AWARE – is it all about gays only?
April 14th, 2009 | 
Author:
This was written by Chemical Generation Singapore I happen to like it; for one it’s not a mindless departure like Ah Au call to arms (in the name of what?) – it seems the AWARE saga is fast unfolding like Starwars; the latest development 150 AWARE members seek vote of no confidence in new executive committee suggest the empire will strike back. Lets all see where it all goes.
Singapore Daddy
If what we read in the internet is true, the Christian Taliban have taken over AWARE and they are out to get the gays. This inference is made because some, but not all, of its prime members have openly voiced anti-gay sentiments. The inference is made also because it was assumed that AWARE would besides having an interest in women’s rights, would now also have the time to bash gay activism. The inference is made because gay kingpins like Alex Au voiced concerns and speculation of anti-gay activism became fact of anti-gay activism. The inference is made because the Straits Times planted seeds in the readers minds that AWARE was being hijacked. Suddenly the Straits Times was to be trusted categorically. But credit must be given to those in AWARE who are unseated. Over the weekend of the ST report, they managed to rally the gay community and bloggers to paint the new AWARE committee as devious and anti-gay. The new AWARE committee must have been alarmed at the just as sneaky counter-attack to their conniving attack.
President: Claire Nazar (has since quit the post)
Vice-president: Charlotte Wong Hock Soon
Honorary secretary: Jenica Chua Chor Ping
Assistant honorary secretary: Sally Ang Koon Hian
Honorary treasurer: Maureen Ong Lee Keang
Assistant honorary treasurer: Chew I-Jin
Committee member: Caris Lim Chai Leng
Committee member: Catherine Tan Ling Ghim
Committee member: Josie Lau Meng Lee
Committee member: Lois Ng
Committee member: Irene Yee Khor Quin
Committee member: Peggy Leong Pek Kay
I also think people are missing the big picture and should not focus on the anti-gay conspiracy shaped by the gay community. Furthermore, obviously people who never attended any AGMs at all would be shocked but this is what happens during AGMS from condos to country clubs whenever there is a power grab. It is legitimate and actually crafty politiking – if those in power can’t see it coming, they don’t deserve to be in power. The issue in this ousting is instead about how once the results of “democracy” don’t turn out in the way one expects, there would be cries of unfairness and distasteful underhand power games. This is to be expected of course as the losers always have an excuse, and a way to get back.
Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls
Caught off-guard by big turnout, longtime members lose to fresh faces
Wong Kim Hoh
April 10, 2009 Friday
SINGAPORE’S best-known women’s group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), has seen a dramatic changing of the guard – which some members are describing as nothing short of a leadership grab.
When Aware held its annual general meeting on March 28, everyone expected the usual: No more than 30 or 40 members would turn up at its Dover Crescent centre, and a prepared slate of candidates would be voted into office easily.
Instead, more than 100 people came, the majority of whom had joined Aware only in recent months.
And when the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by new faces, who won by wide majorities.
In the end, nine out of 12 executive committee spots went to the newcomers.
One older member who won without a contest was Mrs Claire Nazar, a former corporate counsel nominated to be president by outgoing Aware chief Constance Singam.
But barely a week into her new term, and before making her first statement as president, Mrs Nazar quit suddenly this week.
She confirmed that she had resigned, but declined to say any more when reached by The Straits Times.
It is not known who will now become president.
Longtime members took two other positions: Chew I-Jin as assistant honorary treasurer and Caris Lim Chai Leng was elected a committee member.
The election results have left longtime Aware members in shock.
Former president Tan Joo Hymn, 38, told The Straits Times the big turnout at the AGM surprised her.
‘I arrived at the meeting late and found out that I was No. 100 on the attendance list. I’ve been a member for 10 years, and never before has there been such a turnout,’ said the former lawyer who is now a full-time mother.
Another former president, writer Dana Lam, 57, said: ‘There were many faces I had not seen before, and I found that very strange.
‘In previous years, even if there were new members, they would be known to one or more of the older members.’
The first indication that something was afoot came when Ms Chew, an Aware veteran, was challenged and defeated handsomely by new member Charlotte Wong Hock Soon for the post of vice-president.
