Thursday, May 14, 2009

The fallacy of “growth at all costs” (part two)

The fallacy of “growth at all costs” (part two)
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Rajiv Chaudhry / Writer

In this four-part series, Rajiv contends that Singapore’s current economic model of high growth, which has served the nation well in the past, is unsustainable for the future as it will undermine Singapore’s ability to provide a high standard of living for its people.

In Part One, he highlighted two problems with Singapore’s economic model: the lack of land and resources, and an overheated economy with a skyrocketing GDP and ballooning population growth. In Part Two, he examines the consequences of exponential population growth.

If Singapore continues to grow at even half the pace it has in the past, its economy in 20 years’ time will be worth over S$400 billion[i], even if the current crisis wipes 20% off the 2008 GDP figure.

This will place it in the same league as the one now occupied by the UAE, Thailand, Ireland, Finland and South Africa[ii], currently ranked between numbers 32 and 36 in the IMF’s list of the world’s largest economies. All these countries have vastly larger land masses than Singapore.

To sustain an economy of that size, the population will need to be at least between 7 and 8 million[iii], possibly larger. The long-term population planning parameter of 6.5 million mentioned by the Minister of National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan last year[iv] would therefore appear to be an underestimated figure.

Since the government has acknowledged that citizens are not replacing themselves, let alone contributing to an increase in the workforce, the extra workers needed to support an economy of that size will have to come from one source: imports.

Stresses on Singapore’s infrastructure

To contain these extra numbers, housing density will rise. Fifty to 60-storey HDB blocks will become common; private apartments will become smaller and the government will actively explore the use of subterranean space for daily activities. The children of these new immigrants will need to go to school, so more schools will have to be built; they will fall sick so more hospitals will be needed. There will be pressure on restaurants, stores, libraries and every type of facility and public resource.

The Minister for National Development also mentioned in a speech in 2007[v] that by 2015 Singapore aims to double the number of annual visitor arrivals to 17 million (2008 visitor arrivals numbered 10.1 million), so some 30,000 more hotel rooms will need to be added to the current total of just over 39,000 rooms[vi].

Singapore will turn into a rabbit warren with underground hutches.

Our roads, already strained and carrying the world’s most expensive cars, will become even more congested. We will become accustomed to seeing the kind of gridlock we thought occurred only in Bangkok, Jakarta, Taipei and Kuala Lumpur. Shopping centres will become crowded, with people jostling for service. Keeping these places litter-free will be a major task. Public transport will see the kind of rush-hour traffic we think occurs only in Tokyo, London and New York.

As for greenery, the government has already bulldozed most of the primary and secondary jungle on the island, including the large mangrove forest in Punggol[vii]. It is only thanks to the foresight of 19th century colonial administrators that we have the central catchments containing the last remnants of primary Malayan forests on this island.

So Singapore, already the second most densely populated country in the world[viii], will become even more densely built upon. Its roads, occupying some 12%[ix] of its surface area and approaching the 15% occupied by housing, cannot be expanded by much more. Highways and other facilities will be built underground instead.

Increasing social tension

Most damaging of all, the social fabric of this country will be stretched to the limit. In 20 years, the pool of citizens will probably rise to about 3.5 million. Singaporeans will then comprise some 45-50% of the population; roughly one in two persons here will be a foreigner (for the purposes of this article, I use the word ‘citizens’ to refer mainly to those born in Singapore).

Singapore has always been an immigrant society. However, between 1819 and 1965 or in 146 years its population rose from less than 10,000[x] to 1.88 million. Immigrants of all descriptions — Europeans, Indian, Arab, Malay, Javanese and Chinese — were absorbed into the social fabric. Note, the average rate of immigration during this period was about 13,000 persons per year.

We are now talking about a completely different order of immigration[xi], which sees a wholesale influx of people whose value systems and language are, arguably, sufficiently different from those of Singaporeans and will give rise to tensions and strains in our society. It is one thing to absorb people “in small doses” where the new immigrants are given time to assimilate into the host country.

It is quite another to throw open the doors to a large inflow of people. Where such large-scale immigrations have taken place, for example in Germany under their “Guest-Worker” programme (resulting in some three million Turks settling in the country). Social problems have been created that remain unresolved to this day.

From 1961 onwards, Germany welcomed mainly poorly-educated Turkish “guest workers” into the country to provide unskilled labour. No attempt at social integration was made. It was intended that the workers would work for a while, then return home. The problem was: They stayed and multiplied. Today, issues of second-class citizenship, nationality and integration plague Germany where there are large immigrant enclaves, resulting in social stresses and security challenges, particularly in relation to the Muslim affiliation of Turks.

In Singapore’s case, the government is trying to better manage the issue. Nevertheless, the sudden influx of a large number of immigrants in this land-scarce country can cause a “pressure-cooker” effect where social stresses, cultural clashes (even though the immigrants may come from similar racial groups) and resentment at jobs being taken away can build up. Socio-economic problems are likely to mirror the multiplier effect of exponential population growth through immigration.

Singapore would do well to review its policies with a hard-headed look at what has happened in other countries supporting rapid population growth through immigration.

End of part two.

See also: Singapore’s Great Population Leap

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] GDP in 2008 was S$257 b; a 20% deflation will reduce the economy to a size of about S$200 b. Since the economy grew 4 times between 1990 and 2008, it is reasonable to assume a larger economy will grow at a slower pace. Even if it only doubles in size over the next 20 years, Singapore will have a S$400 b economy. If the crisis had not taken place, the 2008 GDP would have doubled to over S$500 b in 20 years time, assuming the same pace of growth.

[ii] IMF’s 2008 list of world GDP rankings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

[iii] Hong Kong with a population of 7 million has a GDP of S$310 billion. (NB 90% of Hong Kong’s GDP is accounted for by the service sector. If manufacturing had a higher share, an even larger population would be needed to support it). Singapore’s projected GDP of S$400 b would need at least a one-third larger population to supprt it than Hong Kong’s current population.

