Breaking News: Ng Teck Siong, chairman of the Reform Party, has resigned from the party. Speaking to TOC, Mr Ng said he has “resigned completely” from the party. He confirmed he is not even an ordinary member of the Reform Party
But church denies instigating Aware takeover
By Terence Lee and Deborah Choo
26 APRIL, 2009 –A CHURCH of our Saviour (COOS) staff sent out an email calling church members to vote at AWARE’s upcoming EOGM, the church spokesman confirmed yesterday.
For a while, it had been unclear whether the leaked email messages, readable in various forums, were authentic.
Speaking on the sidelines after Sunday’s 10.30am service, the church spokesman verified that only Shawn Tay and Linda Seah’s email messages are genuine. Both are staff of the church.
Mr Tay sent out an email on 17th April calling for church members to join AWARE and support the new Executive Committee members. He is from Choices Ministry, a department specialising in homosexual counseling.
In the email, Mr Tay called for “all responsible females to sign up for membership with AWARE immediately, and also to attend this all-important EGM so as to vote against changing the Constitution.”
As for Ms Seah, who is a zone pastor, she sent Senior Pastor Derek Hong an email on 16th April stating that “the number of members registered on Tuesday night is 13 out of 40 who turned up.” As of the time of this piece’s publication, the church has not been able to clarify what this means.
Both email messages were sent only after news of Aware’s takeover broke on The Straits Times.
It is also unclear if the rest of the leaked email are authentic.While admitting that their pastors were involved in garnering support for the new Executive Committee, the church spokesman denied allegations that they instigated the takeover of AWARE.
This is in line with an earlier claim made by the new Executive Committee at a press conference held at Raffles Town Club. They asserted that the church was not involved in the takeover.
“There is no church connection. The church is not at all involved in secular affairs,” they said.
The spokesman maintained that it was the church members’ prerogative to join AWARE, rather than a decision by the church staff’s.
Pastor Hong, who preached during the service, could not be approached directly by TOC for comment.
Pastor voices support for new Aware Exco
While COOS has denied involvement in the AWARE takeover, they are actively supportive of their church members getting involved in the EOGM to support the new Executive Committee.
Pastor Hong devoted most of his sermon on the issue of homosexuality, voicing support for the endeavours of the new Aware team. The service was attended by about 800 people.
Calling for solidarity, he implored the women in the church to “unite with the sisters and support them.” He also said that the new team’s actions are not “a crusade against the people,” but instead a move to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.
He also spoke against the “neutral” portrayal of homosexuality taught by AWARE to schoolgirls. The Christian’s belief system, he argued, prevents them from accepting homosexuality as “neutral.” The Bible clearly teaches that it is wrong, and that is the position the church have to take.
“Christians have the responsibility to protect the young, the vulnerable, and the innocent, even though its not popular or politically correct, even though people may not understand or they may get angry with us,” he said.
The pastor, however, sees a silver lining in the controversies. Contrasting Singapore against countries that are heading towards liberalisation, he is glad the Aware team stood up for what the Bible deemed was right. He said: “We need to thank God that because section 377A still stands, we will not move in that direction.”
During the service, new Aware president Josie Lau and her husband Alan Chin were called on stage. While Mr Chin did speak to the congregation, it was not on the Aware controversy, but rather his claim that God has healed his sister of brain stem damage.
After his sharing, Pastor Hong then prayed for the couple, and beckoned the church to join him.
COOS against gay-bashing
Within his sermon, the pastor reiterated the church’s position on homosexuality, which can be found on the COOS website. Basing his position purely based on the Holy Bible, he said that it is not a matter of personal opinion as homosexuality is clearly a sin against God.
“It’s black-and-white,” he said, “It’s not because I don’t like somebody, but because the Bible says so.”
He then stated that there are other religions that are against homosexuality as well, including Islam and even Judaism. However, he finds it strange that “the homosexual community never attacks the Islamic people for having that stand.”
Wearing a bright green shirt with a patterned tie, the pastor gave no indication of being worn down by the controversy. In fact, he spoke passionately at certain points in the sermon, his voice booming through the speakers.
“God does not grade sins,” he said with conviction.
While homosexuality is clearly wrong, it is not the worst sin either, he said. People who are involved in homosexuality are no worse than people who lie. However, there is a tendency for the church to condemn homosexuality more than other wrongdoings.
Pastor Hong also vehemently denounced gay-bashing, noting that homosexuals are as deserving of equal rights to jobs, housing, education, health, and welfare as straight people are. Objecting to the use of homophobic expressions, he noted that many languages and dialects have derogatory terms for more effeminate men. He called such verbal abuse “evil.”
The preacher emphasised that Christians should not feel too smug about themselves either, because God loves homosexuals as well. Christians are not better than homosexuals in any way, he said, but are saved only by the grace of God.
COOS, he added, frequently gives financial aid to HIV patients, some of whom are homosexuals. So far, the church has given food supplements to 100 patients.
Gays can become straight
“Change is possible,” said the pastor, once again underlining a Biblical perspective. However, he also cited real-life examples and scientific research as further proof that homosexuals can turn straight. Some are found in his church, he claimed.
