Let us not neglect the vital role of fathers in our society

This letter was sent to The Straits Times Forum on 21 June but was not published. 

Every child is a masterpiece of their parents (“Liondads: Chinese father raising mixed-race adopted son, diaspora dad and stepdaddywith teen sons; 20 June).

Dads can be restored to their roles as family heroes: authoritative yet supportive, protective yet loving, always leading the family with humility.

It starts with every dad believing that his worth does not commensurate with the prestige of his job or the salary he commands.

There is an anonymous saying, “A truly rich man is one whose children run into his arms when his hands are empty.”

All the riches of this world cannot buy family love.

If family is a life priority, how can we strike a balance between family and career aspirations?

Ultimately a career aspiration has to take a second place. No one would remember a worker. But every child would remember a dad who plays with him, a mum who nurtures him.

Strong families form the backbone of a nation.

We have long neglected the vital role of fathers in our society.

We encourage fathers to be hands-on when children are born but we do not involve fathers when a child is deemed “unwanted” in the womb.

When a mother goes for an abortion, we do not promote the value of the family (“Made For Families brand mark aims to assure familiesof government and community support”; 20 June).

A child automatically carries the brand mark: Made For Families.

Let us make Singapore safe for every child.

A stressful pregnancy due to the liberal abortion laws

This letter was sent to The Straits Times Forum on 8 March but was not published.

If my teenage sister had not seen the sonogram of her 9 weeks old daughter or heard the sound of her beating heart in the abortion clinic, I would not have an adorable 15 months old niece now (“Number of abortions down by about half in nearly a decade"; 8 March).

I could have lost my sister too as she entertained thoughts of suicide when the father of their child kept pressurizing her to go for an abortion.

My family members are not for abortion but our laws that allow abortion up to six months of pregnancy, with no minimum age and no need for parental consent, made abortion seem like an easy option.

During this period up till the abortion deadline, people continued to suggest that abortion was the “quick solution” to my sister’s unsupported pregnancy. One of her friends even said she was cruel to bring the child to term, knowing she would not have a father, as her boyfriend had left her following the decision to keep the baby.

I was also asked by her medical social worker on why I was against abortion and assumed to be so because of my religion. Science and technology informed me that this is a child in a mother’s womb, the supposedly safest place for the preborn.

With help from some non-profit organizations like Safe Place and a Christian community, my sister was empowered to be the best mother to my niece.

My sister may have been, by conventional standards, too young to “be a mother”, but no one automatically knows how to be a parent, regardless of age. She became a mother the moment my niece was conceived – and she would forever be a mother who lost a child if she had chosen abortion.

Giving his round-up of this year’s Budget debate in Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said that the Government has a duty to future Singaporeans who are not yet born and are unable to make their voices heard today.

How can the voices of future Singaporeans be heard if there are so many obstacles to be born?

The loss of a child should be spoken of and remembered

This letter was sent to Voices@TODAY but was not published.

In using her platform as Mrs Singapore Universe 2019, the writer not only gives a voice to women who have suffered silently the loss of a child through miscarriage, she also lends a voice to the truly voiceless- the unborn (“As Mrs SingaporeUniverse, I want to talk about how I cope with my miscarriage”; 6 Sep).

While in her womb, the writer’s 17-week-old son was fully-formed with paper-thin skin, 10 fingers, 10 toes, and long skinny limbs. Whether the child was medically viable to survive outside the womb or would have any form of disability, the humanity of her son cannot be denied.

I agree with the writer that there is no better place for a baby than in the arms of his mother.

I share her grief, that the death of a loved one is like the amputation of a limb. My world crashed when I lost my beloved mother to cancer in my teenage years. I have great respect for the love of fathers and mothers towards their children.

We can bury a dead body but we cannot bury the fond memories.

Every child is unique and no other child born thereafter can replace him. The child who died will always be a treasured member of the family.

A miscarriage is the natural death of an embryo or foetus before it is able to survive independently, usually in the first 12 weeks. It is estimated that one in four to six pregnancies end in a miscarriage.

