well written analysis! civil society is a term that is not well understood by many… and perhaps, only those who understand it well can take up roles to lead such civil society groups… :)

I was shocked that the crowd was very unruly. I am saddened to see women involved in tongue lashing, getting the support of lesbians. Although the old exco were very experienced and from professional groups, I see that they are very ungracious in their behaviour. I can’t believe these are the leaders of women in Singapore.

A wonderful article which cuts through to the pertinent issues in the AWARE saga.

Very well written. Puts the sword to the stone of what civil society really is about.

For those that are very well intended to see this as a victory for singapore’s civil society, do well to heed this sentence:

” If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.”

replying to “a mother” at 12:46am: the crowd may have been indeed loud, at times, but hardly unruly. calling the old exco ‘ungracious in their behaviour’ is an utter and total misrepresentation — one need only watch the three-part video documentation on the Straits Times’ RazorTV to see the many instances of graciousness that the founders and old guard members displayed to the ousted newcomers; at various instances, the old guard were expressing their respect for the patience displayed by Josie Lau during the confrontative parts of the meeting, and after they stepped down, they were genuinely thanked — repeatedly — by the audience. Unfortunately, too many people mistake clashes of conviction with ‘ungraciousness’, but this is hardly a mature way of appreciating differences.

spot on! “turning a marginalised minority into an object of fear” is indeed a tactic that has worked and is still working. sadly so, and you can see right here from some comments on TOC that a lot of people still don’t get it. how do we find a way to talk to these aunties, so that they can appreciate what is wrong with this takeover?

If any aunty who is proud of her Christian faith is reading this now, who does not understand what happened at the EGM, I know that this article here may be too complicated for you to understand too! but one thing it is saying is that everybody can have his or her own belief in Singapore, nothing wrong OK? but AWARE is something different, you cannot understand ‘civil society’ never mind, you just imagine that joining AWARE is not like buying a second-hand home, you don’t like colour of furniture you can just throw away and ask your relatives to come in replace everything, OK? AWARE is like a garden for everybody OK, some people like coconut tree, some people like rambutan tree, you cannot come in and chop down any tree just because you don’t like the shape OK? because you don’t own the place! or suddenly you come in one day and say you don’t like dogs running in the park, you see other people’s dog running you want to kill and cook for dinner, like that cannot OK, of course people will start fighting OK? because why? you yourself have not been gracious!

oh, somebody else help me out…

This is the sharpest and most fair analysis so far. I appreciate the clarity of what a CSO stands for. Josie’s team clearly had no idea what a CSO was about.

Having said that, those in support of the old guard conducted themselves disgracefully. It would probably have come to blows if both sides had even numbers (bearing in mind that people who supported Josie’s team may have anticipated the attacks and chose not to turn up), or if the police were not there to moderate the event.

I do not think that those who booed and jeered at the EGM have the right to pat themselves on the back that they are what a civil, inclusive society looks like.

The price of freedom is constant vigilance… constant. I have learned not to give up in engaging my older, closed-minded relatives in discussion, except when they shut it down on their accord or wish not to continue.

6)
Woman, please la. in the first place who was playing dirty by switching off mikes and bussing their red shirts in without even need to queue? so don’t talk about disgraceful conduct here when the takeover itself was very very disgraceful already.

there was not a single attack and the police did not have to restrain any attacks. what attacks are you talking about???? did ms lau’s supporters go paranoid abt attacks? were u one of them? if not, how did u know?

does ur idea of a civil meeting include being told to shut up and sit down or listening to a self serving speech? don’t insult the intelligence of women can?

8) agreed. everyone behaved disgracefully.

my point still stands, it’s not civil, it’s not inclusive, one shoves, all shoves

the intelligence of women do not need to be lowered down to the louder side winning the argument

6) & 9)
Woman, I did not attend the EGM but I did view through most if not all the video. I do agree that the crowd was noisy, but unless you were there, I don’t think it is fair for you to say they were “disgraceful”.

To “woman” and “a mother”: I believe in situations like these, the passion of the people displaying what they believe in far overwhelms petty descriptions of their behaviour. This is people fighting for something they believe in, against an outrage against our independence, equality, and freedom. This is what democracy looks like.

Further, “mother”, you said “I am saddened to see women involved in tongue lashing, getting the support of lesbians.” What is wrong with “the support of lesbians”?

I think one lesson is that a CSO should be civil and its work will always be checked and balanced by the public. Although it took more than 20 years for this happen it reflects the maturity of Singaporeans who will make a stand when situation arises. There is no room for comlacency. Now we are aware of what was happening. In this J and her team did right in moving in to express their concerns although the approach may be questionable. It is unfortunate that the majority attacked them on what they are than what their concerns are.
Good pc ..I think this piece would be a great if it had been published before the results of the EOGM .

As I said in other threads, the supreme irony of this whole sorry episode is that Thio and gang, for all their homophobia, have done the most to further the interest of LGBTs in Singapore.

Now that the Feminist Manipulator and gang have been soundly defeated, let’s step back and look at the bigger picture.

Much as I am loathe to give the Gang of Seven any credit, I am feeling magnanimous and would like to credit Thio and Gang (though they definitely don’t deserve the credit and the good outcome was furthest from their mind and intention) with the following:

1) Single-handedly created tremendous awareness of the good work that AWARE had been doing for the past two decades.

2) Created awareness by otherwise neutral or disinterest people like me about the discrimination that LGBTs faced in society. The knowledge gained that it is normal among animals, insects, humans, and all god’s creatures that some among them are homosexual.

3) Promoted AWARE through the recruitment of some 3,000 new members.

4) Increased the financial strength of AWARE by some $120,000 within a couple of weeks through the membership fees. (Hopefully the $90,000 spent by the defeated Exco can be recovered.)

5) Demonstrated that fair-minded Singaporeans, including Christians, are passionate enough to see that justice is done.

6) Showed that the freak election results that the PAP is so worried about can happened, although the PAP CEC itself is almost invulnerable due to its cadre system.

7) Most importantly, it proved that although freak election results can occur, its solution and resolution need not be to send in the army and tanks.

The AWARE saga clearly showed that Thio-logy and Theology do not belong in secular NGOs and civil societies.

God does work in mysterious ways indeed.

Woman is right…..u want civil discourse yet the supporters of the old guard did not respect any civility….if u said josie and her gang behaved as uncivilised people, i am sure the supporters of the old guard should do better to be civil and show wat civil discourse is about

The war cry of the outraged was unstoppable…..against encroachment on freedom …..freedom to be who you are without judgement; against fear mongering; against deceit , lies and cover ups….. against strong handed tactics………..

It is an indication of political immaturity of Singaporeans.
Mob rules.
Shouting down the right of others to present their case is the tactic of the desperate.
New team was not politically savvy to point out at the outset hat they did not take over. The Movement wqas abandoned, and the y walked into an empty fortress.
Old team was desperate for any support ,and was clueless that their organisation was hijacked by gay activists to further their goals.
Aware is dead. It lost all credibility unless it can clean its stables and to quote the “new guard” to return to it roots of women issues, and not be the “cat’s paw” of other interests.

Mr Isawaran should find out what he is talking about before he opened his mouth to defend the indefensible – ie teaching our 12-18 year old children that anal sex is healthy.. I think he is badly advised by the Min of Education officials who are trying to cover up their own unthinking negligiences. or perhapsthe hidden agenda of promoting their non-traditional sexual orientations

” If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.”

I beg to differ with the above statement.

By not repealing 377A, our Govt & in particular the majority of our MPs did allow themselves to be used as a tool by the Christian fundies even though the PM acknowledged that 377A will have not be used discriminately. Remember the thunderous thumping of their feet by the PAP MPs with the passing of 377A.

How can we enact a law like 377A for the sole objective of pleasing the conservative society ? Or is our legislative council in the habit of pampering to strong lobbyists regardless of justice and fairness in our laws.

I’m afraid your views may be somehow misguided.

This is a very well written and analyzed article. I agree that this article would have served its purpose better if it had been published before the Aware’s EOGM was held.

Observers would do well not to take sides by allowing emotions to over-rule their independent objective analytical ability. As I see it, this saga reflects both groups’ display of disgraceful conduct – one openly and coarsely, while the other subtly and ‘polished’.

The ones who had started to invade and subvert an existing CSO in order to take over control of its leadership and management should rightly be seen as the initiator, the attacker and therefore, the aggressor in the first place.

What happened at the EOGM was the response they get from the greater public in return for their sneaky and unethical, though seemingly legal and democratic, way of doing things. No matter how noble they may try to project themselves of their intentions, the general public have eyes to see and brains to analyze. One cannot hope to project a moral high ground while at the same time made use of a sneaky and unethical way of taking over a CSO.

A CSO is not like a business enterprise which exists only for monetary gains and takeovers can take all shades and forms. A CSO exists for the greater good of the public in general and serves a specific social purpose in particular. Therefore, a sneaky and unethical way of taking over the organisation would definitely attract the wrath of the general public, especially so in a country that strongly values peaceful and harmonious co-existence within a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society.

I think the whole Aware saga is a good sign for Singapore as a nation. It shows that Singaporeans have come of age politically and socially and are willing to stand up to be counted when an urgent need arises.

The immediate and overwhelming counter-attack launched by those who believe in secularity and diversity over those who believe in their Only God and their own version of ‘conservativeness’ shows clearly that a last-minute, ad hoc, unplanned ‘force’ is able to defend and subsequently overthrow a planned, co-ordinated, premeditated insidious trojan-horse invasion easily.

This could well indicate that Singapore as a nation can hope to survive such a sneaky attack from any would-be foreign aggressors.

Having said all that, I think it would do well if we can go one step further to investigate into the background of those individuals and organisations involve in planning the trojan-horse invasion. What makes COOS so anxious and determined to go all-out to support the invasion behind the scene. What are the connections COOS has? Is there a foreign element behind this subversion? It would be good for the future of Singapore if ISD can take upon itself to find out any broader hidden agenda that could be harmful to our nation.

Otherwise, this saga cannot be considered over. Subversive elements, if any, may simply go underground for a moment and then resurface again when they feel the situation is ripe for their taking. It is always better to be on the safe side than to regret too late.

Lovely piece by Mr George. But shldnt the issue be seen as a factional issue of an organization – incumbents vs a religious-right incursion? Not the first time. I’ve seen churches, ethnic clans, going at each other. Anglicans in England had a massive internal battle over gay bishops. Aware is not the only women’s grp in Singapore. Only difference is that the media played this up, possibly as a distraction from the real issues that face the rest of us ordinary citizens. If media wasnt involved, the religious-right might have won with a ready pool of soldiers fr COOS. At any rate, it was perhaps a good exercise to test the maturity of our people. We always had one conversation since 1959 :-). Now with 2 conversations, how did we fare? We stumble forwards.

Your statement “The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.” – somehow irks me a lot. A LOT. This post is certainly well-written but the above sentence just threw everything into the bin.

Have you ever thought about how atheists would like this handled? Secularism means rejecting all religious doctrines and therefore there should be NOT be any faith-based values in secular NGOs. While many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented, it is when such religious values are injected into the public sphere that causes chaos. After all, who can say which religious values should be followed and which, not?

For goodness sake, the degree of civility at the AWARE EOGM is considered high given the tension of the situation. No chairs or tables were thrown at Josie and Company. No death threats materialised. No lives were lost. There was zero medical casualties! If LOL, a mother and Woman expects civility of a church, please go to a church. EOGM / AGM is not a Sunday Sermon to hear Josie’s preach.

Some interesting challenges emerge for the Old Guards after the EOGM:

1) Josie, by the constitution, is now the Special Advisor to the current ExCo. She also enjoy support from 1/3 of AWARE’s ordinary members, so her advisory to the Old Guards Exco carries a lot of weight too.

2) Josie and Company authorised a lot of spending exceeding $20,000/mth. Expenses known publicly include changing of locks, press conference at Raffles Town Club, engagement of Rajah & Tann, EOGM (Rent, Event Manager, Auxillary Police, etc) at Suntec City. In what manner should the money be recovered? We know there is a provision in the Societies Act for the recovery of Josie’s spending spree.

3) What will happen to former Centre Manager Schultz Lee and her female replacement from COOS?

Beautifully written analysis. Thank you.

the biggest winner in this issue is the mainstream medie, the ShitTimes. Right from the start you know what is their agenda, the biased reporting, the pushing of certain issues that disadvantaged the new guard. I do not care which guards run AWARE, but it is kind of sad how a lot of people were suckered in all the unbalanced reporting amidst this storm in a teacup, when we have more important issues to concern ourselves with.

