because humans are fundamentally not very nice.  Non-religious people like Lenin or Stalin or Mao, have been as guilty as religious people in persecuting others.

The mother of all letters, I think, is this one from one Ms Felicia Tan -

Facts Outshine Faith (Print, 28 May)

I DISAGREE with Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann’s assertion yesterday (’Secularism practised in S’pore ‘does not exclude religion”) that religion is appropriate in the public sphere.

On the contrary, it is precisely because of Singapore’s multi-religious nature that pure secularism in the public sphere is essential to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual.

By basing an argument on one’s religious views, one would essentially alienate the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non- believers.

Such an argument would be non-inclusive, narrow and, worst of all, belief- specific.

In a country where people of various religions and non-believers alike co- exist, it would be extremely unreasonable and self-centred to assert that a policy be implemented because of the beliefs of a single religion, especially if this policy contradicts the beliefs or principles of another group.

An argument about a policy or social issue should be made based on its own merits.

Instead of appealing to one’s faith as the basis of arguing for or against a policy or law, one must instead appeal to the scientific, sociological or economic facts of the issue.

Only then can Singaporeans be confident that the policy was made with each citizen’s secular interests in mind, and not as a form of favouritism towards one or a few religions.

In this way, pure secularism, with its clear separation of religion and politics, is the only rational option for a multi-religious country, to ensure every religion is free to practise in its own private space.

Religion-based arguments have no place in public debates about policies. Only logic and reason should dominate discourse in the public sphere.

What is interesting is that TODAY published the same letter by the writer, but probably in an unedited form (or with less editing), so the rawness of her arguments really ring out.

Not Militant, Just Civic Minded (Print, 28 May)

I refer to the report, "A Recipe for Disharmony".

I wholeheartedly disagree with NMP Thio’s assertion that "militant secularism" would lead to greater disharmony.  I believe that on the contrary, it is precisely because of Singapore’s multi-religious nature that pure secularism in the public sphere, regardless of how seemingly "militant", is essential to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual.

By basing an argument on one’s religious views, one would essentially alienate the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non- believers.  Such an argument would be non-inclusive, narrow and, worst of all, belief-specific. 

In a country where people of various religions and non-believers alike co- exist, it would be extremely unreasonable and self-centred to assert that a policy be implemented because of the beliefs of a single religion, especially if this policy contradicts the beliefs or principles of another group.

An argument about a policy or social issue should be made based on its own merits.  Instead of appealing to one’s faith as the basis of arguing for or against a policy or law, one must instead appeal to the scientific, sociological or economic facts of the issue.  Only then can Singaporeans be confident that the policy was made with each citizen’s secular interests in mind, and not as a form of favouritism towards one or a few religions.

In this way, the position of so-called "militant" secularists is the only rational option for a multi-religious country, to ensure every religion is free to practise in its own private space.  Religion-based arguments have no place in public debates about policies. Only logic and reason should dominate discourse in the public sphere.

I intend to post a separate note on Ms Tan’s letter.

Couldn’t resist taking a dig at one of the more inscrutable statements in the AWARE Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) Programme.

For those who have given unqualified support to the CSE Programme on the basis that it encourages "critical thinking", was denial or delusion what you had in mind ?

Jed recently started to draw more intelligible pictures.  Here are some samples :

Television

People

Today’s (13 May 2009) Straits Times carried a forum letter, "Instilling Values a Complex Task", in which the writer states :

The social and cultural environment in which young people are informally educated consists of more than parents and teachers. In today’s information society, a child’s identity develops under influences that far exceed the censorship of well-meaning adults.

Television, cinema, popular music and the Internet, for example, are powerful and pervasive transmitters of popular culture and cosmopolitan values.

Such media images of gender roles and sexual behaviour draw on a range of liberal and conservative perspectives.

To what extent does the formal curriculum in schools teach students to critically analyse these diverse media messages so as to help them make responsible, well- informed decisions for themselves?

Censoring all alternative views would be contrary to the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) push for critical thinking. If argumentative essays at the secondary and junior college levels can encourage students to engage both sides of the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ abortion debate, why should not this balanced approach be similarly extended to the controversial topics of gender roles and sexual orientation?

A mature curriculum for sexuality education should reflect not only the mainstream views and values of Singapore’s society but also an educated awareness of alternative views based on well- researched knowledge and information.