What about mothers who suffer trauma from aborting their children?

Research has shown that a woman who undergoes an abortion is six times more likely to commit suicide, 30% more likely to suffer from depression and 25% more likely to suffer from anxiety compared to a woman who gives birth.

Who will render help to women who are silenced by abortion regrets, guilt and shame?

Whether it is a miscarriage or an abortion, a precious life is lost.

Every child has intrinsic value and dignity. No outer circumstances can make a child lose his right to life.

The birth of a child should be widely-celebrated and the loss of a child should be spoken of and remembered.

Our identity is based on our humanity, not based on race, language or religion

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

Every person, by virtue of our humanity, has intrinsic value and dignity. This is the basis for mutual respect in communication.

Our identity is not based on our race, language or religion. 

Our human worth is not based on age, occupation, fame, wealth or health for we would become less of a person if we are old, unable to work, severely disabled, poor or uneducated.

Each of us has something to offer to the community; an enriching life experience, a unique challenge, a talent and a skill, a different worldview. We are people united by our citizenship, all wanting the best for our nation.

Like the writer, I do not condone running down another's race, religion, language, or colour in derogatory terms (Racial unity - are we regressing?, Aug 29).

Yet an act that is seemingly offensive to one person may not be offensive to another of the same race. Being “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” has become more difficult in this net-savvy world. We are quick to pass judgement without knowing the context and easily make a mountain out of a molehill.

Laws may change a behaviour but are harder to touch a heart.

As an educator, I strive to set a good example to my students. Students respect themselves and others by spreading love and kindness, being faithful in what they do so that they cannot blame others for not doing well in their studies. They learn longsuffering through failures so that they would not resort to self-harm or suicide. They become confident, not needing to put down others to exalt themselves. 

The moral values that families, schools and the society inculcated in our children will build our nation based on justice and equality, so that we can continue to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for this Lion City.

It is when we refuse to be easily offended that we can build a strong character. 

True tolerance places a high emphasis on listening to different viewpoints while exercising self-control so as not to be unduly affected by differences.

Consistency in protecting under-21s from abortion and its harmful effects

This letter was sent to Voices@TODAY but was not published.

Abortion is an invasive surgical procedure that can cause common complications like bleeding and infection, and more serious ones include injury to the womb and surrounding organs. Various studies also show that abortion contributes to maternal mortality, increases the risk of breast cancer and the risk of miscarriage. Considering the implications of abortion on a child's present and future health, why is there no minimum legal age for abortion and no parental consent is needed? (“Set minimum age for women seeking abortion”; 15 Aug).

In a review for medical professionals of the impact of abortion on women’s physical and mental health in Australia, a woman who undergoes an abortion is six times more likely to commit suicide, 30% more likely to suffer from depression and 25% more likely to suffer from anxiety compared to a woman who gives birth.

Many women are ambivalent about pregnancy and abortion. Women rarely see babies themselves as a threat, and instead feel positively towards them.  However, it is the related experiences, like the future stress and difficulty of parenthood, financial stress, loss of freedom, pressures to abort from their partners that many women may see abortion as the only solution.

Health professionals do not always recognise the complexities of women’s lives and are at risk of presuming in favour of abortion.

Most parents love their children and discipline them for their best interests at heart. When parents learn that their child is pregnant, it is natural that parents would be disappointed, angry and even feel that they have failed in their roles as parents. 

In the best parent-child relationship, the child may not voluntarily discuss the issue of abortion as she does not want to disappoint or burden her parents. Guilt, fear and shame push the child away from her parents, leaving her feeling alone and helpless. Even the best counsellor cannot provide the sense of security, vital support and comfort that only parents can provide.

Without parental consent for abortions, parents are kept in the dark about their child's predicament and the child makes a rash decision without considering other alternatives like raising the child up with the support of her parents or giving the child up for adoption.

Truly there is a need for the Government to review the Termination of Pregnancy Act, to be consistent in protecting under-21s from all life-altering activities, including abortion, where another precious life is at stake.