Nevertheless, he stopped short of proclaiming total transformation in these individuals. In fact, these people still struggle with homosexual thoughts, just that they no longer have sex with other men.
“…they have become more straight, if you like, just like all of us, we’re still a work in progress, we may not commit adultery but it doesn’t mean we don’t struggle with those thoughts,” he said.
Pastor Hong also refuted the idea that homosexuals are born the way they are, and he denied the existence of a “homosexual gene.” He draws on studies from NARTH, which he says is a secular, non-religious organisation that does scientific research on homosexuality.
Calling the nature argument “propaganda”, he maintained that developmental factors feature more in the development of homosexuality.
Caution towards militant gay activist groups
The pastor spent significant time speaking against what he calls “discrimination against people with pro-family values.”
Christians have often also been misunderstood in the media. They are labeled as anti-homosexuals when in fact they are simply against the practice. He called this labeling a “trap” by the “propaganda of the gay activist people.”
An example he cited of such discrimination was the recent Miss USA pageant. Pastor Hong showed a news clip on Fox News where front-runner Miss California spoke out against gay marriage when asked a question by judge Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger who is openly gay.
Many believed her answer cost her the crown.
The clip concluded with Mr Hilton in another footage making insulting remarks about Miss California and shouting vulgarities. Pastor Hong called this “just the tip of the iceberg.”
Calling for a resistance against the agenda of certain gay activists, he cautioned that traditional values and lifestyles can be undermined.
He said: “They want to change the values and principles to what we deem to be normal to their own pattern of life. If you even dare to speak against it, you get disqualified, you get penalised, you get discriminated against.”
Church members voice support
COOS members which TOC spoke to after the service are supportive of the new AWARE team.
Mr Wong, a church member in his forties who does not attends cell group, said that the new Executive Committee should be given a chance to prove themselves. After all, they took over Aware legally.
Some church members have even joined Aware this year. Speaking anonymously, they insisted it was their own personal decision, and that no coercion was involved.
While their decision to join Aware was based on their convictions as a Christian, they pointed out that Christians are not the only ones resisting homosexuality.
“I mean if you’re a parent, and you learn about what they teach in school, won’t you be concerned?” said a lady.
Latest figures for Aware membership stands at more than 880. It is unclear how many church members have joined the organisation.
—
Join TOC’s Facebook fan group for a behind-the-scenes account of TOC’s visit to the Church of Our Saviour.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Weihan “For example, thinking that Earth is flat is a belief. Thinking that Earth is round isn’t just a belief but is a truth supported by empirical facts which people slowly uncovered. The problem with christians is that they can’t accept the truth and seek to twist the truth.”
I had one come up to me recently to argue that Carbon dating, is essentially rubbish. All this in an attempt to “prove” that Earth has not existed for millions of years, which would put the timeline of creation from the Book’s perspective in jeapardy.
Oh, & those fearsome-looking Barney’s that are being dug up & re-assembled in museums? Well, those are supposedly placed by the devil to mislead us.
And these from well-educated people whom I thought would more capable of critical thinking. But I guess that is what “faith” is all about.
@Weihan (#132), many religions also cite empirical evidence in support of their claims (in particular, the historical accuracy of statements made in the religious text, and the occurrence of miracles). The question, of course, is whether that evidence persuades you.
Also, while atheism purports to rely on empirical evidence (e.g., in explaining the diversity of life on Earth), that is sorely missing (given the present state of science) with respect to 2 foundational questions: What existed before the Big Bang? How did life on Earth originate?
Lastly, empirical proof cannot be used as regards morality and ethics, the subjective experience of emotions, and artistic sensibility. And yet, these are aspects of the human condition which we cannot ignore.
18) vei on April 27th, 2009 5.33 am
Haven’t caught up with this for awhile.
its the 9th i wish to mention.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
65) Peace on April 27th, 2009 12.09 pm
“Stop twisting and put words into the new AWARE. You are anti new AWARE .”
now, where did that come from?
Peace, i was discussing re the tenets of christianity and the doctrine of the immutability of the bible with yipeng on another forum in this blog, so may be you’re not sure what i was referring to. there was no insult whatsoever in what i said to her re being a christian moderate.
if you want to discuss with me re the definition of moderate vs fundamentalist, you’re welcome to do so.
@ Vei
no, i’m hardly a student of philosophy. what i wrote is more like basic stuff encountered during discussions in GP class back in JC.
yes, i am attempting to learn more about the bible, as well as other religious texts. there was a bit of such discussions with another member of this forum here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/we-cannot-have-people-acting-like-moral-vigilantes-says-awares-old-guards/
have you read the qur’an, vei? or the veda? the torah? or buddhist’s scriptures? how as a christian do you decide which religion to follow?
Read the apology from christian.post.sg and Edmond’s repeat of the lies from the new exco here:
http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/society/1548/12%7C23%7C36/3.htm
/// 127) lynette on April 27th, 2009 10.50 pm
after spending so much time reading all the comments, if there is one objective view i have to make, it’d be that the clash in fundamental beliefs is a pervasive problem in this society and before we understand and figure a way through this hindrance, no judgments should be made from either sides. ///
Agree. That’s why it is important that the various religions should not impose their beliefs on other religions, or on non believers.
