A friend and I recently had a discussion on whether a company should permit its employees to surf the internet while at work.  It was suggested the "facebooking" while at work would, if nothing else, reflect badly on an employee because other people could see from his posts that he was slacking while at work.

I take a different view.  If the expectation is that an employee should not surf the Internet or "facebook" while at work — that office hours should be devoted to nothing other than work and brief visits to the facilities — then it is only fair that the employee should not have to work overtime without being compensated.  If employers make employees work overtime without compensation, yet deny employees little distractions such as surfing the Internet during business hours — why should that not be seen as reflecting badly on the employer ?

I’m not sure why people make people make a big deal out of this.  When I first read the news on ChannelNewsAsia at 12 am, I thought that ok, he’s sort of apologised, people don’t get it right all the time,  time to go to bed.  (I’d like to see the Government apologise over other bigger issues than just one man’s opinion).

But judging from the Internet chatter it appears that this is a big deal to Singaporeans.

Personally, I think it is commendable that a person as proud and as accomplished as MM Lee Kuan Yew is, is prepared to put aside his ego for the greater "good" of the party and, arguably, of Singapore.

And while it is only natural for Singaporeans to gloat over this apparent reversal in opinion and apology of sorts, the more important question to ponder is this — was there any truth in the Hard Truth ?  If there was, how much is / was true, and what needs to be done about it ?

(I offer no opinion in this regard as I have not had the chance to read MM’s book).

The English High Court recently ruled that the local authority responsible for administering foster care, the Derby City Council, was not unreasonable in rejecting a traditional Christian couple’s application to be foster carers : see Johns v Derby City Council and BBC report.  In interviews with several social workers, the couple had expressed a strong religious conviction that homosexuality was wrong.  In an interview with the Fostering Panel, the couple said

"I will not lie and tell you I will say it is ok to be a homosexual.  I will love and respect, no matter what sexuality.  I cannot lie and I cannot hate, but I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be a homosexual."

The Derby City Council deemed the couple’s religious beliefs to be incompatible with the objective of providing foster care services "which value diversity and promote equality", and which ensure support for sexual health "regardless of [ a child or young person's ] sexual orientation or preference" which "should not be affected by [ an ] individual practitioner’s personal views".  The Court agreed that this was not an unreasonable conclusion to reach.

There has, not unexpectedly, been an outcry amongst conservative Christians, who see this as another case of their beliefs being unreasonably forced out of the public sphere.

To put the High Court decision in perspective (and to perhaps be naively optimistic about this entire matter), this was an administrative review.  In an administrative review, the court is not asked to decide which party is correct.  Rather, it is asked to determine whether the decision of an administrative body (such as the Derby City Council) was tainted by any illegality, irrationality (ie. unreasonableness), or breach of natural justice. 

The question before the Court in the present case was one of unreasonableness.  That is, whether the decision of Derby City Council was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it.

I think that — pardon the repeated double negatives in the text which follows — not unreasonably, the Court decided that the decision of the Derby City Council was one which was not so unreasonable, that a sensible person could not have arrived at the same decision.

However, I also think that the manner in which the City Council had gone about assessing prospective foster carers, was so insensible that if the prospective foster carers are a conservative couple, it would have elicited only responses of the type provided by the couple in this case.  This would in turn have justified rejection of such couples as foster couples.

I find it amazing that the City Council devoted so much time and resources to the issue of the couple’s views on homosexuality.  The first social worker appears to have dwelt on this issue a length over several interviews, and even asked for responses to the following hypothetical situations in relation to a young person :

- Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay
- A young person who is being bullied in school regarding their sexual orientation
- A young person who bullies others regarding the above
- Someone in their care whose parents are gay

The City Council thought that the couple’s response to the above hypothetical situations was not very meaningful and therefore unsatisfactory.  I think it is not very meaningful for the City Council to have spent so much time and resources on the above issues to begin with.  If the City Council had decided that they would only assign children under 8 (or at most 10) years of age to the couple, and children at that age presumably are more interested in playing with toys than "playing" with members of the same or opposite sex, then all these hypotheticals, would be hypothetical.

I wish to make a final point on political correctness, which I believe can be taken to extremes, and which was in some way taken to nonsensical extremes in this case.

In this case, the Court was also told of the severe emotional harm that a child could potentially suffer, if he or she does not receive sufficient support for his / her sexuality or doubts about his / her sexuality (and in particular, homosexuality).  Internet comments in support of the High Court decision also agreed that lack of appropriate support for a child’s sexual orientation or preference could be detrimental to his well-being.

I do not disagree with the above.  However, as the freedom of conscience and religion is protected under the European Convention, the same principle must apply in regard to children and their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).  Therefore, just as it is relevant (according to the City Council) to ask prospective foster carers about their attitudes to sexuality, it is relevant to ask prospective foster carers about their attitudes to religion. 

While the local authorities do in fact take religion into consideration, I propose going one step further.  I suggest asking prospective foster carers questions which are as broad and as insensible as the questions asked about their attitudes to sexuality.  How about -

"Do you believe in God(s) ?"

If the answer is "no", then the prospective foster carer is immediately disqualified because a child with strong religious convictions might be emotionally traumatised when placed in a household that does not profess to believe in God, or which disavows the existence of God.

If the answer is "yes", then the prospective foster carer is also immediately disqualified because a child with strong atheist convictions might be emotionally traumatised when placed in a household which professes to believe in God(s) and engages in religious practices.

If the prospective foster carer declares that his personal beliefs will not interfere with the support he would render to the child in the child’s pursuit of religion (or disinterest in God), he would still be disqualified because the child might be emotionally traumatised to witness the indifference or areligiousness of the foster carer when the child is converting from one religion to another, or when converting from religious belief to atheism (or vice versa).

In practice what the local authority would do is try and match a child from a certain religious background to a foster carer with a similar faith (or lack thereof, though this may not adequately address a situation where a child converts from one religion to another, while under the foster care)*.  However, while this is considered a reasonable approach to the issue of religion, no similar nuanced approach is seen in regard to the issue of sexuality.  If a prospective foster carer though not homophobic is unable, for religious or other reasons, to fully accept homosexuality, then no attempt is made to match him or her with young children (who have yet to struggle with questions of sexuality), or with children who are known to be heterosexual and who do not need significant support in regard to issues of homosexuality.  In view of this, may it be said that political correctness in regard to issues of sexuality, has been taken to extremes ?

* See an interesting news report on religious conversion while under foster care here.