Another point:

4) Given the dent in the annual budget for the entire year, how will the daily operation of AWARE and its facilities be affected? Even legal proceedings take time and it does not guarantee that AWARE can recover any money from Josie and Company. What was spent so far already amounts to at least 5 months budget…

I wonder how the Feminator’s(TSM & co.) insensitivity to others could arise in a more or less plural society like Singapore? It this symptomatic of a growing social divide?

Great article Cherain……very well written.

Most of the commentators here have not seen and truly understand how civil society operate and are now complaining about rowdy proceedings of a very contentious Extra Ordinary Meeting of an established women’s organization???

I would also like to share this Booklist comment on a Barbara B Taylor book that she “laments that while ostensibly protecting the integrity of scripture and church doctrine, people can trample the rights of others”. This is not specific to Christianity but any faith-based insertion into public life.

Nice article, Cherian — your points on the role of CSOs are insightful and needed to be made.

I think Janadas’ term “Pluralism” is probably appropriate in this issue – the issue is not secular vs religious but the appropriate inclusion and negotiation of different value systems.

good article.

to be fair. when the “old guards” raised their hands, it was to ask their supporters to calm down and stay seated. not to incite the crowd to jeer.

I loves the crowd and strongly believe the crowds were doing the right thing to prevent Josie & Gang for wasting theirs and other people’s time. The EOGM is about the vote of no confidence and not to be there to hear what they knew about Josie & Gang. Because of such wonderful supporters, the whole saga is neatly closed for the good of everyone. Otherwise, we will have Josie & Gang continue to mess up AWARE if they were given the luxury of time to do so.

The article is well written. CSO is presence to fill the missing gap of this society, to be there for the minority and not to create the gap wider.

I agree with smallvice585. The supporters were outraged that their values were so unceremoniously challenged by the Josie and co. Under the circumstances, they behaved remarkably well. The fact is that AWARE is a feminist organisation. It attracts women who are intelligent and not afraid to express their intelligence! It is exactly what AWARE was set up to do.

It is not the Christian values that people took issue with, it is their high-handedness, complete lack of transparency and openness that severely tested the fundamental values that AWARE was founded on.

AWARE is not the platform for their Pro-family stance. That’s the core of the issue. They should have formed their own CSO.

The supporters of the new exco did not defend their stance through any proper explanation of where they are coming from or how they will make a difference to AWARE and its cause. All they could say was stop being so uncivilised, don’t harass me…. yada yada..

“First, while the expectation that a civil society organisation (CSO) should represent the majority view is superficially seductive, it is in fact fundamentally flawed”

why not? why criticise it when it doesn’t produce what you want? “freedom” of democracy comes with its rules, and price.

Three more challenges for the NewOld Exco

Dispel the allegations

By Solo Bear and others that most of the issues raised from the floor were pro homosexuality.

By GLBT militants that if not for them, the NewOld Exco would have lost.

That no senior female lawyer wanted to be their advser.

WOMEN…. they lack composure and objectiveness in dealing with situations… they are too emotional…

Brilliant article.

The Singaporean woman is in a difficult position, eh? When they’re not apathetic, they’re called rowdy and ungracious (or emotional) when they’re passionate. Cannot win! Constant character judgments must be made! And the word lesbians must be mentioned to add insult!

(Interesting to see the people who are casting stones.)

And yes, it was an EGM where the leadership of the exco was being questioned. It was not a lecture or sermon.

I think this whole thing is a big joke. These women have nothing better to do than talk about gender equality. In buses, I always see women sit with women and not men. O_o!!!

I’ve also heard of AWARE preaching homosexuality which is a very dangerous move, should dismantle this organisation.

Great piece, CG. Thank you.

Josie Lau & co miscalculated. They thought they could impose their will on the meeting, but they obviously had no idea what they were reckoning with. Why on earth didn’t they consult with the “old guards” to agree on the agenda? I do not know. Had they did this simple thing, supporters of the “old guard” would have left them alone.

And then they were threatening to throw people out. What kind of respect were they showing to their members?

This was a vote of no confidence. You have people with VERY STRONG OPINIONS in the crowd. Did you expect us to sit there meek as lambs?

When you go to an election rally, did you expect people to just sit on straw mats and listen quietly? Be realistic.

The new AWARE exco is illegal and not constitutionally elected.
It was not properly conducted in accordance with the constitution
IT IS ULTRA VIRES.

hey Woman, mrthinkb4utalk and LOL. everyone noes wat the meeting is about – to vote or not to vote. in the entire month before the meeting, we have read enuf and heard ms lau on cna… no need to be repetitious, why is she wasting time glorifying herself all over again to an enraged audience.

with the kind of outrage that even led old grannies to queue for two hours just to vote them out, this is remarkably civlised already. nobody was injured other than the egos of some, and civil discourse requires mutual respect – josie and team had lost it at the very first when they conducted such an uncivil move.

btw, this is civil discourse, just go check out what democratic countries do. we r not in primary school or church, so stop expecting ppl to just listen blindly to authorities the way josie and team are used to.

(21)

Watchman, here u r again! thanks for stopping ur incessant posts on Chong and Grey and sex. This is such a huge relief.

now u r talking. tell us which particular article of the constitution is flouted in the election.

[...] Posted on May 4, 2009 by Ovidia But first, to sum up, I think Cherian George’s piece is the best summing up of recent events I have read so [...]

Dear All:

me like to make a call that TOC returns to more Bread and Butter, Social and Political Topics now that the AWARE Saga has been amicably resolved. i strongly believe sanity and sensibility will follow.

The AWARE Affairs have takened away much of the usual focusses of TOC which is one of the most popular site in Cyberspace. Pardon me , i observe that most of the discussions now are centred on personalities involved in the Saga and many discussions were directed at them personally. Commenters themselves having different views are also just as personal. It will be good if we now leave AWARE to reorganize and further improve its’ role in society, we know they will be stronger after the fiasco.

There are many who may or will contribute to AWARE now that they are awared of the Organization and the Fiasco had also revealed where amends and improvements are needed.

In all, i think many goods have resulted and once again i suggest we start hunting for our breads now and butter when we can have the luck to afford it.

patriot

There might be one more lesson to be drawn. The price that one pays for complacency. In this case, about $70,000. It is scarcely reported anywhere, that only 22 of the “old guards” turned up at their own AGM to vote in the first place. In a sense, Josie Lau and Co. (however obnoxious their views) were the real activists for the cause they believed in.

I will back Josie & Co anytime, the old guards, look at them properly, who are they?…… I will instruct my children not to attend any courses that is promoted by aware. Teaching children that anal sex is ok………where will this leads us.

22) eh on May 4th, 2009 11.54 am ,

The mob crowd was made of people like eh and some other low charbos from the Singam’s camp. They were noisy and unruly. It was a surprise to see women, aunties and young ah lians behaving like mob. That was NO democracy. As a result an old woman was asked to shut up and sit down for rude interruption .Itt was almost a riot if not for the securities there.. They were ruffians. They were worse than kids crying and clamouring for free gifts and I beleive that many were recruited for this purpose. They didn’t like look they were brought up properly. Education or no education up bringing on good family values is important and the ugliness shows that the mob had no proper up bringing.
How can you let the mob squad run a civil advocacy group? On top of it the AWARE is illegal. Can some one check the constitution?

Well ,as the dust settles what we see is a microcosm of our society’s ‘true colours’….the hidden agenda, deceit, condescending leadership, infighting, unruly behaviour. Anything surprising?

Very intelligent article and timely too.

There are too many who seem to think victory’s been achieved when really its only the beginning. The events so far should be viewed as a stern wake-up call for all of us. There are also too many who are focused on the individuals and personalities rather than the bigger picture which is far more important.

For too long we have taken what we cherish most for granted. Singapore is Special because of its diversity and tolerance and not inspite of it. CSOs are needed for Singapore to grow.

There is much work to be done so that our children and grandchildren will inherit the Special Singapore.

. . ..quote “The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, . .” unquote

‘virginity is a state of mind . ..’, ‘anal sex is ok . .’

Are the above biological-related things which I believe is neutral and nothing that is faith-based or non-faith based .

What you wrote is making me as a layman very confused leh.

Watchman is probably related to someone on Josie’s exco or Feminist Mentor Thio (LOL) or the COOS. He has failed to realise why otherwise nice women had become so outraged and defiant at the EOGM. He would rather point fingers at their expression of unhappiness, than analysing the whole picture and understanding how it became the way it became. He’s like some people we know — he makes pointed remarks and comments at you and does things to you that are not unlawful but that are not socially or morally or by protocol acceptable, you become so enraged at his audacity and you raise your voice at him, and he says “look at you, what an unruly ruffian you are”. Let him persist with his attidtude, some day he will meet the wrong people and he will get his lessons.

To: a mother,

Either you are blind or you are deaf. Or simply ill-informed. There were so many videos online, Channel news asia did a fantastic job interviewing Josie Lau and coup, and many written articles in the papers and online have stated the facts out right. It’s blatant and vivid enough to all thinking humans what Josie Lau and coup lack, and failed to address important issues, besides the tonality and mannerism in which they had used to address public was simply rude, demeaning and lack of sensitivity. ” SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN!” – Sally Ang; what, are we children to you, is that the tonality you command when you speak another humanbeing? It seems more likely that we are dogs to you. Who’s the one lacking of respect and courtesy? I sincerely plead, do not be a pot calling a kettle black. As a member of the public, I dare say I was one of those yelling, and proud. A piece of advice, ” Do not do unto others, what you do not wish others to do to you.” Josie and coup has been arrogant and abusing the authority that they were given since they were appointed as excos. Facts are facts. Refer back to all the videos on you-tube, and read all your newspapers. Get your facts right. Do your research. It pains me for a 21yrs old lady having to educate an elder like you.
That’s as much respect as I can give. Education. And I kindly plead, do not further embarrass yourself nor your children with your warp thinking. We progress with society, and if you prefer to days of our lives back in 1980s, well I say, it’s time you go rest in that coffin of yours. We want to live and carry on.

ehhh TOC why you dun wanna highlight the parents’ appeal to MOE against aware’s sch sexuality program har?

4000 signatures is like 3 times how many ppl voted for aware u know

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/parents_sex_ed_appeal/signatures.html

confused on whether to be anti-govt or anti-aware izzit?

:)

To: the Watchmen,

Get your facts right. “an old woman was asked to shut up and sit down for rude interruption” that statement came from your pro-family Values woman mouth up on the stage. You funny silly old man. We are young ah Linas? It’s pretty apparent who’s the articulate ones. Who’s the intelligent ones. Who are the ah lians? Has the table turned? Those who still believe in conservative family values now being trapped in their own believes? I sincerely urge you to start looking and recognizing how our society has progress. Do your studies, not just in Singapore, understand and see from many a different perspective before you come up with you silly, laughable, embarrassing conclusions.

It’s not that we lack of family values. Know it all too well, sir. Which is why we are standing against some of these values that has been proven not workable a decade ago. If a nation do not progress, it’s people less efficient, economy suffers – You suffer. Then what do you do? Complain at kopitiam what our government has not done for us. What have you done for the Nation? I question in return.

If you’re going to continue have this of thinking, I really do hope you do not have children. Cause if you do, goodness, either your children who choose to take your stand will be left by the progressing society, or you guys are gonna go through a huge generation gap. I can assure you, that. If that’s what you really want, go ahead with you backwards thinking. Leave us be for we want to be better and not return to primeval age. Go live with you dinosaurs, Mr WATCHMEN.

Watchman – hey, if you are so concerned of the legality of this new exco, you can always file a suit at the courts you know.

lest some of you have forgotten, the word civil in civil society has nothing to do with civilities.

If you want to make your stand, well then you have to make your stand. Of course that doesn’t mean violence, but if you want to walk into a room expecting people to listen to you that you’re a feminist mentor because of such and such, I’m afraid that only happen in classrooms. If you’re unable to deal with such hard hitting criticisms and be able to maintain your attention on the crowd, maybe the law school might be the best place.

Civil society was and is never going to be a docile sphere, that does not mean that passionate speeches and responses have to be violent, it just mean that it’s the rules of the game and it’s something we have come to forget after years of Singaporean behaviour.

They say COOS has 4,000 members. Josie and her gang got only 761 vote.

It goes a long way to show how little support they got in their church and in Christian community as a whole.

They are the minority in COOS, the Christian community and Singapore.

Following up on #27, Watchman, if so sure you right, you can give yr personal details online so R&T lawyer can sue you for defaming him.

And so can That Scary Mummy. You also defaming her.

Siew Kum Hong can defend you.

PJ and Eveline,
stay tuned for further updates.
The constitution is being examined now.