/// 1. the christians are doing so and are justified in doing so because they truly believe that they are saving the community. think about their intentions, and i think its sufficient to justify their actions. besides, coos has been one of the few churches in sg which embraces homosexuals.. they aren’t harming people. they mean good. ///
The road to hell is paved with good intention. Don’t you think the intention of the Spanish Inquisition was good? Don’t you think that the early missionaries to the new world was good? Don’t you think the pogroms against the Cathars were good?
/// 2. the problem is how non-christians perceive this. secular people would have a completely different definition of what’s good and what’s not. if we are to say that christians should not impose their belief on us, should it not also hold that secularism should not undermine christian beliefs? ///
Exactly – that’s why the twain shall never meet. You are getting it backwards. It was not secularism encroaching on christianity. In this fiasco, it was COOS hijacking AWARE, not AWARE electing itself into COOS. It was christianity undermining secularism.
/// 3. christians dont see themselves wrong, because of a different fundamental belief. non-christians sense violation, also because of a different fundamental belief. ///
Again, that is why the takeover of AWARE is so wrong. The two parties have very different belief systems. COOS should keep their christian beliefs in its church, not impose them on a secular NGO like AWARE which have members of different religions and atheists and agnostics.
/// i suppose the gov’s effort in making singapore work as a multi-religious country just isn’t working. there is no unity among religions, and religions being compulsive forces contradicts the idea of toleration. ///
It is working in general and so far you don’t see serious religious clashes. It is surfacing now because of a bunch of misguided bigots who wish to impose their world-view and god-view on those who do not subscribe to their beliefs.
#l131) lockeliberal , well said, where is he leading to, judging and talking nonsensical issue. God ASking you to reach ordinary people not asking you TO rub shoulder with rich, famous, and influential. Be fishers of men, a missionary fishing for unsaved men and women, unsaved boys and girls. Go and set up a competing faith based organization with all your HOLY HOLY flocks of “meh meh meh”
141) la nausée on April 28th, 2009 2.11 am
also referring to your entry on (129)
firstly, i admire your voice of calm reason, in the midst of public discourse that occasionally degenerates into name-calling or worse. thanks you also for reminding us non-religious people not to impose our views. “must be careful that in advocating ’secularism’, they are not also imposing their own fundamental beliefs on other citizens”
“many religions also cite empirical evidence in support of their claims (in particular, the historical accuracy of statements made in the religious text”
agree with that statement. my beef is with people who try to pass pseudoscience or bad science as “science” and still argues that people take them seriously.
“Also, while atheism purports to rely on empirical evidence… that is sorely missing (given the present state of science) with respect to 2 foundational questions…”
this is the god of the gap theory, wouldn’t you say?
“Logically speaking, atheism is not a religion. But for purposes of politics and constitutional law, it should be and is classified as a religion, alongside secular humanism”
the difference is that for myself as an agnostic, i know the limitations to my belief.
//la nausée on April 28th, 2009 2.11 am @Weihan (#132), many religions also cite empirical evidence in support of their claims (in particular, the historical accuracy of statements made in the religious text, and the occurrence of miracles). The question, of course, is whether that evidence persuades you.//
That is mainly a reaction from skeptical questioning from the secular world and not due to a fundamental change of mindset of the religionists. You are right also that once evidences are provided, people will focus on the validity of the evidences and logical reasoning that arrive at the conclusion.
//Also, while atheism purports to rely on empirical evidence (e.g., in explaining the diversity of life on Earth), that is sorely missing (given the present state of science) with respect to 2 foundational questions: What existed before the Big Bang? How did life on Earth originate?//
Science does not claim to answer all questions but that does not qualify religions to make false claims and force their BELIEFs on others that do not take up that particular religion’s view. So, this statements, though valid, bear no relevance in our present debate. The point is that claims made need to be verifiable.
//Lastly, empirical proof cannot be used as regards morality and ethics, the subjective experience of emotions, and artistic sensibility. And yet, these are aspects of the human condition which we cannot ignore.//
This is true to certain extend. However, it does not mean that objectivity does not exist. True progresses arrive when more and more people are willing to push the limit and question the validity of these relative aspects of morality and subjective experience of emotions. The result is that people come to the conclusion that these are relative and has no substance of absolute truth that religionists claimed. Interestingly, it is because of this blind subjectivity that atheism view it as harmful sometimes.
I cannot believe pastors lie. So disappointing. Not all pastors are like that. Believe me, there’s hope for this world. But the hope is diminished when we have our kind dabbling in politics and giving the rest a bad name. Please don’t drag the rest of us christians into this mire. Christianity is about love not hate-mongering. Obviously not all christians are intellectually abled to think. God bless.
So many comments and refuttals…and bull shitting too.
Do not impose your religious beliefs as the universal beliefs even you think its good for everyone. Religion should not be the influential component here.
What if for example the Islam does not condone alcohol consumption and they hijacked into your christians groups and start imposing what they believed are for broader good of your community? They can also say they do not “discrimate” drinkers but only want to see changes for a responsible and sober society.
Sure, there a majority of MPs have their own religion. I do not see them imposing their christian laws, islamic laws, buddhism laws etc on everyone.
I do not discrimante gays or lesbians.