Let’s pick up on two issues raised in this letter — the pervasive influence of the media and the need for a sensitive and intelligent sexuality education program to deal with this — in the light of the current AWARE Comprehensive Sexuality Education Program, which instructor’s guide states that :

(1)  Pre-marital sex is neutral

(2)  Anal sex is neutral

(3)  Virginity is a state of mind

(4)  Sex is fun

Suppose a student watches a movie (say "Rear Entry") in which there is an explicit sex scene between a teenaged couple (unmarried of course), and for some reason it has escaped the notice of our usually diligent censors that there is a very graphic depiction of anal sex.  In the extreme, what might the instructor say in relation to this movie which is consistent with the CSE guide ?

Society and your parents probably don’t generally approve of pre-marital sex, but in reality there may be times when you just feel like doing it with your boyfriend.  Lots of teenagers do it.  Let me tell you that there is nothing to be ashamed of.  Sex is fun and normal, and all forms of sexual activity (including anal sex) are ok.  Just make sure you don’t get hurt and that your boyfriend is wearing a condom correctly. 

Society and your parents probably think that virginity is important, so you should wait till you get married.  Actually its all a state of mind.  Some people think that anal sex or oral sex are not sex and therefore you are still a virgin as long as you don’t engage in virginal sex — that’s what you believe, and you are a virgin if that’s what you believe.  Some people believe that you are a virgin if you abstain from sex for long periods between each encounter — what you believe, and you are a virgin if that’s what you believe. 

Or would this be more appropriate ?

Society and your parents probably don’t generally approve of pre-marital sex, but in reality there may be times when you just feel like doing it with your boyfriend.  Lots of teenagers do it.  Let me tell you that sexual desire is nothing to be ashamed of.  Sexual desire is normal, but I want you to be very clear that there are risks in engaging in (casual / pre-marital) sex, and it is partly for these reasons that your parents wouldn’t want you to engage in pre-marital sex.  The risks are :

1.  You might get pregnant.

2.  You might contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), particularly when engaging in a riskier form of sexual activity such as anal sex.

3.  Condoms when used correctly can significantly reduce the risk of (1) and (2).  However, sometimes condoms are used incorrectly (especially in the heat of passion) or they fail (burst).  If a condom does not completely cover a lesion, you might still contract genital warts.

4.  You might feel hurt emotionally or "used" if the relationship does not work out.  Or your privacy might be compromised — look at Edison Chen, et al !

If you do decide to go ahead and have sex, my advice is that you should at least insist that your boyfriend is wearing a condom.  Maybe you even want to ask him if he has an STD or multiple sex partners before — that would be an indication (though by no means conclusive) of whether he is "safe" !  And if ever you engage in an unsafe sexual activity, please go and get yourself tested.  Early detection and treatment will better protect your health, and is the only responsible thing to do for your future sex partner(s).

If you find all the above a little intimidating, then maybe casual / pre-marital sex is not worth the risk !  While a lot of teenagers do engage in sex, and you might feel pressure to do the same, there are also be teenagers who have consciously decided not to engage in sex until they are married.  Maybe this seems a little old-fashioned — sex is portrayed so attractively and as so commonplace in the media.  But movies do not create reality, you do.  You have a choice as to whether to give in to pressure.  You have a choice as to whether to avoid places and situations where you might be tempted to have sex with your boyfriend.  And I hope that, when under pressure, you would have the courage and presence of mind to do what is safe even if it seems unpopular — abstaining from sex.

Admittedly the above is easier to pen than to say to a teenager.  Well, my time will come when my kids become teenagers.

There is talk on the Internet that Christians or the "Christian Right" are "astroturfing" in order to prevent the reappointment of Siew Kum Hong as NMP.  The basis for the Wayang Party’s report is "notice" (we are not told of its origins) that "a campaign is underway to swarm REACH with feedback in order to exert pressure on the Parliamentary Select Committee to reject Mr Siew’s application [ for NMP ]".

I would like to see another smoking gun as the basis for this allegation of astroturfing.  It has become all too convenient of late to blame and demonise Christians / the Christian Right for anything which is not supportive of the gay lobby.  I do not doubt that there are many Christians who have written in to express that they oppose Siew Kum Hong’s return as a NMP, but I am not sure if it goes as far as astroturfing.

So what do I think ?