Hi the watchman #25,

According to Senior Counsel and NMP Siew Kum Hong, Article 9 of the AWARE Constitution gives the General Assembly at the AGM to vote on general management, so the General Assembly has the right to motion for the removal of Josie’s Committee and also motion for re-election of an ExCo to replace Josie’s Committee. In fact, Josie’s Committee resigned after the motion for their removal was passed.

Watchman

You sound like a deluded and delusional Man City fan : Lots of false dawns and fake prophets!

if 4000 ppl are voting against aware’s sch sexuality program, can aware and their programs really claim to represent women in singapore?

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/parents_sex_ed_appeal/signatures.html

just a question

woman, a mother and watchman, pls reflect
dont talk about unruly and ungracious.. who had been one in the first place!
-when they rudely takover the team -with a purpose
-when they -wearing red shirts- disallow old guard supporters into the hall and grant their own
- when they rudely shout for pple to shut up and sit down
- when they hv no respect for the old guards
- when they shut the other committee members out from their meeting
- the members are not there to hear a sermon, the purpose is clear to vote
- we dont sense the friendlyless of josie n team too.
-why in the first place, they would want to hold it in singapore expo!

and i shrudder to think what would happen if josie and team are the leaders of the women in singapore too! (refer to a mother )

Just thought I remind everyone here, who condemns the old guard supporters as unruly, that democracy is no polite tea party.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/07/opinion/oe-rushdie7

Watchman, are you Alan Chin in disguise?

I don’t see anything wrong with the way the Old Guard and their supporters behaved at Suntec. The New Guard pushed and the Old Guard shoved back? Nothing wrong in that… We’re all about equality here, if the New Guard behaved like Storm Troopers, then why can’t the Old Guard serve them the same treatment as well?

An eye for an eye I say… Sounds like Sour Grapes Watchman!

Talking about democracy – The Watchman, do you know the origin of democracy? And are you aware that France’s (the world championeer for human rights and democracy) Marie Antoinette was persecuted by the French for her complete disregard of her subjects’ suffering and starvation, until the French revolted against her, restoring democracy back to the country? So, I don’t see your point labelling those old guards as ruly and noisy, which illustrates that you really do not understand the meaning of democracy.

If your definition of democracy includes shutting off the microphones when the members of the floor wanted to speak to raise their voices and concern, and where only the management committee directs a one-way directional speech/instruction where its members are supposed to only listen and not feedback, then I don’t think you truly understand the meaning of democracy!

Another important lesson to learn from the Aware fiasco is that a few elites or a minority elite group should NOT be allowed to impose their values on others no matter how right they think they are. Self-righteousness is dangerous precedent and breeds arrogance and contempt for multi-culturism.

Oops sorry The Watchman, I forgot to add that: if your interpretation of democracy refers to the classic example happened last Saturday where only the management committee directs a one-way directional speech/instruction to its members who are expected to SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN, then I seriously think that you do not understand the meaning of democracy!

To Mother #2 , & Woman #9

Fully agree with both of you.

Having retired and looking back at this incident, I must say that my generation may have failed to bringing up the kids on show at Suntec- there is no law and order and things are totally out of control. What civil society ? It is downright shameful. Perez Hilton could have behaved better.

It is reflective of behaviour of wild animals when their habitat is somewhat threatened.
And what victory is there is for the old Aware ? – it is just a big hollow of shouting & screaming. Shame on you.

(24)

Watchman you are getting better. congrats from moving on from porn topics and indulgent bursts of soliloquy.

you know what democracy is? this is. the fact that there is a forum for funnies like you to post and have civil people replying and not erasing them in the faint hope that ppl like you can actually see the light that NOT EVERYONE thinks the same way as you do. could you be honest and say you would do the same and let US post if you run a forum?

And (33) Retiree – it is not a shouting match. there were many pauses and time was given for Ms Lau’s team to speak up and they gave incredibly stupid answers. most of the time they couldn’t answer and OUTSOURCE the answering to the legal counsel. when pressed for an answer, they kept quiet on many issues. and many of those who came are old grannies for your information.

Watchman,

Singapore is waiting with bated breath for you to move away from your keyboard, and take action in real life!

Please, hurry! I really want to know how you plan to do this. I need some comedy to take my mind off work. Are you going to set up a website? Organise a campaign? Please! Let me know.

btw I still don’t get it. Where were you at the EGM? If you had so much to say, then where were you? Everybody knew abt the EGM, it wasnt planned from the shadows by a shadowy mentor. Why didn’t you turn up?

To Retiree,

I beg to differ from your statements. Even when Singapore was built by Lee Kuan Yew, the country was not built on a so-called peaceful ’shut up and sit down’ spirit. And even at that time, there were people participating in masses to voice their opinions (e.g. PAP and communist patries) and assert their political beliefs, which often led to violent actions. Perhaps you were still too young, too inexperienced or too nonchalent to participate in this country-building up process? The entire democractic process, as mentioned, is not about shutting up and sitting down mentality.

And from what I understand, there were no violence displayed in the EGM of 2 May.

And Retiree should have lots of time, so did u attend and ask urself why josie and cats never answer questions properly? and also why ppl from all walks of life came to vote them out? huh? or u didn’t bring ur hearing aid, in which case u probably couldn’t have heard the shouting and therefore must be lying. lying is a sin as you know.

The behaviour of the old guard’s supporters were absolutely disgraceful, bordering on hooliganism. Shocking!

Asked for respect, showed none. Claiming a civil society but the meeting was anything but civil.

The press and media showed complete transparency of their bias reporting.
It was truly one-sided in every sense of the word.

For those who were not there, please do not depend on video and press coverage. Objectivity got thrown out of the window together with respect, courtesy and other traits necessary for a truly civil society.

(75)

thanks for reminding… these ppl never see david marshall calling for the oust of the brits, nor LKY shouting ‘Merdeka’ to roaring crowds! tat is LKY spirit for u! WOO!

Looking at the video closely i thought the supporters of the old guards look
queer. Check it out yourself and form your own opinion.

Agree with Observer, couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks.

(78) methink

look at the row of women sitting at the stage la… or do u not look cos they look too frigid?

78):

Looking at the videos closely, I thought for a moment that the motherboard (Thio Su Mien) of Josie and her pack, has grown crazy. Especially in such a crucial moment of EGM, Thio Su Mien went on to proclaim herself as a feminist mentor, citing that her name was being mentioned in a book.

(81)
PAGE 73!!!!

LOL. definitely mental.

82) I can’t believe that educated women such as Josie Lau and her pack could idolise a woman like Thio Su Mien. Where’re all the analytic skills as taught in their tertiary education???

If a self-proclaimed feminist mentor behaved in such a bizarre manner, ordering everyone to respect elders just because her name was mentioned in page 73 of a book, my goodness, what kind of logic is that?

And what kind of democracy is that???

MOE, please explain what transpired on the CSE trainer text. I am getting impatient.

dunno.. and if they have hilarious supporters like Curious, Watchman and a Retiree on their team, i’m sure they can form ermm something quite extraordinary!

their party slogan can be ‘SHUT UP and SIT DOWN!’, and mantra ‘PAGE 73′!

hehehe.. i think they can have the world’s first silent democracy, based on thiology.

Cherian is right that a CSO need not be representative of the majority. One could form a CSO on Carassius auratus for that matter.

It simply becomes unacceptable if a secular women’s issue group such as AWARE is used as a conduit to advance certain Christian values. If such Christian values are to be propounded, do it on a Christian platform.

But why is AWARE involved in sex education programme?

Sex education is a societal issue (not solely nor largely women’s issue). Sex education must vest with Ministry of Education (and NOT outsourced to AWARE or any other CSO).

Fathers have an important role to play in sex education because teenage boys would be typically uncomfortable to discuss sexuality with mothers (vice versa for daughters with fathers). I believe AWARE is NOT well-placed to engage fathers and the male perspective in drawing up the parameters of a sex education workshop programme?

So the larger Q is: Did MOE commission or sanction AWARE’s sex education workshop programme? Some things are not meant for OUTSOURCING lol!

Civil society is just like a spring. Oppress them too much and they spring back with a vengence. What you see at the eogm is the pent-up anger that many felt when SOOC hunted the supporters of the old aware down like mutants in x-men. The pro-josie camp left because they have already voted and done their part in promoting their camp’s agenda and have no further interest in women’s ideals. What does this show? All the pro-josie supporters are mindless zombies who were there just to vote for their religion. They were too scared to make a sound because they know their camp has sinned in the first place.

63) smallvice585 on May 4th, 2009 2.30 pm ,
you are wrong , smallie. The election was held BEFORE the declaration of the formal resignation.
This is one of the irregularities and there are many more.
Stay tuned and expect a lot of excitement.

I realised many of the above have a lot of time in your hand, too free,eh?
And eh, I don’t know whether you are gay or lesbian, let me tell you, TOC will not publish my comments if they smack of insulting their supporters or critical of the CSE. I better save my breath as some of the ahkuas are waiting with bated breath for my oozing arousing comments on sexual stuffs. Eh, are you feeling deprived since I am not commenting/

40) Agree but give the new old team a chance to rethink and reorganise. They will not make the same mistakes twice. Good they are bringing new blood. Hope they will not revise the constitution to stay forever. Agree with one suggest that J and her team should be given a role in the new old AWARE. After all 700 members is more than 3 times of the old membership- quite a sizeable number. If they are not accomodated yu can expect another EOGM.

http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/24/2729992-a-steeplejacking-of-a-womens-ngo-in-singapore-a-rare-glimpse-at-how-joels-army-groups-work-in-practice

Go to this website. I was introduced to this word “STEEPLEJACKING” from yawningbread.org website. Article was written on 24th Apr 2009. Not a local website but an American website giving details of methods use by such churches and links to foreign churches.

Article is titled “A Steeplejacking of a Women’s NGO In Singapore: A rare glimpse at how Joel’s Army groups work in practice”

doubt the new exco supporter will participate actively in aware now that their idols have resigned. they might start proselytizing using aware as a platform though.

43) The Watchman on May 4th, 2009 11.54 am

The new AWARE exco is illegal and not constitutionally elected.
It was not properly conducted in accordance with the constitution
IT IS ULTRA VIRES.

seriously. stop whining about things like these.
in the end of the day, even if there is a need for another election, it is obvious the result would be unchanged. the public has no doubts about who aren’t the right people to head the CSO…. jeez, why can’t the Thio-gang just set up their own CSO if they have a voice that is not supported in AWARE? why must they hijack a CSO that they had absolutely no history with? Malicious intent is no understatement.

I work in the field of conflict resolution. In almost all conflicts, one party can be more right than the other, but no one can party claim to be absolutely devoid of fault. I hope we can be more measured in discussing the issue.

Why I do not think that the the EGM was a success is because while anger was definitely justifiable, the order of the EGM was unruly and I felt did not serve the interests of AWARE or CSOs.

Consider a messy divorce case with parents fighting for custody of a child. One party will eventually win custody but if the process was fraught with anger, finger-pointing, name-calling, etc., the parents can possibly lose the respect of the child. Eventually, the original interest which was the welfare of the child, is sacrificed on the altar of winning.

Though one party won at the EGM, the verdict is still out on whether AWARE can ever regain its former stature. I cringed when I saw the comic strip on Sat’s papers illustrating 2 men eager to attend the EGM to watch ths showdown. The proceedings of the EGM certainly appear to justify the comic strip.

I would advocate now that the EGM is over, that the new exco should privately mediate the dispute over the money spent by Josie’s team. To drag the dispute out in court / public will, in my opinion, most certainly tarnish AWARE / CSO’s reputations for a long time to come.

92)

Watchman: why did you bother to even reply if you supposedly have not much ‘free time’ to even write? ;)

Woman: I cringed too while reading your comments. Apparently you do not understand the meaning of democracy.

“79) methink on May 4th, 2009 5.12 pm Looking at the video closely i thought the supporters of the old guards look
queer. Check it out yourself and form your own opinion.”

If it is indeed true, then the objective of the new team (or most recent old guard of only about one month or so) has apparently backfired. 人算不如天算. so what do you think.

i wonder if S’pore’s “dark ages” is at our doorstep…

Woman, i hope PAP doesn’t read your comments. It really doesn’t help that our MINISTER MENTOR was well known for all the acts you’ve mentioned. For someone who loves order and law as much as you should know that both MINISTER and FEMINIST MENTORs are both fond of shouting.. PAGE 73!!!! MERDEKA!!

and, i didn’t hear name calling. where did u get that from i wonder?

a dark age of blind faith. shudders…

92) The Watchman on May 4th, 2009 6.22 pm

your friends have come in constitutionally and now they have gone out constitutionally.

