Aware still living in the shadow of the past, denying it did grave wrong

It is said if you don’t move ahead, you will slide backwards. That’s true in this world today. But looks like AWARE is very unaware of this. They seem to live in the past.

Battling over the moral meaning of gender equality

Excerpts:

The March 2009 takeover of AWARE by a group led by Thio Su-Mien and Josie Lau, and its takeback two months later, may be a harbinger of things to come. Understanding why and how it happened will go a long way towards being able to see these conflicts with a wider perspective.

March 2009 takeover? Aware is two years behind, no? Come on, move on! Nobody remembers Thio or Josie for that matter. Do you see them in the news today?

As it is, the AWARE conflict was seen by many as a clash between conservative Christianity and homosexuality. Indeed, the actors involved – a “new guard” motivated by Evangelical Christian antipathy to homosexuality on the one side, and an “old guard” with its secular ethos, allied with liberal and gay groups on the other – made such a reading almost inescapable.

Aware’s conflict seen by “many” as conflict between conservative Christianity and Homo? What about the part where parents were up in arms with AWARE, when it was discovered they stealthily introduced homo ideals to underage girls in schools? Why the total silence on that?

That it came only 18 months after the loud public debate about Section 377A of the Penal Code – which criminalises homosexual acts between men – in which the conservative side was also strongly identified with Evangelical Christianity, only led people to see the AWARE saga in the same light.

Please note that the loud debate is the result of the gay community themselves, when they pour a tirade against those who did not support repeal of S377A. If gays feel they have a right to ask for a repeal, why are they not respecting those who do not wish to support them?

Please also remember that years before that incident, a Muslim Minister no less, approved marriage between a person who has changed sex, with another person of his/her former gender. There was just a whimper from the Muslim community, and that too it was because it was a Muslim minister who approved that. The core argument WAS NOT against gay or queer practice in itself.

So if that could have gone smoothly, because the gay community did not howl then, why blame the Christians for not getting S377A, when it is because they howled too loud?

The rest of the article centres on the stale old argument, Christian Right vs Gay and Secularism vs Religion Stuff. It ends off with…

The author is an activist and commentator on socio-political issues who blogs at Yawning Bread. The book The AWARE Saga: Civil Society & Public Morality In Singapore is available for $28 at the AWARE Centre (Dover Crescent Block 5 #01-22).

So…. this article is just an advertisement for a worthless book that is sold for $28, huh?

You don’t need to spend your hard earned money on that hyped up book that dramatizes the takeover issue two years ago. That book tells you a very heavily lob-sided story. Hear it first hand from someone who was there at the EGM itself. I have put this article up, even challenged those who claimed to have attended the EGM to dispute the facts I reported. None has taken my challenge.

No need to spend $28. Get the facts free over here.

Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays – So what’s the difference?
There are more facts that are revealed in the comments section than the main post itself, in the link above. It is an irony that the gay community, in trying to “explain” that it did not happen the way I described, exposed that it did happen the way I described!

So, Aware was a front for promotion of gay and lesbian lifestyle after all
This link contains important info which AWARE hides from you. It contains facts that are a precursor to the Aware takeover. Here, you will find that Aware was teaching girls as young as 12 in schools how to have sex, lesbian type sex included of course; (isn’t it a crime to have sex with an underage girl?). The topics included not only how as 12 year olds you can have sex, but also about homo and lesbian sex. Aware did it stealthily, covertly and deceitfully. This was the reason for Josie and gang to takeover Aware, something which AWARE keeps hiding from the public!

Aware’s Slant on Homosexuality and Comprehensive Sexual Education Programme
See for yourself Aware’s gay agenda – and how it infiltrated schools to teach girls, as young as 12 how to have sex, lesbian sex included. Isn’t Aware complicit in crime?

Aware’s Comprehensive Sexual Education Training Manual
This is the actual Trainer’s Manual which Aware has been trying to hide from the public.

Read the lurid details (short of calling it an intro to porno and homo ideals for young underage girls). Read how it was taught to your young daughters in schools how to have sex, sex, sex. This was the sex ed programme Aware taught IN SCHOOLS, before MOE rightfully dustbinned it.

Be reminded that it is a crime in Singapore to have sex with a girl under 16. Yet, we have Aware teaching these girls how to have sex at the age of 12? Isn’t this being complicit in crime? Note that Aware NEVER mentions this whenever it talks about its takeover. Small wonder, no?

CONCLUSION

1. Aware is still living in the past, “nostalgia-ing” about the takeover and re-takeover. Is this what you call a forward moving organisation?

2. Aware now tries to con you off your hard earned $28 with a useless book, which contains highly inaccurate pointers, lies and half truths.

3. Aware tries to deny that it has a gay agenda and instead, place blame squarely on the Christian right for its takeover.

4. Aware had actually successfully infiltrated MOE and the schools and even started teaching underage girls how to have sex, including homo ideals and lesbian sex. They did it covertly and stealthily. This was the real reason for Josie’s takeover of Aware.

5. The book Aware promotes fails to tell you the truth about #4 above.

6. By promoting a book that is about an event two years ago, which the public has long forgotten about, it shows that it is living in denial. They are denying that it was because of its gay agenda and odious sex programmes in schools, teaching underage girls odious sex, that caused the takeover. Aware is living in the shadow of the past, and living in denial that it did grave wrong to the public.

==============

PS – I find it an irony that:

- Aware denies that it has a gay agenda. Yet time and time again, it gets its support mainly from the gay community (the EGM included!). Note that the article I linked at the very top is from a gay author.

- Aware purports to represent women in Singapore. But time and time again, it appears more bent on telling the world that it went through an invasion of onslaught from the Christian right – a typical gay argument. How do you expect support, if you keep a hostile attitude towards the Christians, which forms a significant portion of the community?

