Wild Rice’s Cooling Off Day: A review

Technically there should have been this air of anticipation and excitement before I head for a play which has a unique name and would be hard for anyone to disassociate it from politics.

Cooling Off Day eh?

It’s a potpourri of narratives from all walks of life – not just Singaporeans, I must add – on their views about the recently concluded General Elections. For example, there was a 92-year-old chicken rice seller who talked about how immigrants spent weeks on an offshore island had the chance to bathe only once in two weeks, a 35-year-old civil servant whose love for living in the east bordered on the obsessive, and a middle-age Malay woman who generated laughs about the tudung.

First, the narrative was candid and earnest. On most parts, they were straight-forward and direct. One could feel that they were the exact words that were spouted by the people interviewed by the playwright. There were notable political heavyweights among those who were featured as well and it would be not too much of a challenge in figuring out who Vincent, Soh Lung and Jeanette were. The funny and entertaining bits were punctuated with the serious narratives. It wasn’t all just for laughs and the humour but the motivations for some to go into politics were enlightening revelations. At times, you could hear a pin drop (just minutes after a hilarious scene) when certain words, issues and political events were talked about. The air was filled with tension.

There were heart-rending moments too. The 25-year-old Malay nurse’s sharing on the plight of the “middle-lower class” reflected the struggles and desires of a certain portion of the populace. It also put the spotlight momentarily on our public healthcare system with a comment about our “C” class wards. Then, there were the words in Malay, translated by the nurse, from an old patient about how “this was no longer our place”.

Then, there was the 28-year-old Indian sex worker. Her scene came after another one of the hilarious scenes and the audience was riding on the humour momentum with a few tentative giggles when she came on. Yet, her words were strongly reflective of the reasons for the ruling party’s votes. She talked about her being driven out of the house by her father and then, likened her vote for the ruling party to how she still considered and respected her father as her “papa”.

Jeanette’s talk about the geographical confusion that came about due to the redrawing of electoral boundaries and how it affected the community spirit was a revelation too. With the National Day celebrations still fresh in people’s mind, her point about one should grow to love his community first before he could come to love his country was a clever retort against the ruling party’s incessant prod for people to put the country before themselves.

Yet, for all of its discourse, there was one undertone about “that old man”. It was first mentioned in Soh Lung’s first appearance. Then, it was the motivation behind Vincent’s decision to enter politics before the concluding scene, i.e., Soh Lung’s final words which were to wrap things up. If anything and going by the works of the playwright, this was where his voice – which simmered throughout the entire production – was the “loudest”.

For all of the playwright’s reasonable work in being the “editor” of the narratives, what stood out the most was the direction. There was a lot of improvisation to be done with a cast of six and a simple set (six white chairs with six black boxes which held the props) but each scene was so carefully and artistically crafted that the entire play went beyond mere improvisation. The props were carefully chosen so that there were not just there to support the scene but to add to the discourse. One example was the Alex scene, which had one of the cast members wearing that much-derided swimming trunks of the national water-polo team. It added a touch to it and “said” something on its own. The use of lighting was excellent as it complemented the mood of each narrative.

However, for all its worth, it felt as though the play had way too much humour. While there was fair and interesting representation of views about the Elections, the political discourse was not strong enough. The issues of society, races (maybe a bit of a taboo here) and community merely skimmed the surface or were clouded out by the motivation to milk laughs from an audience. Case in point was the scene for the 42-year-old Malay actress acted out by two actors. There was very little political discourse (or maybe it was because I had problems detecting it) and was seemingly out of place.

The play ended on a rather soft note. It would have been better if there was a strong and forceful narrative or one that could provoke the audience to consider certain political issues or implications from the Elections. The director did his work there with the white and red chairs, but to end with Soh Lung’s thoughts about “the old man” in heaven did not do justice to the spirit of the play and what it promised. Perhaps there wasn’t one narrative strong enough for the playwright to conclude the play but there was a hint of how the tight deadline could have affected the selection.

In all, it was cool effort to tickle the audience but just about did it in terms of meeting the expectations for a strong political discourse. That is, except for arousing the curiosity of some about that one big political event in the 1980s.

10 questions for Mr Ministar

“I have been in MND for 5 weeks, and not sleeping well.”

1. Has he been sleeping well at his previous place of employment even though there was a report about the hospital bed crunch?

2. Does that mean that his predecessor has not been sleeping too well for the past decades?

3. Or conversely, are there reasons for his predecessor to sleep extremely well?

4. Is he not sleeping well because, unlike nursing homes, it would be a little hard to persuade our neighbour to build flats to house wee islanders and create a Johor-apore?

5. Why is he not sleeping well when his predecessor did not complain of any sleeping problems?

6. Was he aware that he might not be sleeping well when he (allegedly) volunteered for this job?

7. Does this also mean that those working under him shouldn’t be sleeping too well either?

8. Does this mean that the rest of his colleagues are sleeping or should not be sleeping too well either (“Tuck Yeu la! Standing in MRT, LRT and buses, how to sleep like that?”)?

9. For the sake of sleeping well, shouldn’t he be adopting the stance of his younger colleague who said that he did not want to give “them” his solutions but work through solutions with “them”?

10. If he hasn’t been sleeping well because of this one portfolio he holds, then what about his bosses? Have his bosses been sleeping well?

Bonus question:

Would some mattress company take this opportunity to sell good quality mattresses (“boing!”) at $8?

GE 2011: Winners and Losers

The Elections is over. The dust has settled. The victors and losers will say their piece. Normality and the hum-drum of the daily routine will kick in.

GE2011 marks a milestone for our country’s political history. The number of contested seats has given many Singaporeans the opportunity to cast their vote. They have had a choice. On the early hours of May 8, we got to know what kind of choice we made and one that would follow (or haunt) us for the next five years.

The winners:

The ruling party
Despite all that was said in the printed word, the number of votes the ruling party garnered can’t be considered a landslide. The 6% shift has been within expectations. However, the 81 seats that they hold in Parliament in any other part of the developing world would be considered “a landslide victory” or “a clear mandate”. They have won, but they can no longer ignore that 49% of the eligible voters. One thing for sure, whatever they had been doing for the past five years cannot be repeated. Surely the drastic drop in votes across almost all contested wards (notably Bishan-Toa Payoh and Marine Parade) would be a cause for concern.

However, one of the most significant events of the Elections was The Apology. Some have said that It might have given the ruling party a substantial amount of votes, perhaps among the silent and conservative majority. They have pledged to listen (again?) but surely time will provide the clearest of signs of how much things will change from now on.

The electorate, young, educated, informed and well-read, will be watching. Bulldoze the unpopular policies in Parliament at their peril.

