Letter to TOC
Stephanie Chok
Leaders with integrity, who are service-oriented and fair-minded, are important pillars in any community. They inspire and mobilize efforts towards social change and, through their actions, act as positive role models. I want leaders I can RESPECT to head organizations and institutions – whether they are state institutions, major corporations or civil society organizations.
The new AWARE team orchestrated a takeover of a 24 year-old civil society organization then unconvincingly denied this. Through their actions, the new AWARE team have displayed characteristics that may serve them well in a cut-throat corporate world (not that this is admirable) but are these qualities we wish to emulate, nurture or uphold?
Leaders We Respect are Trustworthy. They speak the truth and are transparent. They do not need to be challenged in order to be honest, they are not defensive when asked questions. We need to trust our leaders.
Leaders We Respect demonstrate Humility. They do not assume that they can do a better job without first serving, learning and gaining wisdom through experience.
Leaders We Respect are Accountable. Accountability is a two-way process and involves openness to being challenged. Courageous leaders with integrity do not balk at being held accountable, they understand the critical role accountability plays in ensuring democratic processes are protected.
Leaders We Respect treat others with Dignity. They don’t dismiss long-term staff without sufficient notice, reasonable grounds or an ounce of gratitude.
Leaders We Respect inspire with Gentle Strength. They understand that power is a gift to be used responsibly, not a commodity they can rob from others who have served to earn it.
Leaders We Respect are Fair and Inclusive. They respect diversity and negotiate fairly. They do not seek to institutionalize discrimination against others in society nor seize control in aggressive, autocratic ways.
Leaders we respect behave in respectful ways to everyone – no exceptions. Let’s stamp out bigotry and choose equality, dignity and respect.
Save AWARE. Log on to http://we-are-aware.sg.
—-
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
MOE should be the one to answer why CSE is allowed in schools if parents have problem with its content.
If a jihad group sponsored a Jihad Manual and MOE allowed that the content to be taught in school, who is responsible to explain to the public the rationale for doing so?
#44 Back to Family Values
You mentioned “the fact that the old AWARE had stealthily included their views of LGBT in their CSE syllabues which is targeted at teens in schools…”
Other commentators, who are more rabid, are screaming that this is a pro-gay view that encourages students to experiment with gay sex and some even are yelling that it specifically advocates anal intercourse.
Can you point out to me where in the syllabus does it say all this, or at least, the first point (ie including their views of LGBT)? I ask for specific references, chapter and verse.
Also, assuming that indeed this is all true, does this justify the sneaky underhand tactics of infiltrating a civic organisation, not disclosing their true agenda or their objections to the syllabus whether within AWARE or to the public at large, and then mounting a coup? Yes, I know its legal.
And does it justify their lying to Singapore on national TV?
46) Duh on April 27th, 2009 12.38 pm
while they didn’t lie to get in (since they didn’t need to),
they did lie on a few occasions.
1) they refused to clarify their agenda until the reporters did background checks and unearthed their strongly anti-gay stand
- deceit of omission, if not a lie
2) they claimed that they did not know each other before the coup
- and after investigation (again) it turns out that they come from the SAME church and have the SAME mentor. another lie? sure seems like it.
These people will only divulge the whole truth when forced to. Can you trust them? I certainly wouldn’t.
another thing. Do not make the mistake of lumping together whoever threatened Josie and co with others who civilly oppose the new Exco.
Criminals are criminals. those who sent death threats have been reported and that’s that.
You’re not swaying anyone with your tearful cries of “pity me! pity me! I’m being bullied!”, Josie.
enough? or do you require a clearer picture of just how morally deficient the new Exco is?
I am just wondering what will be the reactions of the new AWARE exco when their children or their family members are born with homo or lesbian inclinations?
My nephew who has homo inclination is loved by his Christian parents. We as uncles and aunties accept him as he is without passing judgement. My children includes him in all family activities. We are not ashame of him.