Even if i meet one, i will not try to advocate him/her to change. This is what i believe secular is.
I support 27), 32), 43). Well done. Sums up the whole feeling.
//140) Peace on April 28th, 2009 1.14 am clap, clap for weilan for his clever esxpositon on religious beliefs and chritianity.
His sound reason that earth is round is empirical is not as sound as he thinks because the earth isn’t round.His empiricism isn’t sound after all. So what he believes is proven. I presume he is a athiest and because he believes there is no god therefore he is imposing on all of us that it is true there is no god. But has he substantiated that there is no god. Does he not realise that what he says can cause a lot of unease to an otherwise peaceful society. And all because he is anti christian and he wants everyone to be anti christians secularists. Isn’t my reasoning sound?//
Since you are so against the scientific mode of inquisition, I suppose you are probably one that clings to literal reading of the bible. If you are one or some of you here are one,I have a question for you. Do you support slavery? If you do not, how do you then interpret the many quotes from bible that supports slavery?
****
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
****
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
****
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
****
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
****
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
****
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
****
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
****
114) HT on April 27th, 2009 6.27 pm 98) Ah Teck on April 27th, 2009 2.32 pm
“Ah Teck, I share your concern. But could you be helpful and please let me know which part of the programme (ie which page, which paragraph) says so and what exactly does it say. I assume you have read the programme, right? Right?”
HT, tku 4 sharing yr concern which I dun sense it in yr response here. I can c that u battled very hard 4 d old AWARE. But as the old AWARE is the one that introduced such perverted topic/ teaching in the programme, i cannot support such stuff. I will not want to misled u on the page or paragraph since it was also highlighted that the old AWARE team intended to introduce new programme to the school boys as well. (in case there will be amendment to page # etc) But Just the summary for u – the programme indicates clearly that being a “homosexual is ok”. I dun care if the singapore government is not interested to settle the issue but as a parent to 3 teenagers i am not gg to stay by the side line and watch the children get inducted to such programme. I will fight for my daughters and sons against such perversion.
126) lynette
//1. the christians are doing so and are justified in doing so because they truly believe that they are saving the community. think about their intentions, and i think its sufficient to justify their actions. besides, coos has been one of the few churches in sg which embraces homosexuals.. they aren’t harming people. they mean good.
I suppose that this point only refers to those homosexuals that embraces the idea that the religion tells them that they are wrong and/or sick and thus “healing” is the way to go. Only these types of homosexuals are embraced?
Those who does not fit into this category will be treated nicely too?
The old AWARE Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) also teaches that anal sex is neutral. How is this?
I don’t want my impressionable young daughters to be taught that anal sex is “neutral.” The rectum is meant for holding feces, and not a second vagina. Stop corrupting our daughters with your perverted notions of what sex is.
LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE!
152) Ah Teck on April 28th, 2009 1.26 pm
Ah Teck, yes, I am familiar with this tactic of mindlessly repeating a lie again and again so that after a while, black becomes white. And cloaking it in colloquialism doesn’t really help.
“I will not want to misled u on the page or paragraph since it was also highlighted that the old AWARE team intended to introduce new programme to the school boys as well. (in case there will be amendment to page # etc)”
Yes, yes, but where was it highlighted, Ah Teck? And highlighted by which honest ethical person? I couldn’t find any document that said that. Come on, Ah Teck, don’t hold out on me now. This is important. Let’s nail this down.
“But Just the summary for u – the programme indicates clearly that being a “homosexual is ok”.
Yes, where? Which article which line? Did you read it? or did you hear it from someone else? And does that encourage children to be homosexual?
“I dun care if the singapore government is not interested to settle the issue but as a parent to 3 teenagers i am not gg to stay by the side line and watch the children get inducted to such programme. I will fight for my daughters and sons against such perversion.”
I’m not sure if you are really a parent but if you are (and are not a sheep dressed in troll clothing), please think first before accepting blindly what some people have said to advance their own cause. I don’t know how you will feel if your child is gay. From the tone of your post, you will probably be very angry at that but I sure hope you will still continue to love your child.
Ummm concerned parents,
So what should a satisfactory sex education programme for children contain?
Dear Ah Tec and Ping
Moral judgements and Moral education should be best left to church and family. Secular Schools should in my view teach without making judgements about the facts.
Firstly like it or not, Anal sex exists whether between hetrosxual partners and or homosexual partners. Similarly the very existence of homosexuality and same sex relationships.
Like it or not, unless you can morally censor the thoughts and actions of your children 24/7 365, they WILL LEARN and they WILL FIND OUT about the topics which you are uncomfortable with and find disgusting. If not from school, from friends, if not from friends from the internet. And yes they will make their own moral and sexual choices which might be very different from what you would want them to do morally or sexually.
You can’t stop the flood of information about sexuality , you can’t stop them from finding out, you can only equip them with the facts and then leave it to church and family to moralize their behavior.
That is all AWARE seeks to do, equip them with the facts so that they know what to do and how to protect them selves. They leave moralizing and judgements to church and family which is as it should be.