Ms Chew was later elected unopposed as assistant honorary treasurer.
‘It was alarming,’ said Ms Lam. ‘How could a new member who had just joined for a couple of months, and whom we knew nothing about, be picked over someone who has been with Aware for more than 15 years?’
Some of the older members immediately began checking the attendance list.
Ms Tan said: ‘We found that about 80 of the 102 who turned up were new members who joined between January and March this year.’
Aware, a feminist group that has prided itself on being ‘all inclusive’, hcs never vetted the people who apply to be members.
Men can join too, as associate members.
As it dawned on them that a leadership grab was imminent, some older members at the AGM tried asking the newcomers who they were, what they stood for, and why they wanted to be in charge.
They got only the briefest answers, they said.
Ms Lam said she tried suggesting that new members serve a stint on Aware’s various sub-committees before standing for election to leadership positions.
But such suggestions went unheeded as the election proceeded, with more newcomers winning executive committee positions by landslide margins.
Ironically, the old guard at Aware had been working towards changing their Constitution to make it a rule that only those who have been members for at least a year would be eligible to join the ex-co.
There is currently no rule to bar a brand new member from seeking office, and that was what happened at the AGM.
Ms Tan said: ‘We were simply outnumbered. Technically, they got in legitimately.’
She added that the way the election proceeded was so unusual, it was hard to imagine that the takeover was not a planned effort.
‘It could not be pure coincidence,’ she said.
But little is known of Aware’s new leaders, aside from the fact that they include women from the corporate sector, lawyers, company directors and academics.
Older members said the newcomers spoke well but would not elaborate on their plans for Aware.
‘When asked if they believed in equality, they kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them,’ Ms Lam said.
Older members were keen to know if the newcomers shared Aware’s vision and values, including equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality.
But one outspoken new member from the floor, who identified herself as Angela Thiang, said questions about the new office bearers’ religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant.
Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, a two-term president of Aware, told The Straits Times that she, like many other members, was concerned.
‘If you are keen to serve, you don’t challenge every position. We do not know who they are,’ said the former journalist who is now in Bangkok doing consultancy work for international women’s group Unifem.
‘It is very troubling, more so because I’ve heard the new president has resigned.’
Almost a fortnight into their new roles, the new leaders of Aware were not entertaining calls from the media this week.
New honorary secretary Jenica Chua Chor Ping told The Straits Times a press release would be issued ‘in a few days’ and added that until then, the committee would not answer any questions.
A check showed that some of those at the AGM and on the new committee have appeared in The Straits Times Forum Page.
Ms Chua, Ms Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, a male member of Aware who attended the AGM and supported the newcomers, all wrote letters to this newspaper between August and October 2007.
In a letter on Oct 17 that year, Ms Chua said NMP Siew Kum Hong had overstepped his non-partisan role and advanced the homosexual cause by tabling a petition in Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual sex between consenting men.
In another letter on Oct 25, she took issue with a Straits Times report which said NMP Thio Li-Ann had been ‘visibly distraught’ when she opposed Mr Siew’s petition vigorously.
Ms Chua said Ms Thio had dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and passion.
Dr Chin and Ms Thiang both wrote letters to caution against the risks of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.
Meanwhile, news of Aware’s AGM has spread among older members who did not attend the meeting, as well as civil society groups.
The most frequently-asked questions: Who are the new women in charge, why do they want the leadership, and what are their plans for Aware?
Ms Mathi said: ‘The building of an institution takes many years; building its value system is even harder.
‘Why can’t they come in and be part of the process, and build it together and in a more evolutionary manner? That way, the comfort level will be high for everyone.’
Former newspaper editor and media consultant Peter Lim, a longtime associate member of Aware, said he was very surprised to learn what had taken place.
Asked why he thought a group of newcomers would want to take control, he said he did not know if it was an orchestrated effort.
But he thought Aware would be attractive to those seeking to be in charge of an established institution. Setting up a new outfit would take too much time and trouble.
‘Aware has built up its credentials over the years and achieved more than a few things,’ he said.
Three former Aware presidents – Ms Claire Chiang, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Ms Mathi – have served as NMPs.
