Thio cancels NYU stint

July 27, 2009
Don lost the chance to field her arguments in marketplace of ideas

IN THE wake of Professor Thio Li-ann's decision not to teach at New York University (NYU), much as been made of a lack of tolerance of diverse views in that university. Both Prof Thio and Mr Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University have cited the sequence of events as a display of intolerance.

With respect to both the learned professors, I feel this is a mischaracterisation of what transpired at NYU. A right to express one's views freely comes with the right of others to disagree with those views, and one must take courage to defend what one believes in.

The NYU position throughout this unfortunate sequence of events has been that while the faculty may disagree with Prof Thio's position, it believes that academic freedom should be respected. Even when alumni threatened to boycott future fund-raising events unless Prof Thio was refused access, the university was steadfast in its position that it would not force Prof Thio to withdraw. �

It is disingenuous to paint the disagreement as a suppression of alternative views. Surely one cannot be naive to the fact that the attitude in the United States towards homosexuals is significantly different from that in Singapore. Just as Prof Thio was entitled to her view that homosexual acts should be criminalised, so were the NYU faculty and students entitled to their view that such discrimination is abhorrent.

In many ways, what happened at NYU has been disappointing. By cancelling her courses, Prof Thio has lost the chance to field her arguments in an open marketplace of ideas. The NYU students too have lost the opportunity to be taught by someone who, all views aside, is an extremely intelligent academic with a great presence in the classroom.�

Leon Michael Ryan


-----------------
July 27, 2009
Don's withdrawal from NYU: Don't be too quick to claim victimhood

I REFER to the reports, 'Thio Li-ann cancels teaching stint at NYU' (last Friday) and 'American social activist support Thio Li-ann' (last Saturday), regarding law professor Thio Lin-ann's withdrawal from her teaching stint at New York University (NYU).

The reports imply that Professor Thio felt she had to withdraw from NYU after she was intimidated by the hostile atmosphere there. This should be examined more closely.

At no point did NYU rescind its invitation to Prof Thio. Likewise, the gay university campaign group OUTLaw did not ask for her invitation to be withdrawn. It sent an e-mail message to students stating its position on her homosexual issues, with links to videos of speeches she made in Parliament in 2007. In OUTLaw's own words:

'While respecting Dr Thio's right to her opinion and without questioning her teaching abilities, OUTLaw believes it is important for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and allies to be aware of her views in order to make fully informed decisions regarding class registration.'

There was also an online petition that expressed 'deep disappointment' at NYU's decision to appoint her as Global Visiting Professor of Law. The petition, which drew about 880 signatures, did state that the 'decision to appoint Dr Thio was a grave mistake and her designation to teach 'Human Rights in Asia' is inappropriate and offensive'. But there was no explicit call for her invitation to be rescinded.�

Prof�Thio�is quick to claim victimhood. But when�she accepted the invitation, she must have been aware that her views would not be popular at NYU, a famously liberal university. She should have been prepared for NYU undergraduates to express their opposition strongly.

Bert Wee
-----------------

NUANCE, A SO-CALLED MEMO AND THREATS ...
Letter from Professor Thio Li-ann
05:55 AM Jul 27, 2009

I WRITE to clarify a few points in "Former NMP calls off professorship at NYU"(July 24).

First, the online petition asserting I was an "opponent of human rights" over-simplistically assumes "gay rights are human rights".

Certain countries legally recognise the controversial idea of "gay rights", but this is not a universally accepted human right. Further, the idea of "gay rights" may cover anything from prohibiting workplace discrimination (which I support) to same-sex marriage (which I oppose).

Nuance is needed; simplification is sensationalistic.

Can a capitalist teach Marxism? Could someone who supports the death penalty (which many at New York University disagree with) teach human rights?

There is no settled theory of the source of human rights; many competing interpretations exist. There are core (prohibiting torture) and contested (same-sex marriage, euthanasia) rights.

Second, no 18-page rebuttal was sent to the NYU law faculty. I do not know who posted the so-called "18-point memo" circulating online. This was an internal email I wrote in response to a non-law NYU staffer's email copied to the Dean (who made no response) and others, strongly criticising my appointment.

This was just one of the hostile, often vulgar messages I received, some insulting my intellect, gender, ethnicity and country.

I sought to clarify misrepresentations and rebut potentially defamatory allegations made to personnel involved in the Global Faculty programme which invited my visit.

It is disappointing the NYU law dean would label my response "offensive" and "hurtful", while ignoring the offensive, hurtful and even threatening messages directed against me.

To say I was "disappointed by the hostility" minimises the virulence of the attacks I received. A cursory glance at the invective online explains why many friends worried for my safety.

An American NYU alumnus wrote to the NYU law dean (copied to me), saying he had the impression the dean was "not troubled by the kind of atmosphere" that I was "expected to endure" had I decided to teach at NYU.