The Hammer
Careful, calculated and considered, that can be said of their campaign and the rise to prominence. In 1991, there were suggestions that they were on the wane and that the Democrats (who won three seats) were the rising force in politics. Until 2011, Cheng San was their closest chance of scoring a historic first for the Opposition in Singapore.

Yet, in 1991, the entry of a young (then) man would change all of that. He first made in-roads among the Teochew community in Hougang. His tireless efforts in walking the ground (including the stories of how he would visit every funeral within the constituency) meant that he was literally walking the talk. Not many would have thought about his eventual win (as opposed to the gains made by the SDP). If JBJ’s (the secretary-general of the Party then) style was one of fire and brimstone, Mr Low Thia Kiang complemented him with his calm and collected manner in his political work. Yet, it is precisely this that allowed him to win the hearts of those in Hougang and now Aljunied.

It will be hard to doubt his efforts in transforming the Party after his own image. The rhetoric of the Party’s rally speeches was careful in spelling out their intent and not descending into name-calling (or responding to “gutter” politicking). Their rebuttals focused solely on the issues and clearly they have done their homework. Never was there once when they gave the electorate the slightest of hints that they were disorganised or did not know what they intended to do.

Mr Low’s move to contest in Aljunied was a calculated one. He had a clear succession plan in place, which meant that Hougang would still be in relatively “safe hands”, before moving into the bigger constituency. He placed a strong team – which included Ms Sylvia Lim – during the previous election and they began their work five years ago. Aljunied was also the GRC closest to Hougang, which might have made it a logical choice as the next GRC the Workers Party should focus on. The percentage of votes they got in 2006 might also have given them some confidence in turning things around in 2011.

While walking and working the ground was an important aspect of any election strategy, the improved image of the Party went a long way in attracting good candidates. Getting Mr Chen Show Mao and Pritam Singh as part of the team contesting in Aljunied was a masterstroke. It would be hard to argue against their qualities as politicians even if they were candidates of the ruling party. The response to their rally speeches was an indication of how they were able to connect with the people. Unlike some of the speeches of the other parties, they didn’t sound like insurance agents or salesmen.

They will have their work cut out for them in managing Aljunied for the next five years. Their victory has given the rest of Singapore a chance to see how they, as an Opposition Party, will fare and their work in improving the lives of the residents there. Obviously the margins for error will be slim but there should be some confidence of how, with his record and work in Hougang, Mr Low should be able to put things right.

Considered would be apt in describing their political strategy for the future. An indication of the Party’s future plans would be to cast your eye on the other GRCs they have contested during this GE. East Coast GRC could be their next target.

As a Party, they were not tainted with defections or any hint of infighting. Their brand and the unity they have went down well with the electorate. They present a viable alternative avenue for other talented Singaporeans seeking political office to serve the people. Only a disaster of gargantuan proportions would stunt their growth and the Party’s rebirth in Singaporean politics. Their “build”, “consolidate” and “expand” strategy could be a model that other opposition parties should follow.

Young Singaporeans
There was no Internet in 1991. There was not even a Speakers’ Corner then. Social media was unheard of. Technology has surely given young Singaporeans an open channel for their voice and to share ideas. Also, with the amount of information being fed to them through the twitter feed, facebook updates and online forums, their powers of discernment can only grow. This will be the making of an informed electorate in time to come. That is if one were to compare the paucity of avenues one had back in 1991 when The Straits Times forum was the only legitimate place to voice out on policy or societal issues.

Amy Khor
The top scorer for the ruling Party.

Kate Spade
The adage about how bad publicity is still publicity? Almost everyone in Singapore now knows the brand, especially when people were chanting the name during rallies.

The other “Kate Spade”
She has waltzed her way into Parliament. Macpherson would surely be a sterling test for this newbie politician.

Nicole Seah
Her fiery maiden rally speech raised some eyebrows. Until then, much of the focus was on her other more scholarly teammates. Arguably she toned down for subsequent speeches. Less fiery but still resonated with the rally-goers. She rose into prominence, becoming the star and the “unofficial” best speaker of the NSP. Her youth has disproved the notion that the young of our nation is largely apathetic. She might be carrying the torch for the people of her generation. While Chen Show Mao mentioned about how there are not that many five years in a person’s life, Nicole (at 24) has time on her side. That is if she decides to remain in politics.

Pritam Singh and Chen Show Mao
Their qualities aside, their claim of their hard work in becoming debutant politicians is a strong moral one. It is something that Miss Kate Spade can never compare unless she takes the same route.

Sitoh Yi-pin
He is a winner at last after three tries. Winning the hearts of the people who voted for Mr Chiam for the past 27 years would be the next big challenge.

The newcomers to Tanjong Pagar and MM Lee
While the rest of their party comrades had to do all the campaigning and covering the x number of blocks in their constituencies, the 35-second mistake meant that they could relax during the nine harrowing days. Among them was one who might not have been an MP had it not for some last minute changes. Perhaps we can expect more “kee chius” remarks in Parliament.

For MM Lee, his legacy of being the undefeated politician remains intact.

Mr Chiam See Tong
No matter what happens now, his standing as an honourable man devoted to the love of his country (and countrymen) is indisputable. He might have thrown his last political dice and put up a good fight (44% is close), he has earned his right for a deserved rest.

The Returning Officer
Now a minor YouTube sensation.

Politics in Singapore
If GE2006 was a prelude, GE2011 represents the Great Awakening of politics in Singapore among the electorate. There has been a noticeable shift from the ‘name-calling’ and ‘gutter’ politics to one that focuses on the issues. The Cheng San GRC contest caused one candidate to become bankrupt while the other has been on the run since. This time round, there was just one (mild) comment made about the funds of a certain town council, which generated a robust, forceful but legitimate rebuttal. No one has been forced to go on the run or thrown into prison (yet).

With a better informed electorate, politics in Singapore is beginning to move out of puberty. Off comes her training bra.

The losing team from Aljunied
Perhaps a fulfilling career in the private sector awaits.

Losers

Desmond Lim
The only candidate to have lost his deposit. His heart might be in the right place and his wife might have made a courageous effort in speaking up for him, but politics in Singapore is rarely forgiving.

Kenneth J
Last minute resignations? Check. Lack of resources? Check. Inability to connect with the rally-goers or electorate? Perhaps. “Loan signing”? Check. Made a mistake while reciting the Pledge? Check. Clear British accent? Check. The Reform Party might be the legacy of his late father, but he cannot ride on the wings of all the work JBJ has done. His references to his late father during speeches might have been one too many (which may give people the impression that he is not his own man). While he does not display the fire and passion of his late father, he may need to take some pointers from the other opposition candidates on how they addressed the crowds during rallies. The ambition to form the Government one day may be an aspiration but the rhetoric should be better served if it was more down-to-earth.

