Full disclosure before sex or go to jail…

A company director who has a fling with a female executive is now suing her for allegedly giving him herpes, an STD. It has been alleged that the woman told him that she was ‘clean’ before they became intimate. I found this article (in today’s newspapers) rather interesting as I had a conversation with a friend last night which touched on the topic of the new proposed amendments to the Infectious Disease Act (Cap. 137) requiring sufferers of HIV/AIDS to inform their partners of their condition before sexual activities. Although only applicable to HIV/AIDs I thought it was an interesting coincidence nonetheless that we spoke about it last night and it this story came out in the papers today. The proposed amendments to the relevant sections are as follows:

Repeal and re-enactment of section 23
Section 23 of the principal Act is repealed and the following section
substituted therefor:
“Sexual activity by persons with AIDS or HIV Infection
23.—(1) A person who knows that he has AIDS or HIV Infection
shall not engage in any sexual activity with another person unless,
before the sexual activity takes place —
(a) he has informed that other person of the risk of contracting
AIDS or HIV Infection from him; and
(b) that other person has voluntarily agreed to accept that risk.

(2) A person who does not know, but who has reason to believe that
he has, or has been exposed to the risk of contracting, AIDS or HIV
Infection shall not engage in any sexual activity with another person
unless —
(a) before the sexual activity takes place —
(i) he has informed that other person of the risk of
contracting AIDS or HIV Infection from him and that
other person has voluntarily agreed to accept that risk;
or
(ii) he —
(A) has undergone a serological or other test for the
purpose of ascertaining whether he has AIDS or
HIV Infection and the result was negative; and
(B) has not, between the time of the test and the
sexual activity with that other person, engaged in
any sexual or other activity that might have
exposed him to the risk of HIV Infection; or
(b) during the sexual activity, he takes reasonable precautions to
ensure that he would not expose that other person to the risk
of contracting AIDS or HIV Infection.

(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be
guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10
years or to both.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person shall not, only by
reason of age, be presumed incapable of engaging in sexual activity.

(5) For the purposes of this section and section 24, a person shall be
deemed to know that he has AIDS or HIV Infection if a serological
test or other test for the purpose of ascertaining the 5 presence of HIV
Infection carried out on him has given a positive result and the result
was communicated to him.

(6) In this section, “sexual activity” means —
(a) sexual activity occasioned by the introduction into the
vagina, anus or mouth of any person of any part of the penis
of another person; or
(b) cunnilingus.”.


The Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) is the principal piece of health legislation that deals with the prevention and control of infectious diseases in Singapore. It is jointly administered by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the National Environmental Agency (NEA). The current proposed amendments are meant to plug the gaps in our public health response system , to grant the MOH further powers to deal with public health emergencies, as well as to achieve better control and prevention of HIV/AIDs. The MOH is conducting a 6-week public consultation between 28 September and 9 November 2007, before it receives its 1st reading in Parliament expected in January 2008.

The law as it currently stands only makes it an offence for someone who has HIV/AIDs to have sexual intercourse with another person without informing that person of the risks of contracting the disease. It is not an offence if the HIV/AIDs sufferer did not know of his own condition. As such, all the HIV/AIDs sufferer had to do is not to get tested.

The new amendments however, would in addition, make it an offence for a person who does not know, but has reason to believe that he has, or has been exposed to the risk of contracting, HIV/AIDs to engage in sexual activity with another person without informing that other person of the risk of contracting HIV/AIDs from him. He would only be ‘excused’ if he had undergone a serological or other test and the result was negative; has not, between the time of the test and the sexual activity with that other person, engaged in any sexual or other activity that might have exposed him to the risk of HIV Infection; or during the sexual activity, he takes reasonable precautions to ensure that he would not expose that other person to the risk of contracting HIV/AIDs.

The new amendments also seek to increase the penalties from the current $10,000 maximum fine and/or 2 years imprisonment to $50,000 and/or 10years imprisonment.

I wonder however whether there is the possibility that someone is informed and consents (either because it is in the ‘heat of the moment’ and the disclosure is not fully considered) and then when it finally ‘sinks in’ (before or after the person contracts HIV/AIDs) she/he accuses the other person of non-disclosure? Should Singapore introduce and recognise the concept of the ‘pre-sex contract’? The pre-sex contract, thought up by the Americans (of course), has gained popularity in the US by celebrities and high-level business people. It typically contains a list of sexual activities which the can be ‘ticked’ to indicate those which she/he is willing to participate in. Perhaps this could include an item such as “you have been informed that [Name] has HIV/AIDs or has reason to believe that he is at risk of HIV/AIDs and have consented to sex…”

Update to Religious and Racial Harmony legislation

Currently Section 298 of the Penal Code criminalises words and gestures with deliberate intent to would the racial or religious feelings of any person. It reads as follows:

Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
298. Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

The proposed amendments are as follows:

Amendment of section 298
38. Section 298 of the Penal Code is amended —
(a) by inserting, immediately after the word “religious”, the words “or racial”; and

(b) by inserting, immediately after the word “person” in the 5th line, the words “, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person”.
New section 298A

39. The Penal Code is amended by inserting, immediately after section 298, the following section:
“Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony

298A. Whoever ––
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion or race, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial groups or communities; or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”.