‘Aware is a brand name and most people regard it as the leading voice of the feminists and modern women in Singapore,’ said Mr Lim.
Posted in Snippets
Don’t be a sourgrape. It is right to be concerned, but it is not right to do it like this.
And to the gay community – are you sure that you are not overreacting? Why so defensive? Let them play things out, and then you can make an informed opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for posting this. This balances the view of those like me who are not for the vocal homophobic-phobic activism gaining much ground on the internet. The homophobic-phobes seem to latch on every remotely conceivable splinter and call it a tree. It takes discernment to read behind the lines of skewed views – both SPH and non-SPH alike.
A homophobic-phobic-phobe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“150 AWARE members seek vote of no confidence in new executive committee”
If these members get their way and regain control of AWARE by force, I will have no confidence in AWARE.
Why? Because they are a bunch of sore losers who do not keep their end of the deal. If they had turned up in full force during the AGM, they wouldn’t have lost. They have only themselves to blame.
Obviously, they are only interested in what they want for AWARE, forgetting that it is for all women that AWARE exists, not gays.
If I care to, I would protest that the gays are trying to hijack AWARE for themselves using human rights as an excuse.
But then, I won’t bother. Let the catfight alone. We’ve got rats to deal with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“150 AWARE members seek vote of no confidence in new executive committee”
If these members get their way and regain control of AWARE by force, I will have no confidence in AWARE.
Why? Because they are a bunch of sore losers who do not keep their end of the deal. If they had turned up in full force during the AGM, they wouldn’t have lost. They have only themselves to blame.
Obviously, they are only interested in what they want for AWARE, forgetting that it is for all women that AWARE exists, not gays. I don’t hear our women (not the feminazis) screaming in protest, do you?
If I care to, I would protest that the gays are trying to hijack AWARE for themselves using human rights as an excuse.
But then, I won’t bother. Leave cat fight alone. We’ve got rats to deal with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“150 AWARE members seek vote of no confidence in new executive committee”
If these members get their way and regain control of AWARE by force, I will have no confidence in AWARE.
Why? Because they are a bunch of sore losers who do not keep their end of the deal. If they had turned up in full force during the AGM, they wouldn’t have lost. They have only themselves to blame.
Obviously, they are only interested in what they want for AWARE, forgetting that it is for all women that AWARE exists, not gays. I don’t hear our women (not the feminazis) screaming in protest, do you?
If I care to, I would protest that the gays are trying to hijack AWARE for themselves using human rights as an excuse.
But then, I won’t bother. Leave cat fight alone. We’ve got rats to deal with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sour Grapes, I’m gay and I’m aghast by this turn of events. But I insist that I am not overreacting.
We gay activists know the strategy that Chjristian fundamentalists use like the back of our palms, so telling us that we should just ride this out and give the new exco is like saying to serial killer; okay, I know you’ve already murdered 15 people. I’m going to give you one more chance with this revolver, and I’ll see for myself that you are reformed. (even without going to reform shchool.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To all those who says the members are overreacting should think about what they are saying. And for shame wayangparty, bias much?
“The issue in this ousting is instead about how once the results of “democracy” don’t turn out in the way one expects, there would be cries of unfairness and distasteful underhand power games. This is to be expected of course as the losers always have an excuse, and a way to get back.”
One sweeping statement like yours is implying this whole saga is a matter of losers being sour.
And claiming AGMs are usually like this does not help with yoru article since your article already suggests there’s a power struggle in play which was planned.
The question here is who is struggling to overtake AWARE and WHY?
“It is legitimate and actually crafty politiking”
Really? Woud you say that about PAPS antics too? GRCs? Hello???
“I also think people are missing the big picture and should not focus on the anti-gay conspiracy shaped by the gay community”
Just because the gay community is sitting up and blogging about this matter does not equal to their manipulating the situation. The 150 members who are seeking a vote of no confidence are not all gay you know that.
Most of all don’t really know what’s going on in AWARE more than he members and their leaders, to write such a bias article suggests something about WP then the matter at hand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Bias much?
The article was extracted from Chemical Generation. Please direct your comments here.