Do not underestimate the pitfalls of IVF

This letter was sent to Voices@TODAY but was not published.

As a Christian, I trust the authority given to our government to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right (“Why Singapore needs stronger safeguards against rise of religious and identity politics”, 2 August).

My faith compels me to treat everyone with respect. Our identity is not based on nationality, race or religion. If it is, harmony would be a shallow concept.

All humans are created equal but not all ideas are equal.

As a responsible citizen, I would evaluate existing policies and suggestions by political leaders with research, critical thinking and group discussions. 

Take for example the recent suggestion by the women’s wing of the ruling People’s Action Party that the age restriction of 45 years imposed on women who can turn to in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) to conceive should be scrapped (“PAP Women’s Wing calls for removal of age limit on IVF treatment”; 30 July).

There is no right to a child, whether to the couple who cannot afford IVF even with increased subsidies or to one who can afford it.

A child is a gift of life, not an economic good to be disposed of through abortion or to be wanted at all costs through IVF.

Science informs us that human life begins at conception. Just as abortion kills a life, IVF creates surplus embryos and subject many to wastage.

Currently, there is low awareness of increased risks of birth defects, complications during pregnancy, births associated with delayed childbearing, or the health risks and the long-term impact of IVF on both mother and child. I personally know of relatives and friends who suffered physiological, psychosocial and financial trauma through IVF, all these with no baby to bring home.

In 2013, over half of the 9,282 abortions were done on married women. What is being done to address the underlying factors that drive the highest abortion rate among married couples? These are children already conceived in the womb. How can we murmur against a low total fertility rate when we do not treasure what we have?

The sanctity of life ought to be respected and modelled to our future generations as seen in the high suicide rate among our male teens (“Male teen suicides in 2018 hit27-year high: SOS”; 29 July). Our children are watching us.

Do we love children for who they are or for what they are worth?

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

There is no right to a child, not even to those who can afford in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments (“Make preschools more affordable, remove age limit for IVF, saysPAP Women's Wing"; 30 July). 

No advance in medical science can defy nature without grave consequences.

Currently, there is low awareness of increased risks of birth defects, complications during pregnancy, births associated with delayed childbearing, or the health risks and the long-term impact of IVF on both mother and child.

We would do well to evaluate every policy suggestion with diligent research and critical thinking. Have we learnt from history? Do we love children for who they are or for what they are worth?

The two-child policy introduced by the Singapore government during the 1970s to encourage couples to have no more than two children has been overtly successful. Message such as “Small families, brighter future – Two is enough” has been ingrained in the minds of generations thereafter. 

In our pursuit for economic growth, we did not need more children then.

The total fertility rate (TFR) dropped for four decades, from 1.82 in 1977 to 1.14 last year, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. 

Now that we have an affluent, aging population, where are our children? 

The campaign for this two-child policy was accompanied by the liberalisation of abortion up till 24 weeks of pregnancy. From 1970 to 2017, the total number of children lost through abortions is approximately 660,000. 

In 2013, over half of the 9,282 abortions were done on married women ("Abortions fall to30-year low"; July 27,2014). 

What is being done to address the underlying factors that drive these married couples to such desperation?

A child is a gift of life, with intrinsic value and of immeasurable worth.

The sanctity of life ought to be respected and modelled to our future generations, especially in suicide prevention (“Number of male teenage suicides hits record high”; 29July).

Hard to convince the public of the legitimacy of the landmark ruling

This letter was sent to Voices@TODAY but was not published.

It is bewildering that the judges found a lack of evidence to show that the applicant had set out to deliberately go against the Government’s policy against forming same-sex family units (“After landmark judgment, gay couples seeking adoption may find it harder to convince the courts: Desmond Lee; Dec 19).

The applicant and his partner first approached the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to ask about adopting a child, but were told it was unlikely to recommend adoption to a homosexual couple.