Being against homo/lesbian would do no one any good. Making their lives miserable is against biblical teachings e.g. love thy neighbour as thyself, he who has no sins, pick up the first stone.
heh, goes to show the level of focus they (the new Exco) have when they don’t even know where they should take the gay issue to….
its as bad as taking cough syrup when one has a headache. lol.
those anti-gay supporters… support this new leader all you want.
*i am not pro or anti gay. but for the masses to focus on the gay issue really played into the hands of the new Exco- to garner support for themselves.
I feel that smokescreen or no, the fact that gay issue is such a provocation one means that there are people who will decide based on their fears of an over-arching gay agenda to the exclusion of the dangers to civil society the new exco’s actions posed.
It is the ‘as long as they speak for me, I don’t care if how they do it is right’ mentality.
Sometimes when people throw up a huge Bogeyman to distract the masses, you need to defeat the Bogeyman first before you can proceed. But that’s my view. Maybe I also got suckered too. lol
Well written article.
Alas none of the new Exco members exhibit even remotely any of the leadership qualities outlined, and it would seem far too egotistically to recognize their shortcomings.
Lets hope they get voted out somehow!
It is entertaining to read some people’s views of how they’re concerned sex-ed in schools encourages homosexual tendencies on a widespread level. How is it that the argument of AWARE being (only?) LGBT-friendly seems to have been reduced to the mere act of sexual experimentation?
I am female, pro-LGBT and am aware of the various sexual acts that exist between couples of all genders. For the record, I have been decidedly straight since I was 11 and I can not imagine how I would have started experimenting with other girls just because sex-ed suddenly tells me homosexuality is normal. Which is a factual statement and not based on some wacko interpretation of a few lines in a holy book (which is really about love and acceptance of all without judgment).
I know I like men, and that some men like men and some women like women. My parents did not raise me to tell me that love is to be selective. Should I have a child who is decidedly gay, I would have loved him/her all the same and wanting society to be accepting of him/her. Not “horrors!horrors! gay people taking over the world” sentiments. As others have mentioned, I hope the MOE would release their statement on the issue regardless, since it is apparently the concern of “many parents”.
The day the new AWARE starts ignoring the existence of sexual activities and preaching only abstinence would be a step backwards in society, sorry to say. But then I’m a pessimist in favour of the new Ex-Co being upfront about their future plans. Not pro-old guard though, since they haven’t actually made me ‘aware’ of much before this explosion lol.
Ryvyan,
I may be wrong here since I’ve not actually seen the CSE to verify for myself. I think those lines on pre-martial sex and homosexuality is okay but I do think that telling girls (or boys) that anal sex is healthy as long as it is done with consent and a condom has crossed the line.
I anal sex is meant to be normal, females would have been created with one hole and not two (besides the mouth). For the gays, they have no choice.
@ Back to Family Values
You think the old AWARE is all about lies because you are believing the new guards’ lies.
You might want to confer the title of hypocrite on the widely conferred Thio Su Mien right now, instead of humble little me.
@ Back to family values
And is this all you can resort to when you’re losing ground, resort to calling people names?
Apparently the values you claim to teach your children tend to fall as free as the wind.
Not only on sexual orientation, beware of their teaching to teenagers that been faithful is a fallacy. And using a simple protection (condom) is more effective to protect againt STD & HIV than to rely on basic human moral & ethics. Old guards say sex itself is not unsafe but unprotected sex ones are, this is a convenient twist – teenagers shall understand from here that having sex is okay so long as protection is used.
No wonder teens sex is on the rise and teens contracting STD on the rise too. If what the old AWARE has done is helpful to the community and to the human kind, then why negative indices are going on the rise?
Old guards need to do a soul search and dig on their consciences. But what we can see now is they are more interested in fighting for power.
http://informationreadbyme.blogspot.com/2009/04/old-guards-of-aware-are-buying-votes.html
57) Jaunty Jabber on April 27th, 2009 11.19 pm
Hi, JJ, we see you again, repeating the same arguments you posted on an earlier thread on Josie “I was being polite when I lied on national TV” Lau.
Your first statement essentially states that abstinence is better than using contraceptives. That is fine – but that is your belief. But you also say and I quote :
“beware of their teaching to teenagers that been faithful is a fallacy.”