Wayangparty has no comments on the AWARE fiasco.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alrighty, my mistake. Even so, your “no comment” comment starts your article by your giving approval to it: “I happen to like it; for one it’s not a mindless departure like Ah Au call to arms (in the name of what?) ”
Mindless departure? I happen to like it?
Good journalism starts with giving a level playing ground..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Robox,
I understand your concern, and I am also quite aware of the fundamental christians. Being a christian myself, I am very ashamed to be linked together with them as they clearly do not show charity, wisdom or patience in the way they approach things. Indeed, I abhor their narrow-minded approach to many things, with the approach to gays included.
I understand the frustration, but I am afraid that I cannot see the link being used to compare what they are doing (ASSUMING it is true) to a serial killer. That would be hyperbolic.
But my point is that they did win, and they did win by the rules. And to say that their sole motive is to highjack AWARE’s work to make it a quasi-anti gay organisation is not giving them a fair chance. They could be supportive of AWARE and want to push it forward quickly? And if they are all indeed christians, I would hope that they would demonstrate the christian virtues which bring people together instead of searing society apart.
Hopefully, the exco will quickly do something to clear the air.
Having said all these however, I would be inclined to change my view if things change and they do prove to be the fundamentalists that you say they are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
of course it’s not just about gays. it’s about tribal instincts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is too much focus on the anti-gay stance of the new Aware members. I do not think that their target here are the gays. Aware has not been talking much about gays.
Take a look at Aware’s Letters to the Press.
http://www.aware.org.sg/?page_id=584
There is nothing about gays. Aware has written many times in favour of keep abortion legal, and safe sex education. These are the things the fundies will want to change by taking over Aware.
Fundies are not only anti-gays, they also want to ban abortion, and are against contraceptives and safe sex education.
If you want to live in a society where their sex-hating morality form the laws, then by all means ignore them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
well-written article, wayang party, keep it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“First they came for the gay and lesbians…. I did not speak up as I was not one….
And then they came for the abortion doctors… I did not speak up as I was not one….
And then they came after adulterers… I did not speak up as I was not one….
And Then they came for ME (an unbeliever)… And there were no one left to speak up….”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since you wanna play “change the quote” game…
“First they came for the christians… I did not speak up as I was not one…
And then they came for the muslims… I did not speak up as I was not one….
And then they came after their critics… I did not speak up as I was not one….
And Then they came for MY SON… And there were no one left to speak up….”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The new administration is not pro-Singapore.
It is pro-Christians.
This should not be allowed to flourish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lol! Must admit the gays and friends are pretty creative – in adulterating “literature” and cocking up unfounded allegations.
Check this out and decide for yourself who the deceptive ones are:
NYJC4
Today, 10:31 AM
Zhuyuanzhang said:
“First they came for the gay and lesbians…. I did not speak up as I was not one….
And then they came for the abortion doctors… I did not speak up as I was not one….
And then they came after adulterers… I did not speak up as I was not one….
And Then they came for ME (an unbeliever)… And there were no one left to speak up….”
Zhuyuanzhang,
How ironic of you to hijack the statement of the Christian Pastor Martin Niemoller for your own ends. His original poem, translated, goes like this:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Note 2 crucial differences between the original and the twisted version which Zhuyuanzhang has posted
1) Most importantly, the Nazis were imprisoning and murdering the ‘Communists, Social Dems, and Jews” – is this happening, or is there even the hint that it could happen, to the gays, adulterers, and atheists? Analogy breaks down right here. What gays really want is for people to approve of their harmful, risky, lifestyle choice, and not to speak out against it. They and their supporters automatically feel ‘persecuted’ when people speak out against their harmful choices, when there is no ‘persecution’ in any sense of the word, beyond social disapproval from some quarters. So the use of this poem is totally unwarranted.
2) The Communists and Social Dems were a political party, and Jews are a racial / religious group. To compare a group of people with strong convictions / race that they can’t change and were not responsible for, to “gays / abortion doctors” is simply absurd. It demeans the ideologues and Jews who died unjustly, and absurdly seeks to ennoble gays (a majority of whom CHOOSE the lifestyle – I have met many of them and this is what they tell me), and abortion doctors (those who kill unborn babies – yes, they KILL them, unless you say that a fetus is not a living thing? You may not believe they are ‘human’ but you can’t deny they are ALIVE).