>Even ST can’t exorcise the Ghost of Aware Saga!

>Notice how New Media (especially The Online Citizen and some other like blogs) have for the last few months been trying hard to exorcise the ghost of the Aware Saga? They’re not alone. Even the mainstream media (Straits Times) are having difficulty trying to shake it off!

We are objective and someone else said so, got that? Got that?????
(You need to be a subscriber)

Dec 4, 2009
AWARE SAGA
ST fair, objective, balanced: Report
But researcher says not all issues arising from saga received full public discussion in media

THE way the Aware saga was covered by The Straits Times (ST) newspaper earlier this year came across to a media researcher as ‘objective, fair and balanced’.

If there was an instance of bias, it was in a photograph that showed the belligerent gestures and expressions of the group of new leaders, wrote Mr Tan Tarn How, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, in a report released earlier this week.

The group, made up mainly of new members, were accused of having a hidden agenda when they wrested control of the women advocacy group.
Except for the one photograph, Mr Tan wrote: ‘The Straits Times tried to give everyone the opportunity to make her case and to have the right of reply. It did not mix comment with the news in its news stories.’

He made the point in his study on media coverage of nationally important issues, and used ST’s coverage of the leadership tussle at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) as a case study.

However, not all issues arising from the saga received the ‘full public discussion in the media that they deserved’.

These include how civil society groups should engage each other and the meaning of secularism in Singapore’s context.

Another issue that was not fully discussed is the sexuality education programme for schools, Mr Tan wrote. This programme that Aware had offered for students aged 12 to 18 was the propelling force that led a group of new members to take control of Aware at its annual general meeting in March.

This ‘New Guard’ of staunch Christians was strongly opposed to homosexuality, a topic covered by the now-defunct Aware programme.

The ‘Old Guard’ eventually wrested back control of Aware, but not before heated debates broke out in the wider community on religion, secularism, democratic elections and homosexuality.

In his study, Mr Tan, a former ST journalist, set three yardsticks to assess media coverage of an event: quality, quantity and whether the implications are adequately covered.

In most of the discussion of ST’s coverage, the question was whether it was biased against the New Guard, following criticisms from Christian-right campaigners such as lawyer Thio Su Mien and university don Thio Li-ann, noted Mr Tan.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, in calling for the media to report dispassionately and impartially, had said in May: ‘The Aware episode was surely not the most important challenge facing Singapore, deserving such extensive and even breathless coverage.’

In late May, Ms Thio Li-ann, then a Nominated MP, said in Parliament that the coverage was, among other things, biased.

Mr Tan noted two points in the defence later made by ST editor Han Fook Kwang.

One, the New Guard was given many chances to declare its objectives and motives, but it dodged them until ‘an overdue press conference, which The Straits Times covered extensively and objectively’, wrote Mr Tan in the report.

Two, ST did not hold any negative sentiments towards the New Guard, but was merely reporting society’s sentiments.

Wrote Mr Tan: ‘I found Mr Han’s defence adequate enough except in two particulars.’

One, ST remained largely objective in its news coverage but when attacked, some of its commentaries ‘attacked the New Guard in its defence of itself’, he wrote.

‘The paper could only be expected to defend its honour and professionalism.’

The other is the case of the unflattering picture. He noted it was the only such picture among the many New Guard pictures used.

He was unsure if its selection was the result of conscious or unconscious bias, or purely accidental, but wrote: ‘The picture would not likely have won (the New Guard) any converts among a nation not inclined to be sympathetic towards public displays of disharmony and hostility.’

Mr Tan also noted that when Ms Thio Li-Ann criticised ST in Parliament, it ‘duly carried not just a report but an edited transcript of her speech’.
haoxiang@sph.com.sg

Pathetic. ST, like The Online Gay Citizen, in trying to tell everyone it is objective, is instead telling everyone that it has difficulty trying to exorcise the ghost of Aware Saga that has haunted it many months.

“You just have got to believe us. Really. We are objective and balanced. Someone else said it. Come on, please, pleeeeeeeze believe us….”, spokesperson for the PR Dept of The Gay Times.

>Are (publishers of) Gay (friendly sites) Self-Righteous?

>

Amended title and words (in blue below) to address some people who are just too petty.

Ah, got your attention, as usual. Whenever it is about a contentious issue on gays, the trolls come in.

If the title were to read “Are publishers of Muslim sites Self-Righteous?”, it would seem to be racist, wouldn’t it? So why not the title “Are pubishers of Gay friendly sites Self-Righteous?” Because many of them truly are? And why are so many gays and gay activists so self-righteous?

Below is an article by Ng E-Jay who comments on The Kent Ridge Common’s article, which I myself had commented a few days days ago.

In my opinion, if there are those who felt that the publishers of the Kent Ridge Common was being pompous and self-righteous, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. Look what E-Jay has to say.

Should we accord freedom of speech to those who do not embrace it?

This is my response to the Kent Ridge Common article “The divide between religious extremism and free speech” (07 Sept) by Mr Kelvin Teo.
Mr Teo’s article tried to address the question whether groups that seek to injure the right of others to free speech should themselves be accorded that liberty. Special reference was made in the beginning of the article to the AWARE saga earlier this year which saw a group of Christians take over a secular organization in order to impose its own values on it and subvert the organization to its own agenda.

In the first paragraph of the article, it was stated that during the AWARE EOGM on May 2, “the crowd effectively drowned out the voices of Dr Thio Su Mien and her mentees“. I disagree with this assessment, which seems to imply that supporters of the AWARE Old Guard had tried to deny Dr Thio’s group the right to free speech through raucous behaviour.