Some NYU faculty, staff and students also sent supportive emails; a gay New Yorker apologised for the bullying tactics of certain activists who did not represent him.

Academic freedom dissipates in a hostile environment - by this I do not mean mere viewpoint disputation. Why prejudicially assume I would create "an unwelcoming atmosphere" in class, as opposed to politicking students or frosty faculty members?

Why assume I would not permit free discussion when it is "political correctness" which chills free debate? An email from a Harvard law graduate noted of this affair: "Things just got a little bit darker down at NYU.

-----------
Prof Thio,

"Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic." Very well said. You are a very capable, eloquent academic. Too bad I disagree with you about homosexuality.

The next time anyone says that homosexuality is "anti-family", please help us all tell them many gays can and do love their families a lot. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.

The next time anyone says gays are responsible for AIDS/HIV, please remind them the virus spreads because of promiscuity and unsafe sex, not because of a person's sexuality. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.

The next time someone equates supporting homosexuals as supporting incest, rape, infidelity, murder, animal sex, please help us all tell them those are wrongful, vulgar accusations. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.
Posted by: wugui1977 at Mon Jul 27 10:33:45 SGT 2009

Re-merger revisited - Response

July 27, 2009
S'pore in a far better position to survive independently

I REFER to last Saturday's letter by Mr K. Kalidas, 'Revisiting merger'.

Singapore was expelled from Malaysia in 1965, chiefly due to its uncompromising stance on giving equal treatment to people of all races. To put it simply, Singapore's sovereignty was born out of principles and confidence. After 44 years of independence, the considerable economic gap is one of the many testaments to what a nation with strong principles and confidence can achieve.

Like an abandoned child left to fend for itself in an uncongenial milieu, Singapore in 1965 held little hope in the minds of almost all pundits. Despite seemingly insurmountable odds, Singapore survived and grew considerably, and became nimble and tough.

In human achievement, no civilisation, nation or city has had infant mortality rate drop as quickly as in Singapore. One top of that, no country with such diverse demographics has achieved the racial and religious harmony of Singapore.

China, with one-fifth of the world population, is the world's fastest-growing major economy. At the current clip, it is set to be the largest economy in the world by 2050. The Chinese have enormous brainpower but still model their developing cities on Singapore. This cannot be a coincidence. It is a strong indicator that Singapore has moved in the right direction and implemented the right policies.

Despite shifts in geopolitical tectonic plates and economic fundamentals, the Singapore of 2009 is no doubt in a better position than the Singapore of 1965 to survive independently for the next century. The key is to keep institutionalising what works and never waver on the very principles that created Singapore.

Singapore did relatively well, precisely because it stuck to its principles with confidence. Unless Malaysia adopts the same principles, it can never pose a challenge to Singapore's independence. The Singaporean Narrative, to use the term coined by Professor Kishore Mahbubani, is not a mirage, but a real possibility.

Tay Xiong Sheng

Revisiting merger

July 25, 2009
TIES WITH MALAYSIA

[Commenting along the way. Generally, I think it is good that we consider all possibilities and keep an open mind, but re-merger is highly unlikely, and I'll cover that at the end.]

IN HIS commentary on Wednesday, 'KL-Singapore ties: Turning of the tide', Mr K. Kesavapany seems to agree with his Malaysian friend Din Merican that Singapore is no longer dependent on the Malaysian hinterland for its economic prosperity as it is driven by financial and intellectual capital.

I tend to see things differently. The very economic fundamentals that required Singapore to join Malaysia may revisit us 30 to 40 years down the road for us to consider seriously the option of re-merger.

In the long term, the rise of China and India, the waning power of the United States, the European Union and Japan, and the concurrent economic development and prosperity of regional countries, including our neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia, will have serious implications for Singapore's survival.

Fifty years ago, Malaysia imported its Mandarin oranges, lychees and longans and other Chinese goods largely from Singapore, as Malaysia shunned direct import of China goods for political reasons. It is no longer so and this is one example where the tide has turned to Singapore's disadvantage.

[Economic fundamentals have changed vis-a-vis Singapore-Malaysia relationship. In the past, we took as a given the need for the "hinterland" of Malaysia. However, that position of M'sia can be seen (and is seen by Dr M) as insulting. No country would enjoy being labeled as any other country's "hinterland". So yes, we don't re-export Chinese goods to M'sia because situations change. But Singapore changes with it.

We move into higher value added products, like wafer fabrication which is a water-heavy industry. M'sia followed us and competed with us, but they wanted an additional advantage, so they tried to up the price of the water they were selling us to ridiculous rates. We went the NEWater route and we aren't looking back.]