[iv] http://www.mnd.gov.sg/ search by population policy or Master Plan 2008

[v]http://www.mnd.gov.sg/ search by population policy or Master Plan 2008 ; http://www.mnd.gov.sg/publications/planningforgrowth/brochure.pdf

[vi]http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/economy/ess/aesa122.pdf

[vii]It is ironic that, having destroyed nature’s work, the Ministry of National Development is now spending millions to create artificial ‘wetlands’ in the new Punggol and Serangoon reservoirs to attract water and migratory birds

[viii]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density - Monaco is the most densely populated country followed by Singapore. Hong Kong ranks third.

[ix]LTA Land Transport Master Plan at http://www.lta.gov.sg/ltmp/LTMP.html, page 20 item 2.1.1

Singapore - A Pictorial History by Gretchen Liu

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28733.2

Beijing wizardry does the trick

May 14, 2009

Beijing wizardry does the trick
By Olivia Chung

HONG KONG - China's shares, which have led this year's global stock rally, continued their remarkable gains on Wednesday after the government announced that industrial output climbed 7.3% in April from a year earlier.

Never mind that the output gain was less than economists had expected, and was down from the 8.3% year-on-year increase in March. Rather, be amazed that so much more was produced even as the country's power output declined 3.5% in April, more than double the pace of the 1.3% power output fall in March.

Output also surged even as exports collapsed more than 22% in April and after overseas investment in the country slumped for a sixth month in March to be down about 21% in the first quarter from a year earlier.

Millions of Chinese workers have been thrown out of work as US and European consumers of China-made goods rein in spending; the number of jobless could be less than 5% - or almost 10%. But whatever it is, the wizards of Beijing, it seems, are successfully transforming the economy with barely a hitch from one that is dependent on overseas sales to one thriving on domestic demand.
The alchemy alleged to be doing the trick is the government's 4 trillion yuan (US$570 billion) economic stimulus package announced in November, with big-ticket items such as railroads and other infrastructure projects featuring strongly.

Urban fixed-asset investment grew a more-than-expected, and quite remarkable, 30.5% in the first four months of this year, according to Bloomberg, citing reports released on Tuesday.

In the process, Beijing officials are magically persuading the country's shoppers - or those still in work - to spend more and more, just as their livelihoods, just like those of their counterparts in the West, are threatened by almost unprecedented economic storms.

Retail sales in April surged 14.8% from 12 months earlier, says the government, after a similar jump in March, mocking critics who say Chinese people spend too little and save too much for that inevitable rainy day.

All that, of course, is if you believe the figures. Many analysts, including inside China, do not, and even the government is showing its concern, introducing a new law from May 1 aimed at getting more reliable numbers. That may lead to improved understanding of important parts of the economy such as auto sales, which feed into the retail sales figures, and home sales - a key economic indicator as well as being a factor in sales of things such as home appliances and furniture, which again feed into the retail sales data.

As a cause of national pride, China now claims to be the world's biggest car market, with vehicle sales setting a record of 1.11 million units in March, the third straight month they have exceeded sales in the US.

Sales of domestically produced motor vehicles, including passenger cars, buses and trucks, in March rose by 5% from a year earlier, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM), an industrial body. The increase has been interpreted as evidence that the Chinese government's stimulus policies are taking effect. This year, retail taxes on small cars have been halved and the government plans to give 5 billion yuan in vehicle subsidies in rural areas to push automobile purchases, after sales growth had slowed in 2008 to a 10-year low of 6.7%.

Auto analyst Peng Qing (not her real name) is more skeptical about the auto sales figures, after trying in vain to get authoritative and comprehensive data to carry out her work at a Beijing research company.

"Data received from industry associations and public security authorities is always found to have lies and discrepancies," Peng said.

Muddying the waters is the issue of whether the count is made of cars issued with new license plates. "Due to it issuing new license plates, the Public Security Ministry is a leading source of comprehensive and authoritative auto data. Such data is available on a regular basis overseas, but it is not made public in China," Peng said.

It is, however, available in China at a price.

A senior official of a Chinese automaker, who preferred to remain anonymous, said his company bought authoritative license-plate data from a transport management and research institute directly under the Public Security Ministry, which required its "preferred" customers to sign a confidentiality agreement not to release the figures. Even then, the data the automaker could obtain was severely limited. "We buy only the detailed figures relevant to similar models that are produced by us and our competitors - but it costs at least one million yuan a year," the company official said. More data is available for more cash.

The discrepancies between data on last year's passenger car sales disclosed by industry association CAAM and the ministry data on 2008 newly registered license plates are huge, according to another auto analyst, Zhang Yong (not his real name), who said he obtained his Public Security Ministry data through an "unofficial" channel.

"As the public and the media are denied access entirely to the authoritative data on vehicles with registered license plates, the figures given by most automakers are always 'injected with water," he said.

The country's leading auto producer for the past four years, FAW-Volkswagen, sold 513,000 vehicles in 2008, according to the industry group CAAM. However, the number of its cars newly registered with license plates last year was only 467,000 units, according to Zhang, using his ministry data.

Sales by China's top 10 automakers as provided by their industry body are on average about 10% higher than those indicated by licenses being issued, Zhang said. The biggest discrepancies, as much as 21%, are evident in the vehicle sales of BYD, in which US investor Warren Buffett has a 9.9% stake. According to CAAM, Shenzhen-based BYD, also noted for its battery-making business, sold 166,700 vehicles last year, while only 137,700 of its vehicles were registered with license plates, based on Zhang's ministry data.

CAAM vice chairman Gu Xianghua, conceding that it depended on the automakers for its data, said the association had called for disclosure of license plates data.

The picture is little better when it comes to property sales, despite these being a key indicator to the health of the economy.

Apartment sales in Dongguan, a heavily industrialized part of southern Guangdong province hard hit by the export downturn, dropped last year by 40%, according to the information website of the Dongguan housing administration bureau. Not so, according to a report by the Guangdong statistics bureau and a task force deployed by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which claims sales fell only 10%, to 5.096 million square meters.

Similar data discrepancies crop up in other cities, including Shanghai and Beijing.

If the country apparently has only a vague idea of how many cars are being bought or houses sold, it may have even less of a clear a picture of who can afford to buy them.

The unemployment rate in urban areas at the end of last year was 9.4%, according to the latest Analysis of and Forecasts for Social Development (or the Blue Book on Chinese Society), released last December by the Chinese Academy of Social Science (CASS), an academic research body directly under the State Council, or cabinet.