As mentioned before in relation to the AWARE saga, I think it is generally insensible to vote for / against (or in the case of NMPs who are not elected, support or oppose) a political candidate on the basis of his / her stand on single issues alone.  Rather, candidates should be assessed holistically on their competence and ability to contribute.

What if one day, all the candidates for elections (for whatever reason) have to declare whether they are pro- or anti-gay, or pro-life or pro-choice ?  Are Singaporeans going to vote based solely on their position on this issue ? 

What if half of the candidates in a GRC are pro-gay / pro-choice, while the other half are anti-gay / pro-life ?  How are Singaporeans going to vote ?

What if half of the MPs voted into Parliament are pro-gay / pro-choice, while the other half are anti-gay / pro-life ?  Is Parliament expected to spend all of its time debating laws and policies on homosexuality and abortion ?  After all, that is what we voted them for !

Personally I think NMP Siew has made a positive contribution to the debates in Parliament.  I am not sure if everyone understands some of the more complex legal arguments he has made (but they support him anyway), and I am not sure if I would agree with all of his views (and I’m not talking about his views on homosexuality).  But many of the issues he has raised in Parliament are important issues which deserve airing even if a law or policy proposed by the Government was not ultimately amended.

My (only) concern is that NMP Siew has become a somewhat divisive figure.  His presence polarises.  I think this is partly unavoidable because of the explosive nature of debates on homosexual issues.  But I also think that, maybe, he could have tried to reconcile the parties holding opposing views, instead of leading / lending support to one party against the other (well, maybe he did try - I don’t know). 

The Parliamentary Select Committee will have to decide whether it wishes to have NMPs who generate such divisiveness, or who are able to moderate opposing views.

In 1998, former US President Bill Clinton made the infamous claim that oral sex is not sex.  More recently, the AWARE instructor’s guide to its Comprehensive Sexuality Eduction (CSE) Program makes the mind-boggling suggestion that, maybe, "virginity is a state of mind".

There are many things I find disturbing about the instructor’s guide to the CSE Program.  Excuses such as only 1.5 minutes being spent on the topic of homosexuality or the instructors’ guide not being indicative of the message imparted during an actual CSE program do not hold water in my opinion.  My retort to those excuses are :

(1)  What exactly was said about homosexuality during the 1.5 minutes ?  I’m inclined to agree with the old AWARE’s supporters that a 1.5 minute discussion on homosexuality (no matter how inappropriate) probably isn’t going to turn a girl into a lesbian.  But is a simple discussion revolving around the statement that "homosexuality is neutral" sufficient to convey complexities such as that not everyone who engages / experiments with homosexual sex is necessarily a homosexual, and that at least for those who are merely "experimenting", homosexuality is not "just the way you are" (another statement from the material) ?

(2)  Even if instructors do not repeat every word in their guide to students, surely the answers provided in the guide (including the inappropriate answers) will be used as and when a student pops a question which the guide provides an answer to ?

Some of my other concerns are :

(1)  Classifying "anal sex" as healthy or neutral, when this form of sexual activity (where it involves penetration of the anus with a penis) often (as far as I’m aware, can’t speak from personal experience here sorry) involves more pain and carries a higher risk of transmission of sexual disease.

(2)  Classifying pre-marital sex as neutral.

(3)  Classifying virginity as a state of mind (whatever that means).

(4)  Categorically denying that the possibility that childhood trauma may cause homosexuality, when no one knows for certain the cause(s) of homosexuality.

I am therefore somewhat gratified to hear, on my return to Singapore, the Ministry of Education saying that the CSE program was inappropriate because it "convey[ed] messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex".  I am also gratified to observe Internet forumers in general agreement that there was something inappropriate about the CSE program, though this has not stopped the occasional odd opinion that there was nothing wrong and everything right about the CSE program : see here and here.

I think a more appropriate CSE could, on the topic of sex, say :

(1)  That sex is essentially a risky activity (I am such a pessimist).  That there will always be a risk of unwanted / unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), even if condoms are used. 

(2)  That when a couple engages in sex within the boundaries of marriage there is greater (albeit sometimes misplaced) assurance that the husband would support the wife in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, and that the husband / wife have not been unfaithful and are therefore free of STIs.  Even then, pregnant mothers are encouraged to test for HIV in case they had been infected by their husbands, to prevent the onward tranmission of HIV to their babies.  Hence pre-marital sex is higher risk activity, compared to sex between married couples.