Locke
Oh, I remember reading somewhere that one of new AWARE people also initially commented that they want to change the Syariah law? Wow. I would really like to see them try. See if this will not result in a clash of faiths and undermine religious harmony. The arrogance of it all boggles the mind. I am new to this forum and reading the posts have been most illuminating. I am amazed that some people cannot seem to see the bigger picture that this is an infiltration of a secular organisation by people with right religious leanings. who intend to use it as a platform to further their agenda. The floodgates should not be opened as it creates a very dangerous precedent. It is cause for serious alarm.
Ah Teck & PingPong,
teaching the students that homosexuals/anal sex (goodness I am as appalled as you if AWARE indeed touch on this) is neutral, is because AWARE was NOT about discrimination. And teaching that those are neutral does not equate to promoting it. If your child comes home and tells you that they think it is ok, because the program said it was neutral, it is then the PARENT’s responsibility to tell the children that although it was said to be neutral, it is wrong. It is the PARENT’s responsibility to teach the child how to discern facts. Any youngsters should be taught by their parents (but I highly doubt so) that they should not discriminate because everyone has their right, but that doesn’t mean they should believe it is correct.
I hope I made sense.
Much as I dislike fundies and do not wish that SG is being overrun by zealous fundies and righties, I do not wish for SG to be THAT liberal.
“54) PingPong on April 28th, 2009 2.18 pm
The old AWARE Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) also teaches that anal sex is neutral. How is this?
I don’t want my impressionable young daughters to be taught that anal sex is “neutral.” The rectum is meant for holding feces, and not a second vagina. Stop corrupting our daughters with your perverted notions of what sex is.
LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE!”
I think you hit the nail on the head.
All the talk about the new exco engineering a takeover, no respect for the old guards, how the old AWARE was being ‘inclusive’ and so on ….. all these issues just fade away compared to what you just posted.
This is exactly what the public is so upset about. How the MOE allowed the old AWARE to promote such perversion among our schoolgirls. Just on this issue alone, the new exco should be commended for aspiring and working towards a change in the leadership.
The obsession with the perverted homosexual is disturbing. I just had dinner with a non-christian Singaporean last night who is married and who brags about engaging with orgies with three China prostitutes. I also had conversations with Singapore taxi drivers (note plural) who for some strange reason divulged lurid stories of having unprotected sex with prostitutes in Geylang to me. My point is, there are other souls to be saved of people whose behaviour may have such horrific impact on the institution of the family, and the narrow focus of the new guerilla AWARE exco for justification of the AWARE takeover is that the neutral stand on homosexuality equals promotion of homosexuality?? Me thinks they have their priorities all wrong. I pity those old guards who had contributed to the good of women without discrimination of their faith or sexuality. I hope their work has not been tampered with or destroyed. I would imagine it feels a little like being raped.
I learnt one valuable lesson during my time here in TOC. That sometimes when you think you doing someone a favor by speaking up for him, you are actually doing him more harm than good. I learnt this from the liaison officer.
I think the biggest flaw in the argument for the old guards is the reference to the new exco as the Christians that they are. This is made worse by the connection made between their Christian background and the subject on homosexuality. And the new exco will happily engage this end because the majority is more straight, in physical attributes and thinking, than anyone care to admit.
The pro-Old Guards camp would have presented a stronger case if it is able to strip away these allegations, no matter how true they may be, and focus on the action of the individuals that make up the exco, and the manner of their takeover.
Consider this, if this new exco are not Christians and are acceptable of homosexuals for who they are, and they are agreeable to the need to be inclusively inclusive, then what can the old guards fault them with?
One thing is most certain. Even if we decide to be nice and not call them liars, we cannot, by any account, deny the fact that they have not been truthful, all the same.
Josie could be telling the truth when she said that it was not a planned takeover. She wasn’t the planner and this could be true. Maybe it is also true that she was the eleventh hour replacement, as dictated by the puppet master Thio, because I believe they did not expect Claire Nazar to walk out suddenly. It could also be true that Josie did not knew Maureen before the AGM election but she did not say if she knew the other 7 elected into the new exco. There were nine of them including herself.
So you see, she could be telling the truth all along. Unfortunately, she is also hiding the other truths which when come into the light will shame her and her team for who they actually are. The other truths like what the grand old Puppet Master are spewing.
Where and what am I driving at, you ask?
It’s plain and simple isn’t it? Can we continue to believe and support anyone who is untrue to herself? Never mind what they stand for or hope to stand for. Can we entrust our welfare into their hands? These people may not be lying, as presented above, but can the same be said that they are telling the truth? Anyone who hides the truth has a hidden agenda which needs jealous protection until the right time to reveal it.
Over to you Puppet Master Thio. You seem to hold all the answers.
Thank you Modernist!
Whether or not we support the pro-gay or anti-gay stance is immaterial. What is at issue is that we have a group of Christian fundamentalists whose views, by nature of their Faith, are bound to ‘save’ the rest of us who do not follow their own religious practices, from ourselves.
We also know that the Christian fundamentalists justify all their actions, even the questionable ones, by quoting from the Bible and saying that they have God on their side.
I bring up one staunch Christian fundamentalist – George W Bush, who waged what he called a holy war against Iraq. The cost of that decision has been immeasureable.