According to the ST letter “Volunteer tells why Aware’s EGM turned raucous” (07 May) by Ms Pamela Oei, it was Ms Josie Lau’s team that first tried to play dirty by switching off the microphones on the floor at the start of the meeting in order to silence the crowd, despite the use of microphones being normal practice during an AGM or EOGM.

What a farce. E-Jay uses one article (by Ms Pamela Oei) and takes her opinion to be sacred truth. What about the tons of articles written by other writers to the ST that state the same raucous and boorish behaviour of the gays? Why select only that one article that favours his line of argument?

I was at the EGM myself. Here is what exactly happened.

It was Siew Kum Hong who set the tone of the meeting, when he mischievously decided not to respect the house rules of the EGM. I have said it before and I will say it again. I would have loved to see Siew KH disobeyed house rules in Parliament, if he really believes that anyone can “suka-suka” do anything because it is about free speech.

Siew Kum Hong wanted to sit together with the ordinary members. He is an Associate member. In any case, Josie allowed him to sit with the ordinary members, breaking the house rules. But did that stop the raucous behaviour of the gays? NO! They wanted MORE. After Josie cleared the way for mischief number one, they created mischief number two. They now wanted the mikes on the floor on all the time. But it was not yet time for the floor questions!

Guess what? Josie gave in their requested mischief number two as well. Did that satisfy the boorish gay crowd? No again! They used that mike to interrupt the meeting countless of times!

So if at all, Josie and gang were very accommodative, yet, the gay crowd was never satisfied.

How can E-Jay (was he there in the first place? I doubt so) say that Josie played dirty, when it is very clear the gay crowd were the guilty ones?

According to Ms Oei: “When one is trying to speak up in a hall as cavernous as the one in Suntec City with no microphone, one is left with little choice but to shout to be heard.”

Speaking at the time when it is not your turn, especially shouting, is considered RUDE.

I see that E-Jay, a PhD student, is unable to distinguish the two by supporting Ms Oei’s statement.

Supporters of the Old Guard protested when Mr Siew Kum Hong was told to go and sit with the men at the sidelines, as there was nothing in the AWARE Constitution that dictated segregation of sexes at an EGM. Furthermore, Mr Siew was acting as legal counsel for the old guard, so he had every right to sit with them.

Josie gave in. Non issue.

They protested at the various forms of self-serving behaviour displayed by Josie Lau’s team at the conference, including attempting to bask in the glory of AWARE’s achievements over the past 24 years, none of which she or her team was responsible for.

No such thing. They gave Aware’s report. They never claimed they did it. What cow dung is E-Jay spouting?

They also protested at the lack of civility displayed Dr Thio Su Mien who hijacked the microphone from people who had been queueing up for up to an hour and a half for their chance to speak, for treating the crowd like primary school children, and for demanding respect even before that respect had been earned.

It was the gay pride that hogged the mike for hours. Neutrals did not have the chance to speak. Why pick on TSM who spoke only a few minutes, when dozens of gays blocked the way such that neutrals and fence-sitters were deprived by the hogging gays for hours?

In short, Ms Oei argued that the alleged racuous behaviour displayed by supporters of the Old Guard was a passionate response to the disrespectful and self-serving manner by which Ms Josie Lau’s team had conducted the EGM. It was entirely justified.

I am beginning to feel that E-Jay has no backbone. He wants to slam Josie and gang but doesn’t have the gonads to do it, and hence, had to depend on a lady (Ms Oei) who has bigger gonads than him.

Throughout the entire AWARE saga, no one had tried to deny Josie Lau’s and Thio Su Mien’s side the right of free speech.

The gays calculated and planned their moves. They tried to disrupt the meeting by many ways. They used the mike to interrupt. They hogged the mike to stall. They booed and jeered till the general members at times could not hear what the chair was saying.

Gays did not deny Josie and team the chance to explain?

They were free to hold press conferences, they could say whatever they wanted, and they were even free to publicly denounce AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Eductaion (CSE) programme just because it did not fit their narrowly defined worldview of right and wrong. Nobody asked that they be sued for defamation even though they repeatedly tried to perpetuate the lie that AWARE had promoted homosexuality in schools. It was a passionate and open debate from start to finish.

It is no lie that Aware did try to promote homo in schools. Everyone knows it. But only gays deny it.

In the end, the AWARE Old Guard won because the truth was allowed to speak for itself.

Aware won the battle, but lost the war – and its covert and odious CSE.

I believe therein also lies the answer to the question that Mr Kelvin Teo raised, namely, should groups (like Ms Josie Lau’s team) that seek to deny the right of others to free speech be accorded that right themselves?

Every gay likes to whip up the dead story of Josie’s takeover. That’s the only story they can hang onto. Drop that dead story and they have NOTHING to stand on.

But that story is dead, isn’t it? No one is taking over Aware anymore, is it?

What is alive and still kicking, is Aware’s attempt to bring back CSE, as what Dana has indicated.

What is also alive is that the gay pride has infiltrated higher learning institutions through The Kent Ridge Common.

Note the “harsh words” one of its gay mentors(?) (E-Jay) has for the Kent Ridge Common for not being hardy enough against Josie and gang – (Not that he himself has gonads big enough such that he has to depend on a lady’s article who has bigger ones than him.)

So, am I not correct that gays are self-righteous? So many gays speak this way, don’t they?

Here is the rest of the article, if you want to indulge in rubbish. Can’t believe a PhD student can produce such trash!

The Old Guard’s victory was meaningful precisely because they won the debate in a fair and open setting, not by stooping down to the despicable, underhand tactics employed by Josie’s team. Their conduct and their actions throughout the saga spoke even louder than their words, and for that I applaud them.

Furthermore, groups like those organized by Ms Josie Lau and Dr Thio Su Mien do not really have the ability to take away the fundamental liberties of other individuals. Only the judiciary and the Government with its police force have this ability.