SDP
The Party appears to have gone the opposite route of that of the Workers Party. Their greatest moment was when they had three Members of Parliament. That was when Mr Chiam was still their leader. Despite their rousing speeches and their ability to attract good candidates, the stigma of being an “aggressive” and “activist” political party remains. Their admission of how they did not get as many votes from the HDB estates was telling of how their campaign style (perhaps deemed too ang moh) needs a bit more tweaking. Perhaps it might be good to cast their eyes at the work the Workers Party has been doing quietly in the east and then build from there. Also, it might not be time to bandy the S$60 billion about too much.

49% of Potong Pasir
112 votes was the difference between the constituency still being an opposition stronghold and the real possibility now of it being absorbed into a GRC in 2016. The consolation would be how they have had the privilege of being served by Mr. Chiam for the past decades and stood their ground. Unfortunately for some, petitions don’t really have the political or legal force in changing the Elections results.

Democracy in Singapore
49% of the votes went to the Opposition but representation in Parliament is less than 7%. Can anyone, hand on heart, say this is what the people truly want?

The underprivileged (including the elderly)
This group of people has been mentioned a lot during rallies across the island. Many tears have been shed for them. Time and time again, we have been given the freedom of piecing together images of senior citizens rummaging through the trash bins for cans or reminded of the camps being set up at certain parks in Singapore.

There is only so much the six Opposition Members of Parliament can do for Singaporeans. After all, they only have six votes against the 81 whenever unpopular Bills are passed. Without a strong voice on their behalf, the burden of alleviating their plight will once again fall on the shoulders of charitable and welfare organisations. The hope remains for people to consider how these senior citizens were part of those who helped built our nation, not just a select group of people.

Media in Singapore
Many can point to the great strides they have taken since the 1970s – 1990s. Simply compare the amount of coverage and space given to the Opposition, one can form the argument that they have covered the Elections objectively. Quantity analysis for the win?

Then, why the complaints about how “bad” the coverage was on Mediacorp’s two channels during the results night? Why was there so much griping about the social media (i.e., Twitter and Facebook) became the source of news and latest developments? Both the coverage from the mainstream media and social media happened in real time, but the latter become the source from which people could check for the latest updates.

Then, there was the observation about the amount of time given to the PAP team at Aljunied saying their piece but Mr Chiam’s comments were cut off mid-way (before the ads came on) and Mr Low’s speech – underscoring an historic achievement for the Opposition – was truncated.

Yes, they can claim to have improved but it is still far from being objective and unbiased. For a start, is 60.4% a landslide victory?

National Solidarity Party
One can argue that they are in the same Workers Party mould. Yet, despite fielding the most number of candidates in 2011, they did not create history for their own party – winning a seat in Parliament. For this Elections, Mr Goh Meng Seng sold his flat and sadly, lost his brother.

What tilted the ground against their favour was the mass “defection” of former Reform Party candidates to NSP. Secondly, they did not have a clear manifesto or lay out any comprehensive plan on how they are to tackle the issues. Thirdly, as the Workers Party has proven, at least five years to work the ground is absolutely essential. The question remains about how much time their debutants spent in working the ground.

Unlike the SDP, the NSP does not carry any unwanted baggage or negative impressions among the electorate. It would be a pity for them to give up now because they have a good slate of candidates and all the more they should work the ground in preparation for 2016 or even 2021.

You should have stopped at the Kate Spades

I read with interest the slanging match in cyberspace. Something has spawned thousands of posts and discussions on social media after news broke about a young woman seeking political office. Actually, it’s more of amusement than interest. Only on this island do we get such big mountains made from the puniest molehills.

On one hand, the adage about how this age of social media will expose anyone and anything about them is proven true again. As convenient some of these sites are in sharing photos, comments and thoughts, there wouldn’t be much surprise when HR people will require skills in sussing out the juiciest bits about a potential candidate.

Now, we have one stellar example of a smear campaign gaining momentum and whatever bits and pieces of that young women’s private life will not be spared in this massive “witch-hunt”. Men, made of sterner stuff, would have wilted under such intense (and arguably unwarranted) spotlight.

While I can sympathise with her unenviable situation, it will be an interesting exercise in analysing how all of these came about? What are the causes of this “witch-hunt”?

In my opinion, it is a reaction and the extent of it suggests it is a huge and overdue reaction to something or some events in the past, which were neither addressed nor put in any perspective.

While it is only right to condemn this witch-hunt, we must think about our reactions (or the lack thereof) to events of the past (which I shall not specify) where some terrible (perceived or otherwise) acts of injustice were inflicted on people who had no chance of getting themselves heard or getting someone else to speak on their behalf (much less condemn these acts openly).

Only weeks ago, a slight was committed on one segment of our community and while they have largely gone about with their lives, I could understand if they were quietly upset about it. The people who should speak up for them (as opposed to defend them) probably didn’t do enough. Obviously, they (the people who should speak up) felt they might not have done enough the first time and started to want to have the last say on the matter just when the dust is about to settle. An apology came but it could have been easily deemed as contrived.

This is but one small blip in the history of our country. There are bigger blips but either the reactions were muted or swept under the carpet. It will be an attempt in vain to compare the magnitude of this and other blips. While undeniably it was wrong to expose someone’s private life in public (including someone who will be running for political office) and this must be condemned, will we do the same (if not more) if and when such events or acts of (perceived) injustice happen again in the heat of the moment (which will be upon us very soon)?

As far as I know, we haven’t in the past. And gauging the level of political maturity from this “witch-hunt” and the subsequent (“I’m so self-righteous about it”) reactions to it, I won’t be holding my breath.

Much ado about nothing

In recent days there have been two incidents which reflect the state, civic-mindedness and maturity of our society on this island state (or the lack thereof). They may be seemingly unrelated but if one were to examine them, it would be easy to tease out one of the biggest problems that we have on our hands.

Making its rounds around blogs and various Twitter accounts is a blogger’s snarky demands for confectionery on her birthday. A casual glance at the said blogger’s site offers the impression of a self-styled “you-know-ah-I-can-also-cook-and-bake” lass. The site would have not been on many people’s radar if not the said blogger’s attempt to concoct a “brilliant plan” (a la Baldrick in Black Adder) after watching an advertisement – presumably on the telly.

For the uninitiated, the said advertisement depicts staff from a financial institution collaborating with one of its customers to surprise his wife on her birthday. It was probably a contrived attempt by the advertising company employed to convince the masses that this financial institution cares for their customers. Some might have found it lame. Some considered it cheesy. Probably for many — saturated by the tons of advertising we see everywhere – it would have been dismissed as just one of those “bank advertisements” that we’ve come across down the years.