The rising prosperity of regional countries will drive our imported talent back to their home countries and beyond, where good jobs await them in plenty, including thousands of Malaysians who make up a critical segment of our manpower.

[Certainly, there may be a pull back to the home country. But it is not just good jobs awaiting that will pull people back. Singapore's attraction is not just our prosperity, but how we create this prosperity and the opportunities Singapore can offer both in terms of career but also as a place to live and raise a family. ]

Also as these countries replicate Singapore's work efficiency, organisation and training of labour in higher skills, they will no longer need Singapore as a trading and service hub to conduct their cross-border business transactions. The reality is no country, big or small, however close and supportive of us they may be now, owes us a living.

[And we have never operated on "the world owes us a living" presumption. Everything we get, we paid for or reimbursed with comparable value. Cheap raw water from M'sia? In exchange we provided subsidised treated water so needed that M'sia drew much more than their allowance in the water agreement. On the other hand, M'sia seems to think that we owe them something. This is historical emotional baggage that will not fade away so easily.]

Did Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent visit to Malaysia - undertaken primarily to lay the ground work for second-tier leaders in both countries to get to know each other better and forge stronger ties - also imply a long-term view of possible re-merger as an option that should not be ruled out?

MM Lee said in 2007: 'If they (Malaysia) would just educate the Chinese and Indians, use them and treat them as their citizens, they can equal us and even do better than us and we would be happy to rejoin them.'

[You may wish to read "re-merger" in that. But I wouldn't. MM Lee is a pragmatist. The meritocracy principle will be a non-negotiable for Singapore. But in Bumi M'sia, that is still a long way away. And if M'sia does surpass Singapore, what benefits would there be for M'sia? Would it not be better to keep Singapore separate and independent and an example to trot out every now and then to show how far M'sia has come? They don't owe us a living if they ever surpass us. Can we rejoin M'sia as equals? I don't think so. As a vessal? That was the plan 44 years ago, but it may not be relevant. However for historical closure M'sia might take us back as a humbled vessal. But it would not be to our advantage.]

It is important that non-Malay Singaporeans learn the Malay language. Forty years ago, most Chinese stall keepers spoke a smattering of Malay, but now it is an alien language. The Government should encourage learning Malay on a wider scale.

K. Kalidas

[And then an agenda from left field. In the long term view of history, anything is possible and remerger cannot be ruled out. But, we can consider situations where remerger would not occur. The following scenarios does not consider how likely it would happen, just merely what if it happened - would merger be probable?

Situation 1. Singapore strong, M'sia relatively weaker.
I would say that this is the current situation. In such a situation, Singapore would gain nothing from merger. If Singapore wre were still dependent on primary industry, perhaps. If merger happens it would have to be on Singapore's terms, and it is unlikely that M'sia would swallow its pride and accede to Singapore's terms. No matter how bad the situation. And it is also unlikely that Singapore would want to be responsible for M'sia. That would be too big a job.

Situation 2. M'sia ascendent, Singapore relatively weaker or in decline.
Here the tables are turned. Singapore has no natural resources to speak of. M'sia would have little reason to merge with Singapore. The S'pore Chinese would probably not be very amenable to M'sia's political system and taking in Singapore would be like letting a viper into your house. There would be little material or political gain from merger (from the M'sian perspective) and more risk than is necessary. M'sia would probably do better by letting Singapore get weaker, use Singapore as an example of a weak neighbour, and maybe offer some humanitarian help now and then to gain moral superiority. If M'sia succeeds without Singapore, it makes no economic sense to bring in a weakened Singapore. We would only be a liability and a risk.

Situation 3. S'pore & M'sia equally or comparatively strong economically.
Negotiating from strength sounds more plausible. However if the political and philosophical gulfs that led to Separation in 1965 are still there, there would be little reason to merge as the reasons for separation still exists. Thus S'pore & M'sia may be strong economically but each is strong for different reasons. In any case if each has succeeded without the other, the question would be what synergy would a merger bring and at what costs? S'pore would never go the bumiputra route and would never accept it. While I believe that for as long as M'sia has the Bumi policy they can never be as competitive or efficient, this scenario assumes that they succeed with or in spite of the Bumi policy. Okay, what if M'sia had set aside the Bumi policy (which the current PM is starting to do, but given the tendency for M'sia to u-turn their policy...)? There would be no barriers (from the Singapore perspective) to re-merger, but there are no push or pull factors to encourage merger. When Singapore merged 46 years ago, it was to break away from the Brits for independence. There is no such push now. Singapore is already independent and in this scenario, it is doing fine. Similarly, M'sia has no push factor to seek re-merger other than a Malay hegemony, which would be tied to Malay dominance or supremacy, which means that M'sia would not have abandoned the bumi policy.