These amendments are meant to strengthen our laws against those who promote enmity between different racial and religious groups on grounds of religion or race and those who utter words or gestures with deliberate intent to wound the racial or religious feelings of any person. It also provides for greater prosecutorial discretion, the scope of existing the section 298 will be expanded to cover the deliberate wounding of the racial feelings of a person.

Just like the UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, the new section 298A covers the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race and religion. Both sections will cover online transmissions, which is crucial when one considers the fact that such transmissions have a much wider impact than those in a face-to-face or documentary form.

The Government have indicated that situations such as the expression of a testimony of conversion from one religion to another on a personal website will not be caught under the new provisions. Although it would appear that these provisions are not going to be a threat to evangelism, according to the speech by Senior Minister of State, A/P Ho Peng Kee on 22 October 2007, “it is one thing to preach to a person who is interested to hear your views… it is quite another to try to convert a person to your religion by denigrating his religion, especially when he has no desire to be converted.”

Once again, these provisions underscore the need for sensitivity and respect for race and religion, especially in a multi-racial and multi-religious society such as Singapore. These provisions are certainly a move in the right direction for Singapore. Interestingly, none of the religious establishments, as far as I’m aware, have made a big deal about these changes (unlike in the UK). Perhaps we have more confidence in the Government’s ability to deal with such situations responsibly than the Brits do (of course a more cynical view would be that all the religious groups were sidetracked by the issue of s377A and didn’t even notice or consider the above provisions. But I think that this is highly unlikely.).

YAY! S’pore to build a permanent race track in Changi!!!

Today Community Development Youth and Sports Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan announced the Government’s plans for a permanent race track to be built in Changi in 2011. Requests for proposals to develop the 20-hectare land into a 2.8 to 3.5 km track will be called in May 2008.

Hmmm... I guess this means that I will have to renew the COE of my car in 2011. I hope the COE drops low enough for me to maintain 2 cars!!!

Maintaining Racial and Religious Freedom and Harmony

I remember reading an email update from the Lawyer’s Christian Fellowship (UK) a while ago (yes, I’m still a member) about their concerns with the new UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (RRHA). At the time, I thought nothing of it (still don’t) as I’m already back in Singapore (and didn’t see its relevance) and furthermore, I thought it was an overreaction (since it had not yet been passed/come into force).

The concern stems from the fact that the Act purports to cover everything from the everyday use of words and behaviour to the production of written and recorded material. Of course, it must be viewed as able to cause religious or racial hatred. Many Christians believed that this would mean the end of ‘witnessing’ or ‘evangelism’ as it was not inconceivable that people would be offended and/or incited to violence. I, however, thought (and still think) this was an exaggeration.

I do however think that this would be a great victory if the Act covered ‘Chick tracts’ – those cartoon tracts by Jack Chick – for which I can see no other purpose then to incite hatred (both of other religions and belief systems as well as of Christians – by non-Christians because of its endorsement). This, as far as I’m concerned, would definitely be a good thing, although, I’m sure, Chick tracts will get away with it yet again. I do not believe that a Christian necessarily has to cause offence in order to fulfil his obligation of evangelising. In fact, on the contrary, I have never seen success in evangelism through methods which ridicule and offend their listeners. This stems from basic human nature, if you do not show your listener any respect, neither will he show you any. You insult or ridicule someone, he won’t listen to what you have to say – you’re a bigot.

The UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

Although religious freedom is already protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), this piece of legislation purports to take it one step further. As can be observed through the name of these 2 pieces of legislation, Article 9 seeks to protect a human beings ‘right’ or ‘freedom’ to practice his own religion, while the new Act seeks to prevent others from inciting ‘hatred’ towards a person or group of people on the basis of their race or religious beliefs. In that sense, they are 2 quite different things.

One major difference between the protections under the ECHR, the HRA and the HHRA is that, while the ECHR and HRA gives a ‘person with standing’ the right to sue, the HHRA makes it a criminal offence to incite racial and/or religious hatred.

s29L:
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this Part is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

I guess the main concern is in the fact that the Act does not actually define what ‘hatred’ means – leading Christians to think that whatever they do will be caught under the Act and therefore prohibited. However, as mentioned above, I do not think that evangelism (if done the biblical way) would be caught under these provisions. Furthermore, the Act makes clear that it is not intended to prevent people from seeking to convert others to a particular belief nor stifle discussions about different belief systems, even if such interaction steeps to antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult.

s29 J – Protection of freedom of expression:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

Another concept that is left undefined is what constitutes a religion? The Act does provide a non-exhaustive list, and ironically accords atheists and humanists a degree of protection as well. It seems however left to judges to step up to give these ‘bones’ some ‘flesh’. Certainly where the line should be drawn will test the mettle of the courts and give lawyers a lot of work, as all new laws invariably do.