I am challenging you now – which part of AWARE’s (the old AWARE, I mean) programme says that being faithful is a fallacy…exactly where? You have read their programme in order to realise that they are spreading this falsehood, right? After all I am sure you, being such an upright and faithful person would not criticise something that you know nothing of. So where – which page, which paragraph of what programme says this? You made this accusation – back it up or shut up!
Jaunty Jabber, ask yourself what have you contributed to society ? When is the last kind act you do ? when the last time you donate to charity/help someone without any motives ? What have you done to be helpful to the society. Look into the mirror. Before telling others that they have not done enough.
@Back to Family Values (#44),
First, it’s good you acknowledge (unlike some who persistently refuse to do so) that AWARE did not actively promote homosexuality or same-sex experimentation. At least, there’s zilch evidence to that effect, except for the offhanded ramblings of one Maureen Ong at the new Exco’s press conference.
Second, it may be true that AWARE ‘stealthily’ included their views on GLBT, but that’s almost inevitable in any discussion of GLBT sex, which in turn almost always arises if a sex education programme is intended to be “comprehensive”. If the new Exco decides to launch their own CSEs, it’s likely that they will ‘stealthily’, or implicitly, include their views on GLBT too.
Third, you suggest that AWARE was finally responsible for structuring the ‘syllabus’ of its CSEs according to what’s in the students’ best interests. This is false. MOE and the schools must take primary responsibility for the programmes and courses they offer (even if extra-curricular, and conducted by 3rd parties); parents also have a secondary responsibility to learn about what children are being taught in schools. Consider this: were talks supporting intelligent design, Holocaust denial, or scientology (to take 3 more controversial viewpoints) delivered in schools, shouldn’t MOE and the school authorities shoulder the blame for any fallout?
#HT
you want specific reference, verse & minutes little details. I will show you. It is contained in page 2 where the 2 middle fingers meets. When the two fingers crossed, it indicates a very specific signals that is it intents to tillilates where you enjoy the most. While it titiliates, you sing praises on tolerances.
After which that same 2 middle fingers is for you to show it to the new committee that indeed the shit is better lying. You see HT you have a love relationship with shit whereas many of us are dieing to give them to you. I think you prefer to sleep with shit around you whereas many including non-christian cannot agree with the shit you projected.
To Ah Kow #59
Jaunty Jabber, ask yourself what have you contributed to society ?
–> Yes, I did contributed and contributing even more recently by pointing out some of the negative issues out of the Aware saga.
When is the last kind act you do ?
–> recently and now
when the last time you donate to charity/help someone without any motives ?
–> everyday, and not only to the society & charity, but to the earth and all human kind.
What have you done to be helpful to the society.
–> too many to post here, but the recent ones you should see, like pointing out the evils of some old guards’ personal doings
Look into the mirror. Before telling others that they have not done enough.
–> Not only my mirror tells me that I have done, Many people around me, they are not mirrors but human beings, have confirm that I have done well.
墨非定律
领导人
◎愚人居高位，正如一个人置身山顶，他会小看每个人。
◎每个人也会小看他。
To HT #58
You might have not done enough look around. Rotate your head more, open your eyes, click on to more sites and you should find the things that I have talked about.
And of course, those things you will not find them on AWARE official sites.
Things went on some subtle ways.
One need to be very observant in order to see what’s underneath.
3) Jaunty Jabber on April 28th, 2009 9.39 am
Sorry, Jabby, I did look around and all I saw was the hijack of a civic organisation by bigots and liars.
Now you said and I quote : “beware of their teaching to teenagers that been faithful is a fallacy.”
I asked you for specifics to back this statement (it’s a teaching, right? In writing right?) and you couldn’t do that. Logically therefore this statement must be false as it has no support. See, you don’t even need to use faith for this, just logic.
But, Jabby, you are right about the fundies and how they manipulate others in subtle ways though and how one needs to be observant to see how they operate to prevent future power grabs. Good point.
Each has freedom to interpret and turn things around to own’s favor – human’s flaw.