The CASS figure was twice the 4.5% registered unemployment rate for the period claimed by the Human Resources and Society Security Ministry. In April, Human Resources Minister Yin Weimin said the urban registered unemployment rate was 4.3% at the end of March, from 4.2% at the end of December.

Concern over unreliable statistics, and the danger they pose to government planning and spending, has prompted the government to set new regulations under which anyone who makes false reports or compiles fake data can be fired. The new rules came into effect on May 1.

"It was an open secret that local officials used bogus numbers to exaggerate local economic growth, impress superiors and win promotion, while many employees at statistics offices bowed to political pressure to report false data," a government spokesman was quoted in a Xinhua report as saying.

Top officials, including those at state-owned enterprises, who give instructions on faking statistics now face demotion, dismissal or unspecified criminal punishment. It is the first time government officials can be held responsible specifically for statistical corruption, Xinhua said. Misleading figures impair information on which macro-control policies are based and seriously undermine the Communist Party and the government’s credibility, the report said.

Peng and Zhang questioned whether the new rules would change behavior on the ground.

"Besides, the rules mainly target government agencies and state-owned enterprises," said Peng. "I don't see that the big or private enterprises will stop from exaggerating their sales."

A CASS researcher, Yi Xianrong, said data would improve only if the government altered its policy of evaluating local officials based on their ability to boost growth. Until then, officials were unlikely to change their attitudes towards faking statistics.

"The big issue is about the interface between business and government, and it's not easy to deal with by such regulations," he said.

Meanwhile, the benchmark Shanghai Composite Share Index, which has soared more than 44% this year, gained 1.7% on Wednesday. And Goldman Sachs expects economic growth to pick up even more pace - to 8.3% - this year. "We expect domestic demand growth to further strengthen," the US bank said last month.

The government is more modest - 8% growth will be fine, it said this month.

Olivia Chung is a senior Asia Times Online reporter.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28954.1

Aware: It has reared its ugly head

It has reared its ugly head

A group of women in Singapore recently sparked off an electrifying episode in a civil society that has not known much sensation. The team led by Ms Josie Lau has been voted out in an apparent defeat hailed as a victory for “what is right”. But like all reasonable people will acknowledge, popular opinion should never be confused with correctness.

So what exactly transpired in these 35 days? What evil have Ms Lau and her team committed to deserve this avalanche? It is easy to jump on the bandwagon and condemn with the crowd, but it is more admirable to investigate and think it through before making an informed stand.

They came as a large group to the AGM on 28th March, voted in numerical superiority to oust the Old Guard, and took over as the New Exco. They justified this with accusations at the Old Guard for promoting homosexuality and for losing sight of the Organisation’s raison d’etre. The Old Guard, mad and furious at being thrown out of power, used their connections with the national media to make their dethronement a headlines story. “It was a coup!”, they cried. And then, for every single day after, the press, especially The Straits Times, voraciously fed off this rare occurrence of a scandalous story, playing up two irrelevant things: that the New Exco used numbers to vote (who doesn’t?) and that the New Exco was mainly Christian (why should that matter in a secular organisation?). In the end, an EOGM was held and a vote of 2-1 brought an end to the saga with the Old Guard brought back to office.

And while I disagree with many things Ms Josie Lau and Team did, especially choosing to take-over instead of to communicate, and their mishandling of opportunities to engage and express clearly their plans and intentions, there are many issues that have been largely ignored by The Straits Times (which single-handedly rose this story to national level):

1. The take-over by the New Exco was legal

Though it may not have been the most productive option, the take-over by Ms Josie Lau and her team was completely legal and in adherence to Aware’s constitution, regardless of the extraordinary circumstances under which they occurred. Just because it was planned and successfully undertaken does not make it a “coup” which, by definition, is unconstitutional. The Strait Times not only ignored this oversight, they blatantly used the word “coup” on all its coverage of the story to describe the take-over.

Anyone knows that numbers matter in a vote, so why should coming in full force to vote for something you believe in be condemned?

2. Erroneous notation of “secular”

The Straits Times also insisted on sending an equally wrong message with the word “secular”.

Singapore is a multi-religious secular country. That it can even be defined as such shows that “religion” and “secularism” are not incompatible. “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.

So in a secular organisation like Aware, why should Exco members’ religious affiliations matter? But The Straits Times disregarded this and emphasised daily for the 35 days, that 6 (and not even all!) Exco members attend the same church. Try emphasising the religion/race of a particular cabinet minister and see what happens to you in this country where an ISA code is in effect.

As a result, a group of women concerned enough to attempt righting a wrong, came to be portrayed as extremists in a country where the media is trained to be as gospel.

Furthermore, as a separate issue on Secularism, dictionary definitions need to be challenged before they’re adopted to fit in their social context, especially in Singapore. MOE’s stand is that it “does not promote alternative lifestyles”. It claims to “reflect the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit”. This is an example of the brand of Secularism in Singapore.

3. Homosexuality

Under the delusive slogan of “inclusiveness”, gay rights groups have been promoting the belief that accepting homosexuality as a normal alternative lifestyle is “open-mindedness”, and that insisting it is abnormal (as opposed to “normal”) is “narrow-mindedness” (and, if the person is Christian, “Fundamentalist”).

But this is a secular country. The Christian/Muslim/irreligious stand that homosexuality is wrong should be equally accepted and respected. 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.

So a truly inclusive group is one that says “some believe that homosexuality is normal, and some believe that it’s abnormal; we leave this issue open to debate and do not make a stand on its normality”. And that is what the Old Guard was NOT! It was pursuing its non-inclusive pro-homosexual (intolerant of the “homosexuality is not normal” view) agenda uncontrolled.

4. Playing up of the $90,000 spent

Does anyone think that amid the storm of controversy, the New Exco was enjoying little holidays in exclusive resorts, and purchasing golden toilet bowls for the office? Playing up the amount without thinking about the facts is tantamount to implying this.