Well, this said blogger decided her birthday would be a splendid occasion to test the sincerity and authenticity of the financial institution. To cut a long story short, the gal asked for birthday cake, very much like what was shown in the ad, when she approached the teller on a Sunday evening. Just because it was her birthday and as the ad suggested.

Now, it wouldn’t be half as bad in terms of doing one for consumer rights if the said blogger didn’t declare – in her written account of her excursion – that it was her “real purpose for visiting the bank”.

Despite how the teller and later her manager explained that “it was just an advertisement”, the said blogger threw toys out of her pram, declaring again that she was “dead serious about getting a cake” and how she wasn’t “feeling jubilant” because the woman in the ad got her cake and she didn’t.

As if to emphasise her point, she wrote in caps the words “NO CAKE! NO CANDLE! NO GOOD!” and lovingly chose words like “after yet another eternity” and “five eternities” when describing the staff’s attempts at acceding to her request. When she got her cake finally, in all her glory of being a self-styled cake gourmet, she dissed it on her site (which was lovingly juxtaposed with her lovely collection of confectionery she made).

If this was a post highlighting the mistakes made by one faceless multinational entity in its business to a customer, hell yes please highlight it, throw in your sarcasm, satire, “mee siam mai hum”-esque podcasts, sick jokes or whatever you wish to prove your point as an unhappy recipient of shoddy service. Example, if a transaction goes awry, or the train stopped at the wrong station, or the cab driver drove you to Johor Baru instead of Chua Chu Kang. Describe how you had to “lie down on the floor and kick my legs in the air” if need be. No one’s going to begrudge you for that. You won’t have trolls milling about in your comments section. That, I guarantee.

However, if one chooses to take an advertisement quite literally and decide to concoct a test on the seemingly promised service standards of a massive faceless entity, you should be taking to task the people who came up with this ad and the people who approved to have it shown on national telly [by the way, remember to pay your license fees, folks]. You don’t inflict your misguided attempts at “I’m a consumer, therefore I’m right” on underlings, whose bank accounts are not padded with bonuses and faced with the prospect of having to work on a public holiday.

It’s like skinning a cat. There are many ways to do it. But since all of us breathe the same air, then perhaps a bit more of grace, civic-mindedness and, dare I say it, maturity should be used lovingly when attempting to thump your chest.

Given the modus operandi of self-styled “champions” and “chest-thumpers”, it’s no surprise that this was merely an ill-disguised attempt at drawing people to visit the site and improving the said blogger’s popularity. It simply reflects the immaturity of this society when you resort to being snarky just to drive traffic to your site.

So yes, do enjoy your few days of fame, but in the grand scheme of things, you’ve traded your integrity for that. A poor attempt at explaining one’s way out of the situation with a follow-up post (complete with a screen capture of an e-mail to the CEO of the said big faceless entity) won’t hide the fact that you got “self-pwned” by your own “prank”.

Next, a regular visitor to some “citizen journalism” website would have noticed clips and photos about a serial vandaliser of mailboxes. The apathy of passer-bys aside, the alleged “vandal” went on a graffiti spree by spraying and painting stuff on mailboxes at various locations across the island. Adding to the drama was how the “vandal” was dressed, how he allegedly “jumped” into a waiting car and how it sped off.

Very drama.

Reactions ranged from people outraged by the act, people outraged by the apathy of onlookers and giggles all around about how the word “boomz” is doing its rounds again.

Then, unexpectedly the big faceless entity which owned these mailboxes threw out a statement which uncharacteristically seems to suggest that all was well. A day later, the said entity apologised as this was merely a publicity stunt to “engage the youths”.

This made me wonder how a certain American teenager would have gotten his ass off the hook (or rattan) if he claimed his act of vandalism was merely a publicity stunt by the owner of the said wall or building, where he committed his crime.

There are many ways to engage the youths. There are many ways to announce your attempts at getting people to beautify your boring mailboxes for free. A publicity stunt like this shows the lack of thought from (a) the suits at the advertising company and (b) the people who rubber-stamped this.

Which brings to mind, why are businesses not focusing on what they should be doing and how they should do it better? Why the need for glossy advertisements or publicity stunts which – to people who have difficulties in separating fact from fiction or reading between the lines – detract from your primary business? And do you need to throw in the word “viral” somewhere just to give people the impression that “hey, I’m cool”.

If you’re a bank, you focus on “providing financial services to customers while enriching investors” (definition from wikipedia). You’re not a confectionery.

If you’re a post office, you focus on “posting, receipt, sorting, handling, transmission or delivery of mail” (definition also from wikipedia). You don’t need to beautify your mailboxes to prove how well you can deliver people’s stuff.

And if making confectionery and thumping your chest are what you’re good at, then do so in your little quiet corner with your own little circle of fans. Conjuring an infantile attempt at attracting people to your site by concocting your own publicity stunt – “I want my cake!” is not cool.

You’re just being a troll, not just on the internet, but in the real world.

12 – The remaining issues: Abstinence

The word is out. The authorities have spoken. And they waited “till things had cooled down”.

Indeed it has, in the physical space. However, online discussions have thrown up reminiscences of the scenes at Suntec three weeks ago. Despite the steps now taken to tighten the vetting process of sexuality education in schools, issues – still contentious – remain.

While I shall attempt to examine some of them, please note that I am not an authority or an expert in any of these areas. My perspective is that of the layman’s.

Abstinence

In the authority’s statement, “… it was clear that abstinence as the only focus was not an effective strategy in reducing the number of teenage pregnancies and STIs.”

Abstinence comes in many forms. Vegetarians abstain from eating meat (and even some plants which, in the process of being harvested, organisms are destroyed). Some religions abstain from alcohol while there are others which encourage abstinence from eating beef. Monks pursue a life of celibacy and through that (and ideally), they are to abstain from any sexual contact or activity.

So now, what about the concept of “abstinence from sex” being presented to 12-year-olds?

Some religions frown upon it, simply because pre-marital sex or sex outside of marriage is a sin. Moreover, the issue of teenage pregnancies always throws up familial and society problems. Firstly, we have abortions – which are traumatic experiences for young girls psychologically and emotionally. Secondly, it affects families, not least the family of the teenaged girl. Thirdly, if the choice is to keep the baby, a whole host of problems will crop up, including the stigma of having a baby born out of wedlock. I believe these are just tip of the iceberg.

Therefore, there is an argument for abstinence, as a message, to be supported or supplemented by the message of protection. This means that the young person is advised to protect himself or herself when participating in sexual activities. The premise for this is that the kids will experiment anyway before or after they hit puberty. Also, there is no denying that they have sexual desires and will want to find means and ways to satisfy them.