Situation 4: S'pore & M'sia both weakened and in decline.
Merger here must be seen as a win-win synergistic solution to both countries fighting for survival.  But it may not be so. In times of trouble, doors tend to close. it would take visionary leaders on both sides of the causeway to see a way forward that ties the destiny of two poor countries together. ]

In (limited) defence of like-minded enclaves

July 24, 2009

I THANK Ms Lydia Lim for her column last Friday, 'Beware enclaves of the like-minded', which highlighted the difference between 'religiosity per se' and 'religious practices that lead to closed communities'. I am glad she warned against an unqualified 'flight to uniformity'.

However, her point was made at the expense of 'like-minded enclaves', and it would be equally disastrous if Singapore ended end up distrusting any and every group's deeply held, faithfully practised convictions.

There is another, better way to build healthy communities, and it lies in good, old-fashioned communication and the careful instruction of Singaporeans, beginning with clarifying our thoughts and public writing on this subject.

While I share Ms Lim and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Boon Heng's concern regarding closed communities, care needs to be exercised in defining 'closed'. In a necessary and very real sense, every cogent belief or thought system rules out ideas that are antithetical to or incompatible with it. This is simply how we define who we are and what we believe - by drawing boundaries.

These demarcations are not inherently harmful. 'Good fences make good neighbours', so the late American poet laureate Robert Frost perceptively penned. As Ms Lim rightly notes, any community trades on its simultaneous openness and 'closedness' within the larger society. The enclaves per se are not the problem; to speak of integration is meaningless if there are no pre-existing differences.

Nor should we move to eradicate all those differences - that would be a flight to homogeneity.

What we must avoid is segregation, the 'closedness', not of healthy communities within a society, but of isolation without participation in the greater whole.

So how do we build communities that reach out beyond the very fences that construct and contain them? Again, the fences should not be mistaken as the problem. Rather than discourage people from believing anything too deeply or from disbanding their support groups, we should encourage and value communication and understanding across these social groups.

We must surely learn to recognise and accept our differences, and still choose to interact with one another; this should not exclude having the support of a like-minded group. To return to the proverb 'Good fences make good neighbours', well, we can value our neighbours, as neighbours - but they do not live in our homes. Nor should they have to, to be valued.

It is worth spelling this out in our public discussions because the word 'tolerance' has shifted in meaning in recent years (especially in terms like religious tolerance), largely because of the influence of political correctness in the United States and elsewhere. It used to be that tolerance meant putting up with someone else's point of view and recognising that he was entitled to express it, even if one had an entirely different point of view.

Today, tolerance seems to mean never really expressing your view because that in itself impinges on someone else's perceived right not to be discomfited by it; and that is a shame.

Such tolerance is more likely to produce segregation than the sensitive practice of entrenched beliefs. For where would the interaction between those beliefs be if no one is voicing true convictions? Where is the 'multi' part of our multi-religious national identity?

Are the common bonds of our nationhood so superficial that we cannot express deeply held religious beliefs in a climate that can agree to disagree?

How much in-depth understanding of others can we ever have if the only beliefs - spiritual, intellectual, emotional or otherwise - we can share or bear to hear from others are watered down and of the lowest common denominator? How then to develop our own minds or form our own opinions? Is it any wonder we are constantly lamenting the state of this nation?

And so, finally, in the interest of genuine understanding, on to the example Ms Lim gave: the worrisome 41.5 per cent of Christian clergymen who would resist the perception that all religions are equal. In fact, many mainstream Christian groups do not accept that all religions are right and the same. Those clergymen are only being faithful leaders. They are neither against charity nor against dialogue.

Ms Lim, Mr Lim and others would be less worried if they understood also that the unique calling of these Christian clergymen makes them more, not less, responsible for and thoughtful about their interaction with larger society, including other religious groups, the authorities and the law of the land. The label 'closed' or 'exclusivist' is unhelpful and misleading for a religion just as deeply committed to reaching out and engaging with the unlike.

Religious devotion is not in itself a threat to social cohesion. I think we can also agree that we are talking about social responsibility in exercising those personal beliefs. If so, let us carefully define and adequately address such things as communication, tolerance (old style) and unity in diversity.

Do not demonise 'likeminded enclaves' and inadvertently fuel the misguided notion that harmony and unity are about never being deeply committed to local causes or never hearing or expressing viewpoints different to one's own. What we need in a climate of weakening social bonds (if that is the perceived fear) is greater, not less, understanding of those around us.

Karen Kwek (Ms)

[This is generally a well-argued and well-presented position. I can agree that groups need boundaries for their identity. And every community can be both closed and open.

And yes I agree that a more tolerant definition of "tolerance" would be nicer, but the agenda of the aggressively evangelistic is suspect. One comment on-line:

Being an ex-christian, I can agree with Karen kwek that the Christian religion is deeply committed to reaching out, but it's mostly the kind of 'reaching out' the others are afraid of - trying to convert someone else relentlessly like a hardcore salesman, even after the potential 'victim' says 'not interested'.