Old team, even if they managed to win at EGM due to synthetic votes, there should be no glory over their winning. Is big shame.
New team, we know the new team is powerful and strong, as they have merely put their foot in and there are so many hoo-ha. Really powerful.
Throughout, the lack of any coherent rationale or reason has proven to be the militants’ only source of defeat. Nobody really attacked them, they just crumbled under the weight of their own lies and incoherence. Yet they go on being oblivious and swagger with further material to accelerate the sinking of their own ship. It’s the strangest case of self destruction we have ever witnessed.
65) Jaunty Jabber on April 28th, 2009 11.13 am
Sigh. Jabby oh Jabby, I find myself agreeing with you more and more. Again you are right.
Old team win (imho, unlikely as the sheep will all be there, baaing away), no glory, they have only gotten back what they had before but oh so badly damaged. Ah, the loss of innocence.
New team – indeed powerful and strong, the power and strength of fanaticism. But where will that lead us and our society?
Hi HT,
Let’s be friendly to each other, I begin to see myself sounding more friendly towards you.
We don’t know what the new team will contribute to the good of the society, yes that’s true, thus why not give them a chance to show us. If they don’t lead well, we can don’t follow. If they don’t do well, they are subject to the society to query them. Why the bitterness of old guards trying to throw them out now?
Be careful now, HT, an irony-challenged Jaunty may soon be hitting on you… ;-)
Mirax
Please do not use your own personality to judge others.
You do not know me in person. You are not GOD.
Just like the recent(April 2009) Miss USA contest in which Miss California when asked by the compere, said that she does not agree with the homo-sexual lifestyle, I(a father of 2 grown up men(30 n 32) too, support her view as much I respect those with an alternate view!
Jaunty Jabber #70,
Don’t say you don’t love fairies deep, deep, long time. You are not a FAIRY!
Who’s the fairies? Where are the fairies?
“La la la la la, la la la la la,” Smurfette
the anti-gay camp should ask Josie & friends what “battle plan” they have up their sleeves.
hopefully its answered straight to the point. any shady neither here nor there answer means they are as clueless as anyone how to go about NGO work.
dun grab more than 1 can hold. if the new team needs time to prove themselves, they (& that mentor) do not have the needed leadership qualities. step down & build their fundation, let the previous team guide. the less experienced.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
those focusing on the gay issue should instead focus on probing this new Exco. see if they are that up to the task of leading Aware. any attempt to dodge, sidestep, not give a robust & direct reply would mean they do not have what it takes to be in that position.
they have enough time on their hands to mobilize a takeover, they have enough time to think about how they put that position of power to good use from day 1, no?
Hey, my blockquote came out in a pink box ! Should please Piece, jaunty and friends. Or would you fellas prefer a pink triangle?
I think TOC will chase you out if you continue your pinky talk here.
The argument is getting cuter and cuter by the day. I think you guys must be tired already.
One question: How many women have each of you brought in for your respective camps? Cute is nice but the real action is approaching fast, remember this.
#HT and Buddhist, you asked for proof of statements made in terms of homosexuality in the CSE, are you kidding? Even Constance Singam had admitted openly in the press conference that the curriculum in CSE did include a topic on homosexuality but she went on a craftily defence of it by saying that it was just a brief introductory topic, which wants to emphasis that “homosexuality is natural”.
Even Mathia Lee, a CSE Trainer, had admitted in her own blog that homosexual was included in the program and contents, and she had also facilitated the notion that homosexual is NORMAL and NATURAL!
(By the way, I did ask my daughter’s school for a copy of the CSE materials and they told me that I’ll have to go get it from AWARE, as it does not belong to them and they do not keep any copies!)
#HT, you are much more rational and balance in your points, thoughts and explanations, we have different views on certain topics but I do agree with many of your points as well.
#Buddhist, your statement of “Nobody really attacked them, they just crumbled under the weight of their own lies and incoherence” clearly demonstrates your own blinded arrogance, ignorance and selective acceptance of facts and truth, which therefore, makes you a highly irrelevant and intolerant person as far as this topic is concerned. I do not believe you are a Buddhist at all with your kind of self-righteous arrogance, so please stop insulting Buddhism.