If we allow fanatical groups to rise to a position of power such that they can exert an undue influence on society and take away the fundamental liberties of individuals by employing the cruel machinery of the state, that the fault must be our own, for it would be we who foolishly ceded our rights to them.

People who believe in democratic processes and in freedom of speech thus have two duties:

- One, to continually exercise their civil liberties and stand up for what they believe in, like what the AWARE Old Guard and their supporters did admirably during the saga, and

- Two, to participate actively in the political process of the nation so that groups and political parties that do not believe in civil liberties or do not believe that others should be afforded the same rights as they afford themselves are not allowed the chance to gain power.

Mr Kelvin Teo’s question is a good one, but it must be answered in the right context. In that regard I find his analysis logical but superficial.

>Is Kent Ridge Common a mouthpiece of the Gay Pride?

>It appears to be so by the week, doesn’t it? In one of its latest salvo, The Kent Ridge Common appears to be digging up the ghost of the past – the Aware Takeover – to support its stance. Let’s dissect its arguments and see if there really is any gay agenda or not.

The divide between religious extremism and free speech

SINGAPORE – One interesting thought experiment during the wake of the AWARE saga is whether the perpetuators behind the AWARE takeover are entitled to their right to free speech? This came on the heels of the events during the 2 May AWARE Extraordinary General Meeting when the crowd effectively drowned out the voices of Dr Thio Su Mien and her mentees. It definitely didn’t come as a surprise that Thio complained about the rowdy crowd.

A point to note is that the crowd did not just drown Thio Su Mien’s voice. It drowned everyone else’s voice – including the neutrals who wanted to hear from BOTH sides of the story.

Please be reminded that even before the start of the EGM, the gay pride created trouble. It started with Siew Kum Hong, their self-appointed advisor, challenging the house rules. Like I said, I really like to have seen Kum Hong challenging house rules when he was in Parliament.

Here is my article on the 2 May 2009 EGM. I was there. I witnessed the atrocious behaviour of the gay pride. It was not about drowning Thio SM’s voice. It was about how the gays dominated the meeting, such that no one could ask any questions. It was about how the gay pride behaved like gangsters with no respect for authority or concern that there were fence-sitters who wanted to hear things out.

Hence, the question is whether religious extremists deserve their right to free speech? Much will perhaps depend on the nature of the group’s agenda and its modus operandi. For instance, if such a group does not believe in public discourse and try all possible ways and means to influence the country’s ruling government to implement its agenda in a top-down approach, i.e. forcing its views down everyone’s throat without much of a debate, then is the public supposed to accord such a group the space to have its voice heard?

Well, if free speech is so important, why did the gays hog the microphone, preventing neutrals from speaking and asking questions? One by one, one after another, in an endless manner, gay after gay, lesbian after lesbian HOGGED the mike. No one else had the chance.

When Thio unveiled herself as the group’s mentor, the agenda behind the takeover became all too clear, the sexuality education curriculum was out of line of the group’s conservative view on sexuality. Hence, this led to their drastic action to try changing the syllabus of AWARE’s sexuality education program through a takeover. Lest readers may get the impression that this article revolves around homosexuality and LGBT, well it is not.

It is hard to believe that the Kent Ridge Common, like Aware, has no gay agenda.

The main question that the group should answer is whether they believe in a democratic resolution to this issue? Specifically, are they willing to tolerate conflicting viewpoints on this issue? For example, if another organization happens to be a vendor like AWARE and use similar materials for its sexuality curriculum, will Thio and her group tolerate this organization? Or they believe that everyone should just subscribe to their viewpoints, i.e. force down from the top the viewpoints the group wants to preach down everyone’s throat?

The Kent Ridge, like Aware and many other gay and pro-gay parties, fail to realise that the one single biggest party affected most by this, is the parents and schoolchildren.

The gay pride wants to have their odious CSE in schools to teach young girls as young as 12, that homo and anal sex are OK and neutral.

The interest of the biggest party that has a stake – parents and schoolchidren – are totally ignored by the gay pride, in their push for their odious and unsavoury agenda.

The gay pride wants to make this issue as a Christian Fundie group bent on taking over society. The gay pride wants to act the victim, pretends to be helpless and hapless, asking for sympathy from society, so that society will be sympathetic towards their cause.

What hypocrisy. Putting it simply, the takeover was legal. It was democratic. But the behaviour of the gays at the EGM, dominating the meeting and preventing others (neutrals included) from speaking, should he the moot point of condemnation.

But like many gay and pro-gay groups, The Kent Ridge Common does not see it in that light.

Now convince me, Kent Ridge Common publishers, convince me and others that you have no gay agenda.

Here is the rest of the article if you are willing to bother to read trash.

It has been argued that if Thio and her group wants to adopt an approach befitting of the practice of free speech, they would have set up another society and organize a public forum that debates on their disagreements with AWARE’s sexuality curriculum. However, that point is now moot. Rather, the pertinent point is whether a group that doesn’t practise free speech should be accorded its right to free speech by the public. The Ethic of Reciprocity comes to the fore. It generally exists in two forms – positive and negative. The positive form is epitomized by this quote:”do to others what you would like to be done to you”, while the negative form is epitomized by this quote:”do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you.” Thus, if a group acts in a way that denies the right of others to have a voice, insisting on shafting their views hook, line and sinker down the throats of others, then the public by the same regard is not entitled to accord the right to free speech demanded by the group. If we adjudge using the negative form of the Ethic of Reciprocity, a group that denies others their right to voice their opinions will find itself being denied of its right to voice its opinions. In short, if it doesn’t want its right to free speech taken away, then it shouldn’t take away others’ rights too.