The vocal gay minority is fighting for their selfish right to self-indulgence, free from social disapproval (nothing more serious than that – no imprisonment, state-sanctioned execution, etc…) Many others are fighting to preserve the institution of marriage and its attendant values of fidelity and true love.
Don’t trot out the ridiculous fiction of a loving monogamous gay union: the majority of gays I have encountered live promiscuous self-indulgent lifestyles. Maybe many heterosexuals do to but at least they don’t try to rub our faces in why it’s their right to do so.
What gays need to understand is: we understand that you hate being told what to do. If you keep your activities behind closed doors no one could possible care less what you do with your consenting partners. But many people hate being told that a gay lifestyle is an acceptable ‘alternative’ and having that message preached at us day in day out.
You hate others telling you what to believe – why don’t you not do unto others as you’d have them not do unto you?
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=18907&page=10
I hope NYJC4 doesn’t mind me copying and pasting it because it is good to expose the fakes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
shoestring:
1) No one is killing any gays, but you are doing what you deny is happening. You are persecuting a choice like any other: like your choice of religion and my choice to ride a motorcycle. I may easily be killed riding a motorcycle, but there’s no anti-motorcycle lobby. Homosexuality may be harmful, but is it harmful to you?
Comparing homosexuality to religion may not be the clearest analogy, but not completely opposite. Most importantly, both are free choices by rational individuals. Jews chose their religion, and gays choose their lifestyle, as you point out. What right do you have to tell them what to do with their lives and bodies?
Finally, on abortion. Yes, foetuses are alive, but so was the chicken I just had for dinner. Some lives are simply and unfortunately worth less than others. An unborn one is sometimes the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Call it anything you want, fair or unfair, they played buy the rules and they won. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for our gahment.
If only this would happen at our coming election, that would be the greatest news that Sinkaporeans have heard for centuries!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Finally, on abortion. Yes, foetuses are alive, but so was the chicken I just had for dinner. Some lives are simply and unfortunately worth less than others. An unborn one is sometimes the case.”
You mean your live is worth more than an unborn? What about the right of the unborn to live? Do only feminists have that right? Do others have that right only if it does not infringe upon the rights of feminists?
Why the double standards? It can only happen when you place your own selfish interests above others to the extend of deny another of his/her right to live. Are you comparing the human foetus to a chicken? How much respect do you have for others?
So, anti-abortion is anti-women? Why? Because an unwanted child should not be allowed to be an obstacle or burden to the women who has, unwittingly given life to an egg?
You talk about love. Tell me, is killing another life for the sake of one’s selfish interest really love?
Lastly, “You are persecuting a choice like any other: like your choice of religion and my choice to ride a motorcycle.”
I don’t care if you choose to kill yourself with HIV, but don’t tell me to agree with you that homosexuality is normal and I should accept it. Don’t tell me that our daughters and nieces should be allowed to experiment with homosexuality. You are infringing into my space by telling me what to and not to tell to whoever I love and wish to guide.
You are telling me to change my values to suit your idiosyncrasies.
It is all about you, isn’t it? 1% percent of the population is forcing the rest to do what they want against their values and beliefs.
It is like a spoiled brat on an outing insisting that the rest of the group should go and watch whatever lilies with her when they would rather prefer to go to the library. Yes, the library may be a boring lifestyle choice to you, but not for others.
You have your rights, the rest of us have ours too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Abortion
A foetus has rights, but not rights of his own. His rights are inseparable from his mother’s because he is inseparable from his mother’s body, until he is born. The mother has earned the right to decide for the foetus, because she is bearing the burden and nourishing the foetus all by herself. The foetus would not be alive but for the mother, and if the mother so chooses, then the foetus loses his right to live. Only when he is separate from his mother does he gain separate rights of his own.