'Reaching out' as in telling others what you believe is fine. It is the 'reaching out' as in trying relentlessly to convert( eg. waiting at the school gates to distribute religious literature and stopping students from leaving until they take a copy or give their phone numbers) that's unsettling.
Posted by: GhostRider666 at Fri Jul 24 22:15:57 SGT 2009

Karen also asks, "can we not agree to disagree?" Yes we can. But the aggressively evangelistic cannot.

In fact, "many mainstream Christian groups do not accept that all religions are right and the same."

If so, can we agree to disagree and not talk about how Christians disagree with other religions? Because what would be the point? To realise we disagree? Or to realise how much we disagree?

For as long as aggressive evangelists treat their religion as some divine MLM or pyramid scheme, there can be no tolerance at the level of open discourse leading to agreeing to disagree.

Karen speaks of "greater understanding of those around us". Perhaps she should put her money where her mouth is. What steps has she taken to understand another faith? Or is her understanding of "understanding" purely one way? That non-christians should understand why Christianity is the one true religion.

Here's a deeper understanding of multi-religious Singapore. If one religion aggressively converts the followers of another, understand that the other religion will not stand idly by with passive "tolerance". They will fight for their followers, and the survival of their faith.

What's so "multi" about multi-religious Singapore? It is that the religions co-exist without attempting to wipe each other out either with violence or more subtly by systematic conversion of followers of other religions. Maybe that's a superficial definition of "harmony", but it beats a situation of religious antagonism/aggression.

The reality of Singapore (and most places) is that harmony is achieved by respecting boundaries (Karen's quoting Frost - "good fences"). Championing some idealistic notion of tolerance and free discourse while ignoring the effect of such idealism is naive, irresponsible and dangerous.

Eventually, it may be safer to ban all cults that pursue evangelisation as a core duty of its members.]

[Edited May 1, 2010. Further comments:
Enclaves of the like-minded exists in politics as well, and the two-party Democrats-Republicans system in the US is a prime example and model of what extremes such enclaves can go to. When you surround yourself with like-minded people, speak only to like-minded people, share your frustrations (with contrary views and people with those views) with like-minded people who express support for your grief and anguish and reinforce your worldview, your views and position will become more entrenched, more polarised, and more rooted. There are websites, radio, and other media channels that support and reinforce these enclaves of the like-minded, and being immersed daily in such an environment serves to close one mind to all other possibilities.

Free discourse works when the ideas being presented are more fact-based than faith-based. The scientific community can engage in free discourse because positions can be proven or disproven, evidence can be presented, examined, discredited, or accepted.

With faith and conviction, all you have are bold statements, subjective interpretations, followed by a lot of singing, or chanting, or yelling. Free discourse does not work in matters of faith and personal convictions. ]

Moral values & Terrorism

July 21, 2009
Let's reinforce unity of purpose in fighting terrorism

WE CAN never overemphasise the need to remain vigilant against the threat of terrorism, as warned by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in last Sunday's report, 'PM Lee warns of evolving terror threat'.

He warned that the recent bomb explosions at the Ritz-Carlton and JW Marriott hotels in Jakarta showed that terrorists continue to have 'new ways of doing evil, bad deeds'. Schools, religious organisations and the business community need to make a concerted effort to not only condemn the murderous acts of terrorism, but also set the boundaries that define good and evil in society.

Often, the human spirit needs to be rekindled to distinguish between right and wrong behaviour. Religions with good society and family values must take proactive steps to engage the public and schools by upholding godly values and renouncing the evil that destroys the fabric of society. Our children need to learn from religious leaders who demonstrate how their faith can build strong family bonds and create social stability, harmony and security. Where the fault lines of society are shaken, religious leaders are to super-glue the gaps.

Religious leaders in collaboration with the Government should openly reject socially irresponsible behaviour such as racism, religious intolerance, adultery as well as perverse sexual behaviour in society. Moral relativism has no place in a society that treasures and thrives on good, absolute values.

As part of civil defence, schools must be vigilant to teach children strong traditional family values through the covenant of marriage and fidelity to one's spouse.

Insidious and egregious practices such as abuse of human rights and extreme liberalism must be exposed and rejected for what they are. Drug trafficking, use of abortion as a form of contraceptive, polygamy and serial divorce will remain as wrongdoings. Our police force should be held in high regard as they enforce the rules against criminal behaviour.

Children must be encouraged to speak up against evil and not fear being rebuked for doing the right thing. The heathen attack religious people with the phrase: 'Get down from your high horse for we reject your holier-than-thou attitude.'