When these groups don’t get their way in the public, i.e. getting shut out and up by the public sphere, they naturally complain. Thus, such a group needs free speech to publicize its agenda and win supporters, but itself is not interested in extending the right to free speech, especially by people whose views are different from them. Hence, free speech becomes a means to an end for such a group. To illustrate with a hypothetical example, consider a group with ideals similar to the anti-homosexual, anti-islam and anti-opposition Norsefire regime we see in V for Vendetta. This group hopes to win support and needs space through free speech to do that. However, it is only interested in pontificating its views and will go to lengths to shut out opposing voices. This group also has plans to dominate an entire state with its ideals and practices. Thus, the big, big question is whether the society as a whole should deny this group its demanded right to free speech? It is now apparent that free speech (accorded to the Norsefire-like group) must be curtailed to protect free speech (if not the group will take away the rights a la the Norsefire regime if in power). If Sutler (one of the antagonists in V for Vendetta) was denied his right to free speech, he wouldn’t have been able to rise to the position to control London (become Chancellor Sutler) and do away with free speech.

Of course, we tend to be idealistic at times, and in an ideal world, free speech should be accorded to everyone, including bigots. However, when a group, who doesn’t believe in free speech and has designs on dominating everyone’s thoughts, practices and lifestyle with what it advocates without any due respect for diversity, is denied its right to voice its views by the public and comes complaining about its voice being taken away, it doesn’t deserve any ounce of sympathy. The Ethic of Reciprocity and the fact that denying this group its right to voice its views will protect the status of free speech in the long-run justifies the public denial of this group the right to voice its views.

>Straits Times is flogging a dead horse

>Today, in the Forum Section of the Straits Times, there are no fewer than four letters from the public commenting on the takeover of Aware orchestrated by Thio Su Mien.

It appears that the ST is flogging a dead horse. While the public is more concerned about the old guard’s stealth and covert approach to introduce the idea of homosexuality in schools, the ST is more concerned about playing up the “Christian element” in the Aware takeover.

Here are the 4 links to the four letters in the ST Forum, flogging the dead horse.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_382972.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_382902.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_382903.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_382898.html

Here is the REAL ISSUE, which parents are concerned about, which ST ignores.

Aware still adamant about CSE

http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/05/unrepentant-unashamed-unaware.html

Parent’s concern about Aware’s CSE

http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/05/gays-won-aware-battle-but-parents-won.html

Gay Sectarians reinstalled in AWARE’s EXCO

http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/05/sectarian-christians-replaced-by.html

>A Drowning Gay will clutch any straw – even if it’s up his nose

>The final nail has been driven into the coffin of AWARE’s CSE. MOE has made in no uncertain terms AWARE’s CSE is against MOE’s guidelines. Yet, in spite of this crystal clear statement, made more than once, gays and pro-gays have been desperately clutching to whatever they have to their darling CSE, the cornerstone of the gays’ agenda to penetrate into schools.

Here is my list of the straw clutchers.

Demonizer of the family unit - 

I pick Glass Castle for this title. This nomination is backed up by Jolene’s post over here.
http://www.glass-castle.org/blog/2009/05/familys-like-loaded-gun.html
A family’s like a loaded gun

In the article above, Jolene demonizes the family unit, making it akin to a loaded gun. Note the vile and venom targeting the parent in her article. Of course, Jolene makes no attempt to offer an alternative institution besides the family unit. Hence, reinforcing the point that gays and pro-gays are not only anti-family, but also devoid of ideas how individuals should be brought up in society, if there is no family unit.

Demonizer of the Educational Institution - 

This title goes to Mathia Lee, the now ex-facilitator of AWARE’s CSE. See her article below.
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/child-sex-predation-in-singapore-the-need-for-cse/
Child Sex Predation in Singapore & the need for CSE

Note that in the article above, she introduces how a male teacher sexually harassed some female students. Somehow, she managed to slot in her status on the CSE saga. Here is an excerpt of the post above.

Because I can no longer talk to teen girls directly. Today I read this “For these reasons stated, we (MOE) will not be able to use AWARE until they have gained the public’s trust for their sexuality programmes.”

http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2009/05/21/remarks-by-dr-ng-eng-hen-on-se.php

And I know how much that CSE class would have benefited me 10 years ago, if I had access to an external third-party who made it comfortable for me to tell my story, and whom I knew would have found a way to help us.

Note how she tries to justify how CSE helps girls from being sexually harassed. Now what has teaching homo and anal sex is natural got to do with sexual harassment? Can’t girls be taught about sexual harassment WITHOUT teaching homo is natural?

I am victim, hear me roar - 

Poor, poor Kum Hong, who is the victim of libel, slander and malicious deeds. Kum Hong thought he was smart when he volunteered to be Aware’s advisor, only to turn tail when things don’t turn his way. By playing victim, he hopes to get sympathy from the public that fighters of gay rights are always neglected and harassed.

We did no wrong - 

Dana Lim, the incorrigible current AWARE President doesn’t even feel she has done anything wrong. She feels that it is her right to tell parents to butt off, when in fact MOE has told her to butt off.

When things go wrong, collect all the straws up gays’ noses and build a straw man - 

This one has to go to Mr Wang of mrwangsaysso. Yes, Asian values are meaningless. Er, how does that show the AWARE’s CSE has not infringed into parents’ territory?

Use of condom not promoted in sex education classes! Er, how does that address the fact that abstinence, the MOST EFFECTIVE prevention of STD and Aids has been downplayed?

Ignore, ban, moderate, ignore, ban, moderate - 

Yes, you all know who I am referring to – The Online Gay Citizen. No need to give you examples or explanation to support this one.

