Announcement: All comments are now under moderation before they are allowed to appear on this website. This is due to some comments which are insensitive and inflammatory. TOC will not tolerate comments which are aimed at fanning inter-religious insensitivities.
Press statement from the old guards of Aware.
We are glad that the truth is finally out. What happened at AWARE AGM on 28 March was a planned takeover by a group of women, guided by their “feminist mentor” Dr Thio Su Mien, who have taken it upon themselves to, as they put it, “bring AWARE back to its original, very noble, objective”.
The issue is not whether AWARE has indeed strayed from its original aims. What is really at stake is the space for a diversity of views in our cosmopolitan and pluralistic society. Singapore is a multiracial, mulitreligious and multicultural society. As we progress, the diversity will grow. We have to be able to co-exist, to live with differing views on many issues.
What has happened at AWARE is a threat to Singapore’s pluralistic society. A “feminist mentor” takes exception to some of AWARE’s programmes, decides to monitor the organisation’s activities, and then encourages women she knows to challenge AWARE; they could have invited AWARE to a seminar to discuss the programmes; they could have written to the media.
Instead, these women joined AWARE in the few months before the AGM and then voted their representatives onto the Executive Committee – without giving any indication that they were acting together. They continued with this stance until Thursday when they finally told the truth.
The cannot be the way forward for Singapore. We cannot have people acting like moral vigilantes running around and taking over established organisations. If Dr Thio and her mentees feel that AWARE has strayed from its original aims, or that some of the programmes are unsuitable, then go ahead and criticize AWARE, but do so openly.
Better still, form their own organization to offer parallel programmes with what they see as the right messages, and let the public choose which they prefer. Their motives and actions will then be visible to all. There will be transparency and accountability.
—-
Pictures from the press conference by Boris Chan:
Related posts:
- TOC Breaking News: Old Aware exco holds press conference, calls new Aware “moral vigilantes”
- Old Guards speak up
- AWARE veterans set the record straight
- Letter to TOC: Aware – readers’ views
- National Ed vs Moral Ed
“with the new team, at least i know being straight will still be the norm of society… ”
Yes, at the same time, you better pray your other beliefs are the same as theirs as well if they are to make headways into government or parliament. Because if they can act so unethically towards a group they disagree with, what makes you think they will play nice with you when there comes a time when your views are not the same as theirs… and you happen to be the minority?
Think about it. Is it worse to be offended by seeing more gays stepping out and be able to express that outrage, or to have your beliefs made illegal because they do not square with what they believe in?
To Ahlian and whoever is arguing with her (or him)
Whatever you guys are arguing really doesn’t matter.
What AWARE chooses to teach the public or condone or condemn is really up to them. If there is really any PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY agenda that AWARE has been adopting, I am sure you would trust your friendly government to take the necessary measures.
Please refer to Dr Syed Alwi’s comment above. What he says really sums up the way we should look at this whole saga.
The old guard were adopting policy A
The new people unethically snuck into AWARE and took over it
The new people stand by a differing policy B
And they plan to use AWARE as a platform to promote B
Now I really don’t give a damn which of A or B is right. The way they are doing things is wrong, and thats it.
If the new AWARE exco gets their way, where do the rest of non-believers stand? If homos can get eliminated because they’re unchristian, much can be said for anyone not christian. i am afraid i may need to move to malaysia in the future if i want to practise my own religion.
The crusades and witch burning and catholic-protestant hostilites are definitely christian history. Will it come to a time where other religions have to bow to these zealots and their mindless zombie followers?
well use of “moral vigilantes”
@ yipeng
actually i wasn’t talking about the crusades. or the oppression of the black slaves in america.
