Dear Sir,

I refer to the report: “TOC Report: 150 call for vote of no confidence” by Choo Zheng Xi.

I write this letter in response to two objections I have about what the author of the article wrote. :

1) Christian Fundamentalism

Firstly, I object to the pigeonholing of AWARE ex-co members as “Christian Fundamentalists”, a term which the author employs in his article. After quoting a statement by Angela Thiang about her stance against homosexuals, Mr Choo then makes the logical leap (and a huge one that is) in the very next line to conclude that AWARE is now run by a group of “Christian Fundamentalists.”

I take issue with making this huge leap because (i) nowhere in the article is there suggestion or evidence that the ex-co is now Christian fundamentalist, (ii) an anti-homosexual stance does not equate to Christian fundamentalism.

True, Jenice Chua and Angela Thiang had both previously attracted attention for their anti-homosexual stance. But is that evidence of Christian fundamentalism? Is that a good ground for labelling them as such? How is the Author sure that they are Christians in the first place? And even if they are Christians, why must they be pigeonholed as being “fundamentalist” as opposed to “misguided” or “uninformed Christians” or “Christians who may not be totally familiar with Christ’s teachings as a whole.”

Attaching the “fundamentalist” label on them just results in tarring public perception of their reputation because “fundamentalist” as a term carries with it a negative connotation. A glance through some of the comments on TOC using the search function to look for the term “fundamentalist” would perhaps make this point of mine much clearer.

Mr Choo needs to be more aware of the implications of using certain terms before using them loosely as he has done.

2) Christianity and Regressiveness

The second grouse I have is Mr Choo’s quoting of the Glass Castle Magazine’s editor, Jolene, whose view is that Christian fundamentalism leads to effects that are “regressive to women’s rights.”

Firstly, I think that there must be more justification on Mr Choo’s part first to show why Christian fundamentalism leads to a regression in terms of women’s rights. Simply putting a quote there will not do. Again, we see here a large logical leap that it unjustified. It seems as though the Author has made the erroneous assumption that Christianity is against women having rights or worse, that Christianity leads to a diminution of women’s rights – both of these are untrue.

Many questions follow from his quoting of Jolene’s views:

– What is the Christian stance on women’s rights?

– Does it in the first place negatively affect women’s rights or does it promote women’s rights?

– Is Mr Choo even aware of how Christianity views the issue of women’s rights? If he does not, is he therefore justified in making such an equation between Christianity and regression of women’s rights?

One perspective that I hope Mr Choo will consider is that Christianity holds women in high regard. The Bible affirms that women are equally valued, equally treated and share the same divine image of men. Husbands are to love and honour their wives just as they love themselves. Let it also not be forgotten that the Biblical accounts of Christ’s resurrection sees women as the first ones at the empty tomb. 

From this and from other articles on the TOC website, it seems to me that TOC is trying to side with the old committee of AWARE. Based on what Mr Choo wrote and based on the lack of evidence, it seems very contrived for him to try and link the new committee to anti-homosexual and “Christian fundamentalist” stances, both of which are deeply dividing terminologies.

Concluding, I wish to urge against the use of such divisive labels such as “fundamentalist” as it is unhelpful in promoting civil discourse. Even if one believes bona fide that someone is a “fundamentalist,” perhaps there are other less offensive terms that can and should be used.

Yours Sincerely,

Tang Shang Jun

—–

Editor’s note:

TOC apologizes for any offence caused by the terminology employed in the article in question and highlights that it was not our intention to criticize the Christian community as a whole. 

