Free to choose but not free from consequences

This letter was sent to The Straits Times Forum but was not published.

In my role as a mentor to teenagers, I seek to establish open communication with them. I learn to first offer a listening ear to their views before analyzing with them the pros and cons of every decision. They are free to make choices but they are not free from the consequences of their choices ("Promoting abstinence stifles potentially helpful discussions on sex"; 29 June). 

I stand with parents, teachers and counsellors in fostering this culture of mutual love and trust so that our young would feel safe to ask any question about sex or related issues. Open-mindedness and respect work both ways.

Parents as the primary communicators of sexuality with their children, should teach a holistic view of sexuality. They should teach their children to respect themselves and their bodies as intrinsically valuable. Sex should be valued and not treated casually. Teenagers need to see that modeled in their parents and those of adults whom they respect.  

There is no condemnation to those who face problems such as sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Grace and love abounds especially to those who are in need of help. Their value as precious individuals is independent of their sexual history. 

The community should step up in helping those who have been sexually abused and those who had been sexually active but are now seeking alternatives. They too, seek a restoration of their view on sexuality. 

The best gift parents can give to their children is the imparting of right moral values. These values can go against the cultural norms and may invite ridicule and isolation from peers. Our young need our every support to give them courage to stand firm on what they believe in. 

Don’t equate difference in opinions with discrimination

With regard to the recent debate over the call to remove an ad by Pink Dot organisers at a mall, a difference in opinion should not be equated with the discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Disapproval of a behaviour is not rejection of a person.

That the Pink Dot event is allowed to be held shows that discrimination does not exist. We have been most tolerant of it even if we do not agree on this matter. This annual event is increasingly dividing and polarising our society, and if organisers continue to push their agenda aggressively, the stronger the push back will be from conservative forces in our society.

It is disturbing that some people have alleged on social media that the decision made by the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (Asas) was religiously motivated.

Asas’ chairman, Professor Tan Sze Wee, has since clarified that decisions are made through voting. Does such an allegation mean that our government ministers with religious affiliations cannot carry out their portfolios objectively? Let us be mindful that the majority of Singaporeans follow a religion.

Original letter

During the 2007 Parliamentary debate on the repeal of S377A, PM Lee Hsien Loong said, "Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the building block of our society. It has been so and, by policy, we have reinforced this and we want to keep it so. And by "family" in Singapore, we mean one man one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit." 

The government recognizes the pre-political institution of marriage not because it is interested in the romantic relationships of adults but to support the right of every child to be raised by a father and a mother wherever possible. Not every couple has children but every child has a father and a mother. ("Reasons behind request to amend Pink Dot banner unfounded"; 15 June)

A 2014 Institute of Policy Studies survey found that 73 per cent of Singaporeans did not approve of same-sex marriage. Even 64 per cent of atheists disapprove of sexual relations between two adults of the same sex. 

It is disturbing that some people alleged on social media that the decision made by the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) was religiously motivated. ASAS' Chairman, Professor Tan Sze Wee, has since clarified that decisions are made through voting.  Does that mean that our ministers with religious affiliations cannot carry out their portfolios objectively? Let us be mindful that 81.5% of Singaporeans have a religion.  

A difference in opinions should not be equated with discrimination. Our identity is first and foremost a person with intrinsic value. We do not go around defining ourselves by our sexual orientation. Our intimacy with others is not a measurement of our self-worth. Disapproval of a behaviour is not rejection of a person.

The fact that Pink Dot exists shows that discrimination does not exist. We have been most tolerant of what we do not agree on. Pink Dot is increasingly dividing and polarising our society and if it continues to push its agenda aggressively, the stronger will be the push back from conservative forces from our society. 

http://www.todayonline.com/voices/dont-equate-difference-opinions-discrimination