Aware’s constitutional clause for allowing no more than $20,000 to be spent in a month was written in the light of a consistent membership that never exceeded 300. In the last 5 weeks, this number soared to 3,000. Logically, the amount the Exco be allowed to spend should have been raised in proportion with this, but obviously, there has been no opportunity to address such issues. The EOGM itself (which could have been unnecessary) cost Ms Lau’s Exco $19,000 to be held at Suntec Convention Centre (the venue the police insisted on). The Aware website was hijacked by the Old Guard, and in order to facilitate new membership registration (which were coming at a dizzying rate), new bandwidth infrastructure had to be fixed. Legal advice, given the death threats, personal attacks, and public posting of sensitive private information, was legitimate and understandable.

Besides, the registration fee from the almost 3,000 new members meant that there was a windfall exceeding $90,000 in Aware’s coffer funds.

5. Failure of Old Guard to completely answer all accusations

This whole embroilment stemmed from one thing – the accusations and queries brought up against the Old Guard’s practises. Surprisingly, disproportionately little coverage has been given to these issues in The Straits Times.

Till now, the Old Guard has failed to completely answer all the accusations, especially on the sexual education program in schools. That the CSE teaches students as young as 12 years old that anal sex is “healthy”, homosexuality is “normal”, and pre-marital sex is “not negative”, it is not surprising that a group of Singaporeans, known to be generally conservative, decided to step in and intervene. Regardless of religious affiliations, or the lack thereof, many parents in Singapore are against such slants in sexual education.

6. Actions and behavior of the Old Guard

Hijacking Aware’s website, issuing death threats and publicly releasing sensitive private information are all shameless deeds. And in rallying people to swing votes, they did the very thing they accused Ms Josie Lau’s team of. And did this EOGM vote represent the view of local women, known to be conservative? Or were these voters mere sheep, excited by the rare occurrence of a sensational event in their country, conforming to the national media’s biased point of view? I know only 1 of the original 300 members of Aware, and she voted for the Exco led by Ms Lau because she knew what the Old Guard had been doing, and the New Exco’s plans and interests. The gay community is known to be outspoken and very passionate about their cause. Were the men who gave a loud voice in support of the Old Guard really doing this for women’s rights or for their own vested interest that is out of the scope of the Organisation? What do they know about the Feminist Movement? This not not a popularity contest; a vote by 1000+ people does not make one side decidedly right, or even represent their popularity in the general population.

7. Christians standing up against Christians.

I speak here to Christians who
1. believe that homosexuality is defined in the Bible as sin (but are dying to clarify that they too, are sinners like everyone else)
2. agree with Josie’s team’s INTENTIONS (to steer Aware from its non-inclusive agenda, c.f. Point 3), but not their METHODS:

It’s a sad day when these words of Jesus came to represent His own body: A house divided against itself cannot stand. That self-professed “Bible-believing” Christians would make public their opposition to the take-over by Ms Josie Lau disappoints me. Does everyone even read carefully, test what is written, think about it for themselves, before Liking a note? Of course we should not support Christians when they are doing the wrong thing. But we should never oppose them simply because we fear for our own safety, popularity or interests, in compromise of what is right. The Church’s stand in Nazi Germany is a good example of Christians taking the wrong stand (or sleeping), to devastating effect.

The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality (no, not homosexuals) in many places and not once condones it. While Christians may not all agree on this issue, this is the mainstream Christian stand as the strongest arguments are in support of this.

James 4:17 says that anyone who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins. That does not mean that Christians should take over every organization that makes decisions that do not conform to the Bible. But my take is this – a Christian should not stand up publicly in opposition to fellow Christians doing what they believe is the right thing if they are not completely wrong. In this case, while we may disagree with the methods, many of us agree with the intention, specifically, to stop Old Aware from promoting and teaching that homosexuality is “normal, not wrong like the Bible says”. Standing publicly “in opposition” to this group sends across the wrong message to the rest of the population WHEN it is not supported with explanations in support of their motivation.

Gay rights groups have made it seem today like it’s simply “inclusive” to accept homosexuality as a normal alternative lifestyle. But this is not true. In accepting this stand, Christians are effectively tricked into renouncing their own Christian (and not just Christian, but Muslim and also irreligious) stand that homosexuality is decidedly Wrong.

“Wrong” and “normal” are mutually exclusive. A Christian has to decide whether he believes in what the Bible says, that homosexual deeds are sin, or to believe what the world is preaching, that it is just a normal alternative lifestyle.

The Old Aware was dictating their pro-homosexual stand (which EXCLUDES the Christian belief) and teaching it to young children. They were, in effect, teaching Christian and Muslim children that their religion is wrong! This is the line Pastor Hong of COOS identified as the boundary we should not let our country cross. It is easy to wave this off as “a little issue that does not matter”, but Many Strokes Though With a Little Ax Hew Down And Fell The Hardest Timbered Oak. This is the reason why Ms Lau and her team decided to intervene. But they were cut off before they could prove their worth.

Ms Josie Lau and her team were not about forcing everyone to believe that homosexuality is wrong. They have reiterated that they would support lesbians who are being discriminated. But the media and online community would hear none of this. What her team attempted to do, and was stopped by a majority of 2-1, was to halt the Old Guard’s pro-homosexual agenda, to stop them from teaching children that it is normal to be gay – because this is in conflict with at least what a majority of the national population believes in. Were Christians part of the 2-1 majority? What were they intending to achieve?

As Christians, what are we doing about this issue? Are we sitting back in comfort, denouncing the take-over as “extremist” simply in hopes that we may be seen as “moderates” even though we share their same views on homosexuality? Are we slamming them quickly simply because they embarrass us? Or are we investigating this issue ourselves, looking into accusations from both sides, and thinking before making a conclusion about the correct stand to take? I lament the present state of our country and, consequently, the Body of Christ in Singapore, that we have been found to be unable to make up our minds on what is TRULY right, choosing instead to conveniently side whatever is easy, consequently giving anti-Christians fodder to attack us. Indeed, deep down, beneath the dissent, we all know that all this unhappiness stem from the fact that Ms Lau’s team is Christian.

This is what should have been done instead: dismantling LIES such as the one that says Christianity is about hating gay people, or that people go to hell for being gay. Christians should have been proactive in explaining what the Christian stand on homosexuality is: that homosexuality is wrong, but not wrong-er than all other sins, and that we’re all guilty of sin anyway, so that makes us Christians “equal” to the most debaucherous homosexual, not more righteous on our own, so there is nothing to hate or discriminate about. This would have been so much more productive than doing a Pontius Pilate by simply saying “I OPPOSE these Christians who have taken over Aware, even though I’m Christian myself!”. What benefit does that do?