(3)  That certain forms of sexual activity, such as anal sex, are particularly risky, because of the higher risk of STI transmission.

(4)  That responsible sex in a pre-marital (and even marriage) context means (i) ensuring that you are free of STIs before engaging in sex (or that you inform your partner you have been sleeping around and I-might-have-caught-an-STI-from-I-don’t-know-who-but-nevermind-will-you-still-have-sex-with-me-please ?), (ii) using a condom, and (iii) being prepared to deal with the potentially lifelong consequences should something go wrong, ie. STI infection or unplanned pregnancy.

(5)  That for the above practical reasons, sex should ideally be confined to married couples, and virginity is rightfully valued.

Just went to New Delhi for work and survived.

This trip to India is significantly better than the previous one because I discovered that my company doesn’t have a policy against spending more than USD25 per meal (everything in the hotel starts from about USD20).  Which meant that I was pretty much starving eating budget USD20 hotel sandwiches and bottled water the last trip.  Rather, the policy requires employees to produce reciepts when making claims for meals that cost more than USD25.  So I didn’t go hungry this round (until now, more on that below).

And I had an India colleague who drove me round on one of the nights to take in some of the sights of New Delhi, namely : the India Gate and the President’s Residence.  And the hordes of people.

I had the opportunity to meet a couple of lawyers this time.  Interaction was interesting because Thursday 7 May was voting day and, outside of our working discussions, they talked about local politics.  Amusing too when one of the lawyers expressed admiration for how Singapore had a reputation for being such a nice and efficient city and then asked if we were a dictatorship.  (My answer was that "we’re supposed to be a democracy").

Over dinner drinks today (but not dinner) with another group of lawyers we talked about Singapore again, and I was amused by their comment on how much Mustafa reminded them of India.

As I’m typing this I’m sitting at the airport business class lounge which isn’t very much of a lounge.  It is small and crowded (if anyone has the swine flu we’re all so dead).  But I figure my chances of survival inside the lounge are better than that outside, where there are hordes of people who sometimes like the cows I see on the roadside, just stand in front of an entrance / exit for no particular reason other than needing a place to stand (now why can’t they stand at a place which doesn’t obstruct traffic?).

And the lounge food looks very dubious.  But I’m hungry and I figure that the caucasians who occupy about 80% of the lounge and merrily chewing on the food must have weaker stomachs than I do.  After watching them for about 10 minutes I also observe that no one has dropped dead or had to suddenly rush to the toilet.  As I can’t imagine Singapore and Cathay Airlines (which share the lounge) negligently poisoning its business class passengers with the food, I pluck up my courage, say a little prayer and sample some of the food.

It tastes awful.

I’m so glad to be heading home.

The new AWARE EXCO has lost the confidence of the majority, and resigned.  An even newer AWARE, comprising the 1,414 members (many of whom joined in the last few weeks) has voted in a new EXCO.  It is good that this saga which has been hogging the media and my imagination (at least till tomorrow) has come to some kind of closure, at least for now.

Unfortunately, there are still many difficult issues which the just elected EXCO must grapple with, such as :

1.  How to manage a very fractured organisation.  761 AWARE members (or roughly a third of present AWARE membership) did not vote in favour of the no-confidence motion, while the other 1,414 members did, and both camps were heard to be boo-ing each other during the EOGM, in not a very polite way at all.

2.  Whether and how to accommodate the concerns of the minority which comprise the 761 AWARE members who did not vote in favour of the no-confidence motion.  These 761 members are of course suspected to be anti-gay / ultraconservative but since AWARE is supposed to be all-inclusive and tolerant, it must surely take into consideration the views and feelings of members who hold anti-gay / ultraconservative views as well.

3.  What on earth do the 1,414 majority members and 761 minority members stand for, apart from (i) disagreement over whether the previous EXCO was ethical in how it had seized control of AWARE and (ii) disagreement over AWARE’s position on homosexuality ?  The Online Citizen’s coverage of the EOGM left me with the impression that many were bleating infantile slogans like "four legs good, two legs bad" … sorry … "where were you" instead of trying to make respectful sense of the speakers.

And most importantly to me and Joyce as parents (though not of girls) : 

4.  Why does the Comprehensive Sexuality Education Program developed while AWARE was under their charge, have liberal messages which (I believe) most Singaporean parents would not be comfortable subjecting their children to ?