“The election was held BEFORE the declaration of the formal resignation.
This is one of the irregularities and there are many more.”

does it really matter. after all the hoo-ha, money spent, all the formalities & tension created, you still do not see what is going on. irregularities ?? well, they have plenty of lawyers (plus really really really really really really TOP PEOPLE) on their side. the show is over, go back and do some soul searching if you do not understand the important lesson behind all this.

Marcos, was my comment a reply to you ? I can’t remember you asking me anything ?
Please do, ask and you shall receive an answer….

96) JosieLauZhaBor on May 4th, 2009 6.43 pm
a lau charbo calling another laucharbo?
if you can’t write pro per l y please don’t come here.

That was great work as usual from Cherian George, one of the most measured and thoughtful commentary I have come across on the Aware saga. It also considered broader issues related to civil society. Janadas’ was funny, especially when he called the just ousted exco “daft” because he couldn’t find a more appropriate word. Great writing all around.

to: JosieLauZhaBor on May 4th, 2009 6.43 pm

a good display of common sense. cannot help but laugh at The Watchman’s silly comments. wonder how few brain cells it used when it typed those logic-defying comments.

To those who thinks the old guards are not behaving in a civil/ gracious manner towards Josie Lau & co,

We live in a multi racial, multi religion CIVIL society and Singapore should be a place where a diversity of people with a diversity of views co-exist with mutual respect for each other. I am all for new leadership but would appreciate that it was done in a more CIVIL manner rather than ‘hijacking” it. The takeover was a huge mistake but Josie Lau went on to make even more mistakes by excluding the immediate past president and one of the old guard from meetings/ press conference. The ousted Exco has complete disregard and no respect for the old guards (and you are talking about being civil & graciousness)??????
Being Singaporean who lives in a CIVIL society and such pious Christians too, shouldn’t they show some courtesy and respect to others? Instead, they asked Ms Margaret Thomas, an old guard & Past President to “sit down and shut up”. How can you condone this sort of behaviour?
The old guards of AWARE would not have reacted this way, if Josie & co could be more transparent about their motive. And to think they lie through their teeth (as Christians) to assure the public that AWARE will remain a secular society when they sacked, Ms Braema Mathi and Ms Schutz Lee from their positions as Head of CEDAW sub-com & Centre Manager respectively. This really gave me the shudders! And they even went to the extent of changing the locks at the Dover Rd office! This is hardly what a gracious person will do. I have had nightmares whenever I thought of this, scenarios of unknown people “charging” into my home and chasing me out kept playing in my head. Its really scary!

As for the thing about anal sex, I like to reiterate that AWARE do not tell teenagers in their CSE program that it is ok to have anal sex. Now, please understand that AWARE has tried very hard to come up with the CSE program so as to equip teens with accurate and correct information. Do you think the CSE programs were conducted by sex-crazy trainers who advocate anal sex? AWARE do nothing of that sort. All CSE trainers are selected through a stringent process and are long time members of AWARE. Its not fair to throw accusations and provoke fear among parents by saying that the AWARE CSE programs promotes homosexuality.
Sex is very personal and its to be enjoy between husband and wife. If you think anal sex is not ok, are you then going to tell all men & women, husbands & wives that anal sex is not ok, not right, not natural and sinful? Again there will be a diversity of views so it really depends on how well you can accept it. For me, the thought of anal sex irks me but if others are game to try, I reckon its not my business to say anything. Its their choice and I respect it. :)

Watchman: apparently you don’t seem to be well versed in English. My comment on #99 did not even mention anything about replying to me. Instead, it was a statement regarding your outburst at eh on #92. ;)

I don’t even need to ask, because apparently you couldn’t even read properly #69 and #71. I presume you weren’t able to give an educated analysis to the questions posed there.

79) methinks

I am a supporter of the old guard. I was sitting at the back, but what’s so queer? Was it my hair?? OH DAMN, I knew I should have cut it before not-appearing in front of such a huge event.

;)

Hi everyone,

Please keep your comments respectable.

Else, we’ll be forced to apply stricter moderating rules.

Thanks.

THIO SU MIEN acted CRAZY during the EOGM, here a just-for-fun non-serious look into what she will say to the press if she suffered from post-aware depression. Also sums up the saga in brief.

“Derek, why, WHY! WHY MUST IT BE YOU who abandon us at the moment of need? WHY! NO! Where’s our busloads of supporters? WHERE? Derek told me I can become anything I want, SPECIAL, DIFFERENT. Like SYLAR!”

“Josie, Sally, I love you, but I love myself more. I love myself more than Samantha Jones loved herself! Which is why I was off the stage staring at page 73… PAGE 73! IT’S ME ON PAGE 73. ME!”

“You think if you put FEMINIST MENTOR and MINISTER MENTOR side by side. Who looks prettier? ME! ME! NO ONE ELSE BUT ME!”

what are these people on about being civilised? was there violence that day? were objects thrown? were they in the nude?

come one get real. the even was highly charged. josie’s gang had it coming with their sanctimonious pontifications. what would be the civil thing to do for the detractors? sit down and have a pleasant discussion over tea? knit and needlework to settle their differences? sing songs like ‘we can overcome’ until the exco steps down?

obviously these deluded and parochial peeps have not witnessed a truly unruly crowd. try visiting bangkok some time. watch a stray rock hit your head between the red and blues. then come back here and rant about uncivilised behaviour.

wake up and smell the 21st century,morons

Here are a couple of bits from Martin Luther King Jr.

1) “A riot is the language of the unheard.”

2) “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

=)

110 Peiyu
I guess not you. I think it a bit too short overcut -tom-boyish.
In any case beauty is the eyes of ……

Josie & Gang pro woman definition is woman should ” shut up and sit down!”.

actually i am not from COOS…you don’t need to be a Christian to be concerned about the sexuality program in schools – most secular parents are concerned too.

I think if you were a parent you would understand.

94) brainwave on May 4th, 2009 6.37 pm

http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/24/2729992-a-steeplejacking-of-a-womens-ngo-in-singapore-a-rare-glimpse-at-how-joels-army-groups-work-in-practice

Brainwave, THIS IS TRULY ALARMING although I dunno if it could be verified. Everyone should go and read it and decide for themselves.

While , to be diplomatic, i would say both camps meant well, i feel that feel sad that this saga showed or proved that the society, while consisting of many intellectual and educated professionals , are not well educated in 1 thing – Secularism vs Non-Secularism.

I hope schools from kindergarten onwards educate the future pillars of singapore the meanings of these words. Religion must not intervene Secular-sphere.

Why? It is a never ending debate. To 2 serious religious followers of 2 different religions, each thinks and am convinced that his religion is the truth and by this fact alone, friction can come about. A is totally absolutely could not understand why B does not also become a follower of his religion when he knows that his religion is the truth and likewise, B ditto. Its so simple to understand I do not understand why some people cannot understand. We live in MULTI-Cultural society. The world is not made up of 1 religion only.

I hope this 101 is well understood and I no need to repeat ever again.
what a disappointment. sigh…… thus, we need good leaders and they need to be tested else we can never see their real leadership. Leaders must be voted in.

#117,

So you think that homosexuality can be taught?

Great theatre. Best production so far this decade. All the ingredients were there – well-loved but dreamy ‘ruling family’, religious ‘fanatics’, power hungry old ‘delusional’ coup plotter planning behind the scenes, coached frontman ‘leader’ who couldn’t lead, cruel miltant enforcers (SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN!), crowd howling for blood, overthrown despots cowering in the ( lift?) and finally….joyous scenes when the beloved leaders return! TRUMPETS PLEASE. Loved it!

Thank you for an excellent commentary! It was rather cheeky for the Feminist Mentor and her Gang to use the phrase “Pro Singapore” to try and legitimise their less than honourable take over of AWARE!

Well written article on civil societies here which I think is poorly supported by the population as a whole.

In Australia, civil societies flourished and most people have joined at least one to reflect their affliation but more so their true involvement in making society a better place for them.

In fact, some groups such as the Green Movement has turned political and entered politics. Some have even became politicians in Parliament having won election.

In Singapore, many of us are too tired or nonchalant to join any civil society. We rather laze the weekend away or simply say we have no time.

We fail to connect with our passion or society by turning inward. It is probably why many of us are rather inward looking and self centred in our behaviour here.

Hopefully, the Aware saga will bring back our civil consciouseness and enable us to rethink how we can join a interest group of our liking. It can be anything that brings fun and joy to us liek a nature group or a socio-political group like many of our political parties available.

It is never good for a citizen to shut himself up at home facing the four walls…there is a world out there for us to engage in.

supporters of Josie Lau have always bleated that they represent the majority view in Singapore, now that may be true but they have extended that belief to an unshakeable assumption that the majority of Singapore would support their way or rectifying that ‘wrong’ with the insidious way they took over Aware.

they are two separate things and Josie, TSM got horribly confused.

My formulation of the majority views of Singaporeans are as such:

1) YES we, the majority of Singaporeans should be concerned about the type of sexual education our children receive

2) but NO we don’t approve of a faith based insidious takeover of a secular organization to achieve our aims in issue no.1.

the majority has spoken on both issues I guess

Examples of disgraceful behaviour during the EGM (i) “shut up and sit down” (ii) Lois trying to use auxillary policemen to bully and intimidate women who wanted to stand up and be heard (how ironic is that in an AWARE meeting!) (iii) the mikes being switched off on members of the floor who had requisitioned the meeting in the first place.

This was a meeting where it was necessary to shout in order to be heard. FACT- Josie’s supporters lacked the eloquence and the confidence to stand up, speak sensibly and inspire similar support from their cause.

119) zefly

my friend showed me that link before.

if you refer to the link of order of the family in the COOS website.
the verses are taken directly from there!

a) The husband is the head,

b) The wife is in subjection to her husband,

http://www.coos.org.sg/resource/camp/God_Order_For_Family_Notes.PDF

feminism from those who believe and teach that?

what a joke!

Nothing like a woman scorned. trust me, these a group of women and they will be back with vengence. Today democracy ruled. If only we had such fevour for our election, we would be better off,

Hey Zefly,

there are also more links about that here:
http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/03/2767271-aware-proof-that-sometimes-the-good-guys-win

and here:
http://www.yawningbread.org/guest_2009/guw-161.htm

In the comments section of this blog post, it is alleged that COOS itself was steeplejacked: http://xenoboysg.blogspot.com/2009/04/carafas-eye.html

“Anonymous said…
What I am hearing from former members of COOS is that this was a much different church more than 5 years ago.

A different agenda.

A different set of pastors.

Then, for some reason, a group of pastors leaving the church, with Derek Hong and his faction victorious.

You are right in considering if COOS itself was steeplejacked.

9:31 PM”

I am truly shocked.

If someone named themselves

A Mother
A Father
Concerned Mother
Angry Dad
Worried Mom
Concerned Parents
Parents with X kids

You don’t even need to guess which camp they come from. So predictable, yet it’s a darn good strategy in fear mongering.

Really funny……

If the old guards had deemed that Josie and gang had been voted in unethically, thus calling for this EOGM, the result had spoken the truth. Isn’t this obvious with the old guards winning the majority of the votes (Over 2000 voted, compared to the earlier one that got Josie and gang in)? If they think otherwise, Josie and gang would had remain in office.

Now that the majority of Aware members had voted for the old guards, why are we pickering and bashing over the things like each other attitude? The EOGM is really over. Let’s move on.

#126:

well, to put what you said in context, the verse only applies in the context of marriage. It cannot be applied in the context of the workplace or in public space. And even then, the Bible clearly instructs husbands to love the wife. I don’t see how Bible-believing Christians cannot be feminists.

Lesson to learn:

NST is powerful.
Gays and Lesbian are united.
Women can easily lost their head and turn ugly.

to the frog in the well parents:
if reading about homosexuality makes you gay, then obviously you lack something in your own identity, it’s like listening to ’satanic’ music will make you a devil worshipper. how much faith do you have in yourself as a parent then?

if you’re truly a responsible parent, you would welcome open discussion about these issues with your kids. so to those irrational fear-mongering parents out there, review your own values first before you go around blaming the school syllabus for indoctrinating your kids. you are the first ones they listen to, if you even bother to listen to them to begin with.

126) SpeedWeed on May 4th, 2009 11.06 pm

with due respect to the christian faith,
I would like to mention that i went to a church wedding recently and heard the pastor or someone conducting the wedding, something that says the man is the head ….and the wife to obey….. something like that.

so, what does this mean? Is what i said completely not true?

132)

no i did not suggest that a bible-believing christian cannot be a feminist.

what i mean to say is, when is a woman inferior to a man? or any less of a standing in a marriage? Why must one spouse be on top of the other? Marriage is a partnership.

Feminism 101, why must a woman be below the man? comprende?

Ever heard of spousal abuse, relationship abuse?

Every time the husband hits the wife, he says I LOVE YOU.