TOC moderated my comment, which originally contained a quote from Deuteronomy, which i’m sure you know contains the verse where god orders the israelites to kill every canaanite. (yes, i know, strictly speaking, they are not christians, since it’s the old testament)
now, you sound like one of those moderates, who believe that “it was simply a different world and different perspective”, which is why i attempted dialogue. however, there are those that believe that the bible is the word of god and therefore immutable, are they not?
to continue with our friendly discussion (occasionally i’ll refer back to your #34 as well):
1. yes, i agree that for the standards of the times the bible was probably enlightened in its approach about slavery (although there was still stuff that’s horrifying – can beat up slaves as long as they don’t die on the same day? can rape female slaves as long as she’s not engaged? oops, she *is* engaged. let’s flog her as punishment.) but i disagree that the “principle continues to apply to how we treat our employees and maids” (!!!). morals of our times wrt fair treatment of fellow humans have progressed beyond the bible.
2. since you brought up the crusades and say “it has nothing to do with the current identity of the christian church”, i beg to differ. i agree that christianity as an institution has evolved in its practices, but to disown its historical roots from the times of abraham to the schism from the catholic church is surely burying your head in the sand? christianity is not all about love one another, i wish it was that simple. the devil is in the details.
3. which brought me to the homosexuality issue. if you do acknowledge that the bible was written to guide life in a different time and perspective, then can you imagine a time when christians can accept that the prohibition against homosexuality (or, to be precise, male-male anal sex) should go the way of the consent for slavery?
4. when i say discrimination against women, i meant by today’s standards, of course. although sometimes i wonder. in a certain contemporary document titled “God’s Order for the Family”, it was clearly stated that “scripture addresses that the wife first be subject to her husband”, among other things. http://www.coos.org.sg/resource/camp/God_Order_For_Family_Notes.PDF
5. i agree with the general drift of “be tolerant of one another’s personal choices”, but the status quo of having a law that prohibits certain sexual practices even when it is done in private, that needs to change, methinks. but of course certain camps are worried it will pave the way to gay marriage. which is beyond the topic of discussion here.
6. lastly, just want to bring up your attention to what i think is a typo: “We are pro-family and pro-same sex marriages” :D (if it’s not a typo, hi-five!)
cheers!
Final score from Old Trafford : Man United 5 Spurs 2
Spurs were leading 2-0 at half time, but United hit 5 in the second, which goes to show, it ain’t over till its over.
Message to AWARE Old Guard : Your second half starts on 2 May. You can still win the game!
i totally agree with post (49), other issues are just distractions thrown into the pot to sidetrack the core issue.
those harping on other other issues are barking up the wrong tree. if they have issues being taught in schools voice them out to relevant government organisations.
this Aware saga shows just how fragile our “religious harmony” really is. this new Exco should be made to go for counselling sessions at ISD, lol.
@ straightperson #47,
>>with the new team, at least i know being straight will still be the norm of society…
with the old team, you know that being straight OR gay will be accepted as the norm.
it’s not about gays vs straights, it’s about exclusivity vs inclusivity.
AWARE’s comprehensive sexuality guide says “it is okay to have anal sex, just use a condom”… on the Straits Times today.
It’s doesn’t take a Christian to see that this is so wrong to teach our kids… you guys are so spun up to the Christian conspiracy you fail to see what is wrong here.
I do not want my daughter to be taught in schools that being lesbian is normal and that she should embrace and experience it. I do not want my son to be told by his friend that it is okay to poke his asshole as long as a condom is used.
What’s wrong with you guys?
To 42) Ah Lian,
“…Obviously, the gay activist have not been keeping merely to their personal space since then. They have certainly been vocal and trying to penetrate into other people’s beliefs in the public space.”
The gays activists are seeking understanding and acknowledgment. They want to be free from that tiny little “closet” ignorant societies imposed on them.
“People of the minority religion have learnt enough not to express their values because they have been bashed so many times by secular extremist and racist elements.”
Bashed? I perceive that people have learnt to share their values and not impose their views on others because they understands and embraces diversity.
In any case, this AWARE saga, as far as ape is concerned, is not about homosexuality or religion. You can follow my blog and see why ape don’t support the new EXCO.