The applicant then flew to the US where, through in-vitro fertilisation procedures, he paid US$200,000 (S$275,000) for the child to be artificially created (“Government policy review will be a mammoth task after gay man’s legal win, experts say”; Dec 19).

The intent of the applicant to circumvent the laws of our land to form a same-sex family unit is not incomprehensible to the general public.

It is unfortunate that it takes this case to unravel the fact that the MSF had backed 10 of 14 adoption bids that involved surrogacy procedures performed overseas between 2008 and 2018, although the provision of such services is illegal here.

If surrogacy is “the commodification of a woman as effectively a baby machine” and a child is robbed of his need and right to know both his father and his mother, it is wrong. If surrogacy is wrong, no regulation can make it right. It is wrong in all context. Every legislation involves morality.

Why would the High Court give a hypothetical example of a set of five parents in a polyamorous relationship when this is more of a comparison of parenting by persons in same-sex relations versus parenting by dual-sex couples? The idea of immorality of certain acts — which appears to be a possible ground of the criminalisation of male homosexual acts in Section 377A — should translate to a legal effect on persons in same-sex relations who want to adopt a child, especially those who use illegitimate ways to mock our laws.

Public confidence in our authorities has been shaken. Power and wealth have eroded the morality of our land.

The immeasurable price of Motherhood

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

Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) have replaced fertility and procreation with reproduction in a sterile lab. Such technologies made us forget that a child is begotten, not to be artificially created at a price of S$275,000 (“LandmarkHigh Court allows Singaporean Gay dad to adopt surrogate son”; Dec 17).

A child is a gift. No one demands a gift. We buy expensive toys for our children but now, children have become toys for us.  

If biological connection does not matter, this father would not be able to circumvent the laws of our land to start a family unit. He would not have gone to great lengths to reproduce a child with half his genetic traits by making use of the egg of one woman and the body of another for nine months of his child’s life.

No man, not even a single woman like me, can understand how a mother’s body undergo dramatic changes to give a life. Parenthood is sacrificial giving, not the taking away of a child’s need and right to his mother. The surrogate mother can relinquish her parental rights but it does not mean that the child does not need or yearn for his mother.

It is of paramount importance that a clear stance on all forms of surrogacy be made (“Clear stanceon all forms of surrogacy needed”; Dec 20) and that a policy review be made on singles being allowed to adopt children (“Ban surrogacy to protect theinterests of children and women”; Jan 5). No matter how much I as a single adoptive mother love my child, I cannot be the father that he needs. It is not about me, but all about what my child needs in a dual sex union.

Public confidence in our authorities has been shaken in this landmark ruling. A just society protects and safeguards the interests of the most vulnerable members of our society ; children. Children are priceless. The rich and powerful do not own them.

Be consistent in valuing every life

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

As one who had attempted suicide in my twenties but is now fervent for life, it is heartbreaking to learn that more elderly are turning to suicide as the only choice to end their pain and struggles (Number of suicides committed by the elderly hits record high as Singapore population ages; 30 July).

In the intensive care unit after my suicide attempt, I saw the tears of my elderly father and my siblings. I lost my beloved mother through cancer but my family members nearly lost me when I tried to destroy this life which is not my own. What if those who had committed suicide had seen the tears of their loved ones? Would they still want to kill themselves?

Family members are meant to go through life’s challenges together. How have we fare in building strong families? Because I live, I owe it to the society to make a difference in the lives of people who are more disadvantaged than me.

My family circumstances have not changed much but my will to live is informed by my Christian faith. I no longer look at what others can do to make me happy and feel fulfilled but I gain joy and strength from sharing how the pain and trials of the past made me a better person today.

The most comprehensive system of helping the vulnerable cannot replace that emotional touch that we can offer to our loved ones as well as the one on the streets.

Building a culture of life is a continuous process throughout our lifetime. Every life is precious; from the unborn to the terminally ill. Our inconsistency in saying that one life is more precious than the other cannot convince our elderly that we treasure and honor them, especially when they are no longer seen as “useful” by a society that values materialism.