Every time the bf hits his gf, he says I LOVE YOU.

“I’m doing this only because I love you so much.”

With all due respect.

a) The husband is the head,

b) The wife is in subjection to her husband,

anyone who teaches that or believes in that is by defination, not a feminist.

I recall an excerpt from Jet Lee’s film 《黄飞鸿—男儿当自强》:

白莲神教，神功护体，刀枪不入，欢迎入教！

The current exco members are illegally and unconstitutionally elected therefore it should be declared null and void.
A new election should be called within the prescribed period and notice should be given to allow potential candidates to prepare themselves for election.
Any member can move to have the election declared null and void. An application should be made to the court for an injunction to prevent the so called elected exco members from taking office.
I challenge the old guards’ lawyers to declare otherwise.

Common, if the ‘red shirt’ had wanted a fight, they would have been as orchestrated as the old guards. More would even come to vote. It was obvious that they want to complete the job of running the EGM and no matter the outcome, they would step aside graciously. Now the christians supported Josie Lau and team. Do you who supported the old guards? It was obvious who the majority were! Aware had got out of the hot pan but into the fire.

[...] lessons learnt from the recent AWARE saga can be read in a very well-written article here. There’s a wonderful bit in it where its author, Cherian George, states that Josie Lau and [...]

#137 watchman,

oh dear, i am so disappointment. you mean you only challenge the ‘old guard’s’ lawyer to declare otherwise. and if he did what you want to do? just continue to rant behind the keyboard?

why not challenge the ‘old guards’ directly? be THE ONE to apply for that injunction. unless y

#137 watchman,

oh dear, i am so disappointment. you mean you only challenge the ‘old guard’s’ lawyer to declare otherwise. and if he did what you want to do? just continue to rant behind the keyboard?

why not challenge the ‘old guards’ directly? be THE ONE to apply for that injunction.

we dont like FM, josie & gang, we voted them out.

you dont like the old guards turned into the new team, then get enough supporters and vote them out.

what for you keep ranting that more will come lah, watch out.

please show us the ‘more’ and the direction to watch out. we waiting leh.

77) another father on May 4th, 2009 4.54 pm

1″The behaviour of the old guard’s supporters were absolutely disgraceful, bordering on hooliganism. Shocking!”

I agree. That were mob rule, death threats and “storming of the Bastille”.

2″Asked for respect, showed none. Claiming a civil society but the meeting was anything but civil.”

Like law of the jungle with the mob baying for blood. The meeting should been called off. It really showed Singapore woman’s darker side.

3The press and media showed complete transparency of their bias reporting.
It was truly one-sided in every sense of the word”

The MSM ought to be ashamed of themselves for taking sides and not just confined themselves to accurate reporting. Who were they taking instructions from, I wonder?

See this revealing critique from an ex-news editor of the Straits Times here :

http://www.littlespeck.com/new/Media-090502.htm

4 “For those who were not there, please do not depend on video and press coverage. Objectivity got thrown out of the window together with respect, courtesy and other traits necessary for a truly civil society.’

Some even said this was the Singapore spirit. I say it was the law of the jungle!

For those who still labor the myth that Josie set out to allegedly hijack the exco here is what really happened :

Josie plus 5 others were nominated for office by Clare Nazar at the AGM in March.

Clare was nominated to be the president by Constance Singam, an old guard and Clare was returned unopposed as the President !

Josie was just another member under the presidency of Clare, in a democratically held election. Josie did not go to the AGM to be president!

But when Clare resigned 11 days later the ball was passed to Josie since NO ONE wanted to be the president. NO ONE wanted to be President ! None, except Josie!

Therefore, the only “hijacking” Josie did was accepting the challenge handed to her by her colleagues at the new exco.

That was not the same as mob rule, death threats, and storming of the Bastile we witnessed at Suntec City on 2 May, a day of infamy for Civil Society in good olde Singapore! Where is the equity?

137) The Watchman on May 5th, 2009 12.55 am

1″The current exco members are illegally and unconstitutionally elected therefore it should be declared null and void. A new election should be called within the prescribed period and notice should be given to allow potential candidates to prepare themselves for election.”

A member of Aware who read this can file a compliant with the Registrar of Society that the election may not have followed correct procedure under its constitution. The election was held before the exco resigned. This is wrong.

The ROS says “In carrying out their activities, societies not only have to abide by the rules of their own respective constitutions, but also the prevailing laws in Singapore. “

Dear Women

But what if the camps are to far apart fundamentally ? Let me lay out the state of the LGB debate and the fears of the christian right and why really there is no hope for reconciliation. That aside the christian right hard core is I believe going the way of the dinosaur with their supporters been markedly older then the more vibrant younger supporters of the liberal Aware.

Xtian Right

Their fears are founded on what they see as an erosion of family values and what they believe a family should stand for. They see any advancement of gay rights as one step to far on the road to eventual gay union, gay rights and possible gay partnership recognition. For them no ground is to be given because any ground given is a step forward into a more liberal future which they see coming and they fear. Please read the christianpost.com.sg for a concise summary of such a view and why they see any basic form of advancement of gay rights as the end of the “moral world” they live in. Thus abolition of section 377(a) , teaching of homosexuality as normal, etc etc has to be resisted to the dying breathe, lines are drawn which cannot be crossed, nations and government have gone to far etc etc etc. :_)))))

Funnily enough COOS will preach that they will not discriminate against gays in terms of jobs pay etc but will oppose open acceptance of gays in society and the civil service at large. I can’t square that circle, how does one condemn gays or their conduct evil immoral and still expect society not to discriminate against them ?

The ending of discrimination means acceptance and the fact they are normal like you me and the guy next door. That was proven in civil rights cases from the US to S Africa . Demonization results in discrimination from the US to S Africa to Rwanda.

Their morality, ideological roots come from the evangelical christian right in America. They have also forgotten that whilst half of America goes to church, the numbers of christians in SG are a lot lot less.

Middle Ground

Acceptance at large. Not so wow abt gay civil unions or gay marriage but no problem at large with accepting gays as a normal healthy part of society. Can’t understand the fixation of the COOS and TSM camp over anal sex, oral sex and homosexuality. Half of these group probably fornicate around in Geylang Batam , KTVs and have affairs both the men and women so they can’t understand or see the perfect moral world the Xtian right lives in.

The government I believe falls into that camp because they have realized that economically vibrant and creative societies from London New York, Tokyo Sydney SF LA Boston etc etc tend to be progressive and accepting of gays and the people tend to fornicate quite liberally.

Pro Gay Rights

They want everything including Gay Marriage and Same Sex Unions and the right to adopt. In short the full gay agenda as defined by the christian right. But in SG they will be happy with the repeal of sect 377(a) as a start. How much further will they push for full liberalization , well jury is still out, but the Christian Right fears the absolute worse

Locke

#138,

the red shirt had wanted to fight, but no balls, cuz would had been arrested by police. they afraid.

if not, then you organize another bus trip for them to AWARE lah, ask them to do that since you so confident.

talk so much for what? show us your action.

those who did not turn up cuz they scared of ISD.

gd and well-thought out article …

but calling them insurgents? c’mon, they are just a couple of clueless ladies who wouldn’t be able to do anything (i mean, the ISD and etc are all over this issue don’t u think so?) so its a little ‘flattering’ to portray them as such …

AWARE is not Iraq, not Afghanistan and not Pakistan … and the new guard are certainly not dangerous in the sense of the word insurgents

Dear JL

My encounter with the red guards was that they were largely scruplously fair in terms of allowing people to q and register and following strictly to the rules. Anyhows all red guards were being shadowed by white ones so it was hard for any BLATANT systemic discrimination to take place. There might have been some bullying initially but largely they were fair and yes they had to be fair because from their perspective its hard to tell a white supporter from a red supporter when they queue to register.

Locke

Take note, people, that the so-called petition with 4000 signatures is nothing more than just concerned parents who want MOE to come out and make some final statement or reassurance on the programmes, AND kaypoh Thio-Josie supporters trying to throw a spanner in Aware’s works. I’m a parent myself and I absolutely will not approve of programmes that tell my kids “anal sex is ok” or “it’s alright to be homo”, (altho I do think section 337A should be repealed becos it is discriminatory and inhuman) but at this point in time, we really have no fraking idea whether what the Thio-Josie camp claim is true, or whether the latter are just being extremists. So I think the petition may not necessarily imply there are so many Thio-Josie supporters. I think the majority of the people disapproved of what Thio-Josie were doing with Aware, but the majority are probably also concerned about the programmes and would like to see MOE settle this issue about the programmes once and for all i.e. neutral rather than pro-gay.

#137

Why don’t you do it, if you are member?

Friends of OG/NewNew Exco

Don’t gloat.

The issue of what is taught in schools on homosexuality and anal sex is out in open. It was in closet as far as many parents were concerned.

Issues of what is “normal” and “consent” are now open to debate.

So relax, COOS and pastor Wind: evil has not won.

Score draw.

That Scary Mummy may be a strategist better than ChukoLiang or Sun Tsu or Napoleon (other than Russian invasion) Hitler (before late 1942). Her outing of her gang’s agenda may yet prove to be an act of genius.

But whether it was a rational or irrational act, only she knows. But then in Zen, the irrational is more powerful than the rational.

Good article and comments
from Dr Simon Tay at

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/317924.asp

There was mention by Dr Simon about the against AWARE group should start a new group……maybe this is not a bad idea. J should consider it ’cause if the new old team is still maintaining their stand and programme the other say 30 % (maybe more in time to come)will not be happy..as such a new woman’s group is a very good idea. But this time round have a more diverse group instead of from the same church..woman should be able to fight on their own..no male chapter please.

Smallvice585,

Yeah, I came across a few of your postings, but wasn’t really paying attention thinking I knew everything there was to know about the far right movement. Well, at any rate, I think it’s important to spread the word around, make people AWARE that the far right agenda is essentially not good for anyone in the long run.

They won’t stop with just AWARE.

smallvice585,

Glad more people are paying attention to it now, then. Your early alert is much appreciated.

Most are simply dismissing this as a fundamentalist Christian thing, without understanding that this movement is essentially a cult that wants to ride roughshod over everyone with their “army of God”. I too initially dismissed the notion as I felt we were getting too paranoid — but I now think otherwise.

What do you suggest we should do so that more people will sit up and take notice? I was initially taken aback and simply did not want to believe it, it was too appalling an idea.

I hope the moderate Christians will watch out for this cuckoo church in their midst.

Whether we want to believe that most people are driven by their religious faiths/beliefs or not, it is clear that a large proportion are indeed governed by their beliefs more than they care to admit it themselves. Some may call it ‘values’, and it is this ‘values’ that prevent s them from taking the side of an oppressor. This is perhaps why it is easier to condemn the Josie insurgents and take the side of the conquered old guards.

The Aware old guard accused the insurgents of not reflecting Singapore’s cultural diversity. The insurgents retorted that, compared with the liberal old guard, their conservative values were more representative of Singapore’s majority. Who was right? Both, probably. But, neither diversity nor representativeness is a necessary or sufficient criterion when assessing a civil society group.

The religiously-inclined of society found it necessary to stay away from the saga, and to deal with the underlying issue that the saga was able to surfaced, sexuality. The war is a continuing one for the old AWARE.

People generally accepted that AWARE is secular and the needed to be run by people who are secular, therefore there was no need to fight over ownership. People also generally accepted that AWARE had been helping a displaced group of women, the abused, the sexually marginalized etc.

Most religions have accepted AWARE for what it is but how much has AWARE gone out of its way to accept the views and practices of these religious institutions, and to respect and work around these institutional values? Why does AWARE find it so important to uphold the values of non-religious and secularism as if it is a religion of its own? Has the game been fair even as AWARE is asking for fairness to deal with a society that it proclaims to be secular but is largely not, not when the majority profess to believing in one faith or another?

They were secretive in their plan to take over Aware and coy about their intentions

Many have used this line of argument. Allow me to dig deeper a little and perhaps paint a different picture from my angle of view. Josie did say in her interview with Sumiko Tan that she had counted on working with Claire Nazar and had not anticipated that she would walk out as president. Now, please put aside the reason why Nazar had walked out for a while.

This is my reading on the takeover.