Now, back to my opinion on the whole saga:
I am not against homosexuals and lesbians. I have also no problems with their existence in our society, and I will treat them like any normal human beings if I do come across them in my daily life.
My main issues and concerns (and here I emphasized again) if why AWARE think it should promote homosexuality as normal, and the fact that they had stealthily included it in the CSE curriculum (and many parents only get to know about it through the new guards of AWARE).
Is this not imposing their views and their values upon ordinary people like us who may not share their views, and therefore, demonstrate their scant regards and respects towards people like me (who have kids in schools right now) who believed in “one man, one woman nuclear family”?
Is there anything wrong with my concerns and my refusal to see eye–to-eye with the old guards on this topic?
Does that makes me a liar just for opposing people like Constance Singam and her bunch of old guards with their hidden agenda all this while?
If you guys (or gays) believed in diversity, why is there a problem for me NOT TO ACCEPT the old guards’ views that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Is that what you called diversity, or I am communicating with a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites here to run down anyone that opposed their views and opinions?
This will be my last post, it is time to translate words into actions from now on. Within our parenthood organization (consisting of parents from different faith, religions and nationalities who opposed AWARE’s branding of homosexual as normal), we have decided to start a 3rd party independent voice to petition and make our opinions known to the government bodies and schools about our concerns with AWARE’s CSE, and we want an open and transparent review of their contents and a good explanation of WHY, WHAT and HOW the homosexual topic will be facilitated within the school.
WE WANT TO BE INVOLVED NOW, as we can no longer trust even reputable organizations like AWARE! Lessons learned and history should not repeat itself!
say before liao, those with issues of what is being taught in schools voice your concerns to MOE.
i have not read the CSE, but does mentioning a topic equate to promoting it?
can i ask how come in the animation, WALL-E, that perverted robot play with a bra & cover its eyes? must have been stealthy promoting sexual experimentation oso right?
-.-”
Mr Back to Basics Value,
I’m all behind you in forming your group of concerned parents of all faiths and nationalities. This is what civil society is all about.
But please be careful about who you invite into your organisation as there may be some of those sneaky pro-gay people who make hijack your organisation for a gay cause.. and then you cannot cry foul because it is legally done. History should not repeat itself.
The concern of “Back to Basics Value” is understandable, imagine the following scenarios:
On surface and officially, the trainer cannot deliver AWARE curriculum that contain anything too bold or having elements that speaks against human values and the legal system during their talks to schools or any other public held seminars.
At the end of the talks/seminars, the trainer leave behind some personal e-mail address, msn-address, facebook account, blog address, websites or other kind of links to the audience (mainly students), or when some friendly audience may care to obtain contact details from trainer for future references. In this cases, trainer and trainees gets alternate channels to remain in contact and/or, obtain alternate modes for sharing of beliefs on personal basis.
In those personal platforms, trainer with special ideas/agenda share their point of views. Trainees who click on to their blogs or any other links shall be exposed to their trainer’s special beliefs.
This is going to be very influencing as trainees look upon the trainer as their mentor or role model.
(Again, herewith I emphasize: we are not saying that anyone with special beliefs are wrong or unethical, we are just stating that there are channels that are beyond the official context and boundaries that people could share among).
We are not saying that the old AWARE have hidden curriculum or special intent, but we are concerned of any person who may make use of AWARE to reach out to spread their beliefs, and if the beliefs are those which were not endorsed by the legal system or are challenging basic human morals, then it is dangerous.
With such concern, it is important that AWARE or any other social organization regulate their members’ code of behaviors up to the levels of their personal lives.
“Trainees who click on to their blogs or any other links shall be exposed to their trainer’s special beliefs.”
And what might those ‘SPECIAL’ beliefs be, I wonder?
That’s right. I am absolutely certain that, even without proof, that AWARE engages SPECIAL trainers, qualified though they are, to teach about sex education in schools. Mind you, not normal people, parents etc, but SPECIAL people.