Conclusion of the matter

All that said, I give credit where credit is due: to the Old Guard for their many years of good work in promoting women’s rights. I also express my disappointment with Ms Josie Lau’s team for their wrong methods, bad choices, mishandling of opportunities for engagement, and their lack of clear expressing of plans and intentions. This could have turned out so differently!

But in all, I exhort all Singaporeans not to lose sight of the big picture. Secularism and inclusiveness must not lose their true meaning in a country as multi-racial, diverse, and yet secular as Singapore. The media is not our gospel truth, and the bias in every article you read needs to be weighed before believing anything. Perhaps the only “victory” this episode has brought about is the Awareness it has raised in this country of the non-inclusive sexual education program in schools.

—

The whole point of this article is not to argue who was in the right or wrong. That is subjective. My point is to raise some issues that have been eluded from discussions for so long, so that they may be thought about, discussed and, hopefully, addressed.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.356

True Intentions of Gay Activists Now Revealed

True Intentions of Gay Activists Now Revealed

For several years, I have observed the growing influence of gay activists, unsure of their true intentions. Their tactics initially piqued my interest about 15 years ago, when they began comparing their historical plight with that of African Americans. This comparison was absurd on its face and I wondered how they could have the temerity to make such a claim.

After all, African Americans are the descendants of millions of Black Africans who were brought to these shores in chains, dehumanized and sold as chattel for 250 years with no rights whatsoever, then subjected to another hundred years of, at best, second class citizenship. Homosexuals have suffered no intergenerational discrimination, have never been denied the right to vote or own property, and can disguise their sexual preference for a lifetime, if necessary. Comparing the history of gays to that of African Americans is like comparing the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre to the Holocaust.

Yet, the claims of gay lobbyists that their rights are somehow linked to the freedom struggle of African Americans have slowly taken root in many sectors. They have even adopted some of the language of the Movement, referring to their cause as a struggle for "civil rights," and charging that those who oppose their crusade are either motivated by hate or are simply bigots.

But, after years of close observation, I have now uncovered the true intentions of gay activists: To silence, demote or excommunicate any individual who dares to disagree with the unbridled promotion of homosexuality and gay marriage.

The reason I use the term "uncovered" is that it is often difficult to determine gay activists' true intentions since, from the beginning, most have been less than honest about their goals or the facts. In addition to their co-opting the Civil Rights Movement as an extension of the gay cause, let us examine some of the other falsehoods they have advanced over the past decade.

Ten years ago, gay activists claimed they had no interest in pursuing gay marriage. They asserted that all they wanted was equal protection under the law, hospital visitation rights and the right to transfer property in the event of a death -- all of which I support. It is now obvious that their goal all along was the advancement of gay marriage. How else can one explain the methodical way in which they have worked to change marriage laws in small, liberal states initially, and later in as many other states as possible.

Gay activists also falsely claim that all homosexuals are born that way, with a so-called "gay gene." Not only has there been no conclusive scientific evidence to support such a claim, but a number of openly gay writers have, in their memoirs, suggested that childhood sexual molestation might be the root cause of their resultant homosexuality.

Roy Simmons, a former NFL player, wrote in his autobiography, Out of Bounds: Coming Out of Sexual Abuse, Addiction and My Life of Lies in the NFL Closet, that he was raped at age 10. New York Times bestselling author E. Lynn Harris was molested as an adolescent, as was Donnie McClurkin, an award-winning gospel artist. McClurkin has since renounced his homosexual lifestyle, has a wife and is a committed family man and minister.

While letting these and other young men's sexual predators off the hook, gay activists refuse to even acknowledge that such victims exist because their existence is proof that the so-called "gay gene" theory is flawed. Child psychologists agree that children who are sexually molested, whether at the hands of someone of the same sex or the opposite sex, are almost certain to have sexual identity problems as adults.

Then there is the element of experimentation with homosexuality. Actress Anne Heche, another victim of childhood molestation, dated men early in her adult life. In 1997, Heche publicly announced she was gay and that she was intimately involved with comedian Ellen DeGeneres. Three years later, she went back to dating men and, shortly thereafter, married Coley Laffoon, whom she divorced in 2007. Heche still dates men and recently gave birth to a baby boy fathered by actor James Tupper.

Sexual experimentation among adolescents is commonplace and, even if it does occur with members of the same sex, it is more a function of childhood curiosity than sexual orientation. If teenagers are told that sexual experimentation with someone of the same gender is the equivalent of some sort of "orientation," they may accept that verdict even though most would naturally adapt to a heterosexual existence once they matured.

Another falsehood told by gay lobbyists is that the Bible does not address the issue of homosexuality. This cleverly-crafted claim often succeeds because gay activists realize that few people actually read the Bible in depth, even those who are regular churchgoers. It is true that the word "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible for obvious reasons (the word was not in use at the time that the Bible was written). However, both the Old and New Testaments discuss sexual acts between those of the same gender and, in every instance, these acts are described in negative terms; in other words, these are acts in which believers are admonished not to engage.

One reason why gay lobbyists have been so successful in their quest to silence the public is that their amen corner, the mainstream media, has completely abdicated its role as an independent observer and has now become an ardent cheerleader for their cause. Watch any so-called debate on the topic of gay marriage on programs like MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, CNN's Larry King Live or Anderson Cooper 360 and it is obvious there is a tag team with the host and the gay marriage advocate on one side, and the supporter of traditional marriage on the other. Many reporters and commentators automatically label anyone who is opposed to gay marriage as "homophobic." Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote a recent column in which he described those against gay marriage as "spreading the poisons of bigotry and fear."

In fact, anyone who gets in gay advocates' way is subject to public ridicule, demotion or ostracism, and there have been a number of recent victims. Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was reportedly denied the Miss U.S.A. crown in this year's pageant because she honestly answered a direct question about gay marriage, indicating that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Perez Hilton, one of the pageant's judges who is himself gay, called Prejean a "dumb bitch" for her support of traditional marriage, as if the nationwide legalization of gay marriage is a foregone conclusion. In fact, a recent CNN poll showed that 55 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage, so Prejean's stance is clearly within the mainstream of public opinion.