However, as I mentioned above, I do think that all this concern is an overreaction. This is because I believe that the main reason for enacting this Act is because of instances such as extremist Muslim clerics ‘mouthing off ‘ and preaching ‘hatred’ in Mosques across the UK – either preaching that its ok or right even to kill innocent people in the name of God (of course the majority of Muslims would reject such teachings as against Islam). With recent bombings in London as well as a number of foiled terrorist attacks, something had to be done to stop all this. As always ‘context is king’ and so we need to realise that it is not a threat to evangelism, but is extremely necessary in the current political and social climate in which we live.

The Christian response

So what should the Christian response be? Well, if one is really concerned about it, the first thing to be done is to re-examine the way that they evangelise. If you don’t want the possibility of being caught under the Act, notwithstanding the stated intention that the Act is not meant to curtail evangelism, then learn to do it properly – not with insult , ridicule or a judgmental spirit, but with humility, sincerity and sensitivity – give them the Gospel instead of attempting to ‘destroy’ their existing belief system (an exercise in futility if ever there was one!).

Singapore – Racial and Religious Harmony since 1960s/1970s

Perhaps another reason why I was rather unconcerned about this piece of legislation is that we already have laws in place in Singapore to protect religious freedom and harmony as well as racial harmony. Maybe the UK has learnt from Singapore on this point, especially since we have enjoyed religious freedom, religious harmony and racial harmony for so many years (in fact, many of us have never seen any turmoil or riots because of race or creed in our entire lifetimes). I suspect that the reason for our successes in this area, despite not having the ECHR and HRA, is the fact that we have legislation such as the Internal Security Act, the Sedition Act (racist bloggers Benjamin Koh and Nicholas Lim were both prosecuted under this Act), the Penal Code and the Undesirable Publications Act – all enacted in the 1960s and 1970s – as well as our placing and maintaining limits to the Freedom of Speech (some of the rationales and justifications of placing such limits are detailed in a previous entry).

Marital rape and conjugal rights…

I think that its very interesting how a number of topics which I studied in law school have been raised and come to life as of late with the amendments to Singapore’s Penal Code. The subject of this entry - Marital rape - was recognised in the UK in 1991 with the case of R v R.

Prior to that case, a husband was immune from prosecution for having sex with his wife without her consent or by force. Section 375 of the Singapore Penal Code follows this old English position. It may be important to note that, in the past, it was also legal for a husband to beat his wife, so long as he didn’t use any instrument that was larger than the diameter of his thumb – hence the phrase, the ‘rule of thumb’. This was predicated on the idea that women/wives/daughters were chattel or property of the man. This, of course, is completely unacceptable in today’s society.

In the amendment bill, it was proposed that a “calibrated approach” was necessary and would limit this defence to situations where divorce or separation proceedings have been commenced or completed, or where the wife has applied for or obtained an injunction or protection order against the husband. Critics were quick to point out that under these changes, the critical issue for rape in a marriage is not consent, but whether the wife has taken certain legal steps. To them, this situation is incoherent, inconsistent with the law on rape, and therefore, cannot be correct. They argue that sex without consent is rape, whether it takes place within or outside a marriage.

The MHA has taken the position that a total abolition of marital immunity would be “too radical” and would change “the whole complexion of marriage in our society”. They cite the “need to strike a balance between the needs of women who require protection and the general concerns about conjugal rights and the expression of intimacy in a marriage.” They also talk about the concept of “conjugal rights”, suggesting that a husband has some sort of right to sex from his wife.

I guess as a Christian, I can understand the concept of ‘conjugal rights’. The bible mentions it in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5: ‘The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.’

I think that it was a good thing that the bible chose to angle it slightly differently than we would have expected, directing the husband to give his wife her ‘conjugal rights’ first. As for the equality argument raised by some opponents to the amendments to s375, I think that verse is rather consistent with that idea too – they are both to grant each other such rights over themselves. I think that the biblical concept of conjugal rights is predicated on 2 issues: (1) that when a man and woman come together in marriage, they become ‘one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24), and therefore, as one unit, they are both ‘equally’ entitled to rights to sex. As the MHA correctly opines, it is “the expression of intimacy in a marriage”; and (2) it seems clear that this ‘commandment’ or principle is an effort to prevent the ‘sin of lust’ or ‘sexual immorality’. One possibility is for the party who is deprived to ‘burn with lust’ or perhaps he/she may seek fulfillment from an alternative source – both propositions are, in the bible’s view, undesirable.

Of course, none of these would apply in the event that there is a break down in the marriage eg where one party has initiated divorce or separation proceedings against the other, or where the wife has applied for or obtained an injunction or protection order against the husband. This is because there is either irreparable damage to the unit, it is in the process of being dissolved or it has already ceased to be.

Now, although I can appreciate the rationale for the amendments, it does not necessarily mean that I cannot also appreciate the other side of the argument. As I mentioned in a previous entry, I do not agree that our secular laws should abide by biblical standards. It may not even be a good thing that it does.