WeC,
details of AWARE’s comprehensive sexuality education
http://we-are-aware.sg/cse
@ 55) WeC on April 26th, 2009 10.21 am
“AWARE’s comprehensive sexuality guide says “it is okay to have anal sex, just use a condom”… on the Straits Times today.//
I do not want my daughter to be taught in schools that being lesbian is normal and that she should embrace and experience it. I do not want my son to be told by his friend that it is okay to poke his asshole as long as a condom is used.”
would you prefer the sexuality guide to say,
“It’s not OK to have anal sex” but “It’s OK to have sex with your boyfriend (if the audience is girls)”?
or should the guide contain no references to condoms at all? or no references to sex at all, more than the birds and bees?
i’m more concerned with the idea of underage/unprotected sex rather than whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.
from your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs it seems like you’re deeply uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, regardless of your religion. care to explain why?
@ 55) WeC on April 26th, 2009 10.21 am
i’d like to clarify my position on the first paragraph. which would you choose in a sexuality education programme for youth?
A. only heterosexual sex is acceptable, and if you ever have homosexual thoughts then you’re abnormal and should be ashamed/ should seek help
B. both heterosexual and homosexual sex are acceptable, and here are the ways you can protect yourself from unwanted pregnancy and STDs
C. gay sex is fun! you all should go and try it!
“…and that she should embrace and experience it”
please state where you saw that school kids were told to “embrace” homosexuality. if you’re unable to do so, then please refrain from making your own conclusions.
@ 51) tj on April 26th, 2009 2.36 am
Yes Christians should not anyhow apply.
Just a point of clarification. Translating Christian ethics from old testament Jews is hard work. For e.g. I would not take to “beating my maid because I may get away with it” but instead remember that “he who strikes is punished”. Translating the underlying emphasis of the law, I would content for “the sanctity of life” and that “Personal injury is frowned upon”.
Likewise if a 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. Thus the principle I can apply is that importance of proper treatment rather than abuse.
One question we want to be asking ourselves is where we want to see society move towards in the future. For example the free application of euthanasia or other methods of self-injury that glamorizes death may encourage a mindset where life itself is not treasured when I am sure you and I agree now that it should be treated like a precious gem. To take the idea further, what if one day murder is seen as an acceptable expression of anger? This may be an exaggeration and I pray the day never comes, but you get my drift.
Where to draw the battle lines?
Which battles are worth fighting?
Do we have a moral yardstick?
Is this yardstick tied to religions books or to the attitude of society?
Does the lack of human rights activists and other vocal voices in general mean that Singaporeans will be pushed around e.g. morally and culturally by our western influences?
I am a Christian… but I too, desire to encourage thinking.
Thanks for pointing out the typo. Ha ha what a joke… ;)
Cheers!
Regarding “the sanctity of life” I refer to the importance of your life and mine – I am not expressing anti-abortion views, hahahaha.
the new Exco is a group of “arsonists”.
the spark – themselves
the fuel – simple-minded folks who cannot see through the smoke
the smoke (screen) – the gay issue
the prize – taking over a long established vehicle for their own agenda
Q: give them time to prove themselves?
A: would another shady group of “stormtroopers” also be given time to prove themselves? how would such support be interpreted (overseas)? this is how we in S’pore do things?
for those caught up with the gay issue ask yourselves why is it an issue only recently? a convenient smoke screen thrown in by the new Exco?
don’t allow yourself to be fodder for other’s personal goal. people on both sides, wake up!!
@ yipeng
ahaha, so it WAS a typo.
ok, so we agree that the bible needs to be interpreted “translating Christian ethics from old testament Jews” according to the times? what who defined what is christian and what is jewish? iirc in the new testament there is still a requirement for guys to be circumcised, but the majority of christians these days don’t need to rite?
“For example the free application of euthanasia or other methods of self-injury that glamorizes death may encourage a mindset where life itself is not treasured…”
ok, i have two things i need to ask re this statement.