Let us encourage our elderly to run this race to the very end. Perseverance is a virtue that we desperately need in a culture where instant gratification is glorified.

Tribute to my late mum

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

The sheer determination of Madam Yong to shower her daughter with so much love so that Vivian can live longer in this world, reminded me of my late mum (“She ain’t heavy, she’s my baby: Mum’s devotion to 38-year-old daughter with neuromuscular disease; 7 May).

I was born with a genetic disorder called Osteogenesis Imperfecta, in layman’s term, brittle bone disease. The doctors told my parents that I might not live long after birth but no doctor could have predicted that I am now leading a more fruitful life than any prognosis given at birth.  I give the most credit to my beloved mother who gave me the most beautiful nineteen years of my life before she died of kidney cancer.

My mother was not highly educated but her dream was for me to enter university, find a job and support myself. She could not coach me for my Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) but she would sit beside me and encourage me to study hard. I could not envision a bright future for myself then as I used a wheelchair. Those were turbulent teenage years whereby I blamed my mother for my disability through no fault  of hers. But we shared the greatest intimacy as mother and child, as the best of friends.

I felt abandoned by her when she suddenly passed on during my GCE A-Level examinations. My Christian faith empowered me to not only choose life after her death, but to love and treasure this life that my parents had given me.

My mother did not pass on defective genes to me (“Bioethics committee seeks views on emerging genetic modification technology to prevent disorders”; 19 April). She modelled perseverance and sacrificial love to me that I would not trade anything for. Because she did not abort me, I had a chance at life. She loved me to the end and that inspired me to do likewise to the people around me.

I do not need genetic modification. I just needed a chance at life. 

Do not ignore the pitfalls of IVF

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

I thank Mrs Joni Ong for her honest sharing of her in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) journey, that was emotionally draining but now rewarding since she has borne five children, three of which are naturally conceived ("'Untaboo' IVF and other fertility treatments"; 3 March). 

The same cannot be said for my relatives who went through the excruciating psychological and physical pain of assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatment.  They were drained out of their financial resources and are now still childless. 

In a programme On A Red Dot shown on Channel News Asia last year, Ms Felicia Tan recounted her grief in suffering two miscarriages and having lost three sons while on IVF, all within two years. It was a miracle that she and her husband finally had a boy through natural conception. She asked a poignant question, "Did I create life or destroy them?" 

I read with regret that the Government's co-funding for ART treatment would be raised from $6,300 to $7,700 for fresh cycles and $1,200 to $2,200 for frozen cycles from April 1 this year. This is based on the false premises that people have a right to have children and ART treatment is one of the tools to promote population growth. 

According to the statistics provided by the Ministry of Health (MOH) last year, overall from 2013 to 2015, the average ART success rates are 21.3% at public centres and 19.0% at private centres. This translates to a huge loss of human embryos created through IVF. What about the long-term follow-up on the elevated health risks of children conceived through ART treatment as compared to naturally conceived children? What are the repercussions on the offspring of these children?   

In 2013, over half of the 9,282 abortions were done on married women ("Abortions fall to 30-year low"; July 27,2014). Why not divert our precious resources to helping women with unsupported pregnancies and facilitating life-giving options like adoption? What recourse can a citizen take when he does not agree that Government should use tax proceeds to fund IVF and abortion as they violate his freedom of conscience? 

A child is not an expensive toy that we want at all costs, at our convenient time, imputed with utilitarian value. A child is a gift bestowed, of intrinsic value like us, a sweet burden that no money can buy.

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. 

The right and need of a child to a father

This letter was sent to The Straits Times Forum, was edited and considered for publication, but was not published.

It is shocking to learn that around 10,000 children have been born to unmarried mothers over the past 10 years (“Time to do away with ‘illegitimacy’”; 13 May). 

Sex does not always make babies, but neither does it always make babies exactly according to our plans. It is a serious enterprise, to be engaged in only by those prepared to become mothers and fathers.
It is critical that we address the root issues by teaching the right values in sexuality education. The hardships faced by an unwed mother are real, a consequence that can be prevented by not engaging in premarital sex.