Don’t get me wrong, I do agree with the biblical rationale for conjugal rights. I definitely also agree with the idea that when a couple joins in the union of marriage, that it is precisely that -0 a union (for life! Well… hopefully!). However, one cannot deny the risks involved here as well. There are men and women who abuse their spouses (although abolishing this provision would only protect wives and not husbands – perhaps something else to be considered, especially in the interest of ‘equality’!). Many of these people find themselves unable, for whatever reason, to leave their spouses. They need, but will not receive, such protection. What should we do about them? (While the biblical commandment carries with it a caveat that the husbands and wives are not to abuse or commit violence against their spouses, the law necessarily doesn’t!)

I guess the answer is already in the text above. Because even if the marital immunity is removed, it is useless unless and until the woman brings it into the realm of law. If she doesn’t make a police report, it would still be of no effect – the husband will not be prosecuted, it would not be stopped. As it is, she will still have to get a court order, a divorce or go through a separation, and if she is not prepared to do any of those, she would also not receive such protection. In this sense, the amendment can be viewed as a step forward.

Clergy employed by church and not by God - Employment Law Applies.

A pastor and bishop in the Pentecostal New Testament Church of God in Harrow, North London, sacked for “unbecoming conduct” has just won a ruling in the UK Court of Appeal (the 2nd highest court in the UK) that he was employed by a church and not by God. He will now be able to seek reinstatement and compensation.

Rev Sylvester Stewart was sacked in June 2005 after an internal audit showed “financial irregularities”. A church “trial board” found that he had taken almost £60,000 from the Church.

Leaving aside the teaching that Christians ought not to bring each other to a civillian court (and sue each other - I suppose there may be situations where it is a necessity), the result here is rather perculiar. How can one continue to fulfil his responsbilities as a spiritual and moral guide to members of the flock when he is found to have embezzled church funds? Hasn't he already lost the moral integrity which the job requires?

Why I find this particularly strange is because, had it been any other profession such as a lawyer, accountant, banker or even company director who was guilty of such fraud, he would be barred (or dis-barred in relation to lawyers) from the profession, at least for a period of time. Presumably because moral integrity is considered essential to such professions. Why should it not apply in relation to religious leaders/full-time Christian workers?

For those interested in reading the full judgement (I haven't) here's the link: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1004.html

Why businesses should be wary of going after eBay fakes

I came across this article in The Times Online (UK) while watching the rugby finals (proves that I'm not a rugby fan at all, but its the final!) which I thought would make an interesting read (find article at: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2630267.ece)

As the law current stands, middle men or intermediaries such as eBay, Facebook and internet service providers (ISPs) are generally immune from prosecution provided they remove infringing material from their sites as soon as they are notified of any potential infringement. This means the onus is on businesses to police their own intellectual property rights.

It may, however, seem surprising that IP owners who request intermediaries remove "infringing" products or material from their sites can themselves be sued for an injunction and damages by the person or company they have accused. This is what is known as the “groundless threats” provisions.

The rationale is this: an accusation that a business has infringed IP rights may result in that business ceasing to stock and sell the allegedly infringing item without fully investigating the legal position and any defences it may have. The business as a result may lose revenue, while public allegations may damage its reputation in the market. The allegations may be made by a competitor or in bad faith; and even if they are made honestly they may have no legal basis. In the UK, the law on patents, trade marks and designs makes such allegations actionable.

**Correction**
Edited post "s377A and legislating morality".
I realised that I made a number of mistakes (and typos) in the original post.
My apologies. =)

A short note on Church and State

I just caught a CNN special presentation called "God's Warriors" with Christiane Amanpour a few minutes ago. One of the personalities featured on the programme was Greg A. Boyd, an American preacher who stirred up controversy in the Evangelical church in America when he refused to abuse his influence over his flock to advance a particular political agenda or to allow his pulpit to be a platform for political propaganda. He attacks the notion of America being a 'Christian nation' and argues that the many Christians are getting side-tracked by social issues (or social ills) and law reform. He argues that Christians should be busy about 'God's business' of witnessing the unsaved world.

America is certainly not the only country to face this. The fact that churches have come out time and again to voice their objections on issues such as the repealing of section 377A of the Penal Code is a case in point. Also, I know for a fact that there are churches in Singapore (I have one in mind, but I shall not name it here) where they sing patriotic songs on National Day and even have a "Singapore hymn" in the church hymnal!

Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Christian being patriotic. To a large extent, its our responsibility as citizens of the country. But don't make the mistake of putting a 'Christian label' to it, that as a Christian, we must vote in a particular way (not so much as issue in Singapore as it is in America) or that we have a Christian reponsibility to seek changes in law or, worse still, to institute biblical law in our respective countries!

Although, I've come across Boyd and writings before (at a time when I was alot more of a 'fundamentalist') and disagreed with him on a number of points, I would certainly agree with him on the points above (also, I think my views on many things have evolved and matured over the years since reading his book, 'letters from a skeptic'). One area where I would still disagree with him on (although completely irrelevant to the issue at hand) is that of 'Open Theism' - ther idea that God does not fully know the future as human have not yet made the choices that would affect it (I believe this is his attempt to make sense of something that transcends human understanding, but its unsatisfactory to me). Then again, I guess one cannot expect to agree with anyone on everything, nor can anyone be right about everything!