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew recently remarked that for 44 years, Singapore still has not yet achieved the ideals of nationhood. Perhaps the next step requires the conviction and partnership of religious and government leaders to take a firm stand against wicked deeds and support those who stand for the truth in nation building. It is time we took serious heed of the axiom: 'Righteousness exalts a nation.'

George Lim

July 22, 2009
Poor logic to equate terrorism with lifestyle decisions

I WRITE in response to Mr George Lim's Forum Online letter on Monday, "Let's reinforce unity of purpose in fighting terrorism".

Mr Lim is correct to label the Jakarta bombings as evil and murderous. But he is wrong when he goes on to argue that for Singapore to achieve social security, harmony and stability, "strong family bonds" and "traditional family values through the covenant of marriage" must be upheld. Accordingly, pre-marital sex, abortion, serial divorce and "perverse sexual behaviour", such as homosexuality, must be condemned.

It is poor logic to equate terror attacks to personal decisions such as homosexuality and serial divorce. These actions involve only willing parties and do no harm to others.

On the other hand, crimes like terrorism, murder and robbery involve the harm (and possible deaths) of other innocent parties. Rightfully, divorce, pre-martial sex and abortion are not punishable by the common law, which serves mainly to protect the fellow man. Countries such as the United States and France, while having astronomical divorce and pre-martial sex rates, are still prosperous and socially cohesive.

Mr Lim also argues that Singapore's government should partner religious leaders to take a firm stand against evil, heathen and non-godly values.

If this is so, then a good number of Singaporeans will run afoul of the rules simply on the basis that they do not believe in godly values, but answer responsibly to their conscience.

Many Singaporeans, while expressing faith in religion, also see no wrong in pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion, because these are matters of personal choice.

Surely atheists, agnostics and liberal followers of religion deserve the right to live unharassed by the beliefs of the staunchly religious.

Jonathan Kwok Dao Yang
-------
I quote what George Lim mentioned in his letter on Monday.

"schools must be vigilant to teach children strong traditional family values through the covenant of marriage and fidelity to one's spouse."

I'm sure Rodney Sim, and ELDER from LIGHTHOUSE EVANGELISM CHURCH - the man paid for sex with an underaged teen as mentioned in today's paper must have had really strong family values (he has 2 kids mind you). So strong that he couldn't resist having sex with a Chinese child prostitute. Well done you over-religious, self-righteous morons.

Terrorism came about because of these religious fanatics, and all George Lim's letter did was to self contradict himself.
Posted by: urbanator at Wed Jul 22 10:28:38 SGT 2009

-------
Jonathan old boy! I think you are missing the gist of what George is trying to say. George is merely inferring that if you get the basics right from the onset, perhaps people would not think of turning to terrorism or aggression for whatever reason. And he goes on to mention that religion and the government by working in collaboration on certain issues with youngsters might ultimately create a more upright person thus deferring anyone from going as far as thinking of resorting to aggression of any sort. Whether this will help or not is the question, but certainly there is some basis to what he is saying. After all if you are generally an organized person, the tendency is you will be neat and tidy in appearance and vice versa. Positivity begets positivity, negativity begets negativity get it. So don’t take his words out of context. But when it comes to certain beliefs, I think George is indulging in a bit of wishful thinking, he is like many others who believe all religions are the same, teach peace, love etc. Well he has another guess coming.

And urbanator old chap. Rodney Sim is a hypocrite like many other religious goons, and despite his religious foundation, he failed miserably and is certainly a perfect example that Christians are not perfect, but at least he did not resort to violence. His beliefs ultimately kicked in and he resorted to redeem himself by helping the girl and getting himself into trouble with the law while at it. This is somewhat what George is getting at. So save the rhetoric for yourself.
Posted by: ontheside at Wed Jul 22 12:22:55 SGT 2009

-----------
Hi ontheside,

I shall quote ad verbatim Mr George's letter:

Schools, religious organisations and the business community need to make a concerted effort to not only condemn the murderous acts of terrorism, but also set the boundaries that define good and evil in society.

Often, the human spirit needs to be rekindled to distinguish between right and wrong behaviour. Religions with good society and family values must take proactive steps to engage the public and schools by upholding godly values and renouncing the evil that destroys the fabric of society.
--------

He surely did not hint, or argue, that a 'morally decadent society' will lead eventually to terrorist acts, or that a more upright person may resort to aggression.

His argument, plainly, is to argue that schools, governments, businesses etc should combat 'evil' in society as much as they combat terrorist tendencies. His definition of 'evil', as we have seen, is very narrow, and includes all sorts of behaviour that many people consider very normal.