Do women of Singapore want the gains made by AWARE trampled into the dust by a pack of ignorant women who take a too literal approach of the Bible? I might at this point remind them that Jesus Christ was an inclusionist who dined with anyone and everyone. He did not discriminate, and he died for all, gay or straight. But Christian fundamentalists don’t like to remember that.
Whether or not you agree with their religious position, one needs to make a decision based on where we want to take the position of women in Singapore – both straight and gay. I hope that more people agree with and support the improvements brought about by AWARE over the past y ears, and will vote to see more of these improvements with the same people who have built this legacy, rather than those who stage a rough takeover, arrogantly force their views on others and, from the outset, take on an exclusionary path so that even their plans for AWARE are top secret. (Or maybe they are just beginning to realise that they have bitten off more than just another platform for their religious views).
After reading all these debates I sensed that that there are “secular extremists” too. Don’t worry lah, Singapore people are well educated to turn this country in any kind of Teleban. The garmen will not allow this. Moreover, christian form less than 20% and not all agree with one another. So, what is all these fear?
Singapore being a conservative society I can safely said that the majority of the people agree with the moral value of the new guards. I suspect that some people are just trying to scare the “silence majority” by linking it to “christian agenda”.
//154) PingPong on April 28th, 2009 2.18 pm
The old AWARE Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) also teaches that anal sex is neutral. How is this?
I don’t want my impressionable young daughters to be taught that anal sex is “neutral.” The rectum is meant for holding feces, and not a second vagina. Stop corrupting our daughters with your perverted notions of what sex is.//
PingPong, unlike you many think otherwise. These people think that their daughters should know and be prepared for this kind of kama suttra. I know zefly, tj and weihan are broad minded people and will allow their daughters to learn about these. These people support the old aware . They not only think anal sex isnot enough but it should be followed by oral sex and culminate with some sticky seminal tonic.. This is something unthinkable with civilised people. This may put the prosttiutes to shame. They won’t dare and yet these anti new AWARE supporters clamour for it. I suggested many times that they should hug coconuts and let out pent up frustrations.
Again I would like up to bring up another word I don’t like. Can we agree that “Christian fundamentalist” is being used pejoratively?
It is a derogatory term and I perceive that many of us apply it to “Christians in general”. That is not very fair. Can we call COOS, COOS, the New Exco, the New Exco, and George Bush, George Bush?
Call their specific actions fundamentalist if you must. But don’t use “fundamentalist” as a label for Christian religionists.
Agree with you A Tan!
i would teach my children it is alright to lie straight faced to the public! I would teach my children it is ok to take over an organisation one hasn’t contributed to, for the sake of stopping its agenda. I would teach my children to jump to conclusions about things based solely on heresay!
Hey guess what Tan, my Dad is a conservative dude with Confucian values and he thinks the new ex-co is wrong. And do you know why I agree with him? Because Daddy says so, so I can safely say the majority of conservatives agree with him!
@PingPong (#154) and Ah Teck (#152),
A comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) programme aims to enable teenagers to make informed choices about sex and relationships. As such, facts have to be presented in a non-judgmental way, including facts not just on’alternative’ sexual practices, but also STDs, contraceptives, teen pregnancies, pornography, ‘sexting’, handling relationships and peer pressure, etc.. But just as one can’t successfully ‘teach’ students to have sex, one can’t ‘teach’ students to NOT be homosexual either. The moral guidance is still left to parents, family, religion, and (some might believe) psychological counseling. The mere fact that a CSE is offered does not mean that parents etc. can abdicate their responsibilities!
Many parents would rather think of their teenage daughters and sons as ‘innocent’ and ‘impressionable’… but that’s increasingly just a comforting self-delusion. Because of the mass media and the Internet, most teenagers already have their own notions about sex and relationships — some healthy, some less so. Parents, however, often don’t do their part in educating their children about sex, preferring to believe that their kids will forever be 10 years old. Hence, the need for a CSE-based programme offered by MOE.
But any talk or workshop on sexuality really has limited impact, and is not a substitute for responsible parenting. This cuts both ways: both the ‘positive’ messages and the ‘negative’ messages are likely to fade fast from the minds of their young audience. If the kids go ‘bad’ or ‘deviant’, that surely would not be the result of a single talk on sexuality where homosexuality is mentioned in passing.
So my answer to someone who tells me, “My child went to a CSE talk, got ‘corrupted’, and is now experimenting in homosexual sex,” would be: you must suck as a parent! *
* Addendum: Sure, a parent can’t be held entirely and always responsible for his or her child’s deeds or misdeeds. But to pin the cause solely on one factor (a talk which, incidentally, that parent could have opted his or her child out of) seems to me to be the height of inept parenting.
Hi all,
Please do not get too graphic.
Pls leave out the graphic descriptions of certain sexual practices.
Thank you.
How I wish those who claim Aware was promoting anal sex to their daughters could do us a favour by quoting chapter and verse from the CSE program. All I see is irrational fear and demonising. Somehow the argument that if you object to any content of the CSE program there are other avenues to bring that up and engage, not just at AWARE level, but even MOE or public level, seems to be lost on some people here. Hijacking an established secular organisation which you then use as a platform to further your narrow views is not the way to do it. To deny the existence of a christian agenda to this is highly hypocritical in light of the revelations in the media of the Church connection, the rallying call by the pastor for sisters of their congregation to support the work of Sister Josie and to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God, the predictable views of members of the new AWARE on pivotal issues such as abortion, role of women in marriage and not just their anti-homosexuality stance, and the lie to the nation on national TV.