Notwithstanding the fact that I have had little interest in reading more Christian literature (I don't think I've picked up a Christian book in a few years) I must say that I find myself intrigued enough to buy a copy of his book on the issue (entitled, “The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church”). If I do, I'll be sure to post a review on this blog.

For those who are interested to read further, here's a link to an article in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5087&en=34ccb5db8fcf8eca&ex=1154491200&adxnnlx=1192896481-6vZLx/2RVhcyrCVEsh5/og

S377A and legislating morality

There has been much hype in the media and the Internet about the Parliamentary Petition submitted by NMP Siew Kum Hong yesterday morning. The petition is reported to contain more than 1,000 signatures and seeks the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code (hereafter s377A or section 377A), which forbids men from having sex with each other, whether in public or private.

As one would expect, Mr Siew has been attacked (or his actions at least) in the forum pages as well as on the net as ‘over-stepping’ his role as an NMP or even as ‘championing the gay cause’. This I think is unfortunate. To him, its about equality; to them, its morality.

Although I’m inclined to agree that the section should be repealed it is for different reasons entirely. I do not think that it is a matter of equality or about a ‘right’ to exist (they already exist, let’s not kid ourselves. Repealing the section does not give them a ‘right’ to engage in homosexuality nor does it give them any other rights – I’ll explain what I mean below). I do think that it is a matter of morality – about whether the government to legislate morality – or in other words to be our ‘moral police’. BUT I believe we should not expect them to be so and that, if we really thought long and hard about it, it wouldn’t be desirable. Now before your radar starts to sound uncontrollably and you get your knickers in a knot, let me explain.

Law and morality

My personal view (which is necessarily a religious view), as a Christian, obviously is that homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe that there is any denying this (from a biblical point of view). It is explicitly mentioned as such in the bible and it goes against God’s natural order (what He intended for human beings when he created us) – it is clear that He made man to have sexual relations only with women (of course, for the sake of completion, one can also add that it is to be within the confines of marriage). But it is precisely because I am a Christian that I think that ‘religion’ and politics should be kept separate.

I think that whenever a legislature assumes the role of being a moral policeman, problems naturally arise. One such problem is in deciding which moral standard should be adopted or propagated?

Of course many Christians would be quick to suggest that a Christian standard of morality be adopted – as it is, in their view, a superior standard of morality. But this is certainly not going to fly, and perhaps, it shouldn’t. Nowhere in the bible do we see any warrant to impose biblical morality on those who are not of the faith. No doubt they will be judged according to it in the final judgment, but they are never expected to conform to them in a pre-salvation condition.

Furthermore, every instance (throughout history) where there has been an attempt to institute biblical morality into the law has resulted in widespread persecution. I guess this can be seen in every attempt to merge religion with politics (eg fundamentalist Islamic states or even Christian states of the past). That is why there needs to be a separation between religion and ‘state’.

If one considers the philosophical foundations of democracy, it would seem that if the government is representative of the people that the moral standard should be determined by the people. In most instances, this means the majority of the populace. In relation to this issue, since Singaporeans are generally still conservative in this area, this section would in all likelihood be kept on the statute books.

But this is still unsatisfactory as morality should not be dependent on simply obtaining a majority. Can you imagine the injustices that may occur if a 'simple majority' (ie 51%) is allowed to impose their sense or standard of morality on others? So what is the solution? Well, one possibility is that if the law is to contain a standard of morality at all, then it must be a minimum/basic level of morality – a level that everyone agrees on. For example, I would venture to suggest that no one would argue that murder, theft, cheating are not acceptable in society. Also no one would agree against the protection of the innocent/weak (e.g the mentally handicapped, the elderly and children). So the law may impose sanctions for violations of this minimum standard, while any higher standard is left to individuals to impose on themselves.

Perhaps a minimum standard of morality that everyone can agree on is a little idealistic and naive, and may not even be relevant in this particular instance.

Repealing s377A = Promotion of homosexuality?

At any rate, I think that people against the repeal of s377A are overreacting. There is a vast difference between the intention of s377A of the Singapore Penal Code and, for example, section 28 of the UK’s Local Government Act 1988 (hereafter s28). I bring this up because, while as a first-year law student in the UK, this was a relatively big debate. Section 28 reads as follows:

28 Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material
(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the [1986 c. 10.] Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition of political publicity)—
“2A Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material
(1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.
(3) In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
(4) In subsection (1)(b) above “maintained school” means,—
(a) in England and Wales, a county school, voluntary school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944; and
(b) in Scotland, a public school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.”
(2) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

Since it was about the promotion of homosexuality as an alternative sexual orientation among children in schools, it was certainly a big deal. There was a lot of debate over it, but alas, it was ultimately repealed. I would disagree with the repeal in this instance because it is the explicit and active promotion of homosexuality to children in school that was at issue is section 28 of the Local Government Act. This isn’t the case where s377A is concerned.