Why should people combat 'evil' (George's definition of evil) with as much vigour as they combat terrorism? They are miles apart. How can they be equated?
Posted by: jonkwok at Wed Jul 22 16:07:41 SGT 2009

-------
July 22, 2009
Man jailed, fined for paid sex with teen

His attempts to help her after she said she was forced into prostitution led to a police report

By Elena Chong

AN ACCOUNTANT who twice paid to have sex with an underage prostitute from China was jailed for two weeks and fined $16,000 yesterday.

The sentence amounted to a victory of sorts for Rodney Sim Hang Nge, 61, who had testified that he did not know the girl was 16 when he had sex with her.

He could have been jailed up to seven years, or fined a maximum of $10,000 on each charge - or both - under a new law, which makes it a crime to have paid sex with a person under 18. The law took effect in February last year.

The father of two grown-up children, a daughter and a son, pleaded guilty last December to two counts of paying $100 to have sex with the girl on Aug 3 and 5 last year.

But during his sentencing hearing, he disputed the prosecution's contention that he knew the prostitute was underage.

Another hearing was then held to resolve this.

Yesterday, District Judge Jeffrey Sim ruled that Sim, an elder at the Lighthouse Evangelism church, did not deliberately exploit a minor. 'He was misled by both the pimp and the minor into believing that the minor was 18 or above 18 years old,' the judge said.

Sim, he said, also tried to help the prostitute after she told him that she was being forced to work as a commercial sex worker against her will.

In fact, his attempts to help her landed him in hot water.

He took her to the Chinese Embassy and then to a police post to lodge a report, and this led to charges against him.

The judge said these facts made Sim's case different from that of Tan Chye Hin, 55, who was jailed nine months last year for having sex with the same girl.

The renovation contractor, who was the first person convicted under the revised law, knew the girl was a minor and had specifically sought her sexual services.

However, despite the differences in the two cases, the judge dismissed a plea from Sim's lawyers, Mr Shashi Nathan and Ms Tania Chin, for a fine to be imposed.

Judge Sim said a fine alone would not be appropriate, as the law was enacted to protect the vulnerable group of under-18 minors from being sexually exploited.

Sim, he added, should have insisted on verifying the girl's age from her passport before engaging her services, instead of relying on the bare representations of the pimp and the minor.

elena@sph.com.sg

Water conservation tax hard to swallow

July 15, 2009

I REFER to last Saturday's letter ('Need for water conservation tax') by Mr Chan Yoon Kum, assistant chief executive of national water agency PUB, in response to my letter ('Shouldn't we pay less for consuming water?') on July 8.

Mr Chan did not address the crux of my question, which was this: After many decades of conscientiously and successfully pursuing water conservation measures, is it necessary to continue using a hefty pricing mechanism to penalise consumers for some incremental reduction?

What is the ideal limit of water consumption in our hot and humid climate without compromising basic hygiene that would convince the PUB to remove the water conservation tax and waterborne fees?

According to a study in 2003, 'The water issue between Singapore and Malaysia: No solution in sight?', by Dr Lee Poh Onn, a Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore produced 1.3 million cubic m of water per day. The PUB revealed that by last year, the daily capacity had increased to more than 1.4 million cubic m, of which domestic households consumed half and the rest was sold for commercial revenues.

The report quoted that our raw water processing cost was 25.3 cents per cubic m. Dr Lee summarised the production cost of imported water at 26 cents, Newater at 39 cents and desalination water at 78 cents (exchange rate of S$1 to RM$2.08 in 2003).

By 2011, the PUB will be producing 1.33 million cubic m of water (0.68 million cubic m from catchments, 0.4 million cubic m from desalination and 0.25 million cubic m of Newater).

Based on the 2003 study, the average cost would be 41.5 cents per cubic m. With a 20 per cent increase, the cost is about 50 cents per cubic m.

There is hardly any justification for responsible consumers to pay $2.21 per cubic m of water quoting Mr Chan's example. The water tariff in Johor Baru is 36 cents (90 Malaysian sen), while that in Hong Kong is HK$4.15 (80 Singapore cents) per cubic m.

Is it logical or reasonable for Singaporeans to pay over four times the recovery cost of drinking water - a basic human need?

While it is laudable that Singapore proudly and unselfishly helps solve the water dilemma by sharing its drinking water technology with the world, the country's citizens should also share the benefits of Singapore's water success.

It took us a long time to get to where we are now; where we are self-sufficient with less imported water if needed on a sustainable basis.

Tax revenues and sanitary fees should cover the maintenance cost of the sanitation system. Hence, the water conservation tax and waterborne fees have lost their intended purposes. They can only become an extra burden on citizens.

Paul Chan

[Lots of facts and figures. Save for reference. Basic flaw in argument: reducing price would encourage water use and water wastage. So prices have to stay at current rate.]

Wealthy and yet unhappy

July 9, 2009
Wealthy and yet unhappy - how come, Singapore?