Earlier this month, former NFL Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy withdrew his name from consideration for President Obama's advisory council on faith-based groups following pressure from gay activists. Dungy, it seems, had the audacity to endorse a ban on same-sex marriage in Indiana. And Pastor Rick Warren, who delivered the invocation at Obama's inauguration, has been hounded by gay groups ever since to the point that he now appears to be confused about his own stance regarding gay marriage.

Our hypersexual culture has already led to an increase in teen and pre-teen sexual activity, sexually transmitted diseases, child pornography, child abandonment, pedophilia and the posting of nude images of themselves on the Internet by adolescents. The jury is still out on the long-term effects of popular culture's promotion of homosexuality on children and teens. I suspect that, unfortunately, the end result will be an increase in homosexual behavior. As with advertising, an individual who is repeatedly exposed to visual images is more likely to adopt the behavior he/she sees.

Perez Hilton may have telegraphed gay lobbyists' next move when, during an April 21st interview on CNN's Larry King Live, he said that gay groups don't want to force churches to endorse or perform gay marriages. As I have learned over the years, one has to take gay lobbyists' pronouncements regarding actions they are not pursuing with a grain of salt. Translation: This is our next target.

Be on the lookout in the near future for gay activists' challenges to churches' tax exempt status for refusing to denounce their religious beliefs. Any religious leaders who are tapped for high-profile government positions will be subjected to a gay rights litmus test. Remember that the true goal is not equal rights; the ultimate objective is to bully, intimidate, subdue and control all opposition.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.354

A Critique: AWARE CSE - Comprehensive Sexuality Education

A Critique
AWARE CSE - Comprehensive Sexuality Education

This is an attempt to look at AWARE's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) as laid out in their Basic Instructor Guide (version 3, released in July 2008) which serves as a framework for the facilitation of their workshops. The Instructor Guide is henceforth referred to as IG here.

Ice-breaking activity (IG, pages 11-12) - Module 2

Students (in groups) are asked to generate words associated with sexuality and sex and then categorize them into three categories – positive/neutral/negative. Alternatively, students can refer to the words on Page 2 of their workbook and categorize those words.

The latter method of conducting this ice-breaking activity seems to recognize that some students may lack knowledge in these areas. This is confirmed by the note to the trainer (IG, page 15):

"In the event that the workshop participants are 12-13 year olds, trainers must take the lead in explaining the meaning of the terms used. Do not assume that the participants know/are aware of what contraceptives, oral sex or anal sex means. Take the time to explain the terms and in the event of lack of time, do not attempt to facilitate discussion on each word on the list."

This is imparting knowledge i.e., educating which is good.

Debrief of ice-breaking activity (IG, pages 12-15)

The following is the suggested categorization of words (IG, page 13).

Positive	Neutral	Negative
Pleasure Fun Orgasm Love Foreplay Condom	Homosexual Sexy Pre-marital sex Anal sex Virginity Pill	Pain Teenage pregnancy Rape Violence Drugs HIV/AIDS STI Power

I presume these words are the same words on Page 2 of their workbook.

According to the IG, there are no absolute answers, as it depends on the context. The IG goes on to explain why the words should be in these particular categories. Text in red is taken verbatim from the IG.

Anal sex - can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom.

they can get HIV from anal sex?

18. HIV/AIDS – HIV is a virus that is transmitted through bodily fluid transfer. This could be from unprotected sexual intercourse including oral sex and anal sex. A person does not show any symptoms when infected with HIV.

... but is this danger highlighted to students? Why categorize anal sex as healthy or neutral (1) when one can get HIV from anal sex? (2) when condoms are more likely to tear during anal sex? and (3) when one's potential sex partner does not show any symptoms of HIV even if he/she is infected?

There is speculation that AWARE has a hidden agenda behind the CSE workshops. The listing of anal sex as the first on the list of terms to be explained does not help. In any listing, there is usually a reason behind the order e.g., alphabetical order, importance, order as shown in the categories, etc. Anal sex is first on the list not because it starts with the letter "A" as the rest of the list shows that the words are not listed in alphabetical order. The listing also does not correspond to the listing in the categories. So why is anal sex the first item to be explained? Is it first in importance? Important to who ... the students? AWARE? Maybe, there is simply no reason behind the order of the listing.

Pre-marital sex - people might place pre-marital sex as negative, but it is really neutral. The key is whether the couple is aware of the consequences and responsibilities and is ready for them. Sex with girls under 14, with or without her consent, is considered as statutory rape. Sex with girls under 16, with or without her consent is considered as carnal connection.

here's the truth

really

Virginity - is a concept which is really difficult to fix, traditionally virginity is related to the hymen. But perhaps we can also think of virginity as a state of mind?

¹We would have to define "sex". In its biological and traditional sense, "sex" is the act in which the penis enters the vagina. But in today's world, shouldn't we extend its meaning to include oral sex and anal sex?

Fun – sex is meant to be fun. However, like all things that we enjoy, there are some rules and regulations for sex, which you must set for your self first. Then you must also know what your partner feels and whether he has a different motivation for sex than you have. Also, you need to be able to trust the person in order to have 'fun' with him. Will he stand by you in case things go wrong?

14. Teenage pregnancy – pregnancy is one of the major life events in a couples’ /woman’s life. Being prepared emotionally, financially and physically helps her to have a successful pregnancy and motherhood. A teenager might not be prepared for pregnancy and motherhood, which makes it a stressful event.

Foreplay – Foreplay is the physical and sexual stimulation (kissing, touching, stroking, etc.) that occurs in the excitement stage of the sexual response before intercourse or without intercourse. Foreplay increases the pleasure of sex.

Homosexual – people have different preferences for their partners. Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Just like heterosexuality, it is simply the way you are. Homosexuals also form meaningful relationships, and face the same emotional issues that heterosexuals do. The Singapore law does not recognize homosexuality and deems homosexual sexual activities as unnatural.

the majority

What's your view (IG, pages 17) - Module 3

In this module, students are asked to go through the statements on page 3 of their workbook and decide if each statement is true or false in their opinion. After 10 mins, trainers are to go through all or key statements and summarize as appropriate (see suggestions below).

We will take a look at two statements on homosexuality.