There is a very big difference between decriminalising something (as in s377A) and active promotion (s28), especially among children. For example, the fact that suicide was decriminalised in the UK (I’m not sure whether it is still a crime here, but I suspect it isn’t) does not necessarily mean that the authorities thought that suicides were suddenly a good idea. In fact I would venture to suggest that they didn’t and were definitely were not attempting to promote it. I would suggest that they decriminalised it because they realised the impracticalities involved with arresting and prosecuting offenders. After all, those who were successful were already dead, while those who were not successful needed help to work through the problems which made them attempt suicide in the first place (not to mention that prosecuting someone who attempted suicide would inevitably cause them to get more depressed and perhaps more determined to do it again).

On the contrary, repealing s28, because of its limited nature (in relation to the promotion of homosexuality to children within the school system), was to facilitate the promotion of homosexuality among children in schools. After all, this was the only activity that the section was preventing, if it continued to stay in force. This is again not the case where s377A is concerned.

The issue of homosexuality being a ‘viable alternative sexual orientation’ is, however, predicated on the belief that homosexuality is genetic and therefore ‘natural’. This I disagree with, quite apart from my religious beliefs, because there is absolutely no (remotely credible nor conclusive) scientific basis for such a claim – and it would certainly be dangerous to allow arguments from silence (ie to say that ‘its there, we just haven’t found it yet’ or that ‘we just don’t know enough about the human body, DNA, etc’). Furthermore, if sexual orientation such as homosexuality can be claimed to be genetic, then what is there to stop a paedophile from making similar claims and then expecting to be allowed to promote such thinking among school children in schools?

I realise that this last analogy can be used to argue the contrary position too – that if we’re not going to allow paedophilia to be decriminalised then we should do the same for homosexuality (an unnatural sexual orientation) – but I would argue a distinction between the 2 on the basis that children need certain protections that adults do not; and s377A refers to consenting adults. This does not change my religious views (which as I said above need to be kept separate as much as possible), but it does affect my views on how the law should be constructed.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, I do think that the section is unlikely to be repealed and the efforts of Mr Siew are destined to come to naught. As mentioned in the reports, this is only the second time a petition has been submitted to Parliament, the last time a petition submitted by JBJ in the 80s; and if the comments by a Public Petitions Committee member are anything to go by – that although it is technically possible for amendments to legislation to be made through Parliamentary debates – history suggests that such changes are unlikely.

But perhaps it is sufficient for the issues to be raised and debated. And perhaps, as Christians the right course of action is not to fight the repeal of the law but to actively pursue opportunities to dialogue and hopefully reach out to the homosexual community in Singapore (As I recall I praised a Singapore church leader, who was taking steps in this direction, in a previous entry to this blog).

For those who want to read up on the s28 debate can visit the BBC’s coverage of the issue at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/613023.stm

on being different…

Biblical records are filled with God’s desire and appeals with his people to be different from the world. It has been understood to mean that Christians ought to be different from non-Christians. However this begs the question – what does it mean to be different?

Now before I delve into the discussion proper, I would like to make clear that what follows is by no means an exhaustive discussion on the topic – it is merely meant to address a few misconceptions that I find personally disturbing. I have tried to substantiate my points with bible verses wherever relevant.

The most obvious difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian has (or purports to have) a relationship with the God of the bible. This, according to the bible, is established when one comes to the understanding and realisation that he is a sinner (defined in the bible as breaking God’s moral law); that since he has been tainted by sin, he is unable to come into the presence of God (because sin places us in direct opposition to Him); the penalty of sin is death (defined in the bible as an eternal separation from God); that God loved him so much and desires to have a relationship with him that He provided a way to be reconciled with Him (through Jesus accepting the penalty on his behalf); and then he accepts and applies the ‘payment’ to himself.

A second difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that upon becoming a Christian, we are indwelled with the Holy Spirit. His role is to continue to teach, convince, guide, mould and empower Christians to fulfil God’s will in our lives. This does not, in any way, suggest that Christians will become perfect and sinless, or that it is even a possibility for this to happen within this lifetime – it isn’t. The bible itself is clear about that (I believe there is no argument on these points thus far and so I have omitted references to actual passages).

An outflow of these principles is that once we have become Christians, we are no longer under the dominion of our sinful nature. We are also free from its guilt. Romans 6 tells us that, “we know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin (v6)… Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions (v12)… For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law (its penalty and guilt) but under grace (v14)…”

Being different is a matter of degree or quality and not entirety

However, it is important to realise that the changes that we experience when we become Christians are largely in the area of our status and relationship with God. It does not mean that ‘everything’ in our lives changes or must necessarily change. It does not mean that our lives ought now to be filled with nothing but Christian influences.

The problem is that human beings do have a tendency towards extremism. In conservative or fundamentalist churches, this, unfortunately, often manifests itself with the imposed requirement of throwing out everything in our former lives (figuratively throwing the baby out with the bath water).

Many Christians today are of the mistaken belief that they must speak differently from before (now punctuating every sentence they utter with a ‘God willing’), do everything differently, and have completely difference activities as before (anything they enjoyed prior to their salvation experience had to go too). It is almost like there was nothing good in their lives prior to becoming a Christian – everything simply had to go. Salvation is more than establishing a relationship with God, it is a complete personality and character overhaul. Nowhere is such an approach warranted or encouraged in the bible.