——

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

隔离期间父亲逝世 官员来回载送完成孝女心愿

为见患有脑癌的父亲最后一面,会计助理从新加坡赶回马来西亚太平,但不幸父亲在隔离期间病逝,她也因此痛哭流涕,负责管理隔离中心的官员获知后,特尽力给予协助,让她能够在灵堂前见父亲的最后一面。 法外亦有温情,即使身在不便行动的隔离期间,仍能法外开恩,让孝女见上过世父亲的最后一面。该悲伤又温馨的故事发生在41岁留新的大马籍会计助理刘宝珠身上。 据马国媒体《星洲日报》报道,刘宝珠在经过众官员的协助下,终于与父亲见上最后一面。 “这些官员在行管令期间除了必须与疫情对抗外,也非常努力协助由国外返回大马,欲见病重或逝世的亲人最后一面者,让他们达成心愿,因此他们的努力必须获得表扬。” 询及父亲,刘宝珠形容父亲刘华生前是非常照顾家人,而且对于儿孙均奉行爱的教育,而且子女成家立业后,也经常伴随出游,一家人关系相当融洽。 然而,父亲在8个月前不幸诊断出患有第三期脑癌,当时由其他兄弟姐妹轮流带他到吉隆坡私人医院治疗,之后再回到太平医院继续治疗。 而她因在20年前便到我国工作,因此几乎每月都会回家探望父母,父亲患病期间,更是几乎每月都会回家照顾。尔后,行动管制令开始实施,她也只能被迫返回我国,未料却是和父亲最后一次见面。父亲的病情于5月底恶化,5月29日逝世。 在获悉父亲病危后,她便毅然决然搭飞机前往新加坡,希望与父亲能见上最后一面。在抵达马来西亚后,她被安排在芙蓉隔离中心进行隔离,期间曾提出申请欲回家探望父亲,无奈被拒绝。 不幸的是,2天后,她接获妹妹的来电告知父亲病逝的噩耗,当下情绪失控痛哭流涕,而隔离中心的官员知悉后,便立即个与协助,并连夜将她转到怡保的隔离中心。翌日,申请获得批准后,官员立即将她目的地,并为她申请了数小时,与父亲见上最后一面。 据刘宝珠指出,官员当时在炎热的天气下,和她全程都穿着层层的防护配装从怡保驱车到太平,在等待她约3小时都没有催促,让她可以不留遗憾。 更令她感动的是,在父亲举殡之日,官员又再次接送她参加举殡仪式,完成她送爸爸最后一程的心愿。

Downtown Line 2 to open ahead of schedule in December

Minister for Transport and Second Minister for Defence Lui Tuck Yew announced…

芽笼14巷店屋失火,幸无人伤亡

芽笼14巷两个店屋单位失火,所幸并未造成任何伤亡。 根据新加坡民防部队发文指出,芽笼14巷昨日(19日)发生火警,消防队在晚上8点半左右接到通报后立即前往支援。其中,第67与69 两间店屋发生火灾。民防部队派出12辆消防车,共70名消防员前往现场支援,并使用三部水龙(handheld jets)与一部高架水炮协助灌救。 经三小时的灌救后,火势也得以控制,所幸并未造成任何伤亡。当局也上载了一段民防人员使用高架水炮降低火势周围的气温的视频。 网上流传了的画面中可见大火吞噬,一发不可收拾,浓烟弥漫。各家媒体也接获民众投报,一名居民告诉《亚洲新闻台》,“我在客厅使听到爆炸声,然后从窗台望出去我看见了火势。” 他表示,直至晚间9点40分左右仍可见滚滚浓烟。 据《海峡时报》了解,当时已有民防部队人员封锁现场,部分居民已被当局驱散。 消防安全小贴士 我们看古装剧里头,经常出现“天干物燥,小心火烛”,旨在提醒民众注意安全,所以消防安全是家庭和工作场所安全的一个重要方面。火灾可以在任何地方和因意外原因随时爆发,如功率过载,短路,厨房事故或雷击。 根据《海峡时报》2014年曾报道,当火灾发生时: 不要慌张…

选举局:选区竞选广播将从7月3日至7日

选举局公布,选区竞选广播将从7月3日至7日,晚上7点开始播出。而两场政党竞选广播则分别在7月2日和9日播放。 日前,选举局宣布不会有任何集会,竞选期间将会提供选区竞选广播,让候选人透过电视进行宣传。 选区竞选广播将通过电视5频道播出,单选区候选人有三分钟的演说时间,而竞逐四人或五人集选区的竞选团队则有12或15分钟的时间。 候选人可任意选择任何一种官方语言发言。 至于政党竞选广播,唯有至少派出6名的候选人的政党才获得分配广播时段。政党竞选广播将在19个电视和电台频道上播放。 若候选人欲透过网络直播,选举局也将提供场地,供各政党申请。欲使用者可从本月30日,即提名日当天提出申请。 其直播时间为,7月1日至8日,每天均有三段直播时间:早上7点到10点、中午12点到下午3点和晚上7点到10点。 每段直播时段值107元,而当局仅会提供电力、网络和基本设施,候选人必须自行确保直播顺利进行 当局也提醒候选人,无论是在这些场地或其他地方进行直播,得遵守现有条例,而他们也必须向选举官通报会使用哪些平台进行直播。外国人不能参与直播活动。