Homosexuality
I am not telling you to change your values. You can teach your daughters and nieces whatever you want, if they are willing to learn from you. There was no problem to begin with, just everyone teaching whatever they believed in. The old Aware treated homosexuality as neutral. That is the keyword, “neutral”. Not positive, and not negative. This whole issue arises now because the new exco is imposing their values that homosexuality is bad on a major civil society group. You can believe it is bad, I have no problem with that. Just don’t tell people it is bad. And I’m not telling anyone it is good. I am merely fine with however gays choose to exercise their choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Abortion – the mother has the right to terminate her unborn’s life? Maybe. Is that what a loving person would do? By all means, exercise your rights but do not shoot yourself in the foot the next moment by waxing lyrical about love.
Homosexuality
I am not asking you to change yours either, but keep your hands off my loved ones.
The old AWARE can even claim they treat it as negative, but bringing the subject of homosexuality to impressionable young minds without parents’ knowledge or consent is already crossing the line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The fetus does have rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
shoestring:
first, wikipedia is hardly the most convincing source to base your argument on, but besides that, from the article, the foetus can be victim of crime, but from what i’ve read there, abortion is certainly not considered a crime in most cases.
second, you’re right in saying that a loving mother would not terminate her unborn child’s life. but what if the mother is an unloving person anyway – if she is not going to show the child care and concern, treating it with neglect and abuse – would the child be better off? I understand this argument is full of holes by itself, but I just felt I should point out the “fetal rights” you’ve talked about applies mainly to crimes of violence committed against THE MOTHER that also put the life of the foetus at risk.
third, “Yes, the library may be a boring lifestyle choice to you, but not for others.” you’re right. but should laws that forbid people from going elsewhere be kept in place? should a secular, neutral organisation be allowed to push the idea that anyone who does not go to the library be viewed negatively, and that the state should reserve the right in its laws to persecute those who do so?
forth, “but bringing the subject of homosexuality to impressionable young minds without parents’ knowledge or consent is already crossing the line.” I believe most schools allow parents to take their child out of such lessons if they feel that the schools’ views disagree with those they want their child to pick up. Whether or not parents are aware of the content being taught, shouldn’t it be the parents’ duty to find out? If they have not taken the initiative to find out what their children are being taught at school, then who have they to blame?
Although, frankly, I think taking the child out of these lessons only provides the environment for a closed mind to develop.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m concerned about what kind of moral values the old AWARE has been teaching our children in school. Are they going to teach that abortion is fine too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To all the gay activists here, instead of bashing the new exco before they have even begun work, why don’t you bash the government instead? After all, it is they, not the new exco, who outlawed homosexuality. Who do you think enacted Section 377A in the very first place? Yes, it’s possible they inherited it from the British, but that does not explain WHY the government didn’t repeal it the moment Singapore achieved independence. If you want Section 377A repealed, pressure the GOVERNMENT for it, not AWARE, who after all is only an advocacy group.
Yes, what the new exco did was sneaky and underhanded, but nonetheless, they still won in a CONSTITUTIONAL manner, and that alone legitimizes them. Impeaching them SHOULD NOT be on the cards UNLESS they did something contrary to the interests of women or AWARE. Ending gay activism to focus on women’s issues definitely does NOT come under either category.
Should they press for the outlawing of abortions and contraceptives, or promote discrimination against homosexuality? An emphatic NO, but then again, the old exco should NOT have been promoting gay sex or premarital sex in schools in the very first place. If they had not done such things, it is quite unlikely the supporters of the new exco would have ousted them. And NO, what they did is NOT a coup: technically speaking, a coup is an unlawful grab for power by force of arms. By its very nature, a coup is unconstitutional, and like it or not, that’s something the new exco’s supporters did NOT do.
Finally, for all the gay activists out there, the vast majority of Singaporeans think that what the Church of Our Savior did was wrong, but that does NOT mean that they approve of the gay lifestyle either. Christianity is not the only religion that teaches that homosexuality is a sin; so does Islam. In fact, in Islamic fundamentalist countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, gays are executed for their “sinful lifestyle”. I have no problem if my son or daughter told me they’re gay. Frankly speaking, I’d much rather have my teenage daughter experiment with lesbian sex than heterosexual sex if she’s really determined to have premarital sex despite parental disapproval; at least there’s no chance of her becoming pregnant before she’s ready to be a mother. However, I DO have a problem if she told me she’s pregnant because AWARE taught her it’s okay to experiment with premarital sex, and likewise, I DO have a problem if my kids are encouraged to experiment with gay sex in school.