Homosexuality/same-sex preference (i.e. gays, homos, lesbians) is unnatural. - FALSE

For a homosexual, heterosexuality may seem unnatural. We do not know what causes homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter. Some scientific studies show people are born like this. Since lesbian, gay and bisexual people are not ill or abnormal, they don't need to "cured". These are not abnormalities or perversions; they are orientations or preferences, just like being left-handed or right-handed. All people, whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, have a right to live with dignity and in accordance with their preferences. Attempts to 'treat' them may succeed in temporarily changing sexual behaviour but also can lead to emotional and other problems.

The IG argues that homosexuality is not unnatural (i.e., it is natural) because some scientific studies show (such) people are "born like this" yet in the same paragraph it admits "we do not know what causes homosexuality".

What is "unnatural"? By definition, unnatural is "contrary to nature, not conforming to a norm, not typical, unusual". In that sense, the statement in item 2 is TRUE (i.e., homosexuality is unnatural) because heterosexuality is the norm. I accept the statement that from a homosexual's point of view, heterosexuality seems unnatural but that does not change what is the norm in nature.

Though I say homosexuality is unnatural, I am not concluding it is immoral on that basis. Under item 10 above, I raised the question of the determinant(s) of rightness or wrongness of an act and left it unanswered. As to whether lesbian, gay and bisexual people need to be "cured" that is a separate issue.

The chances of homosexuality increase because of childhood trauma, e.g. child sex abuse (e.g. when an older person has sex with or molests a young person with or without consent). - FALSE

That question is as difficult to answer as 'what causes heterosexuality?' No one knows for sure. Some foolishly suggest that maybe a person turned lesbian because she had a bad experience with a man, or a man became gay because a woman mistreated him. If this were truly the case, then there should be many more lesbian and gay people, shouldn't there?

Yes, no one knows for sure what causes homosexuality. But to answer the question "What causes homosexuality?" with the question "What causes heterosexuality?" is throwing a curved ball. There is no need to explain causes of heterosexuality, it is natural but not so with homosexuality.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.120

Teach your children to understand sexual matters

Teach your children to understand sexual matters

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.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.119

Pastoral Letter From Our Diocesan Bishop The Most Rev Dr John Chew

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

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.353

What a more appropriate CSE could look like (Part II)

Today’s (13 May 2009) Straits Times carried a forum letter, "Instilling Values a Complex Task", in which the writer states :

The social and cultural environment in which young people are informally educated consists of more than parents and teachers. In today’s information society, a child’s identity develops under influences that far exceed the censorship of well-meaning adults.

Television, cinema, popular music and the Internet, for example, are powerful and pervasive transmitters of popular culture and cosmopolitan values.

Such media images of gender roles and sexual behaviour draw on a range of liberal and conservative perspectives.

To what extent does the formal curriculum in schools teach students to critically analyse these diverse media messages so as to help them make responsible, well- informed decisions for themselves?

Censoring all alternative views would be contrary to the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) push for critical thinking. If argumentative essays at the secondary and junior college levels can encourage students to engage both sides of the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ abortion debate, why should not this balanced approach be similarly extended to the controversial topics of gender roles and sexual orientation?

A mature curriculum for sexuality education should reflect not only the mainstream views and values of Singapore’s society but also an educated awareness of alternative views based on well- researched knowledge and information.

Let’s pick up on two issues raised in this letter — the pervasive influence of the media and the need for a sensitive and intelligent sexuality education program to deal with this — in the light of the current AWARE Comprehensive Sexuality Education Program, which instructor’s guide states that :

(1) Pre-marital sex is neutral

(2) Anal sex is neutral

(3) Virginity is a state of mind

(4) Sex is fun

Suppose a student watches a movie (say "Rear Entry") in which there is an explicit sex scene between a teenaged couple (unmarried of course), and for some reason it has escaped the notice of our usually diligent censors that there is a very graphic depiction of anal sex. In the extreme, what might the instructor say in relation to this movie which is consistent with the CSE guide ?

Society and your parents probably don’t generally approve of pre-marital sex, but in reality there may be times when you just feel like doing it with your boyfriend. Lots of teenagers do it. Let me tell you that there is nothing to be ashamed of. Sex is fun and normal, and all forms of sexual activity (including anal sex) are ok. Just make sure you don’t get hurt and that your boyfriend is wearing a condom correctly.

Society and your parents probably think that virginity is important, so you should wait till you get married. Actually its all a state of mind. Some people think that anal sex or oral sex are not sex and therefore you are still a virgin as long as you don’t engage in virginal sex — that’s what you believe, and you are a virgin if that’s what you believe. Some people believe that you are a virgin if you abstain from sex for long periods between each encounter — what you believe, and you are a virgin if that’s what you believe.

Or would this be more appropriate ?

Society and your parents probably don’t generally approve of pre-marital sex, but in reality there may be times when you just feel like doing it with your boyfriend. Lots of teenagers do it. Let me tell you that sexual desire is nothing to be ashamed of. Sexual desire is normal, but I want you to be very clear that there are risks in engaging in (casual / pre-marital) sex, and it is partly for these reasons that your parents wouldn’t want you to engage in pre-marital sex. The risks are :

1. You might get pregnant.

2. You might contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), particularly when engaging in a riskier form of sexual activity such as anal sex.

3. Condoms when used correctly can significantly reduce the risk of (1) and (2). However, sometimes condoms are used incorrectly (especially in the heat of passion) or they fail (burst). If a condom does not completely cover a lesion, you might still contract genital warts.

4. You might feel hurt emotionally or "used" if the relationship does not work out. Or your privacy might be compromised — look at Edison Chen, et al !

If you do decide to go ahead and have sex, my advice is that you should at least insist that your boyfriend is wearing a condom. Maybe you even want to ask him if he has an STD or multiple sex partners before — that would be an indication (though by no means conclusive) of whether he is "safe" ! And if ever you engage in an unsafe sexual activity, please go and get yourself tested. Early detection and treatment will better protect your health, and is the only responsible thing to do for your future sex partner(s).