Teaching sex is unnatural is teaching children to discriminate gays - 

Pathetic argument by the gay community at large. Homo is UNNATURAL. It is nature’s design that the male organ is suited for the female organ in order for the human race to procreate. It is nature’s design that the rectum and anus is for pooping and not for sex.

It is NOT designed that two males mate, nor it is designed that two females mate. There is NO natural benefit to humankind for engaging anal sex or homo in the natural context.

Nature, the ultimate arbitrator in this homo dispute has spoken. Nature says homo is UNNATURAL. Yet homos still claim it is natural.

Having failed to convince society that homo is natural, gays now say that teaching children homo is unnatural is discrimination against gays. What a pathetic argument.

Can’t we teach children homo is unnatural but gays are not to be discriminated, if they choose to be gays? Wouldn’t that solve the problem of discrimination?

Warp the story - 

I leave this one last because this has to be the one that takes the cake. Even when everyone now knows MOE is displeased with AWARE pertaining to its CSE, The Gay Times warped that message to mean Dr Ng Eng Hen is directing his frustrations at AWARE’s rivals.

AWARE Rivals Slammed
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_380132.html

Aware rivals slammed? Is that the crux of Dr Ng’s statement? Really? You can trust that The Gay Times, which has been promoting GLBT agenda throughout the AWARE saga, would do something like that.

So there it is folks. A drowning gay (or pro-gay) will clutch at any straw (including the ones shoved up their noses), to stay afloat.

Face it gays (and pro-gays). AWARE’s CSE is as good as dead. Don’t push it any further. Just accept your fate.

Before I sign off, here is what I have to say about Dr Ng Eng Hen’s speech -
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/it-was-an-internal-document-says-education-minister-on-awares-instructors-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-75716

“It was an internal document…internal documents are internal documents. If you don’t show them to MOE, we will not know about them.” - 

Education Minister Ng Eng Hen, when asked if his ministry was caught by surprise by the content of the instructor’s guide for the Aware programme – which, among other things, declared homosexuality as ‘perfectly normal’.

What Dr Ng is saying is:
“AWARE stabbed us in the back(side). We didn’t see it cumming.”

>So what now, Kum Hong?

>Reality has bitten Siew Kum Hong, the NMP behind the controversial AWARE saga. Is Kum Hong that politically naive such that he did not see all this coming his way? If he didn’t, then he is not cut to be NMP. If he did, why complain?

Initially, I wanted to post this lengthy article in reply at Kum Hong’s site. But then, I may be dirtying his backyard – and that’s not ethical.

So what I’ll do is post it on MY blog and if there are any flamers, it is MY backyard that gets dirty. I may be bo liao like some of my critics brand me, but at least I believe in ethics.

Here is the link to the article in Kum Hong’s blog.
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2009/05/line-has-been-crossed.html

Italics and coloured words are taken off Kum Hong’s blog, while non-italics and black fonts are my comments.

The attacks have continued since my last posting on this blog. In particular, the latest attacks have alleged and/or insinuated that (a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and (b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.

Both of these allegations are untrue and false. They are vile, vicious and malicious attacks on me, and nothing short of character assassination. I consider them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature.

Criminal in nature? How so?

I did not at any time ask for, and have not at any time been offered or accepted, any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity, including the Swedish politician named in the latest attack. The only sources of income (or funding) that I have, are my employer and the Government of Singapore (in the form of my monthly NMP allowance). Furthermore, I am not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and am certainly not their representative or “mole” in Parliament.

While I have not previously taken any action in response to the attacks to me on the Internet, I feel that this latest attack crosses the line and goes beyond any attacks that I am willing to countenance as being fair game for a public figure. I do not think that it is appropriate or acceptable for any MP, including an NMP, to accept any funding, whether local or foreign.

Accordingly, I made a police report on this matter tonight. I have also requested those forums that I am aware are currently hosting these falsehoods, to take them down.

I don’t believe that there is any crime committed. If Kum Hong wants to have those sites down, he has to obtain a court order.

In the interests of full transparency, I did meet with certain Swedish gentlemen recently. Details of those meetings are set out in my statement to the police. I met them at their request, just as I have met other foreigners from time to time, including staff from the various High Commissions and embassies in Singapore (such as from Australia, the US, the UK and other EU countries) and visiting foreigners, such as academics doing research on aspects of Singapore. At these meetings, we discuss matters related Singapore, in particular current affairs and the political situation in Singapore. From my perspective, these meetings are to help the foreigners obtain a better understanding of Singapore. I do not think that there was anything wrong with those meetings, and I have nothing to hide.

Note that Kum Hong has not denied meeting up with that Swedish politician who funds the SDP. Even if Kum Hong had not received any funding himself, isn’t that allowing a foreign entity to interfere with the politics of Singapore?

I have long objected to foreigners telling us what to do. No matter how much I criticize the PAP, I believe our internal politics is our business. If we get foreigners to help us out, there will always be payback time. They will expect us to return the favour to them in future. God knows what that favour might be. Sanctions against China? Against India? Involvement in human rights in Iran?

While I continue to believe that it is, on the whole, beneficial for Singaporeans to speak up for what they believe in, and I certainly hope that this wish and desire will continue and extend beyond the current discussions around the NMP re-nomination process and homosexuality, I also do believe — and have always believed — that rights and freedoms have limits.

I have to date refrained from taking any legal action in response to the lies and falsehoods that have been levelled at me. But this latest attack goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech, and I certainly will not tolerate the latest rounds of character assassination from cowards hiding behind the perceived anonymity of the Internet. 

… end of Kum Hong’s post.

A final point worth noting. There are MANY allegations against Kum Hong, but he finds that he needs to clear these two:

“(a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and
(b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.”

By denying the above two and keeping silent on the other allegations, does this mean that implicitly he admits that the other allegations are true? Here are the other allegations that he has been silent on.