So be gay if you want; it’s your legitimate human right. Equally, you have the right to DEMAND an end to discrimination against gays, because discrimination against anyone for any reason whatsoever is wrong because it’s a fundamental violation of human rights. However, what you do NOT have a right to is to promote your lifestyle to impressionable children. They have a right to choose to be gay when they’re old enough to decide for themselves, but it should NEVER be forced upon them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
jz on Tue, 28th Apr 2009 2:47 am
I hope you realize I am not saying it is absolutely wrong or right. Sure, there are circumstances and exceptions, but my observation is that the rights activists are taking it to the extreme absolute. Wikipedia is not as authoritative, maybe (actually I disagree that not authoritative = not credible), but not the references.
I have been told in absolute terms that the fetus has no rights. The mother has the rights. Full stop. But that is hardly the case. The fetus does have right in some areas/countries. Why tell me half the story?
About love, again, it is not absolute. I am asking the feminazis, who argue for absolute rights, whether terminating a fetus is always about desperate cases where women have no choice. I do not think so. For those other cases, it is done out of convenience so as not to hamper the full development of women in career, lifestyle choices etc. In these cases, I am asking, do you know what love entails? Many things but it is definitely not selfish, let alone killing another. As it is, fetal rights are still being debated.
Your 3rd paragraph, you need to ask the government
Your question about parent’s responsibility is besides the point. The point is, if you wish others to respect your space, please respect theirs. Leave it to parents to educate their children in their own timing, their own ways.
If we do not even care about an unborn’s right to life, why do we care so much about how other people’s children are educated? Only reason I can think of is that it benefits us, right?
If that is allowed, then do you have the moral right to demand that Christians, for instance, do not try to educate your kids about Christianity? Because to them, it is beneficial to a person’s well-being.
That is why I say it goes both ways. You do not want me to bother you, don’t bother me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe learning about Christianity is certainly beneficial to students in Singapore, as long as the programme does not solely focus on that, and as much effort is devoted to the other religions. In fact, I believe schools are already teaching students about the different major religions in singapore, to promote understanding and tolerance (although, what is there to “tolerate”?) It is on a relatively superficial level, but that is one of the constrains of trying to remain secular. (And one of the benefits, I suppose, from most already overloaded students’ and teachers’ perspectives.)
As a parent, if I so oppose, my moral right would be to bring it up with the school, or the Ministry, my objections to the programme, and the right to withdraw my child from the programme. I have no right, however, to gather my friends and those others who have similar objections, and take over the organisation who is organising such talks, and I certainly have no right to use it to push my own agenda, claiming to speak for the majority of the country.
However, as institutions of a secular state, schools reserve the right to teach children that yes, there are Christians, there are Buddhists, there are Muslims, there are Hindus, and there are many many other religions in Singapore; just as there are straight people and gay people and people in between; that there are people who will approach them for ill intentions and how they can protect themselves; just as there are safe abortion procedures if one needs them, but there are long lasting emotional, psychological and biological impacts; because these do exist in Singapore and it would do them no better to conceal it than to provide an authoritative but as non-judgemental a voice as possible on sensitive issues. Not doing so would risk exposing them to misinformed and inaccurate opinions so easily found in the mass media and the internet.
*
That said, I couldn’t agree more with your last point – everyone should be entitled to his or her own opinion and believes, as long as it doesn’t affect others negatively. As much as it is one’s right to disagree, it is also another’s right that one does not make derogatory generalisations about the people who are either born differently or choose to lead different lives.
And that, I hope you’ll agree, is the foundation of a secular, inclusive and pluralistic society.
*
My 3rd paragraph: indeed a lot of people already have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
apologies for longwindedness.
and shoestring: it would seem most (nearly all?) of what I’ve said is in response to you. no offence though – just thought you raised some interesting points
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To me, it doesn’t really matter whether the gays are over-reacting or not. To us, the Thio woman is like local public enemy No. 1 (or at least within the top 3), Jenica has given her obviously biased views against gays several times and after the take over, they themselves have made statements smacking of anti-homosexuality sentiments.
These are reasons enough for me as a gay person to react.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0