Who remembers the most important right and need of Lorraine, to be loved and cared for by her father? ("Unwed mum adopts own biological daughter"; May 11) What Lorraine needs most is a father’s love, far more than any material benefit. 

Using adoption to sever ties and to gain access to benefits the same as a married couple, suggests a loophole in the Adoption of Children Act. Singles should not be allowed to adopt children. ("Adopted children deserve the best family environment too"; Feb 9) 

The government’s interest in marriage is in ensuring that children have fathers and mothers who are involved in their lives. As the marriage culture collapses, child poverty and crime rise. Welfare spending bankrupts a country.

Single or unwed mothers should be made aware of their children’s rights under the law, and their ability to claim maintenance from the father of the child. 

Law and policy should neither send the message that fathers are irrelevant to the upbringing of the child, nor reflect the idea that child-rearing is solely the mother’s responsibility.
No citizen is automatically entitled to benefits from the Government. There is a difference between government benefits to incentivise public goods such as marriage and family and extension of welfare to mitigate social costs. The needs of single mothers are arguments for the latter. 

Adopting a child-focused approach helps to balance between supporting unwed mothers and supporting parenthood within marriages. 


Reply from Ministry of Social and Family Development

We thank Ms Lynne Tan Sok Hiang, Dr Lee Woon Kwang and the Association of Women for Action and Research for their letters (Legitimate or not, every child is important, May 15; All children deserve equal treatment, Forum Online, May 14 and; Time to do away with 'illegitimacy', Forum Online, May 13 , respectively).

We recognise the challenges that many unwed mothers face.

This is why, currently, all Singaporean children get to enjoy the entire suite of Government benefits that support their growth and development, regardless of the marital status of their parents.

The benefits include the Medisave grant for newborns, infant care and childcare subsidies and foreign domestic worker levy concession.

All Singaporean children also have access to social assistance, education and healthcare subsidies.

On top of these, the Child Development Account benefits and Government-Paid Maternity Leave were recently extended to include unwed mothers and their children.

Benefits such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and housing benefits are tied to the parent's marital status.

The benefits will not be extended even if an unwed mother adopts her own child, as they are meant to encourage parenthood within marriage.

Unwed mothers who require more support may approach any Social Service Office for financial assistance or Family Service Centre for socio-emotional support.

Unwed mothers do not benefit more from government policies and schemes even if they adopt their own children.

However, unwed mothers may seek to adopt their own children for personal reasons, such as to terminate the rights and responsibilities of the biological fathers and establish themselves as the sole parent.

This is a decision to be weighed carefully, factoring in the best interests of the child.

The effect of the adoption would mean that there is no longer a parental relationship between the child and his or her biological father.

The child would also not be able to seek maintenance from the father under the Women's Charter.

http://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/no-extra-perks-if-unwed-mums-adopt-own-children

True compassion is found in not repealing S377A

This letter was sent to Voices@TODAY but was not published.

It is neither the majority nor the minority who is always right. In any policymaking, it boils down to logical arguments that point to deriving the greatest good for our nation while incurring minimum cost or inconvenience to those affected ("377A: Remember the golden rule in policymaking"; March 21).    

I would be one of the many to vote for this law to stand, no matter how the society changes ("Govt has no plans to repeal section 377a for now"; March 2).

I have friends who have same-sex attraction and they are just as dear to me. In fact, my concern for them is greater because of the sobering facts that surround the health of people who engage in high-risk sexual behaviour. 

How can I support and encourage a friend to continue in his destructive behaviour when in 2016, 61 per cent of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections were from homosexual and bisexual transmission? Out of a staggering number of 7,140 citizens who are HIV-infected as of end 2015, 1,816 lives were lost because of their chosen way of life. Sodomy laws have some deterrent effect because with more acceptance, any form of consensual sexual behaviour increases. As it is, the whole community has to foot the costs of these diseases.