‘Lone Rangers’ vs ‘Cookie-Cutter’ Christians

One of the events that prompted this entry is a sermon that I heard in my church in July of this year. The preacher devoted a substantial amount of time during his message to the issue of carnality or what he described to be the ‘Sunday Christian’. It not only disturbed me because I felt that the conclusions that he was coming to did not sit well with my understanding of the bible, but also because he did not make any attempt to substantiate these claims with the bible itself – no passages were referred to. Furthermore, it appeared that this particular message had caused a number of people within the church to become discouraged, disillusioned and one (that I’m aware of) to even question her salvation! This simply would not do, I thought.

He began this line of thinking by first suggesting that it is God’s will for every individual Christian to be three things: (1) a believer; (2) a brethren; and (3) a blessing (point (2) is relevant to this heading, while point (3) is a subject best left to another entry in the future). He then proceeded to introduce two separate concepts: (1) the ‘Sunday Morning Christian’ and (2) the ‘Sunday Sermon Christian’.

The Sunday Morning Christians are allegedly those who come to church only for the service on Sunday mornings. They give the entire morning in devotion to God. They come, they worship, they fellowshipped with other Christians, but after the Sunday is over, they proceed to live their own lives – without further interaction with Christians until the following Sunday comes and the cycle repeats itself. The Sunday Sermon Christian, however, is one who comes in only for the sermon. This is right after the worship portion of the service has concluded. He comes only for the message and then he runs off. He does not have any interaction with other Christians. He only wants to ‘puff up’ his mind. No prizes for guessing which one is worse.

The point that the preacher was trying to make was that a Christian has to become integrated into the church, the specific collective of Christians that form his local church, rather than being a ‘Lone Ranger’. The only way to do this, it is alleged, is to attend the various activities and/or ministries of the church. Furthermore, this not a mere option that one may consider adopting. The way it was framed, it was an obligation, a commandment from God himself. Failure to comply was tantamount to disobedience towards God and makes one deserving of the label a ‘Sunday Morning Christian’, ‘Sunday Sermon Christian’ or ‘Lone Ranger’.

While it is certainly true that the bible constantly refers to Christians as God’s children and consequently as brethren to one another, this in no way implies what this preacher has taken it to mean. In fact, when the bible uses the analogy of a part of the body to describe the relationship between Christians (Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12) – it is with the universal church, the entire body of Christ that it has in mind, not the members of a particular church or assembly. This, I believe, is of vital importance.

There is an undeniable and unfathomable bond between Christians. This is can be seen when Christians who have never met before come together for the first time. There is a special unity, which not only defies human understanding, but is also another distinguishing feature which sets a Christian apart from a non-Christian. In this sense, it can be said that a Christian can never be a ‘Lone Ranger’. It is simply impossible. It also follows that one cannot say that each individual Christian must interact with (fellowship), serve within and/or receive support from a particular community of Christians ie his ‘local’ church. It simply isn’t a necessity and failure to do so does not make one disobedient. It also follows that ministry is not necessarily restricted to official activities within a specific church group. Since the bible has never placed such restrictions on us, we shouldn’t impose it on ourselves or those around us.

Furthermore, it might be appropriate to point out that the concept of a ‘Sunday Morning Christian’ and/or ‘Sunday Sermon Christian’ is completely alien to the bible (it simply has no equivalent in the bible). The only thing that remotely resembles this concept is that of the ‘carnal Christian’ which is also best left to a future entry.

Quite apart from the misguided belief that there are ‘lone rangers’ in the church and that these individuals are in some way disobedient, is the real problem of the ‘cookie-cutter’ Christian in many conservative or fundamentalist churches today. As eluded to earlier, many Christians in such churches feel a need to change every aspect of their lives. But this doesn’t stop at an individual level. There is a tendency to, at a church-wide level, try to ‘fit’ everyone into a particular mould of what the predominant group thinks a Christian should look like. Many buckle under the pressure of social acceptance, while those who resist are either marginalised or made to feel unwanted and unworthy.

Not only is this approach not warranted in the bible, but it does seem to resemble the very type of attitudes that Paul sought to prevent his discourse on the body of Christ as contained in 1 Corinthians 12:14-25, which reads, “For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.”

It would seem that the very attitude and action in many churches today of expecting members to fit within a predetermined mould of accepted characteristics and behavior are the very things that Paul is speaking against in the above passage. They are in effect asking everyone to be an eye, a hand, a foot. The fact is that Christians are made up of diverse characters, personalities and functions; this is the very intention of God; and there is to be unity in the church along with this diversity; and this diversity is vital to the survival of the church.

Spiritual Gossips?

One topic that has been on my mind (on and off) for awhile, and was raised again over the weekend, is that of gossip. So what is it?

According to my Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th ed), it is nothing more than, “casual conversation or unsubstantiated reports about other people” or “a person who likes talking about other people’s private lives” (when used in a derogatory sense).