1. Josie and team (under the influence of Thio), had only one purpose when the decided to take over AWARE. They wanted to make a difference to get AWARE to change its stand on homosexuality.
2. They planned a takeover, leaving the old team with a one-third majority, and the post of president and another two less consequential positions, to the old guards.
3. They targeted the other positions that would allow them to work alongside the old guards, while at the same time, giving themselves enough strength in numbers, to overturn issues they do not agree with, particularly on the topic of sexuality.
4. Their game-plan backfired when Nazar walked out as president and they had to appoint a new president from within their own. It is here (after 11 days) that trouble began to surfaced. Advices from past presidents were not accepted and …
5. Josie, being the new president was pressured to state her team’s intentions for AWARE, which she had no inkling what they were supposed to be. This is quite conclusive to the point that the new office bearers had only one item on their agenda, Sexuality, or rather, homosexuality.
6. Christianity was a side dish for those who spoke up for the old guards. This was nothing but a battle ploy, conveniently put in place by the old guards (Constance), to heighten the tension and to win people over.
7. The rest is history.

The war is not over though. I do not agree with this statement; “The Ministry of Education’s measured and rational response took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents and exposed them as scaremongers.“. Not by a long shot that the attention drawn to the lessons being taught in school are too liberal for a society that is more conservative than one would happily agree to. The online petition to MOE has been coming in fast and furious from concerned parents questioning MOE on the homosexuality syllabus being taught in some schools.

“…they miscalculated. If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group “.

I do not think the take here is a good one. The government may not take to such arm-twisting tactics but it cannot suppress the voice of the people who are now asking questions because of the issues raised but such lobbyists. It has become a people’s concern more than a lobbyist’s fight.

The conclusion that the ‘insurgents’ have lost is also not a good one. Like I said, the war has just begun and you will see lots of questions will be asked by concerned parents who want to know what are being taught to their children, even beyond the subject of sexuality.

Well done. Cherian. An excellent, thoughtful piece.
To all out there, just one saying to bear in mind:
The path to Hell is often paved with good intentions.

Curious (142)

Very well written and concise, problem is a lot of people here are just not like you.
More interested in that pound of flesh and nothing else, shows immaturity and irrationality in thought, names calling and irrational anti christian rhetoric.

Hi Socrates #153,

Where is Dr Simon Tay’s comment in that article? I can’t find it.

Hi Gemami #157,

You are by far the most civil commentator who support Josie & Co.

Hi A Tan #152,

We should give credit when it’s due. TSM is a hottie for her age. ROFL.

Hi Blue & Zefly,

I am sure the term steeplejacking is now a new word in your vocabulary. It is actually quite hard for Christians to tell fundie teaching apart from mainstream Church teaching when they themselves (minus clergymen) can’t differentiate Anglican teaching from Methodist, or teaching from any other mainstream Christian denomination.

160 comments in one day. That must be some kind of record for TOC. Well done, Cherian.

To me, the whole egm was a mess and a sad sad reflection of how civil society in S’pore is. Yes, old guards won. Yes, Josie Lau and friends did wrong. But the venom and the atrocious behaviour of supporters of the old guards sours the victory.

This is why in the past lynch mobs happened. None of us should be proud of what happened. I supported the old guards but this whole egm showed the immaturity of their supporters who claims to be “civil society”.

I see nothing civil in their behaviour.

Shame on you.

157) gemami on May 5th, 2009 9.47 am

Yours is the voice of reason. As I say before you rock. My comments are as follows:

1″Whether we want to believe that most people are driven by their religious faiths/beliefs or not, it is clear that a large proportion are indeed governed by their beliefs more than they care to admit it themselves.”

Yes, secularism does not mean that its values don’t dove-tail with the faith-driven values. This is because the concept of Truth is universal.

Take for example sexual offenses under the Penal Code, Sect 375 to 377D. I am sure both camps agree unreservedly that people should not engage in rape, incest, sex with minors, sex with animals or in necrophilia.

But in the Aware saga the bones of contention were sect 377A which bans gay anal sex and the Women’s Charter which bans same sex marriage.

Paradoxically, certain elements in Aware consider gay anal sex to be healthy even though it is against the laws of Singapore. They even spread this errant doctrine with missionary zeal to young minds in our schools.

And it look suspicious when the money for such a cause came from donations controlled by an ex Bishop who welcomes GLBTs and same sex marriages!

Has Aware been hijacked?

Since a child’s life is like a tapestry and everyone he/she meets leaves a mark, do parents want Aware to leave its dhoby mark on our children’s tapestries?

From anecdotal evidence the answer is emphatically, No!

2″Josie did say in her interview with Sumiko Tan that she had counted on working with Claire Nazar and had not anticipated that she would walk out as president. Now, please put aside the reason why Nazar had walked out for a while.This is my reading on the takeover.”

That is about the best analysis I have come across. Good on you. George, please take note lest the Truth is lost because some people cannot see the trees for the woods.

3″The war is not over though.”

The big one will come when the fringe lunatics demand for 377A to be repealed and same sex marriages to be legalized.

4″The government may not take to such arm-twisting tactics but it cannot suppress the voice of the people who are now asking questions because of the issues raised but such lobbyists. It has become a people’s concern more than a lobbyist’s fight.”

This is true. And I look forward to read the MOE’s response to the petition by the concerned parents for answers why young minds are being corrupted in our schools.

5″The conclusion that the ‘insurgents’ have lost is also not a good one. Like I said, the war has just begun and you will see lots of questions will be asked by concerned parents who want to know what are being taught to their children, even beyond the subject of sexuality.”

Very true. Well said.

Hi Smallvice585, Blue,

… and that is why sometimes the Religious Harmony Act, while seeking to maintain harmony, can also backfire sometimes. While commendable, the statements issued by the various religious organisations came a day AFTER the EOGM. (most likely issued on the day itself). Understandably, they can’t be faulted as they have to move carefully.

While a few of us had been following closely far right tactics used in the USA, and hence could tell with high probability that everything happened at AWARE was steeplejacking (waaaah I using new word!!!) pretty early on, we also had a hard time convincing some of the more ‘neutral’ people here, because of the far right’s ability to always disguise their dogmatic purposes with secular-speak.

The fact that Josie and co. could have easily spoken up against the CSE, but instead chose to STEEPLEJACK AWARE was very telling the real prize wasn’t in getting MOE to relook at the programmes, but the destruction of a group of people whose thinking and influence threatened their agenda. ANYONE who claims victory for Josie, who support Josie and co. ONLY on the basis of them fighting for some ‘conservative’ values ought not overlook the proper channels they could have taken.

Just like how the Muslim community and MUIS came out strongly to denounce Islamo-facism (I hope I’m using the right words), the NCCS and the Christian community at large have to make a clear vocal stance where evangelism ends and steeplejacking begins. And the authorities too, have to monitor such activities closely.

What is out in the open, refuting the erroneous claims of the far right online is easy. What goes on in the dark, is what we should be AWARE of.

159) Victor on May 5th, 2009 10.43 am

1″Curious (142) Very well written and concise, problem is a lot of people here are just not like you. More interested in that pound of flesh and nothing else, shows immaturity and irrationality in thought, names calling and irrational anti christian rhetoric.”

Victor, thank you. Gandhi once said the you can judge a country by how the people treat their animals.

I think he will also agree that you can judge a country by how its civil society behaves in public meetings and why mob rule and death threats have no place in a civilized society.

Singapore, please wake up!

Some have commented on the unruly manner in which the supporters of the Old Guard conducted themselves at the EOGM. Could they have behaved in a more civilized manner? Indubitably so. Most intelligent Singaporeans – as i believe the majority of the people there were – behave politely and civilly in the appropriate social context. But I feel this event was an exception. The subterfuge and machinations perpetrated by the Thio-Lau Exco were tantamount to the attempted rape of Aware through a constitutional loophole. Their actions were ethically repugnant and morally violent. You don’t expect the victim of an actual attempted rape to fight off her attacker with polite discourse. The substance of the Thio-Lau gang’s deception was many times more uncivil then the behaviour of the Old Guard’s supporters, whose uncivil behaviour extended only to their expression of discontent. Their actions on that day were not only understandable, but perhaps even entirely appropriate.

#163 Zefly

Steeplejacking is only going to get even more vigorous here. FOTF is a Rightwing Christian group in the USA, but registered here as a secular organisation. There’s no doubt that Josie has been working closely with this group and subscribe to their dogmatic beliefs. COOS is also closely linked to this organisation. With FOTF here, you can sure more people will be indoctrinated by their extremist ideals.

Taking the politicking of the 2 guards of AWARE aside, i wonder if we were to take a poll on the views of singaporeans on the issue of anal sex being ok, replacing the word husband with “partner”, homosexuality being neutral lifestyle, etc,what kind of results would be poll show.

Would it be the same 65% versus 35% as in the EGM results ?.

At the end of the day, is it fair to say old guard win ? or new guard was beaten because their views are not shared by majority ? or nobody wins?

Think about it ….

Great article. It tries to bring out the various points lost in all the heated debate and drama.

Even more, it points out things most have lost sight on.

AWARE was set up to address discrimination against women, whereas a large majority of people may not feel it necessary to have such an organisation in the first place (as seen by remarks of “dissolve it!” “what use this group has?” “so little members aiyoh”).

Thus, saying it speaks for or it should speak for the majority is losing sight of it’s original purpose.

157) gemami on May 5th, 2009 9.47 am

>> “Most religions have accepted AWARE for what it is but how much has AWARE gone out of its way to accept the views and practices of these religious institutions, and to respect and work around these institutional values?”

These statements conflate the values of all religions together and this is largely mistaken. Buddhism does not object to homosexuality. (See http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/05/gay-tragedy.html)

We should respect each other’s viewpoints and values, which is precisely why we should not have not have to impose them on religions or institutions other to our own.

>> “Why does AWARE find it so important to uphold the values of non-religious and secularism as if it is a religion of its own? Has the game been fair even as AWARE is asking for fairness to deal with a society that it proclaims to be secular but is largely not, not when the majority profess to believing in one faith or another?”

Oppressors crying wolf. It is precisely because “the majority profess to believing in one faith or another” that society SHOULD BE secular.

>> The conclusion that the ‘insurgents’ have lost is also not a good one. Like I said, the war has just begun and you will see lots of questions will be asked by concerned parents who want to know what are being taught to their children, even beyond the subject of sexuality.

If it takes something like this to get parents to be concerned as to what is being taught to their children, more the better. I worry for parents who have conveniently delegated their parental obligations to the school. If you have inculcated in your children the values you wish them to have, I should think you wouldn’t have a cause for worry.

162) Curious on May 5th, 2009 11.37 am

>> Take for example sexual offenses under the Penal Code, Sect 375 to 377D. I am sure both camps agree unreservedly that people should not engage in rape, incest, sex with minors, sex with animals or in necrophilia.

Bringing these issues up is fear-mongering. These are all non-consensual acts, while the issue of gay sex is a consensual matter between two adults. They are not comparable.

>> Paradoxically, certain elements in Aware consider gay anal sex to be healthy even though it is against the laws of Singapore. They even spread this errant doctrine with missionary zeal to young minds in our schools.

I shall not bother reiterating what everyone has repeatedly said about the CSE programme. Please get your facts right, or you run the risk of sounding ill-informed.

>> The big one will come when the fringe lunatics demand for 377A to be repealed and same sex marriages to be legalized.

Nope. It will only be over when the Government finally stops allowing the fringe lunatics to deny others their rights based on their fear-mongering.

163) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on May 5th, 2009 11.41 am

>> The fact that Josie and co. could have easily spoken up against the CSE, but instead chose to STEEPLEJACK AWARE was very telling the real prize wasn’t in getting MOE to relook at the programmes, but the destruction of a group of people whose thinking and influence threatened their agenda. ANYONE who claims victory for Josie, who support Josie and co. ONLY on the basis of them fighting for some ‘conservative’ values ought not overlook the proper channels they could have taken.

I wholeheartedly agree. Couldn’t have said it better.

Comment #2 “I am saddened to see women involved in tongue lashing, getting the support of lesbians. ”

Did you really mean to write this or are you pulling the other one and having a laugh? I’m sure lots of lesbians like seeing woman getting a tongue lashing!!!!!!!!!

Bystander #53,

It caught my eye too.

“The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.”

Not whether but how? What does this raving inanity mean?

Does this not mirror the ridiculous notion that Atheism is a religion; it’s not a case that it’s not WHETHER Atheism is a religion but HOW is Atheism a religion? Is not stamp-collecting a hobby too?

Informed by convictions (religious or non-religious) is perfectly fine, and completely unavoidable in EVERY society. But “injecting faith-based words and actions into public life” as a matter of course (only a matter of “how”) takes it to a different level and undermines the very notion of Secularity (with a capital S). In fact, it comes of as a ringing endorsement of non-secularity: A kind of ongoing bartering between religions to arrive at agreeable policies.

Has the notion of Secularity been hijacked by politicos?

160 smallvice
Maybe i interpreted wrongly , on page 4 col 3 of today TODAY
“They could have…..started their own group…

Brainwave #94,

I will repost my response to that link from another thread where Zefly recommended the material:

Great read. Thanks!