The question is why the message of abstinence alone has not been successful in preventing teenage pregnancies and that a message about protection has to supplement it.

In my opinion, it comes down to the issue of parenting. We don’t like to talk about sex. It is embarrassing to talk about it to our children. Or that we do not know what to say to them. We think of sex as this big ugly monster and that anything to do with it usually leads to the road to sin and hell.

In other words, there are parents who are ill-equipped to teach their children about sex. Therefore, when there is an information vacuum, the kids – on discovering changes to their bodies – will look elsewhere for information and then, viola, they experiment. And as we all know, there are consequences to experimenting. Teenage pregnancies are one of those.

While we drag our feet in confronting the hard issues about sex, we forget the greater need for inculcating in our children the virtues of (a) respecting / loving themselves, (b) respecting / loving their bodies, (c) respecting other people’s bodies, and (d) disciplining their desires. I strongly believe that all four virtues must be fostered in the psyche of children before the real, hard issues about sex are to be discussed at length.

Needless to say, for (d), it applies to other issues. For example, if the child has a desire for a certain item or toy, parents have their own ways of teaching them how certain needs or desires have to be disciplined or managed. The parent may tell the child to wait for his or her birthday or save enough of their pocket money to buy it. The same, I believe, applies to the desires for sugary drinks or foods, and, dare I say it, sexual desires.

Therefore, why has the message on abstinence failed? In my opinion, it is the lack of sound parenting.

When so much debate has been thrown about on aspects of the much-vilified CSE, the crux of it is that some parents are none-the-wiser on the issues of sex and sex education for their children. We assume parents know it all and they have the means to educate their children.

My argument is for parents to be equipped first. My argument is for them to be informed about the issues, the concepts, the moralities, and the approach to sex education for their child. Empowering the parents will go a long way in preventing the consequences of children engaging in sexual experimentation. No doubt it will still happen, but parents should have the confidence to say that they already have done their best during the formative years of their children in inculcating the right attitudes towards sex.

And lest we forget, not many among the generations of parents today have had the privilege of their parents teaching them about sex or through lessons in schools.

11 — The final bits of chatter

By now, we have only the remnants of chatter as the dust settles down. However, the sun hasn’t set.

As people (in the hundreds, I’m sure) are being mobilised for a grand show of defiance love some time this weekend, there is this thing in the air that says you will not see the last of the saga. There is a high chance that it will take on another form and the can of worms erupts from the highly corroded can.

Feels like one of those wrestling shows that one watches on TV. It is all about match-ups: liberals versus conservatives; secularism versus religion; bigots versus the downtrodden minority (note the singular); fundamentalists versus the moderates; inclusiveness versus exclusivity; dualism versus … well you get the idea.

Funny that we throw these big words about. Funny also that we shout them out loud to win arguments, instead of engaging in debate. Funny that we censor one another on blogs / forums while there is a long-running discussion about the much misunderstood “freedom of speech”.

If there was a world-ranking of countries which societies excel in civil debates, I wouldn’t bet against Singapore’s ranking being any different to the annual one given by Reporters sans frontières. For some strange reason, inter-school debates are no longer shown on the television (anyone remembers the performances of a young passionate man who is today one of our top politicians). I thought they were interesting to watch and it showed how young minds attempt to manoevre their points into the debate. Like playing chess.

Yet somehow, in all of our pursuit of the Singaporean Dream, our ability to present our argument in civility and without the need for ambient noise – boos, jeers, screams, shouts and cheers to give us that boost in forcing home our argument – is stuck at secondary school, or at best, junior college level.

We throw out big words – without checking first their definitions and how they fit into the context of our arguments. While it is good to show passion when we argue, we don’t rein in our emotions but allow it to overwhelm us. While it is always good to speak clearly, we think shouting others down would be more convincing. Maybe you can scoff to show your displeasure or disagreement, but jeering takes the maturity out of an otherwise decent debate.

In the end, there is no difference between such debates or discussions and the wrestling matches one sees on TV. Senseless entertainment.

“Liberalism”

As Isabel (muses from other space) writes in “love in diversity”:

“All these self-proclaimed liberals like to think that they are ‘liberal’ than others, but how ‘liberal’ can one truly be when one cannot accept a diversity of opinions?”

“Secularism”

As yaevlejunce (yaevlejunce pilgrimage) writes in “It has reared its ugly head”:

“’Secular’ does not mean atheism or ‘no religion’; it simply means ‘not religion-conscious’, i.e., the individual’s competency should not be judged by his religion.”

“Inclusiveness”

Again, yaevlejunce says:

“A group that insists that homosexuality is ‘normal’ is NOT more inclusive than a group that insists homosexuality is “abnormal” because the former group effectively excludes the beliefs of the latter group.”

In essence, I believe we are light years away from being a mature society. When one uses a very influential form of medium (which should have been objective in the first place) to present his argument, you know that his premise and facts are not strong or firm.

Unfortunately, for those who lack the sharpness of critical thought, they will take every flawed argument hook, line and sinker.

Other interesting links:

Singapore on the lookout for new NMP candidates
(Interesting discussion in the comments section)

Should Botak Siew have been “neutral” instead of taking sides in AWARE?

Homosexuality And AWARE
(Note the comments from LaserStraight)

10 – Positions

Shalom,

Perhaps prayers have been answered.

Project Lucy has posted:

(a) A pastoral letter from the Bishop of Singapore Reverend Dr John Chew, about how Christians should conduct themselves when engaging in the processes and causes in the civil society space; and

(b) Guidelines on how parents should educate their children on sexuality, an excerpt from “Teach Your Children to Understand Sexual matters” by Reverend Dr Wayde Goodall

Also,

(c) The Assemblies of God (US) position paper on homosexuality (Note: pdf file)

Other links of interest:
(i) A Critique: AWARE CSE – Comprehensive Sexuality Education (Thanks Han)
(ii) True Intentions of Gay Activists Now Revealed

With these clearly spelling out a clear Christian position on the issues, Project Lucy will lapse into a period of sporadic activity.

Thank you for reading.

Teach your children to understand sexual matters

Excerpt from “Teach Your Children to Understand Sexual matters” by Reverend Dr Wayde Goodall

1. The need for sexual education in the home

Children will learn about sex. It is just a question of how and when they will learn. If we do not take the lead, then the world will teach them things that are contrary to the Bible. Are we going to be silent and see our children led astray? Is our comfort more important than our children?