If you find all the above a little intimidating, then maybe casual / pre-marital sex is not worth the risk ! While a lot of teenagers do engage in sex, and you might feel pressure to do the same, there are also be teenagers who have consciously decided not to engage in sex until they are married. Maybe this seems a little old-fashioned — sex is portrayed so attractively and as so commonplace in the media. But movies do not create reality, you do. You have a choice as to whether to give in to pressure. You have a choice as to whether to avoid places and situations where you might be tempted to have sex with your boyfriend. And I hope that, when under pressure, you would have the courage and presence of mind to do what is safe even if it seems unpopular — abstaining from sex.

Admittedly the above is easier to pen than to say to a teenager. Well, my time will come when my kids become teenagers.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.118

What a more appropriate CSE could look like

What a more appropriate CSE could look like

In 1998, former US President Bill Clinton made the infamous claim that oral sex is not sex. More recently, the AWARE instructor’s guide to its Comprehensive Sexuality Eduction (CSE) Program makes the mind-boggling suggestion that, maybe, "virginity is a state of mind".

There are many things I find disturbing about the instructor’s guide to the CSE Program. Excuses such as only 1.5 minutes being spent on the topic of homosexuality or the instructors’ guide not being indicative of the message imparted during an actual CSE program do not hold water in my opinion. My retort to those excuses are :

(1) What exactly was said about homosexuality during the 1.5 minutes ? I’m inclined to agree with the old AWARE’s supporters that a 1.5 minute discussion on homosexuality (no matter how inappropriate) probably isn’t going to turn a girl into a lesbian. But is a simple discussion revolving around the statement that "homosexuality is neutral" sufficient to convey complexities such as that not everyone who engages / experiments with homosexual sex is necessarily a homosexual, and that at least for those who are merely "experimenting", homosexuality is not "just the way you are" (another statement from the material) ?

(2) Even if instructors do not repeat every word in their guide to students, surely the answers provided in the guide (including the inappropriate answers) will be used as and when a student pops a question which the guide provides an answer to ?

Some of my other concerns are :

(1) Classifying "anal sex" as healthy or neutral, when this form of sexual activity (where it involves penetration of the anus with a penis) often (as far as I’m aware, can’t speak from personal experience here sorry) involves more pain and carries a higher risk of transmission of sexual disease.

(2) Classifying pre-marital sex as neutral.

(3) Classifying virginity as a state of mind (whatever that means).

(4) Categorically denying that the possibility that childhood trauma may cause homosexuality, when no one knows for certain the cause(s) of homosexuality.

I am therefore somewhat gratified to hear, on my return to Singapore, the Ministry of Education saying that the CSE program was inappropriate because it "convey[ed] messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex". I am also gratified to observe Internet forumers in general agreement that there was something inappropriate about the CSE program, though this has not stopped the occasional odd opinion that there was nothing wrong and everything right about the CSE program : see here and here.

I think a more appropriate CSE could, on the topic of sex, say :

(1) That sex is essentially a risky activity (I am such a pessimist). That there will always be a risk of unwanted / unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), even if condoms are used.

(2) That when a couple engages in sex within the boundaries of marriage there is greater (albeit sometimes misplaced) assurance that the husband would support the wife in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, and that the husband / wife have not been unfaithful and are therefore free of STIs. Even then, pregnant mothers are encouraged to test for HIV in case they had been infected by their husbands, to prevent the onward tranmission of HIV to their babies. Hence pre-marital sex is higher risk activity, compared to sex between married couples.

(3) That certain forms of sexual activity, such as anal sex, are particularly risky, because of the higher risk of STI transmission.

(4) That responsible sex in a pre-marital (and even marriage) context means (i) ensuring that you are free of STIs before engaging in sex (or that you inform your partner you have been sleeping around and I-might-have-caught-an-STI-from-I-don’t-know-who-but-nevermind-will-you-still-have-sex-with-me-please ?), (ii) using a condom, and (iii) being prepared to deal with the potentially lifelong consequences should something go wrong, ie. STI infection or unplanned pregnancy.

(5) That for the above practical reasons, sex should ideally be confined to married couples, and virginity is rightfully valued.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.113

Liu Guo Dong: “Let the law resolve the issue if talks fail”

Liu Guodong told reporters at his hotel this morning that he is still waiting for STTA to contact him and he does not want to talk much now.

He said the purpose of his trip was to obtain a clarification from Lee Bee Wah and he wants to meet her and nobody else. He will consider taking legal action against her if talks fail.

Liu claimed that he had no intention to create trouble for STTA as he has his own matters to attend to such as meeting the President of the Indonesia Table-Tennis association.

He demands STTA to clarify its statements about him in the press and is now waiting for them to give him a call. “They should take the initiative to contact me,” he said.

Liu Guodong said: “I was a staff of STTA in the past, but not now. I will not go and stand outside the association like a fool.”

STTA has expressed willingness to meet up with Liu if he is free tonight.

A STTA spokesperson told the media that they did not manage to contact Liu yet and they will meet him tomorrow if he is not available tonight. Lee Bee Wah will probably be present during the meeting.

Liu Guodong is confident that 80% of public opinion is on his side. He was elated reading about the level of support he had received from the public in the papers.

He revealed that he still harbored sentiments for Singapore: “The last 4 years in Singapore were my most successful 4 years. I do not clamor for fame. The previous STTA President asked me to train the women team which I readily accepted. I am still willing to return to the team in the future even if I am not paid a single cent.”

Lee Bee Wah remained uncontactable for the entire day. Both the journalists and Liu had tried calling her to no avail.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28588.17

SingapuraKini

Thursday, May 14, 2009

The fallacy of “growth at all costs” (part two)

Beijing wizardry does the trick

Aware: It has reared its ugly head

True Intentions of Gay Activists Now Revealed

A Critique: AWARE CSE - Comprehensive Sexuality Education

A Critique
AWARE CSE - Comprehensive Sexuality Education

Teach your children to understand sexual matters

Pastoral Letter From Our Diocesan Bishop The Most Rev Dr John Chew

What a more appropriate CSE could look like (Part II)

What a more appropriate CSE could look like

Liu Guo Dong: “Let the law resolve the issue if talks fail”

Followers

Blog Archive

Contributors

Thursday, May 14, 2009

A CritiqueAWARE CSE - Comprehensive Sexuality Education

Followers

Blog Archive

Contributors

A Critique
AWARE CSE - Comprehensive Sexuality Education