Care to elaborate how exactly are they… (bling! bling!) SPECIAL?
“We are not saying that the old AWARE have hidden curriculum or special intent, but we are concerned of any person who may make use of AWARE to reach out to spread their beliefs, and if the beliefs are those which were not endorsed by the legal system or are challenging basic human morals, then it is dangerous.”
you hit the nail on the head, Jaunty. AWARE shouldn’t be used as an organisation to spread Fundie beliefs. The legal system has a Religious Harmony Act, remember? Basic human morals of honesty, decency and integrity has been challenged, and it is dangerous.
No wonder the number of corporate thugs are on the rise.
Oh, but a hetrosexual person with good family values who endorses harmful bank products is a better person than an average person whose only fault is to be born gay.
To Zefty #84
Special as in ideas or mindset that is out of the usual acceptance level, things that were not yet endorsed by the legal system or considered to be too bold by the majority.
Jaunty,
I hear you. I disagree, but I hear you.
See, we are having a conversation. You don’t see me go over to your house/office and shut down your computer. Though I know the people of TOC personally, you don’t see me call them and tell them to censor your comments, or the comments of anybody else for that matter.
Now let’s do some working backwards.
You have a very fixed sense of moral. You probably believe too, that morality is out of the realm of laws. Right? Even if there is no law against killing, you also believe it is wrong to kill.
So I take it that you can’t use the argument that it is legal, therefore there is nothing wrong with taking over the ex co.
So, is it right or wrong, what Dr Thio has done?
To Zefty #87
Is that a threat from you? That your personal relationship with the TOC team shall do something exceptionally for you?
So I shall understand that TOC will not stand firm on their philosophy that the comments panels is open for readers to share views? As long as the comments do not contain direct accusation or dafamation?
Shall I understand that TOC will do something because there is a friend of TOC telling them to do so?
Gawd, Jaunty,
You don’t get analogies do you? Why do you guys get so jumpy all the time…?
My point was that there are many ways we could deal with disagreement. Silencing ‘dissent’ would be the wrong way to do it even if we have the connections or power to.
Now please focus on the remaining part of the question.
Jaunty Jabber #83,
“Homosexuality is normal” is not a belief in the sense that it is not faith-based i.e. evidence comes into play. The spherical Earth is not a belief, gravity is not a belief, evolution is not a belief….
Without explanation or an argument, I can’t see how homosexuality challenges basic human morals. We don’t take things on faith here. Oh and does that mean you think heterosexuality upholds basic human morals? How does that work? Pray tell.
“…it is important that AWARE or any other social organization regulate their members’ code of behaviors up to the levels of their personal lives”?? Pray again, tell again.
“Not endorsed by the legal system” is a valid concern that I agree with.
Even with today’s press release on MOE’s point of view over AWARE school programmes, it is still not convincing that there is no hidden agenda delivered by the old AWARE. Why? Because things goes on invisibly.
MOE’s message is a fair one as they are judging it only from whatever is visible on surface.
MOE do not know if there are things going on down under or long after the talks, they are not in the position to know as well.
Therefore, my points are, if there are communication channels or reference points after the talks, that is the time where no one would restrict what the trainer would share with the trainees.
Someone with hidden agenda could make use of AWARE as a bridge to reach the public in wide scale.
To Slim #90
When I mentioned “to challenge human moral”, I am referring to the multiple challenges. For example, protecting oneself against STD & HIV is by staying faithful to your partner, using condoms should never replace this belief. If using of condoms is pronounced to be much effective than being faithful, then it can mislead the youngs.
If trainer is to say “being faithful is a fallacy, faithful person also contract STD & HIV from their partners when condoms is not in use”. But, can we see from there that being unfaithful is still the root cause, the partner is not faithful, thus he/she passed the virus to his faithful partner.
Using of condom should never come to overtake the primary importance of being faithful.
@JJ
You are evading questions like Mrs Thio has taught her brethren to.
Is it right what Mrs Thio has done?
why do some people insist on going about in a witch-hunt (no witch? create 1?)? it borders on paranoia liao…
so much for faith…
-.-”