On some sexual matters, a father can teach his son, and a mother can teach her daughter. Here are ten reasons for sex education in the home:

i. Sex education helps a child to accept his body and each year of growth. It enables him to discuss sex without fear or shame.

ii. Sex education helps a child to understand and be satisfied with this role in life. Children are content to know that boys grow up to be men and fathers, while girls grow up to be ladies and mothers.

iii. Sex education answers questions. It takes away the mystery. When children know that their parents will teach them the truth about sexual things, children have no cause for worry or concern. They do not need to turn to dirty stories or pornography to satisfy curiosity.

iv. Sex education encourages a child to develop biblical attitudes for life. Good teaching guards against sexual problems later in life. Otherwise, sexual confusion and fears in childhood can carry over into adult life. Bad sexual experiences as a child may produce twisted sexual patterns in life.

v. Christian sex education helps a person spiritually. It clears his mid of distracting sex questions. It brings a deep respect for God and His plan of human growth. Good teaching enables the person to thank God for sex and the way God created us.

vi. Sex education builds a child’s confidence in his parents. If the parents are honest and helpful about matters of sex, children learn to trust parents about many other things.

vii. Sex education given at home is like hoeing the weeds out of a garden. Good teaching at home uproots sinful ideas that reach children through films, friends, magazines, and newspapers.

viii. Sex education in the home makes giving birth to children clear and holy. A child should feel that having children is right. He needs to know – as shown in Genesis 1:24 – that God planned for each living creature to produce after its own kind.

ix. Sex education helps a child to be proud of his own sexuality and value those of the opposite sex.

x. Sex education helps protect children from sexual abuse. People who sexually use children often take advantage of the child’s ignorance. If a child has basic knowledge, he is more likely to go to another adult for help.

2. The method for sex education in the home?

Talking about sex is sometimes difficult because it is meant to be private. Evan a husband and wife may find it difficult to talk with each other about sex. So, it is natural to sometimes feel awkward when talking to our children about such things. Still – for the ten reasons we have studied – parents must teach their children about sex. So, what is the best way to teach them? Here are seven keys for teaching our children about sexual matters.

i. Use a long, step-by-step approach. Do not wait for one day to tell a child everything about sex. Teach children the things that match their ages. Make sure they understand you and then build on that information little by little as they grow. Discern how much the child is ready to learn. Teachings will satisfy a child who is three years old will not satisfy a child who is five or six years old.

ii. Answer questions honestly. Small children will ask sexual questions as they ask questions about all other things. Answer them briefly and honestly. But only give them the information that fits their age. If a parent lies – like saying a big bird brings a baby – the child who discovers the truth will wonder why the parent lied.

iii. Use teaching moments. When you and your children see mating between chickens, cows, or goats, explain what is happening. Likewise, a mother has a good opportunity to teach when she or another woman is pregnant. Some pregnant mothers teach their children by letting them feel the baby move in the womb while explaining a little about how it got there. Do not always wait for questions, especially from older children. A child’s silence does not mean a lack of interest. A child may find it difficult to ask questions about sex. The parent may need to speak first. Be aware of what your children should know – and talk with them.

iv. Use proper words. When children ask questions, they may use vulgar words. Do not be shocked or angry. Children talk with the only words they have heard. Teach children the proper words, and use them yourself. Explain to them why some words are wrong. Explain why we cover our private, sexual parts.

v. Create a relaxed attitude. Encourage your child to always ask questions to you. Never act like any question is a sinful question to ask. A relaxed, open attitude keeps children coming back to their parents for facts and guidance. This attitude helps children understand that sex and sexuality are normal. Use the same tone of voice as always. Relax your face and smile a little, to show that the child has asked a normal question. If a parent becomes embarrassed – and refuses to answer – the child will keep looking for the answer. If you will encourage them, your children will honour you with their questions. If you refuse, they will seek answers from anyone – whether godly or ungodly.

vi. Teach with a good purpose. Good sexual teaching does not answer questions about what. It also teaches why. Teac h your children that sex is a marriage gift from God to a husband and wife.

vii. Be a good example. Show respect, faithfulness, kindness and love to your spouse. It is good for children to see a father and mother kiss and hug a little. Talk to your children about how much you love your spouse. Plan with the children to do special things for your spouse. Never commit adultery. If you are a single parent, remain sexually pure. Stay away from all pornography. Your example will either underline or erase all your words.

3. The sexual knowledge each child needs at home.

Parents are not always in control of what their children see and hear about sex. Children may get ideas through friends, television, music, and other things outside the home. Protect children from false or ungodly ideas about sex as much as possible. Be aware of what they see and hear. Protect their innocent, young minds, while teaching them the truth as they grow. Children develop at their own rate within their culture. So, the parent should discern when each child is ready for certain knowledge.

Here are some guidelines for teaching children as they grow:

Children 0 – 3 years old
– They need to feel loved and accepted by their father and mother. Fathers and mothers should hug their small children, and tell them they love them. And parents should show their love through giving the small children attention and time. This will protect them from becoming sexually active later in life as an attempt to find love that was missing as a child.
– Teach them the names for their sexual parts as you teach them the names for other parts of their bodies.
– They will be curious about the differences between male and female bodies. Give very simple answers.
– They begin wondering where babies come from. They will notice pregnant women and animals. Explain that babies first grow in special sacks in the mothers’ bodies.
– They need to develop positive feelings about being a boy or a girl. This usually happens when they look up to their fathers and mothers. If you are a single parent, make sure your children spend time with someone like the missing parent. The best choices are godly people who will be in their lives for a long time – like an aunt, uncle, or grandparents.
– Do not give details about intercourse. If questions arise, just say, “We will talk about that when you are older.”
– Leave them in the care of people you trust completely. Sexual abuse can happen to children less than three years old! The sad truth is that if a very young child is sexually abused, it was usually a friend or a family member who committed this sin.

Children 4 – 6 years old
– Continue many of the things we mentioned for the smallest children. For example continue to show that you love and accept each child. As children grow, you will answer their questions more fully. For example, they will want to know how the baby gets out of the mother. But a child still does not need to know how the child got in – the details of intercourse.
– Teach them about good and bad choices. Encourage them to grow in self-control. This helps them build a foundation for godly, moral living.
– Teach them that God desires babies to be born in marriages with a mother and father. If a child does not have a mother or father living with them, they will begin asking questions about why. Give the simple truth without details. Never make a child feel guilty or at fault over what a parent did. Do not encourage the child to think badly of the missing parent.
– Help them feel that they can come to their parents for answers about sexual things.
– Teach them the difference between private and public body parts. The private parts are not to be shown or touched by others. If this has happened with small children who are all the same age, do not become angry. They are just curious. But if someone older is involved, use all your power to protect your child from abuse. Your child’s sexual future is at risk. Always let them know that being safe is more important than being polite. Teach them to shout “NO”, run away, and tell on anyone who touches them in a sexual way.