1. That he deliberately flamed the tension at the AWARE EGM on 2 May 09.

2. That he acted unethically, being the advisor of AWARE on 2 May 09.

3. That he acted incompetently or negligently, as advisor for AWARE, when he did not highlight newly EXCO had to seek general members’ approval to clear $90k bill.

Please note that he has decided to remain silent on the above three issues. See link here.
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-i-took-away-from-2-may.html

The fact that he STILL REMAINS SILENT on the above issues, yet denies two other issues, itself has implication.

I find Kum Hong terribly naive not to see these things coming his way. This really shows his incompetence as an NMP.

Kum Hong is now stuck – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

He shouldn’t have been involved in the AWARE saga in the first place.

>Alternative Media has hijacked Opposition’s chances for next GE

>

I have never been a strong supporter of PAP. A check on the posts made on the politics of Singapore here in this blog will confirm that. However, while I have been very vocal against the PAP, it might be good to note that I have been very silent about how I feel for the opposition.

Today, in this post, I will mention a thing or two about the opposition. Hold your breath, I am still not going to openly tell you what I feel the opposition has done per se. Instead, I will touch on the opposition’s future, because of how the alternative media has handled issues pertaining to free speech, as far as the recent AWARE saga has unfolded.

Before I start off, let me state that this article is about the opposition’s chances of performing well in next GE. It is not about AWARE per se. However, I will use the AWARE incident to support my case.

My statement on how opposition will fare next GE – I feel that the chance of opposition doing well next GE has been hampered due to the alternative media’s handling of the recent AWARE saga. This is because while the PAP ministers handled the AWARE issue impartially, the alternative media, which also has been the unofficial voice of the opposition, has shown blatant support for a sectarian group, which is the gay community. In short, while the PAP ministers tried to integrate the community during this saga, the alternative media divided the community, pitting the gays against the rest of the community. That I believe is a fatal mistake, jeopardizing the opposition’s chances of performing well, the next GE.

My argument to support the above statement is that the Alternative media has lost its credibility.

The alternative media (AM) has long accused the mainstream media (MSM) like the Straits Times of bias. However, during the AWARE saga, the AM has poured news, news and more news with pro-gay issues. The MSM played the AWARE saga as a Christian fundamentalist group usurping a secular group. The AM, suddenly turned face and supported the very MSM it has so chided for years.

It is not that there were no alternative views to the AWARE saga. The major other view to the AWARE saga is that AWARE has been hijacked by the gay pride even before Josie took over. This alternative view was ignored, moderated and even censored among the various AM sites.

So for all the talk that the AM (alternative media) is the answer to MSM, when it comes to their favourite topic, homosexuality, the AM itself is bias. That is the hypocrisy of the AM. The sad issue is that the AM, has long been the official voice of the opposition. The AM has now lost credibility, affecting the opposition’s unofficial voice.

Without fear, I will put up the specific blogs of the alternative media, which has shamelessly shown affiliation to the gay pride, hence dividing Singaporeans into sectarian groups, instead of integrating society like what the PAP ministers did, during the AWARE saga.

1. The Online Citizen (TOC) -

I name the TOC as the number one culprit in dividing society, playing to the gallery of the gay pride. TOC has blatantly been posting articles after articles that play up the Christian fundamentalist argument. They have also blatantly allowed Christian bashing. At the same time, they did not highlight that there is another view, which is the issue is that the gay pride has taken over AWARE.

2. Singapore Daily, Myapplemenu -

I put the above two blogs as the number two simply because they are a tad better than TOC. While they skew their news to only one side (the gay pride) and ignored other news, at least they did not Christian-bash.

Note that I have left Wayang Party out, not because I believe they have handled the issue impartially, but because I don’t have enough evidence to build my case, to be able to put it the same level as TOC or even SD/Myapplemenu. Wayang has after all, put up news from both sides of the story.

This is worrying for the opposition. The alternative media (AM) named above, has been the unofficial voice of the opposition. It now has shown its true colours by playing the same game as the MSM.

However, the most damaging part is that the AM has divided Singapore’s society into pro-gay and the non pro-gay. I used to take the attitude that gays should be left alone and live their own lives. Because of the recent issue, I am now more apprehensive.

I have never allowed my views be known as to what I feel for the opposition. That’s because how I vote actually depends on what PAP does, rather than what opposition has to offer.

Today, I will announce what I think of the opposition. Come next election, I will ask the opposition one question and only one question. That question is – “Do you support the gay movement?”

How I vote, will depend on what that opposition candidate answers. By the way, I will also take silence as an answer.

As for the PAP, I won’t be asking them how they will approach the gay issue. They have shown that they are able to handle the issue without fragmenting society.

Thanks to The Online Citizen, Singapore Daily and Myapplemenu, you have set back the opposition’s chances 20 to 30 years back in time. You have turned me, a harsh PAP critic, into someone very, very suspicous of the opposition. I am sure I am not the only non pro-gay in Singapore and/or parent who feels that way.

Congratulations guys, for a good f**king up job done!

>Shut up and move on

>The same old record is being played after one week. The Gay Times, after one week is still glorifying the recapture of AWARE when it that is now history.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_374845.html

Now if these women want to prove to the world that they are petty and harp on past issues, this one really has to take the cake. 

http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2009/5/8/get-your-values-out-of-my-elite-uncaring-face
Stand up and bitch out? ;)

It has to come from a (gay?) man? 

Besides the Gay Times, we have TOC, Myapplemenu and a few other well-visited blogs that keep pouring in pro-gay views over and over again. As if the whole world is centred on gay/AWARE issues.

Let’s shut up and move on. Here are the two most important things that have cropped up from the AWARE saga, that need to be addressed IMMEDIATELY.