Now the first definition is very broad and does not suggest anything morally reprehensible. It is mere casual conversation about someone else. It doesn’t necessarily have to contain negative information, malicious intentions nor does it have to cause the listener to leave with a lower opinion of the subject of the conversation. In fact, the consequences seem to be completely irrelevant where the definition is concerned. Even when used as a derogatory term to describe someone, the only negative seems to be the invasion of privacy – the gossip likes to talk about other people’s private lives. So from the two offerings from my Oxford Dictionary two negatives emerge – (1) unsubstantiated reports and (2) invasion of privacy – nothing particularly reprehensible.

This leads me to think that since we are constantly told in Christian circles that gossip is wrong, this definition is perhaps insufficient. So how then is gossip defined in the bible, if at all, and why is it bad?

A cursory search of the entire bible (NIV) reveals only 10 verses where the specific word “gossip” appears, a majority of them coming from the book of proverbs. Those which are relevant to the discussion are listed below in chronological order:

Proverbs 11:13 – “A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret”

Proverbs 16:28 – “A perverse man stirs dissension, and a gossip separates close friends”

Proverbs 18:8 (26:22) – “The words of a gossip are like (choice) morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts”

Proverbs 20:19 – “A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid a man who talks too much”

Proverbs 26:20 – “Without wood a fire goes out; without gossip a quarrel dies down”

3 John 1:8-9 – “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church”

I think that these verses enable us to decipher a number of characteristics of gossip and pitfalls to avoid.

First and foremost, the word translated here as “gossip” is translated in other translations as “whisperer”. That alone suggests that it is the manner that the communication is conducted that is the problem. It is a secret, covert operation – something done ‘behind one’s back’.

Secondly, it is a breach of confidence. Both Proverbs 11:13 and 20:19 explicitly refers to a ‘betrayal’ of confidence. This necessarily implies that there was direct communication of the relevant information between the subject and the gossip (ie the subject communicated something to the gossip in confidence). In addition, these verses necessarily suggest that there was an expressed or implied request for non-disclosure which was likewise communicated. Furthermore, Proverbs 18:8 and 26:22 adds that since such information is of a private nature, it is ‘juicy’ or sensational when communicated to others. That’s perhaps why it may cause so much damage.

3 John 1:8-9 seems to suggest that there must also be a malicious intent involved. This is somewhat confirmed by the above mention point on the secrecy and covert nature of the gossip’s work as well as the desire to be the bearer of ‘juicy’ news (selfish motives).

And finally, it would seem that one possible result of gossip is one where the subject’s relationship with others is adversely affected ie gossip may cause a rift in (or destruction of) a friendship, or cause others to be biased against him (Proverbs 16:28).

Combined with the secular definition above, we have 4 points of definition – Gossip is/are:

1. Unsubstantiated reports;
2. Communicated in secret (covertly);
3. In breach of an expressed or implied request for secrecy/non-disclosure;
4. Intentionally malicious (or at the very least negligent)

This also means that where these points are not accounted for, it is not gossip. In other words, where statements are:

1. Substantiated or true reports;
2. Communicated openly;
3. Not in breach of any expressed or implied request for secrecy/non-disclosure ie the subject did not tell you in confidence (implied request) or specifically tell you not to tell others;
4. Not malicious (or grossly negligent);

they are not gossip.

However, it is precisely in Christian circles that gossip is at its most prevalent and damaging. The irony is that it is the very people who claim a high level of spiritual maturity who are the biggest culprits. They often veil their gossip as concern – communicating it to people with authority over the subject (eg parents, pastors, or group leaders) or by prefixing/suffixing their gossip with statements like, “I’m telling you this so that you can pray…”

Many a time, these people have not bothered to substantiate the information first (neglient), and/or wouldn’t have the guts to say it in front of the subject (lest they be confronted or exposed), and/or know that the subject would want such information to be kept secret (breach of confidence), and/or without regard (malicious or grossly negligent) to the potential negative consequences that would almost certainly result from their communication (eg a breakdown of relationships). It all seems so pious, but they are messengers from hell, leaving flaming fires in their wake.

It would appear that there are a number (albeit a very small number) of ‘real’ people (a remnant) amongst the many ‘cmi’s out there in GL and I’ve taken, all but, 7 years to finally meet them! Ironically, they aren’t that old (age-wise). Perhaps, this should not come as a surprise considering that they have not been tainted by the many influential figures – what I like to call middle management.

These people, like vampires, rove around, seeking those to whom they may bite and infect; transforming into their own kind and subsuming them into their own fold. Just like in the stories, these vampires cannot enter our lives unless invited in and so they get in through cunning and sly (when unsuspecting newcomers fail to detect their constant invitations and demonstrations of concern as a ploy to take control of their entire lives). Sadly, these vampires are not so easily dispensed off with sulphur, garlic, holy water or crosses. Furthermore, those they cannot infect are ostracised and made to look inferior, abnormal or unworthy.

What further saddens me is that the vampires and the ‘outcasts’ often do not realise that it is the vampire who is inferior, abnormal, and to a certain degree, unworthy. He is deficient in the worse possible way – he cannot even come into contact with the sun – an essential building block for most of the life on this planet! As light exposes darkness, it exposes them for what they truly are – dust and ashes – nothing more. Nothing of any real worth or substance.