Children 7 – 10 years old
– They will have more questions about the father’s part in making babies. They will need to know the role of intercourse in creating a child. At this age, they may not be curious about the other purposes of sex, unless they have seen sexual acts in movies, pictures, or elsewhere. Do your best to protect them from understanding sex too early. Children need all their attention and energy to be applied to other areas of growth at this time in their lives.
– They will have more questions about how the baby grows inside the mother and how it is born. Some parents use the process of mating, pregnancy, and birth in animals to teach their children.
– Teach them about the sexual systems of the male and female body. Teach that sex and sexuality are normal and good in marriage. God made all things to reproduce.
– Make sure they understand the ways their bodies are going to change into adult men and women.

Children 10 – 13 years old
– Prepare them for the physical and emotional changes of puberty. Every child should know about menstruation and nocturnal emissions (wet dreams) before they experience these things. Assure that that people develop at different rates and that variety in human bodies is normal.
– Teach them that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman. Teach them to remain a virgin – someone who has not had sex until marriage.
– Help them to expect the sex drive to be powerful. But desire does not demand action. Teach them that the Holy Spirit helps us to have self-control over our desires (Gal 5:13, 16)
– Talk to them about pornography and other entertainment that will harm and twist their thinking about sex.
– Teach them that incest – sex with a family member – is always a sin.
– Teach them the value of modesty in dress and interaction with people.
– Educate them about pregnancy and birth control, when others their age are talking about these things. (Parents, do not assume that your children should be as old as you were when you learned these things. Find out the ages that children today are discussing about these sexual matters.)

Children 14 years and older
– Teach them the purpose of marriage and the other purposes of sex besides reproduction.
– Teach them how to talk about sex with others – and when it is not acceptable to talk about sex.
– Talk about the results of using and misusing sex as God has commanded. Include information about sexual diseases such as HIV / AIDS.
– Explain why our church teaches that abortion is wrong, except in rare cases when it threatens the life of the mother. Children belong to God, even when they are still in the womb. Remember, abortion stops a beating heart! (Assemblies of God’s position on abortion (pdf file)
– Help them to understand the opposite sex and respect them.
– Help to develop a personal plan for sexual purity
– Begin praying with them about wisdom in choosing marriage and a spouse.
– Teach them the steps by which sexual desire gets stronger and stronger so they will be aware.
– Talk to them about masturbation.
– Details about how to become a good lover should not be shared until engagement. When they become engaged, help them to get the information they need to prepare for sex within marriage.

Our children need good knowledge about sex in order to live wise lives. Sexual knowledge helps them understand themselves, protect themselves, and choose wisely.

Conclusion

We want our children to grow in wisdom just as Jesus grew. One of the ways parents can help is to make sure their children are gaining knowledge about themselves and the world. Parents should encourage a love of learning. They should strive to educate all their children. They should teach them practical life skills through everyday work. And parents should not neglect sex education. As our children acquire knowledge, let us pray that their hearts will be turned to God and to wisdom.

Pastoral Letter From Our Diocesan Bishop

The Most Rev Dr John Chew

5th Sunday of Easter: 10 May 2009

Dear Members of our beloved Diocese,

Grace, peace and strength in our Saviour’s Name.

Over the past week, the Christian church in Singapore, more particularly the Anglican Church, has been much in the media spotlight over the AWARE saga. I am aware that questions and even doubts have been raised amongst our people. I write prayerfully to try to help address some of the issues concerned, and do my best to provide background and context for certain actions or perceived lack of action to assist you in interpreting them. The last thing which I pray will not happen as a result of recent events is confusion and a breakdown of trust amongst ourselves.

I therefore write specifically to encourage you in positively and constructively continuing the prophetic and priestly responsibility of our Christian vocation to witness and serve in our society, thereby fulfilling Church’s and the Christian’s social responsibility to the nation. This responsibility is a vital part of our calling as the people of God. Through our Christ-like character, exemplary conduct in life, and our faithful, and at times, costly witness to God and His word we are to be the “salt of the earth and the light of the world” so that others seeing our good works would give glory to God our Father (Mt 5:13f, 16).

Our Witness Matters

We are grateful to God for MOE’s swift suspension of external sexual education programmes, pending careful review and the recent MOE statement following the AWARE saga:

“MOE and the schools do not promote alternative lifestyle. MOE’s framework for sexuality education reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit.” (ST, 7 May 2009)

Encouragingly, this reaffirms the position of our government expressed in the Prime Minister’s policy statement on the debate of Homosexuality in Parliament on 23 Oct 2007 explaining why the Government decided that Section 377A of the Penal Code was not to be repealed. What is noteworthy is that in it PM Lee underlines that “a heterosexual stable family is a social norm”. This certainly is to be lauded but also no effort must be spared to uphold and strengthen this norm. It is the position we in the Anglican Church in Singapore, together with the National Council of Churches, have all along maintained and contributed in the debates and stood for in public space.

Our Diocese has recently reiterated its position on homosexuality: “The Diocese of Singapore, in its teaching on biblical faith and order, is firmly committed to (the) orthodox position on sexual ethics… We believe and hold that the Bible is clear and authoritative in bearing witness to God’s will regarding human sexuality; namely that sexual relations are to be expressed only within life-long union of a man and woman in holy matrimony. All forms of sexual promiscuity, including homosexual relationships between men or women, as well as heterosexual relationships outside of marriage are incompatible with the divine vision and design of human life. At the same time, we hold that there is divine grace of forgiveness, healing and transformation for all who repent of homosexual or other illicit forms of sexual practice. We do not condone inhuman and unsocial acts against homosexuals nor do we discriminate against them. Rather we extend to them God’s love, compassionate ministry and true freedom through Jesus Christ.” (ST, 8 Aug 2008)

Before I comment on the recent event and some measures taken, allow me to share with you on a broader, holistic and equally important canvass, how the Anglican Church has been very much faithfully involved in the forefront of community services and social responsibility over the years and also hopefully you too can be involved and contributing in this regard well into the future.

Our Holistic Social Responsibility

Our Christian social responsibility is to “seek the welfare of the city” (Jer 29 :7). This includes the social and ethical considerations we bring to civil life and public discussion of fundamental issues based on beliefs and values of our faith. It goes beyond to embrace other concrete ways in which we as Christians participate in nation building and care for those in need in society.