The issue here is not just about religion or homosexuality. It is the integrity of the new AWARE members to lead what is supposed to be an inclusive secular organisation. Based on facts we know, their objectivity and credibility have already been compromised.
Agree, TOC.
Pingpong, you should be careful with your words. You don’t want young impressionable children reading this to go experiment with whatever it is you just lovingly described simply because it is forbidden.
Chill out those who afraid that GLBT have an agenda to corrupt the “young”, even though I understand Maureen Ong’s concern abt children experimenting. It’s not like trying cigarettes, dope, or hetrosexual petting.
If they are and were using AWARE as Trojan Horse to subvert the young, then the GLBT lot must be pretty dumb people.
Now if the GreensLemonsBananasTomatoes (fruit and veg salad gang) wanted to subvert, they would focus on undergrads, esp those who love parties and experimentation.
“GLBT have the best parties on campus”, “Two for one”, “Anal sex is normal”, “Experiment, be creative”. But they don’t. GLBT are juz as boring as you and me.
Now it could be juz that GLBT are dumb, but I doubt it, not with people like Yawning Bread. They just have no hidden agenda. They juz talk alot.
The Christians are the smart ones. Heard of Campus Crusade for Christ? Anedoctal evidence that many become “gd” Christians via this.
It’s the undergrads you want.
BTW, OG and friends, can you pls give me the context of “anal sex is normal”, or whether you lot were misrep. Otherwise, everytime I see video or pix of the OG, this phrase comes to mind, and I wonder who in the OG practices anal sex as a normal sexual activity.
Weihan,
Please do not quote from the Bible, especially such lengthy quotes. They will not be allowed.
Thank you.
Another word… “discrimination”.
Perhaps I can attempt to shed some light about how this word is confused?
Example 1)
Suppose you have 2 employees under you. You have to pick one to promote. The chinese employee is underserving, he has not been performing, but since you don’t like the race of your other employee, you promote the chinese guy. This is racial discrimination. Most of us can agree that it is clearly wrong.
Example 2)
Suppose we decide to increase taxes for the rich so that we can supply the lower-income Singaporeans with more work-fare. The rich ask, “Why are you discriminating against me?” Some of them don’t think it is fair for the rich to have to contribute more or be forced to. Others think it is perfectly reasonable for the rich to pay higher taxes and do more for our society since they have been benefiting the most. The moral in question is “Whether or not it is reasonable/acceptable for the rich to have to support the poor”. Are we really discriminating against the rich? This cannot be discerned without looking closely at each respective instance, and even then there can be disagreement. Not all of us agree that it is clearly wrong. Why? A moral is in question.
Now apply the same logic to homosexual discrimination. Can you understand why Singaporeans react in a certain way? It might not always be “discrimination”. A moral is in question.
Another example, TOC does not allow Bible quotes. I could feel that TOC is “discriminating” against Christians. After all the Bible is in public domain. Or I could attempt to understand the reason why TOC requests that we do not quote from it.
However TOC does show us some grace when it comes to quotations… (It is also hard to police, haha!)
Cheers!
PingPong,
it is time to check on your daughters and with the principal to keep watchful eyes on the CSE classes.It may not be theory only next time but practical too., class room demos. A lot of pingpong balls will be bouncing all over the place. Play safe than be sorry.
EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING
TO BE HELD ON 2ND MAY 2009
Notice is hereby given that:
1. The venue of the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) of the Association of Women for
Action & Research (“AWARE”) to be held on Saturday, 2nd May 2009 , from 2.00 p.m. to
5.00 p.m. is hereby changed as follows:
Singapore EXPO Hall 2
1 Expo Drive, #01-01
Singapore 486150
Admission and registration would be from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. on Saturday, 2nd
May 2009 .
It is mandatory to show your NRIC for admission and registration.
2. Messrs Rajah & Tann have been appointed to act as AWARE’s legal advisors to attend the
EGM to be convened on 2nd May 2009 to address legal queries relating to, and raised
during, the EGM including the matters intended to be transacted, AWARE’s constitution and
meeting law and procedure.
Yipeng -
Define ‘moral’.
@ 92) yipeng on April 27th, 2009 2.01 pm
uh, sorry, yipeng, had not read your above reply before referring to you as ‘her’…
Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools
1We refer to recent claims and comments about AWARE’s sexuality education programme in schools.
2Sexuality education conducted in MOE schools is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.
3Core programmes are delivered by teachers but schools do collaborate with other agencies in delivering additional modules. However, in doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are secular and sensitive to the multi-religious make-up of our society. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes.
4Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.
5AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.
6The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.
7In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.
8If parents and members of the public know of specific instances where guidelines have not been adhered to, they should report them directly to MOE to investigate. MOE recognises that sexuality education is sensitive. In conducting these programmes, the views of parents will be respected and values taught should not deviate from the social norms accepted by mainstream society in Singapore .
#163 Wow, Gemami, you can almost speak my mind now.