IT IS disturbing to read that Singapore ranked 49th in the Happy Planet Index 2.0 survey conducted by the New Economics Foundation ('Costa Ricans the 'happiest worldwide'', Monday).

This is even though it was ranked fourth highest per capita income in the world by the International Monetary Fund last year, and third by the World Bank in 2007.

By all counts, we are a materially wealthy nation, so why are Singaporeans not happy with their lot? Singaporeans have access to the best of everything, yet they seem to indicate that they are not happy.

I wonder if this is why we often see grim faces on buses and the MRT. Are Singaporeans stressed out? Do they yearn for more, without finding it? Why are we, as a nation, not as happy as our poorer neighbours like Vietnam, for example, which ranked highest in Asia? Does our education system stress material success over achieving internal peace and happiness?

Curiously, Vietnam, with less material success than Singapore, ranked fifth in the index, and Costa Rica topped the survey.

At the same time, the wealthy and technologically advanced nations we like to emulate, such as the United States and Britain, ranked 114th and 74th respectively, even worse than Singapore. This clearly shows that material success does not guarantee happiness.

It is time that we made an effort to re-establish our priorities, learn to relax, appreciate what we have, smile, and be happy.

Anil Bhatia

July 11, 2009
In this meritocracy, there's no time to smell the roses

I REFER to Thursday's letter by Mr Anil Bhatia, 'Wealthy and yet unhappy - how come, Singapore?'

There is a systemic flaw in our meritocratic system where we strive to be the best in everything, in meeting wants, in careers, in infrastructure. In the process, our human capital is put through various stress tests from a young age until retirement and even the grave.

The young are put to a stress test the minute they start formal education at primary level with homework and remedial classes. School holidays are filled with more lessons, remedial classes and co-curricular activities for upper secondary students. To gain entry to top junior colleges or polytechnics, students must achieve an aggregate score of eight points or less, compared to 10 to 15 points years earlier. How not to be stressed out?

Young adults struggle with work from demanding bosses who expect 24/7 due diligence from employees. Many in this age group struggle to acquire material wealth at the expense of pro-family, procreation activities. Mature workers worry about job security and those who are retrenched often remain chronically unemployed for a long while. Many in this age group (45 to 55) are most vulnerable, with massive expenses to take care of, such as children's education, housing loans, elderly parents' medical bills and retirement expenses. How to be happy?

The elderly are also vulnerable as their children may fall into the mature age group who are either struggling to maintain their livelihoods or unemployed.

With little financial support from their children, many are forced to work as cleaners or do other manual work with their limited skills. Retirees who have exhausted their Central Provident Fund savings are forced to go back to work with limited scope of employment in the current economic climate.

There is hardly any stage in the human cycle where we can slow down and make an effort to smell the roses in society.

Roland Ang

[Read this article:
http://www.helium.com/items/329527-the-link-between-money-and-happiness

High on Per capital Income, low on happiness? Nothing new there. Countries richer than Singapore are ranked unhappier.

However the most unhappy countries are those that are the poorest. When starvation and death are staring you in the face you would be insane to still be happy.

As for why the rich are unhappy, the helium article proposes that the answer lies in the opportunity cost hypothesis; or the spoilt for choice hypothesis.

A rich man simply has more choices open to him than a poor man. However actually making a choice means giving up all the other choices and foregoing the opportunity to enjoy those other choices. Hence the lament of the rich: "I've got nothing to wear!" "There's nothing to do!"

There is also another reason, and that is that happiness is relative. If your neighbour's situation is as bad as yours, you would be less unhappy - The "Everybody's in the same boat" hypothesis.

However if your neighbour is better off, then you realise your lack, and you feel unhappy.

Another possible explanation is that people measure happiness differently in different countries. This is somewhat related to the above. With higher income comes development, comes globalisation, comes news and information, and suddenly your "neighbourhood" extends to the entire developed world or first world. Then you wish your human rights was as good as the US, your social welfare as good as the Netherlands, your industry as innovative as the Japanese, your customer service as good as Hong Kong, your engineering as good as the German.

But if you're puttering around in your little farm in a Costa Rica, with no knowledge of the wider world beyond your island, you'd be happy when the rain comes on time, the wind cools you down, and the sun comes out when you need your harvest to ripen. Your world is smaller, more manageable, and you are more content.

The saying, "ignorance is bliss" applies in these case. The happiest people are those who do not know of other alternatives (or do not care).

So what is the solution for Singapore? Become ignorant? Stop chasing development and the almighty buck?

Or decide that Happiness is over-rated?

Or understand that a Happy Costa Rican may not be comparable to an unhappy Singaporean?

Or understand that happiness = contentment = satisfaction = things stay status quo = no development = no improvement.

And the next time someone makes a stupid simplistic comparison about happiness and wealth, we take him out and shoot him for being an angsty whiny complainy twit?]