It is not misconceptions, prejudices or fears that stop me from empathizing with people who struggle with brokenness ("Repeal of 377A won't automatically change people's minds"; March 21). The moment we see a loved one goes down the path of destruction,  true compassion is shown when we warn him.

I cannot deny that there are people who are mean, just like how people say nasty things to me, a person born with a disability. I cannot stop anyone from being offensive. Our dignity and value do not fluctuate with the laws or any societal change. What is critical is to recognize how every behaviour has consequences. 

We should empathize with those who struggle with identity issues. We all do. We celebrate the worth of every individual but we cannot celebrate every behaviour, especially one that causes harm to the individual and the community. There are no ex-Chinese but there are ex-gays. This is a fact which is worth looking forward to.

True inclusiveness begins in the womb

This letter was sent to Voices@TODAY but was not published.

I agree with Social and Family Development Minister Tan Chuan-Jin and Nicholas Aw that the changing of mindsets is crucial in transforming low tolerance or acceptance of people with special needs into mutual understanding and respect ("New campaign focuses on greater acceptance for people with disabilities”; Feb 11, "Let us walk the talk on inclusiveness"; Feb 16). 

A study by Lien Foundation found out that while Singaporeans are supportive of the idea of inclusive education, it has not been borne out by action to the same degree ("S'poreans support inclusive education but do not walk the talk: Study"; May 30, 2016).  

As a woman with a physical disability, I am not surprised by the findings, because before birth, a child with a disability is already not accorded the same value as other unborn children. 

The Guidelines on Termination of Pregnancy state that "the contents of pre-abortion counselling may be adapted for women diagnosed with foetal abnormalities". The selective abortion of unborn children with medical defects is an indication of how people can fail to recognise the inherent dignity and value of people with special needs.

In October 2014, the Health Ministry referred to a routine foetal scan at 20 weeks of pregnancy to pick up structural abnormalities as one of the reasons to justify keeping the abortion time limit at 24 weeks. 

Senior Minister of State for Health Amy Khor added that keeping the abortion limit at 24 weeks "will allow these mothers some time to consider the implications and make an informed decision as to whether to keep or abort the child, without being rushed to meet a shorter cut-off time". 

The singling out of disabled unborn children to justify abortion is inconsistent with the Government's obligations to promote respect for the inherent dignity of disabled people under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Singapore ratified in July 2013.

There are legitimate concerns in raising a child with special needs but there is no legitimate reason to kill the most vulnerable member of our society. 

A "throw-away" culture will lead Singapore on a precarious path whereby the old and frail are deemed unworthy to live. True inclusiveness begins in the womb and mindset changes must be spearheaded by our Government.

Diversity is not an intrinsic good

This letter was sent to Voices@TODAY but was not published.

Diversity is not an intrinsic good; a good to be sought after for its own sake. Each demand for diversity should be carefully considered based on its merits ("Extend value of S'pore's growing diversity to include gender and sexuality"; 1 Feb; "Protection of more diverse groups can benefit Singapore"; 8 Feb).

Last year, the Ministry of Health (MOH) analysed 206 cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections. Sexual transmission accounted for 94 per cent of the 206 cases. 61 per cent were from homosexual and bisexual transmission while heterosexual transmission accounted for 32 per cent of all cases. 

This is a great health concern, considering that a small population engaging in such high-risk sexual behaviour accounted for more than half of the HIV cases. The society is paying for the health costs and consequences of such irresponsible behaviour. Is there merit in encouraging such "diversity"?    

Our Government protects every citizen, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation from the threat of violence. This cannot be seen as special rights attributed to any group since every citizen is protected under the law.

Everyone has equal worth but not every behaviour is equally worthy. 

In the Parliamentary debates in 2007, the Singapore government said ,"While homosexuals have a place in society and, in recent years, more social space, repealing S377A will be very contentious and will send the wrong signal that Government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life." 

Every appeal to "diversity" should be carefully weighed and simplistic appeals to it is not the rational way.