“The pro-Old Guards camp would have presented a stronger case if it is able to strip away these allegations, no matter how true they may be, and focus on the action of the individuals that make up the exco, and the manner of their takeover.”
I agree fully. That’s why I refrain from making comments on those two topics which were used by the mastermind to incite emotions.
The only thing I think differently from you is that the Puppet Master or mastermind is not Thio. She’s too childish in the speech she gave at the press conference – like a ‘lau huan tong’. Which lawyer, in the right mind would say that being touted as the organiser of an orchestrated, planned takeover is flattering.
Examine the following excerpt from their speech, and you’ll realise that she really felt so flattered that she contradicted Josie’s denial, thus fully smashing Josie’s credibility.
“Q: But (was the leadership takeover) orchestrated, planned beforehand? Was she the organiser?
Aware president Josie Lau: I will place on record, no.
Dr Thio: No, no, it depends on what you mean by organiser.
Actually it’s kind of flattering, in a way… ”
So who is the real mastermind (if only one)?
- What do you think of this email:
“The number of members registered on Tuesday night is 13 out of 40 who turned up…”
Who was the sender reporting to?
Why is TSM pushed out to take the rap (although to her it’s an honour)?
I think part of the reason may be that her name appeared in the disclosed emails and also she enjoyed being in the limelight.
But the real reason –
Now, tell me, what do you think all educated women’s reaction would be if proven that a guy is behind all these to control women and a women’s association?
Yes, I’m beginning to pity Josie and Maureen at the way they were being made use of. But it’s their choice, isn’t it?
@yipeng (#176),
Just like to add that what amounts to “discrimination” is context-specific. It depends on whether or not the criterion you’re using to single out people for special treatment is relevant to your objective.
For instance, it’s okay to tax the rich more than the poor, because an important objective of taxation is the fair redistribution of society’s wealth. But it’s not okay for an employer to give a promotion to X and not Y (where Y is more competent) just because X is in financial difficulties and Y is sitting on a large inheritance.
So even if homosexuality were immoral, it may be wrong to discriminate in specific contexts. For example, a person’s sexual orientation is usually as irrelevant in assessing his competence on the job as his skin colour, whereas his spoken languages usually would be. Similarly, it would be wrong for the criminal law to single out homosexual sex for punishment on the basis that it is immoral, unless the objective of criminal law is to prohibit all immoral conduct, and all other allegedly immoral acts (like adultery and unnatural sex) are in fact criminalized.
MOE has just issued its statement which in essence says that there is no truth in Darth Thio’s allegations on the CSE program in schools. I have posted it but the moderators are still checking.
The puts to the sword the lies spread by the fundies.
@ 184) la nausée on April 28th, 2009 5.01 pm
Agree… Thank you for clarification, you are clearly more coherent than I ;)
As an atheist, I do not tell anyone that I believe there is no god if others do not tell me there is god.
Whether or not there is Aware, New Aware or Old Aware, it does not matter to most people, there are far more important issues than to be involved with the bickerings of a few women. And from the many comments, we can see that many were trying ‘to prove’ they understand god and religion better than others even when they belong to ‘the same religion’. The squabbles among the believers were the most believeable. HOW DO THESE ‘I UNDERSTAND/KNOW BETTER THAN YOU’ HELP IN MAKING AWARE BETTER AND MORE RELEVANT TO THE SOCIETY
It is not worth to be distracted and be shifted away from more living related social and political issues, especially when unemployment, retrenchment and rising cost of livings are troubling us. There seems to be little and insignificant efforts at tackling our bread and butter problems. It is not fair to speculate that the “Aware’ Issue is an attempt at distraction, though the comprehensive coverage by the MSM does seem to indicate so.
Let us do a favour to ourselves, let us sincerely keep our faith in our heart and respect others’ belief and freedom to their piety.
@HT, thanks for that update. It seems that the Government has sort of gotten involved, but only because MOE was implicated in the new Exco’s slanderous allegations.
I like this line the best: “In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools.” If the new Exco indeed were acting in the capacity of concerned parents (as they claimed to be), why did they not lodge even a single complaint? I imagine a simple call or e-mail would have been far more expedient than orchestrating a takeover… not least for a self-professed ‘well-connected’ person like Dr Thio.
But atheist, it is precisely why we shd keep our religion to ourselves and respect others’ belief and freedom to their piety, that the infiltration of the old secular AWARE by people who have religious leanings and an obvious different agenda, shd not be tolerated. This is not just about a group of women squabbling. The bigger picture is that it is an encroachment on the civic society. The work done by AWARE in helping women in need regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation against abuse, violence and discrimination are real “living” related social issues that surely warrants attention. It is also a question of principle. You let this one through, you create a dangerous precedent for other future encroachments on the justification that their actions are supposed to be for the common good. The way to hell may be lined with good intentions.
Quote from MOE’s statement:
7In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.
Yes, lets hear from the feminist mentor as to what she has to say. Now it has been escalated to national level.
By the way, to those who are so concerned about the CSE program having a negative impact on their children, rejoice because you have a choice. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes. So, you can teach your own kids that birds and bees do not engage in anal sex, and if they do it is non negotiable hell brimstone and fire!