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

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

Disability and Abortion

I am not my disability.  

I just happen to have a condition known as Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI), or in layman’s terms, “brittle bones”. From birth till my late teens, my bones broke easily and I suffered countless fractures. I have a short stature and I use a wheelchair.  People do not cease to remind me that I am very different. However, God has assured me that I am uniquely made, just like any individual. The emphasis that people place on my disability does frustrate me. But what is God’s purpose for me as a person born according to His will?

Recently, I mourned the death of two unborn children. I learnt that two out of seventeen pregnant women who were Zika-positive last year, underwent abortions. To quote from the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the clinical advisory group (CAG) - "the consequences can be more serious if a pregnant woman is infected, as Zika virus infection can cause microcephaly in the unborn foetus of pregnant women." The website adds: microcephaly is a congenital condition in which the head size is much smaller than usual for a baby of the same age, race and sex. Microcephaly can be caused by a variety of genetic and environmental factors, such as Down Syndrome, exposure to drugs, alcohol or other toxins in the womb, rubella and a few other infections during pregnancy. There is no specific treatment for this condition.

Abortion was readily pushed out as an option. Is it hard to understand why these two mothers opted for abortions, given the fear and pressure?

In 1969, when moving the Abortion Bill in Parliament, the then-Health Minister Chua Sian Chin claimed that “it would be an act of kindness or even a moral obligation to avoid the tragedy and the serious repercussions to the parents, the child, and society alike by permitting abortion”. Conversely, he said that “it is an acknowledged social evil to countenance the breeding of defectives in society”.

One of the grounds that abortion was permitted under the Abortion Bill was the “eugenic ground”, where abortion was permitted if “there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped”.

One of the reasons given by the Government to justify keeping the cut-off time of abortion at 24 weeks is to allow these mothers whose unborn children are found to have “structural abnormalities” to “consider the implications and make an informed decision as to whether to keep or abort the child”.

Even today, the contents of pre-abortion counselling “may be adapted for women diagnosed with foetal abnormalities”.

I experienced great sorrow upon reading all these statements.  There is such a deeply entrenched fear and misconceptions about people with disabilities. I find it extremely saddening that many unborn babies are deemed to have no right to live and no future simply because they are diagnosed with defects, especially at a time when medical advances can be used to maximise their potential rather than strike them off from human society.

This is also an obvious show of double standards in our society.

On one hand, we recently celebrated the achievements of our Paralympic gold medallists like Yip Pin Xiu and Theresa Goh. We hold the annual Purple Parade to promote the inclusion of people with special needs.

Yet on the other hand, society sends the message that disabled children are unworthy of life, as a special group of people singled out for the option of abortion.

When I was born, I was "untouchable" because my bones would break at every touch. I could very well have been labelled a "grossly handicapped child" facing long-term severe disability and dependence. My life could have been terminated if my parents had received such a prognosis. But because medical technology was not so advanced in the 1970s, I had a chance at life. Through parental support, medical treatment and personal determination to excel, I am now an educator with the ability to impact lives. All unborn children with disabilities need, as I had, is the universal right to live.

The government of the United Kingdom is currently considering an Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill, proposed by Lord Kevin Shinkwin, himself a person with a disability.

In one of his speeches, Lord Shinkwin said, “I utterly reject this medical mindset that clings to the idea that a disabled baby is a medical failure to be eradicated through abortion. I beg no one for my equality. I know I have as much right as anyone to be alive.”

I could not agree more. As a person made in the image of God, I know my value and worth comes from God.

And while the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy the lives of children in our society, I know that my Lord Jesus came to not only give life, but to give life to the full (John 10:10).

It is true that people with disabilities like myself face special challenges in life, and parents expecting a child with special needs are bound to have concerns and fears. However, it was these special challenges that brought me to Christ and instilled in me priceless values. The perfect love of God drives out all fear (1 John 4:18). For God has not given me a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). That is why I can now speak up for the needy. Even people with severe disabilities are born to gift us with precious life lessons.

The Church must model our Lord’s example of unconditional love, regardless of how “able” or “disabled” anyone might be. We must believe in the purpose that God has for every person on this earth and rise up to support every family who have children with special needs. In doing this, we show our love for God, as well as love our neighbours as ourselves. 

You before me

I remembered my ex-boss, now my friend, gave me this book barely two years after I came to Christ. One of my favourite books because of this woman's devotion to God, more so after the accident that left her paralyzed at 17 years old. Now still in chronic pain because of her disability, she showed the world what clinging on to God looks like, in good times, in bad times.

Watched "Me before you" on the plane back to Singapore. Was debating with myself whether to watch it or not though I would definitely not pay to watch it. Indeed a depressing movie that tried to put romance into it by putting an actress who only knows how to smile 'prettily' and a handsome actor who acts as a paralyzed man. He refused to move on by clinging on to his past. He chose assisted suicide though he seemed to have found love and hope in a woman who pleaded with him not to do so. He told her to live well yet he chose to die. He chose to let his parents grieve over his premature, premeditated death...

Truly a 'me before you' movie that reflects the culture we live in. Me first. My feelings first.

The most hypocritical part is the ending when the actress smiled after receiving the guy's money upon his death. Suicide becomes just like any normal death. It has been romanticized.

In the end, I can only say that this movie sugarcoats suicide. Grief over our losses is real. But so is the fact that we should never advocate assisted suicide to people in their vulnerable state. What people need is a real hope in a real God.

If death solves the problems of life, we would all be dead.