Hence, our contribution as a Diocese, and individual Parishes, in founding Anglican Schools and providing a wide range of critical Community Services which are primarily family-centred such as Family Crisis Shelters and Mental Psychiatric Rehabilitation, the latest being the St Andrew’s Autism Centre. These services meet the various felt needs of our society irrespective of race or religion. In addition, several of our members are involved in their individual capacities in non-religious based voluntary groups and civic organisations that contribute overall to the welfare of our society. This is proper and reflects our awareness that we are part of a uniquely multi-faith, multi-cultural and multiracial society.

In the light of seeking to make a holistic contribution, our voluntary involvement in community development and welfare arms of the nation should not obscure the fundamental contribution we are to bring as Christians to the well-being and progress of the nation by our vocational (“work as God’s calling”) commitment to our jobs and positions of responsibility in both the public and private spaces.

Our Manner of Discharging our Wider Social Responsibility

Our Anglican ethos, just as in many other parts of the Church, sees a prudent differentiated role of the Church as an institution on the one hand, and individual Christians on the other. The God-given priorities for the Church are to teach her members the full counsel of God’s word, nurture them to follow Christ, equip them for service and ministry, and lead and help them to be “ambassadors” on behalf of Christ and His church to the world, holding out to others the truth and love of Christ. Part and parcel of being “ambassadors” to the world is our social engagement with the civil life and public issues of the nation. In this respect, the church is not a political institution but a religious-social institution with Scripturally-formed responsibilities, values and views on matters of national interest. Recently, we have as a Church actively and critically made our views known on various social issues: stem cell research, euthanasia, biomedical matters, homosexuality and gambling among others. We recognise that in the area of social discourse and engagement at the institutional level in a secular, multi-faith society, there needs to be appropriate “rules of engagement” and “language of discourse” to preserve the harmony and cohesiveness of a society such as ours which has inherent fault-lines.

I know there has been some questions and even disquiet amongst ourselves by the recent NCCS Statement on the AWARE saga. The Statement was made primarily, as it was critically necessary at that particular point in time in the development of events and heightened tensions, to allay public perception and quell social disquiet with potential undesirable consequences that the Church as an organised body was planning and driving the process of change in AWARE, which was not true. That is why the Statement categorically states that the church as a public and responsible institution is not involved and that the pulpit is not to be used for such goals. But the Statement also immediately went on to stress that this “does not preclude individual Christians… from contributing to matters of social concern… nor does it preclude churches from being involved in public square discussions within the rules of engagement in a multi-religious that Singapore is.” (ST, 1 May 2009). Thus, the Statement does at the same time affirm and safeguard the Church’s and the Christian’s legitimate and constructive role contextually in engaging social issues in the public square. We want to do so in a way that glorifies god and displays a godly blend of openness, fairness, reasonableness, winsomeness and wisdom in sharing and engaging the public square with our fellow-citizens, where all are accorded opportunities for engagement and discourse. So continue in it! As the Bible exhorts us: “Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech (and actions) always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer every one.” (Col 4:5f. See also 1 Pet 2:11f, 3:14-16).

Our Reflection over the AWARE Saga

In terms of the process adopted by some members of our Anglican Church who sought to re-direct AWARE to its formative objectives, we can learn from our mistakes. Important considerations and insights can be gained as we openly reflect on the views of the more reasonable critics from various communities who are not known to be supportive of the crux of the matter. Their “takeover” actions, though not contravening AWARE’s Constitution, nevertheless raised ethical and proprietary difficulties and challenges even in the minds of many Christians. While one may not agree, perhaps on socio-moral grounds, with the way they went about fulfilling their social responsibility in correcting the perceived dangerous direction the civic organisation was taking, we must all remain committed as members of the same Diocesan flock to provide a loving environment to care for and pray with them, and in God’s grace reflect together on this episode in the light of Scripture and under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. As Christ’s disciples, let us together learn how to express our vigour for God in our social responsibility while at the same time expressing our regard for and sensitivity to the good standing of the larger Christian body before God and the watching world. Our social engagement must be attentive to not jeopardising the organic unity of the Church (Eph 4:4-6) as well as heeding the Scriptural junction which says: “if possible, in so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Rom 12:18)

In terms of cause for which this group took action, that cause must not be mitigated or forgotten. As unfolding revelations have shown, the group’s concern for a direction that AWARE was taking in terms of its agenda for redefining mainstream sexual ethics and social norms was not misplaced. There is now growing concern in many quarters of Singapore society, not least parents, over AWARe’s perceived advocacy of homosexuality and the content of the Leaders’ Guide of their “Comprehensive Sexuality Education”. Following last Saturday’s EGM, there is a new ExCo in-charge of AWARE. An alarm has been sounded on the promotion of revisionist sexuality norms under the watch of the “old guard”. The Ministry of Education has taken commendable corrective action as a first response.

However one views the perceived involvement and the manner of their engagement of some courageous Christians in the recent AWARE saga, their costly effort has undoubtedly done our society a crucial service by directing the society’s attention to the issue of grave concern of what and how sexual education is being taught by some vendors and trainers in some schools. I believe that mainstream society at large would be grateful for the continued contribution and vigilance of the Christian community to the moral fabric and social well being of our society. But we should also be prepared that, regrettably, there will always be those who would not, and the ways and means they will employ themselves.

As responsible members of our society, we must continue to be courageously and consistently concerned about the direction and trends of our nation, especially those which are ideologically driven by non-Asian values and ‘values-free’ import, not out of moral arrogance but out of genuine care for our nation, our fellow-man and the generations that follow. We rely on God for the strength and grace to do so in those situations where our responsible witness for God and His life-giving values incurs risk and a heavy cost. Our Scriptures remind us that we are called to display the power and wisdom of the Cross in ways that the world would see as “weakness and foolishness” (1 Cor 2). At the same time, our steadfastness in holding our Christian worldview and values must be authenticated and accompanied by a winsome lifestyle characterised by good deeds and a demonstrated commitment to contribute to the wellbeing of our nation.

Conclusion

As the people of God, we must fulfill our social responsibility holistically and in keeping with Christ’s character and example of loving servanthood. In terms of social engagement on public issues,

– our cause must be biblically right;
– our process (or manner in pursuing that cause) must be exemplary, ethical, fair and wise; and
– our actions under God as individual Christians and as an institutional church be in harmony with each other, and appropriate to the rules of engagement that govern the wider society.

Tough and searching times give us the opportunity to grow and mature. As the people of God, let us trust in His Sovereignty over all matters and His wonderful ability, as we pray, to work all things “for the good of those who love him” (Rom 8:28) and we might add in our Centenary year, “for His Glory, His Name and His Honour.”

May the peace, strength and favour on the Lord rest on His covenantal people as we journey on as a Diocese and steadfastly fulfill His calling until His return!

In Christ,
The Most Rev Dr John Chew