I am following up and borrowing the mentioned “The Great Derangement” by Matt Taibbi from NLB.

You (or Curious) might be interested in an excerpt published in The Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20278737/jesus_made_me_puke

/// Has the notion of Secularity been hijacked by politicos? ///

sllim – I don’t think so. I think it is Cherian George who got carried away with his analysis. I don’t think faith-based values should intrude into public life.

http://groundnotes.wordpress.com/

169) Blue,

I mentioned ‘Most’, not all.

“We should respect each other’s viewpoints and values, which is precisely why we should not have not have to impose them on religions or institutions other to our own. ” : Blue.

Well, who has been ‘imposing’ for the past 24 years. Before you answer, think about what AWARE had been representing these past 24 years, and let’s just limit it to the subject on Sexuality. Yup! You’ve got it. The ‘religion’ that is no religion at all. So how is this ‘religion that is no religion’ more superiior than the other religions, and must have a voice that must be supported so loudly? Do you not think it is offensive to those who do not belong to this ‘religion that is no religion’? Where is the inclusiveness that was proclaimed?

“It is precisely because “the majority profess to believing in one faith or another” that society SHOULD BE secular” : Blue.

I am trying to read the logic of your declaration. You are saying that because majority holds on to a religion of their own, we therefore have to declare the society ’secular’ so that we need not listen to their religious views – which in fact makes one turn towards the minority who does not hold any religious views at all. This is the rationale of one who does not have a religion and who harbours the concept of utopia that is free from religious inteferences. This itself is a religion. It is a religion that is no religion.

“ If you have inculcated in your children the values you wish them to have, I should think you wouldn’t have a cause for worry. ” : Blue.

I agree and I am very confident with the way I am teaching my own. Unfortunately, I cannot speak for the society at large. We do know that Singaporeans have been too complacent and too trusting of government establishments. Why else do you think there was not one complain to MOE before this saga? Why also, do you think the old guards needed this wake up call to get them off their oversized butts that led to the chain of events in recent weeks?

Singapore please wake up to Thio-Lau gang’s lies and deception..
operating like poisonous serpents to destabalise our good, secular and inclusive multi-racial country.. this nation do not need people like them. period.

I believe that not all the Josie lau team in the ex-exco is aware of the coup…
and to those who have inevidently became trapped as a pawn in this because you are somehow related to joise lau n team…my condolences to you.. also please wake up from it too… this episode has shown that people like thio su mien n her stooges (j.l), cannot be trusted even they are pronounced religious people… and high position executive / lawyer. seem like good background but actually, they are just like wolves in sheepskin, hiding behind a quasi-religious shroud. Beware Singapore.

Peace, curious, watchman etc

We’re sick and tired of you claiming that the election was “ultra vires”.

First, none of you are lawyers and know what you’re talking about.

Second, show me the Article in Aware’s memorandum and articles of association that supports your view.

Third, why don’t you do something about it and mount a legal challenge, and spare us the keyboard histrionics? SERIOUSLY, STOP TALKING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IF YOU BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU SAY.

Thats what I don’t get about you people. You feel so strongly about this, yet at the day of the EGM, where were you? Like I’ve pointed out repeatedly, there were no shadowy figures behind the scenes moving puppets in the run-up to the EGM. Everyone knew about the proposed resolution, everyone was invited to go speak up.

So… where were you?

Come on, just a simple answer.

Sorry Smallvice and others I got the link wrong Here is the link for Simon Tay’s comments. Pretty Good.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/317942.asp

To WATCHMAN at 137,
who somehow stubbornly persists in his conviction that the election was ultra vires.

I’ll humour you again, Watchman, just to return the favour for the many moments of humour you have provided me.

Art 9 of the Constitution merely states that the management of the Society is vested in the general meeting, presided over by the Prez. The general meeting, as you would no doubt be aware, is comprised of the members (i.e. the 3000 folks who were present.) The rest of the Art is on the necessary quorum for the making of resolutions, which was more than satisfied, and is hence not material for your purposes.

Article 12 notes that members who wish to place items on the agenda may do so with 10 days notice to the Secretary. While the resolution to remove Josie’s exco was likely not communicated to the Secretary (we don’t know if it was), there are no words in the Article indicating a mandatory nature (”shall” etc), or whether breach of the Article voids the resolution. In my reading of the AWARE M&A , there is nothing implied that voids such a resolution either.

But there is no need to rely on Art 12 because it was always open to Josie’s legal counsel, who was present at all times, to object to any purported impropriety. By not doing so, he must be taken to have elected to accept the proceedings (thereby “curing” it, in non-legal parlance). Alternatively, it was also always open to Josie’s exco when they returned to the EGM to dispute the technicalities of Art 12. But they did not, and waived that avenue when they tendered their resignation. Josie’s resignation is the key event here. Legal counsel was clearly aware of the sentiment of the general meeting (as evidenced by the overwhelming support at General Meeting in favour of electing a new team), and it would not have changed a thing if the new election was held before or after Josie’s resignation.

In any case, attention should be drawn to Art 17 on the duties and powers of the exco –”the exco may not act contrary to the expressed wishes of the general meeting without prior reference to it, and always remains subordinate to the general meeting”. This suggests that there is no case for Josie to dispute the timing of notice when its crystal clear what the express wishes of the general meeting are.

While its doubtful that Josie’s exco is estopped from insisting on its strict legal right on general equitable grounds, this is a moot point since its a reality that Josie will not be issuing a challenge. (And i guess, neither will you).
Now, that was my pro bono advice.

I am waiting with bated breath for your application to mount a challenge on the purported “ultra vires” election. Somehow, though, I doubt you will get up off your keyboard and do anything about it, despite all your talk.

So please, enough about this “ultra vires” thing, unless you’re actually going to do something about it.

A very insightful and excellent article Cherian!

To all the Christian bashing critics here, consider this: What if Josie and her posie weren’t Christians? What if they were PAP-supporting conservatives who were genuinely alarmed at the sex education program and did the stupid/unethical/add-your-own thing of taking over AWARE?

I’ve read a posting here that implied that if you’re against the repeal of 377A, you must be a fundie christian. There’s the Christian Right, there’s the Political Right (like the PAP and the Republicans) and then there are people who are just very conservative (from atheists to people from all walks of life/faiths).

I am a Christian with liberal views (although some Christians might disagree with me and tell me there’s no such thing as a liberal Christian). I supported the Old Guard, the repeal of 377A, etc. My name is on page… just kidding. Please refrain from making sweeping statements about Christians and talk about doctrines when your understanding is just ankle deep. Peace.

135) Thio Thong Poe on May 5th, 2009 12.19 am

according to the bible yes.

no i believe you did not hear wrongly.

its funny isn’t it? the christians seem to know less about the bible than those they claim to be “disbelievers”

there are several comments on the postings of some people here. anyway, we should know that the fundies have people planted in various internet forums to advance their agenda, and so the best thing we can do is to just rebut their points, and then ignore them when they continuously write senseless stuff. these people are just sad sheep who are used to the brainwashing by their religious leader. they will know the truth one day i supposed. so in the meantime, just ignore them and better use our energy on trying to advance positive changes or actions, then to be quarrelling with these people.

[...] AWARE: Lessons from a fiasco Published 5 May 2009 Features (Singapore) 0 Comments Tags: AWARE, civic society, equal rights/discrimination, politics, religion Source [...]

An erudite treatment of the topic. Plus, it reflects the thoughts which I voiced in previous comments in relation to the AWARE saga. I’d endorse Prof Cherian George’s arguments, in particular: “While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.”

I would agree that the principle of secularism applies only to mandate a separation of the State and religion, but does not require the exclusion of religious viewpoints from ordinary politics (including civil society and the mass media). It is thus necessary to distinguish between ‘high politics’ and ‘ordinary politics’; there should in principle be no exclusion of religious viewpoints from the latter. Free speech and democracy require that every person, religious or ‘non-religious’, should have an equal opportunity to participate in civil discourse. Interestingly, Thio Li-ann argued for a similar view in a 2007 ST Article, “Secularism: The Singapore Way” (if I recall correctly).

Nevertheless, in order to ensure equal participation of all citizens in public debate, religious proponents should advance their views with restraint in the public sphere. Equal participation (as implied by the principles of democracy) means both an equal opportunity to speak and to rebut. Here, religious proponents must recognize that it may be more difficult to rebut their views, given (1) their frequent reliance on religious scripture (which others are likely to be ignorant about), and (2) the fact that existing hate speech laws tend to protect traditional religions at the expense of competing viewpoints.

Also, on the topic of the place of CSOs in society, I’d use a metaphor: a sufficiently well-established CSO should be regarded as a person with a loudhailer. After a few years of work on-the-ground, a CSO becomes associated with a particular ideology or viewpoint, and gains credibility by successfully propagating that viewpoint. It is therefore not fundamentally different from an individual citizen, except for its greater audience reach. To capture a CSO in order to substitute its viewpoint with your own is therefore similar to hypnotizing and brainwashing a person — only that the negative social effects are magnified a hundredfold. This was what was objectionable about the AWARE takeover, not the fact that it represented an ‘intrusion’ of religion into a ’secular’ public space.

Little people #182,

The reaction would be similar if it were any other religion. And I dare say there would be more Christians against the takeover. They can think clearer when the victim complex is lifted (feeling bashed).

Naturally, the offending religion would contribute less voices against the takeover hwne they feel bashed.

Christianity is only incidental.

Gemani #176,

Suggesting that the old AWARE was just another religion is duplicitous. They don’t pray for guidance, rely on faith, or anything like that. Don’t you find it demeaning to your own faith if you start calling non-religious groups religions?

P.S. No religion is excluded, and no one religion or segment of society call the play, that’s the inclusiveness.

181) observer on May 5th, 2009 4.34 pm

1″Art 9 of the Constitution merely states that the management of the Society is vested in the general meeting, presided over by the Prez. ”

Really? What does the rest of Article 9 say then? Why are you reluctant to post the whole Article9 so that other lawyers can give their opinions too?

2″The rest of the Art is on the necessary quorum for the making of resolutions, which was more than satisfied, and is hence not material for your purposes.”

Never mind. Just post the complete Article9 and then we can discuss further.

Since TOC reported that ” Legal counsel for the new exco is speaking now. He says the constitution does not “expressly” give grounds for the eogm to remove the exco. He also said a vote of no confidence is not legally binding. The meeting continues” it is very important that you post the complete Article 9 for all to see.

And please advise, Mr Lawyer , if an Election of Officers in Aware can be legally held iaw its constitution when the exco had yet to resign, if there were no notice given and if the Election of Officers was not part of the EOGM’s Agenda?

Also according to the ROS,”In carrying out their activities, societies not only have to abide by the rules of their own respective constitutions, but also the prevailing laws in Singapore.”

Did Aware conduct the Election of Officers iaw the rules of its constitution? Any pro bono advice, learned counsel?

sllim #186

I did not say what if it was some other religion. I said what if they had NO religion but “PAP-supporters conservatives”.

169) Blue on May 5th, 2009 1.53 pm

1″Take for example sexual offenses under the Penal Code, Sect 375 to 377D. I am sure both camps agree unreservedly that people should not engage in rape, incest, sex with minors, sex with animals or in necrophilia.”..Curious.

“Bringing these issues up is fear-mongering. These are all non-consensual acts, while the issue of gay sex is a consensual matter between two adults. They are not comparable.”…Blue

Fear-mongering is based on rumors and misrepresentations. When I said that I was sure that “both camps agree unreservedly that people should not engage in rape, incest, sex with minors, sex with animals or in necrophilia.” it was a statement of facts, not a rumor to instill fear. I think the nuance escaped you.

2″Paradoxically, certain elements in Aware consider gay anal sex to be healthy even though it is against the laws of Singapore. They even spread this errant doctrine with missionary zeal to young minds in our schools.”…Curious

“I shall not bother reiterating what everyone has repeatedly said about the CSE programme. Please get your facts right, or you run the risk of sounding ill-informed.”…blue.

What are the facts then. Please tell us.

3″The big one will come when the fringe lunatics demand for 377A to be repealed and same sex marriages to be legalized.”…Curious

“Nope. It will only be over when the Government finally stops allowing the fringe lunatics to deny others their rights based on their fear-mongering.”..Blue.

I think you may have to wait until Hell freezes over !

Much has been mentioned about the importance of not forcing ones’ religious beliefs and values on others. It must also be said that it is not right for any persons, organizations and groups to, in the name of secularism, impose on others their so-called liberal views.

Little people #187,

My mistake; an obscene number of posts play the victim card. If they were Conservatives (I take that to mean that they are not comfortable talking about the finer details of sex) then I suppose she (forgot who) said at the press conference would apply: it would be sex-ed (not comprehensive sex-ed).