1. Sexuality Education in Schools.

No one from the public, let alone parent, has said that Sex Education should not be taught in schools. In fact, majority of parents SUPPORT the idea that MOE has provision for sex education to be taught in schools. What parents are concerned are the values as promoted by AWARE, as per their CSE programmes.

It is very disheartening that time and time again, we hear from AWARE officials, from the trainers themselves right up to President Dana Lim, that the trainer’s manual, which was published online was supposed to be confidential. That statement underlies a fact that the fear amongst parents is now confirmed – there was a covert plan to indoctrinate homosexual values into Singapore’s children.

Why else would the trainer’s manual be “confidential”?

Isn’t this a breach of trust? AWARE is so brazen, they even implicitly admit that they have one set of curriculum made public, and another set hidden away from public eyes. This means that they are telling the public that while they openly do not teach homo values, covertly they do, or at least, intend to.

This is what worries parents most. It is not about keeping our children away from the facts of life. It is about basic trust that has been misused. Parents have the ultimate say in what is being taught to their children. AWARE, with its gay agenda, has crossed the line when they encroached into parents’ rights.

How then can gays shake off the now accepted idea, very prevalent in Singapore’s society, that gays are always forcing their values on others?

I suggest a comprehensive CSE in schools which tells students about facts as they are. From homosexuality, to STD, HIV and even abstinence as a CHOICE. I suggest CSEs to be taught by qualified professionals (eg health care personnel and/or sociologists) and not anyone from the back streets who are only too eager to promote homo as natural.

This is one item that needs to be addressed. Not the same old record of harping “shut up and sit down”.

2. The $90k bill AWARE has in its hands.

Refer to this link:
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/05/90-000-kg-monster-everyone-pretends-not.html
It is self explanatory in that link.

The importance of Item 2 cannot be underestimated. Firstly it has legal implications. But we leave that to the regulators to handle it.

The more relevant issue to us is the social implication. For women, if the issue is not handled with care, it would drag AWARE further down the dunghole. As it is, its reputation is now at stake. The future of women in Singapore is precariously in the balance.

So why is the MSM and pro-gay blogs standing up and playing old record? There are more important issues to consider. Like the two items cited above.

Now let’s shut up and move on, shall we? Move on to the two most current and relevant topics – CSE in schools and that monstrous $90k bill.

>The 90 000 kg monster everyone pretends not to be AWARE of

>There is a 90 thousand kg monster sitting right in AWARE’s office – and everyone’s pretending it doesn’t exist.

It is now known that AWARE, under Josie’s charge, spent an amount to the tune of $90k for the EGM held on 2 May 2009.
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=2883

This amount far exceeds the $20k cap per month the EXCO is allowed to spend. At the EGM, the old guard supporters managed to get that figure from Josie and gang. When Josie’s team finally announced the figure $90k as an estimate, there were immediate oohs and aahs. The hall was filled with (pretended and over-exaggerated?) disgust.

It was quite obvious the old guard had prepared to use the amount of money spent as an item to shoot Josie and gang down. However, the tables are now turned. That $90k monster is currently in the hands of the latest EXCO, headed by Dana Lim.

So here is the situation. That $90k monster bill has to be settled. Otherwise, the creditors will come after AWARE with interests, and if the issue drags on, perhaps even with court orders.

It is true that AWARE is able to recover that amount from Josie and gang through legal means. However, that is not the point. The point is that the constitution puts a cap of $20k expenditure per month. Any amount exceeding that, will have to be endorsed by the general members. Since there was no resolution taken on 2 May 2009 to get general members to authorise EXCO to make payments above $20k per month, constitutionally, Dana and company cannot disburse cheques to the amount of $90k to settle that monster bill.

It now appears that what the old guard used (the breaching of $20k per month as per constitution) to shoot Josie and gang down, is now the very monster sitting on Dana and company’s laps. So, how do we get rid of that $90k monster?

Looks like the only way left, is to re-convene ANOTHER EGM to approve that EXCO is allowed to clear that bill, which is over the $20k cap! 

This is going to be interesting, isn’t it?

Here are some issues that need to be noted:

1. Surely, it was foreseeable that the $90k monster bill would be passed from Josie and gang to Dana and gang. Why then did not the old guards at that night of 2 May 2009, at the EGM, get general members to approve that the latest EXCO settle that monster bill?

2. Why did not Siew Kum Hong, the advisor to the old guard, alert the old guard that they need to address the $90k monster that very night?

3. There were several lawyers amongst the old guards, besides their advisor Kum Hong. Why didn’t they foresee that the monster bill would be coming their way?

So how is AWARE now going to settle that $90k monster bill? It is beyond the authority of the EXCO to settle it. It has to get the permission of the general members.

Conclusions that can be drawn from this monster bill issue:

1. Josie and gang were inexperienced and that showed clearly when they breached the constitution by incurring a $90k bill.

2. While Josie and gang were inexperienced, Dana and gang were not – yet they did not foresee that $90k coming to them. That shows either incompetence or just lack of responsibility.

3. All the lawyers that were with the old guard, including Siew Kum Hong, did not advise or alert the old guard that the monster bill was heading their way. Again, it is either they are incompetent, or simply irresponsible.

So what next? Can we expect another EGM so that members can approve that EXCO pays off the $90k monster bill? Or is Dana and company going to be quiet about it, and stealthily settle the bills without letting members and the public know that they, like Josie and gang, have breached the constitution?

Note: I brought this issue of the $90k monster bill up at Siew Kum Hong’s blog. Click here and read the comments that follow Kum Hong’s main post. Kum Hong is totally silent on the topic. Understandably so. He doesn’t want to incriminate himself or his “clients” that there was incompetence and/or irresponsibility on his/their part.