*Update 18 Apr 2009: ST has done it’s homework (photos included). Click here for ST’s Who’s WHO.
Jenica Chua Chor Ping, native Singaporean above 42 years old.*
She had wrote to the Straits Times, and 3 of her letters had been quoted. The 3 letters are:
- Some erroneous claims in writer’s views on gay debate, ST Online Forum, May 25, 2007 Friday
- NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause, ST Forum, October 17, 2007 Wednesday
- ‘Visibly distraught’? Prof [Thio Li-Ann] was fiery and passionate, ST Forum, October 25, 2007 Thursday
In the first article, Dr Alan Chin, is used as the medical “expert”. Do note that Dr Alan Chin is only a family physician who graduated in NUS in 1982. And he is the person who helped in counting the votes.
In the third article, NMP Thio Li-Ann is mentioned. Angela Thiang Pei Yun is her undergraduate student who did a directed research paper, “Pride and Prejudice: Law, Morality, and Homosexual Politics in Singapore”. Angela Thiang is the one who said questions about the new office bearers’ religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant.
According to blogs in internet, Angela Thiang is working in Thio Su Mien’s law firm – TSMP Law Corporation. Thio Su Mien is NMP Thio Li-Ann’s mother.
Some erroneous claims in writer’s views on gay debate
SECTION: ST FORUM – ONLINE STORY
May 25, 2007 Friday
I REFER to the article, ‘Is homosexuality wrong?: Three factors to consider’ (ST, May 22), by Mr David Garcia.
I would like to clarify a few points which I believe he misrepresented.
Firstly, Mr Garcia states that there is no official statement by the church that states homosexuality is wrong. This is an erroneous statement.
For instance, the bishops of the Anglican church in South-east Asia, have issued an official statement in 2003, stating: ‘A natural, holistic and consistent reading of the Scriptures clearly shows that it is against the practice of homosexuality. In the context of orthodox and classical Christianity, the canonical authority of the Scriptures is taken to be recognised and received by the community of faith and not subject to majority, culturally relevant or even theological voting.’
The Bible, the basis of Christian beliefs, also states categorically: ‘Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.’
Hence, the Bible states that homosexuality is an offence, viewed in the same way as adultery, theft and slander. A core Christian belief is that of repentance, meaning ‘a change of mind’ towards God. The Christian faith embraces people who repent from homosexuality but does not condone homosexuality as an offence.
Secondly, Mr Garcia states that ‘stealing is a crime, not kleptomania’. Kleptomania is stated as a disorder in American Psychiatric Association official DSM handbook.
There is acknowledgement that kleptomania is a disorder. The DSM handbook definition of kleptomania is ‘the recurrent failure to resist impulses to steal items’.
As I have worked with inmates from Singapore Prison, I can tell you that in real life, a person with kleptomania who has stolen things is still judged guilty in the eyes of the law. The assertion by Mr Garcia that an act of theft of kleptomania may be ‘excused’ is not true.
In a previous letter to The Straits Times, Dr Alan Chin asserted that homosexuality is a disease from a medical point of view. In fact, homosexuality is stated as a disorder in the American Psychiatric Association DSM handbook all along, until it was removed under political pressure from gay activities in the 1970s. Just as a person with kleptomania is not excused by law when caught in the act of stealing, the law does not excuse people caught in homosexual offences.
Mr Garcia states that ‘reason helps when religion gets unreasonable’ and ‘we must use reason to talk and discuss about religious and social matters’.
I would like to point out that reason and religion are not two opposing values that are to be weighed against each other. Is the basis of Mr Garcia’s reasoning based on atheism as a world view? Different people would have different basis of reasoning based on their world views. This is especially so in multi-religious Singapore where most people profess a religion. Thus, what is considered ‘reasonable’ can only be shaped by the values of a society.
Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)
NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause
October 17, 2007 Wednesday
I AM writing in response to the article, ‘NMP to submit Parliamentary Petition to repeal gay sex law’ (ST, Oct 12).
As a Nominated MP, Mr Siew Kum Hong is supposed to be non-partisan and should not be affiliated with any particular political group.
However, he has chosen to be the sponsor of a parliamentary petition to present the homosexual agenda.
While he is free to present his personal views on any issue, Mr Siew has overstepped the boundary as an NMP when he chose to represent the homosexual interest group.
MPs in Parliament have to run for election, look after their constituents’ interests and represent their views. As an NMP, Mr Siew bears no such burden.
He should not adulterate the NMP role further by becoming the proxy representative of the homosexual interest group.
This is especially so as the Government has already taken one year to review the Penal Code, with input from various consultation channels, and taken into consideration the views of the majority of Singaporeans who are for maintaining family values and preserving Section 377A of the Penal Code.
Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)
‘Visibly distraught’? Prof [Thio Li-Ann] was fiery and passionate
October 25, 2007 Thursday
I REFER to the article, ‘Petition to repeal gay sex law sparks heated debate’ (ST, Oct 23).
I take issue with the description of Nominated MP Thio Li-Ann as ‘visibly distraught’.
I was in the Parliament meeting and noted that she dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and with passion.
She peppered her arguments with wit, drawing applause from the viewing gallery and getting many MPs thumping their seats. One example was when she said ‘we want to be able to say ‘Majulah Singapura’, not ‘Mundur Singapura” (Onward, Singapore, not backward, Singapore).
Her speech showed up several flaws in the arguments of the pro-repeal camp.
For instance, in response to the pro-repeal camp’s description of homosexuals as a disadvantaged minority group, Professor Thio rebutted that ‘Singapore law recognises only racial and religious minorities. Special protection is reserved for the poor and disadvantaged. The average homosexual person in Singapore is both well educated, with higher income – that’s why upscale-condo developers target them!’.
What I see is a fiery and passionate debater, not a visibly distraught one.
Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)
Articles obtained from StraitsTimes
* Age information is sourced from undisclosed source, and may be incorrect.