1. i know what euthanasia means, at least the popular definition of ending one’s life painlessly when he is suffering and there is no hope that his illness may get better. but what does “other methods of self-injury that glamorizes death” mean?
2. euthanasia is not glamorizing death. it means understanding and accepting that at some point, an individual’s pain may be too much for the person to bear and when there is no hope for recourse at such a time a person should have the choice whether to end one’s own life painlessly or to go on living. it does NOT promote death inasmuch as it gives one the choice to take it under one’s own terms.
(i’m speaking strictly of voluntary euthanasia. i’m against involuntary active euthanasia.)
“To take the idea further, what if one day murder is seen as an acceptable expression of anger?”
that is the slippery slope argument. my own belief is that it will never come to that – even in pre-abrahamic-religion societies they had their own laws and moral codes. in primitive tribes the world over, even those who had no concept of god(s), but were animists instead, they had laws and codes that governed behaviour as well, and casual murder was never acceptable (else they all died and there’s noone left).
“Do we have a moral yardstick? Is this yardstick tied to religions books or to the attitude of society?”
ah, now we are talking. yes, so what is the source of our moral yardstick? you seem to suggest that religious books are more dependable, compared to the “attitude of society”. yet remember that earlier you interpreted the old testament laws and i think you’d agree some of the laws in the bible are no longer widely practised.
in short, once a christian say that yes, the bible is open for interpretation, and not to be taken LITERALLY, then it becomes arbitrary. people can pick and choose what they like and leave the rest.
now i’ll offer an alternative explanation where morality is derived from. at the beginning, it starts off with human evolution. i understand this is a difficult concept if one does not even believe in evolution, but try to bear with me.
in order to ensure survival, animals not only developed certain physical attributes, but certain patterns of behaviour as well. for animals who live together in groups, these social behaviour govern of how they live with one another. bees live together in a hive, the queen bee lays eggs, the worker bees collect honey, the soldiers protect the nest. this is an extreme example. many species of primates live in small groups, some more rigidly hierarchical and some less so.
the more useful forms of behaviour, such as mutual altruism/cooperation, parental investment (i.e. parents look after their offspring) and taboo against incest tend to get passed down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics
that was the very basic. when human society became more complex, the learned component of such behaviour became more and more complex and eventually get formalised into norms and codes and we call them ‘morals’. over time it incorporated many elements, including religions, traditions, philosophies and eventually science as well.
not an easy concept, and sadly there many people not comfortable with such uncertainties. it is easier to say that “our morality comes from the bible”, never mind such a script was more than 4000 years old and derived from a warlike desert tribe with a penchant for animal sacrifices.
hey, let’s move on to other articles. see you around!
Circumcision in NT is strictly for Jewish Christians.
OT application is arbitrary. Christians have the freedom pick and choose how to respond (but always in gratitude) to their God because they are not bound by law.
OK move on.
Cheers!
The danger with these self-righteous fanatics who want to “teach you” is that they are absolutely ruthless and have no shame.
Any right thinking person would be so ashamed that they were caught out lying on national TV that they would resign but noooo…”I was only being polite….” and Maureen didn’t even say that when she did an about face, (ie confessed to lying) on why she joined AWARE.
Whatever the debate is, the point is, they are liars.
And efficient? Up to now, now agenda for the EGM has been sent although its way past the time for the agenda. Are they going to continue being shameless and try to hijack the EGM as well? Rumour has it that they will not even bring the no confidence motion to a vote.
Sorry, mistake – “up to now, NO agenda for the EGM…” my bad.
Whatever it is, the old guard has done a good job, at least aware has helped a lot of people, As for the new aware team, we have not seen any contribution hut full of critism They definitely cannot lead . How to help others if you are in a mess yourselves. It will be good if the old guard be allowed to take charge and maybe have a conference with the public and hear what they have to say to make changes for the better.