By the way, I agree that it is a hot button, especially so because a neutral take on those details take on hysterical dimensions in the Conservatives’ minds. They shouldn’t be ignored, I think, these guys need to be persuaded and educated too.

@sllim (#187, 6.16 pm), as (I think) I’ve debated with you before, the touchstone is not how the ‘religion’ is manifested (i.e. through prayer/worship), but the comprehensiveness of the belief system, i.e. whether it deals with the fundamental existential/moral questions, “What is my purpose here?” and “What counts as a good life?” Hence, secular humanism (and to a lesser extent, atheism) should be regarded as ‘religions’, even if non-traditional, for the purpose of politics and constitutional law.

Hypothetically, AWARE could have counted as a religious group, if it sought to propagate the belief, for example, that Man’s happiness is the ultimate good to be pursued. But it did not in fact do so.

To reply

183) Little people on May 5th, 2009 4.47 pm

I dont think there are in so much “Christian bashing critics” here so to speak.

Josie & Gang including TSM – FM are acknowledged and known “Bible Bashers” – quoting literally their own meaning and interpretations to state what is correct.

The techniques employed by christian fundamentalist today is to instill fear in everyone because they said so. Their belief system also crosses the lines that are clearly drawn even in the face of disrespect and without shame because they will not step down due to fight for the convictions till the end.

Many Christian in all walks of denominations will not bother to cross over any lines in the own faith beliefs or other religious beliefs. But here we have a group that had planned, trained and even prepared to perform a very militant take over for their own agenda to push out to the community in their short stay in power.

Its obvious that their church organization is totally against homosexuality. Did they have to publicize it in a fashion statement. They needed a platform to bring this issue out, their “Battle against homosexuality” – quoted from COOS. They used AWARE as that platform to rape and then attack, then spread the good news out to every singaporean. Its a terrible shame for christian representations because the tactics Josie & gang used to elevate their agenda so their voices would be heard. There are channels they could have gone through Anglican Diocese and other religious chapters to bring out their agenda against homosexuality and having pro family values. Their obvious linkage to foreign christian based churches and organization shows that they knew what they are doing to push some boundaries in Singapore. Where it will lead us today,…well they just pushed that open now so we are all sitting up and talking and debating about it. They have set to cast the divide in Singapore because of their objectives at hand. They brought the homosexuality issues to Singapore because its a start for testing the waters in Asia to be against homosexuality. Singapore being first to start. Will they back down from their standing convictions? I seriously doubt so,…….

Let be liberal and respect the ways and lifestyles of every human being despite their faith or belief system.

Cherian has written a thoughtful piece and I can agree with a lot of what he says but as a Singaporean who views the fragmentation of our society with unease perhaps one pivotal aspect of his reasoning on which his other points depend bears deeper examination: To quote:

“Civil society space is quite different. CSOs can gain influence, but have no power to set national policy. Furthermore, multiple CSOs can work within the same space simultaneously. Since a CSO has no monopoly over its area of work, it has no moral obligation to be representative in its values – or, for that matter, in its racial or religious composition. If others are fundamentally opposed to its direction, they can set up their own organisation.”

The NMP scheme gives various single-issue groups a certain standing in Parliament. While NMPs cannot vote on legislation, they can propose or advocate changes using the prominence which they have gained from their office. In so doing they shape the complexion and direction of public debate. NMPs who have been appointed due to their work in a CSO do not have any accountability to the electorate at large (or in fact to uphold our political system and way of life). For every well-meaning CSO that Cherian cites, there are others whose views are less wholesome.

The next point is whether each group should set up a separate organisation in accordance with its views. True, but only to a point. People who join a single-issue group tend to be more passionate about what they believe in. Do we really want a multiplicity of single issue politicians-in-all-but-name accountable to no one but their CSO – setting up noisy single issue groups to the point that the harmony of our society is threatened.

Is this suggestion to each form a CSO not a receipe for encouraging withdrawal from the larger body politic where we have to debate serious issues in a balanced way, take the tradeoffs necessary to bring as many Singaporeans with us as we can. Are we not encouraging a form of politicking that substitutes serious deliberation with soundbites and spin among one’s own? Ultimately, this is tribalism in drag.

My fear on viewing the proceedings at Suntec is that there is little point in opening or debating controversial issues between radically opposed groups who will never persuade each other. It only polarises the society and creates a divisiveness that will outlive the specific circumstances of last Saturday. The NMPs present there should reflect carefully on the role they have played.

If nothing else, those of us who value our current society and the freedom that it has granted all of us to express and profess our views should see that the rise of CSO/special interest groups can lead to the ultimate weakening of the special but fragile society that we have. To borrow from Cherian and reply to his analogy, it takes time to wean oneself off airconditioning.

Actually if you ring the door bell and no one answered and u know that they are inside… just go home la…. or make a phone call and come back again la or use sms to let people know u outside rining the bell lor .. if still don’t open the door don’t friend them lor… becaused that don’t give u the rights to kick the door open…. worst still when u kick the door when you are inside and u change the lock somemore…. sure u are wrong la…that why so many people go Q-up early early just to vote u out mah…

Btw hor why Joise and her team keep saying that they just want to help in the area of their expertise but why they bring out the CSE hor and say they are very concern parent and worry for us that one day our daughter say wan to marry her GF and son say want to marry BF… that why they join Aware to make changes… but Joise her expertise is marketing leh what she know about training program… put up the instructor’s manual on the internet… sieow issit… that manual is not for the student la is for the instructor lor….sigh…

And if you are concern about your kids just by attending the 3 hours program and will become les or homo… than think again …..that mean all our kids in singapore all will be having PHD liao leh… because one month 20 days study how many hours of english some still don’t know what is past tense or present tense… just like me study till sec 4 english still so bad leh… same for Mandrian…. our gov. still have to run campaine to get people to speak mandrian… go to the school and check it out la…. so many hours spent on languages we also just have a few that is very good at both…. and now u concern about a 3 hours program that will turn our kids into les and homo… u sure u are our “feminist mentor”???

Anyway my comments is just my point of view la… I won’t say who’s right who’s wrong but I support the old guard, but why call old guard hor they all look so good la better than the new guard leh…. I think people with passion will show it on their face la and make them look pretty and young lor… especially the new president, Dana Lam where got look like 50something… max max 40 lor…

Anyway a good lesson for us la if you want to look young and pretty not like those on the stage… have passion in what u do hor… but must be good thing la… pls don’t have passion to brake peoples door hor….

Curious seems to really like the Eagles album… everytime say Hell freezes over…

To all the Christian bashing critics here, consider this: What if Josie and her posie weren’t Christians? What if they were PAP-supporting conservatives who were genuinely alarmed at the sex education program and did the stupid/unethical/add-your-own thing of taking over AWARE? – Little People #182

Hi Little Peoplee #182,

Then we are in a worse situation than we are now. Previously, there was an attempt of AWARE being steeplejacked. If what you say is true, then it means PAP has been steeplejacked and this would put Singapore in a worse position as a whole.

The issues centering in AWARE saga is not one that concern only the Christians. I believe Muslims and other faiths or non-faith are similarly concerned. The intrusion of homosexual lifestyle as well as the liberalisation of sexual mores have left many parents deeply concerned about what is being taught to their kids. I would not have known what was taught in the schools if this saga has not happened and the training materials were not made known to the public. I am totally outraged that they have listed sex as a pleasurable and fun things and this is communicated to 16 year olds. Worse still is that such terms are not listed upfront but are kept as trainers’ guide. These are meant for the trainers to use in their discussions with the kids in the schools. Imagine the influence and the suggestions made to the students in the midst of discussions by the trainers. I am sure any parents who have read the materials will be similarly concerned if not outraged.

I give kudos to the past Exco who have gumption to stand up and be counted. They are willing to take actions to make right what they deemed wrong. It is true that they could have done better. It is true they should have a team of not exclusively from one church or affiliation. It is true that they should be more forthright in the beginning. It is also true that the rest of the parties involved could have done better, like :

AWARE itself could have done better. For 25 years they have not build up their processes. Claiming to represent women in Singapore, they only have 200 members before this saga happens. This can hardly be called representative. They have left their doors opened, perhaps because they have so much problem recruiting members that they welcome all. If they are representing women, why the need for men to vote. There are roles men can play in men’s groups. If they want to be all inclusive, then perhaps they should change their name too and not hide behind a woman’s skirt.

MOE could have done better in monitoring the curriculum sent in by external trainers. I am surprised that the MoS came out to say that they received no complaints. My wife sent in a complaint immediately after she read the training materials. I believe any well meaning parents who have a chance to read the materials will similarly do likewise.

DBS could have done better in examining itself before it came out publicly to chastise its own employee. Employing double-standards for its own board and its staff and to do it publicly shows the hypocrisy that organizations like that practice.

I save the last for Straits Times. Straits Times could have done better in publicising the matter. They have taken a biased stand from the very beginning. Reporters are to report news and not to make suggestions and innuendos. This is the job for the analysts. Where this is a matter between 2 groups who are deeply passionate about their causes, ST have made it to be a case between Conservative Christians and the secular. This is a case between any parents who are concerned about the type of education they are receiving from AWARE. It is only this group from the church who is willing to take up the action and walk the talk. It is for this that I gave them kudos for. If only more of our citizens can be like that.

@Neutral Singaporean (#195), those are very insightful comments. While I agree that there is a risk of tribalism and fragmentation if we permit ’single-issue’ groups to flourish, I believe that’s the whole point of civil society. An individual CSO is meant to articulate a particular viewpoint, rather than represent society as a whole. In this respect, it differs from a representative assembly like Parliament (the NMP scheme is objectionable because it detracts from the representative character of Parliament).

Moreover, I think the so-called dangers of ‘divisiveness’ may be exaggerated — there is surely room, even in a small society like Singapore’s, for a plurality of competing viewpoints to take root. Society is not quite as fragile as we often imagine it to be.

Lastly, political deliberation need not have consensus as an end-point. If we’re faced with a choice between a superficial modus vivendi arrived at after cursory debate, and an intractable discussion (with no consensus in sight) where all are nevertheless permitted to fully express their views, I think we prefer the latter, especially where a definitive decision is not required. Even where some collective choice must be made on a controversial issue like the casino or HOTA, the debate should continue long after that.

To a mother and watchman

Like a father pointed out, loud yes, unruly, no.
“Ungracious in their behaviour”? The old guard tried to help the hopelessly helpless so-called capable exco like a deer caught in the headlights to calm down the crowd. Ungracious?
“I can’t believe these are the leaders of women in Singapore”? You rather have the new exco who give ‘No comments’ or ‘We exco have to discuss first’ answers and no direct answers?

Watchman, your sweeping judgemental statements are pure crap.
And whatever you wrote does not make sense. “Noisy, unruly, behaving like mob = NO democracy”? If no voting was carried out that day, then it is considered NO democracy.

To begin with, the new exco ungraciously grabbed power through a loophole in the system. Legally they are right, morally they are wrong. The old ‘new exco’ then systematically removed working members from AWARE and replaced the position with people from COOS. Like a member of the audience pointed out, the new exco vowed to help woman, but the next minute, they went ahead and fire a woman from organisation. Action indeed spoke louder than words.

The old ‘new exco’ when pressed for what they stood for. They simply mentioned 3 things. The first one hardly substantiated is they wanted to bring back the noble cause of AWARE. What is the noble cause, and how do they intend to do that? They laid no concrete plans and made general statements. Secondly, they were the one who brought up the issue on homosexuality and lesbianism. The old ‘new guard’ were the one kept bringing that issue up. Thirdly, they only proudly boasted on their successful career and what they have done in the past, but what are their plans for AWARE? Are they aware of AWARE’s programme extensively? Have they been involved in any AWARE programme? Have they contributed to AWARE at all before becoming exco members? The only thing the old ‘new exco’ did was making people asking such simple questions frustrated by avoiding those questions.

Their words held no water at all, their actions reflected on their intent. So when Josie asked for one year to prove themselves, most people simply had no trust based on their action, their ungratefulness to the old exco, their no-transparency action, based on the ‘coincidental’ fact they are all Chinese and from the same church (how can that represent Singapore society?) and voted no-confidence. And if you want something concrete, just look at the SGD90,000 spent during their about 1-month as exco. Josie Lau herself worked in a bank for God sake, and her exco had spent such a huge amount in such a short short period of time? Where’s the capability of the new exco? It is flawed to say, membership alone is SGD120,000 and AWARE still have SGD30,000. The $$ collected from membership should be computed into annual, i.e. exco has SGD10,000 to spend each month, and the old ‘new exco’ has already spent the budget of 9-month worth?! And mind you, not all members pay SGD40, as some are students and they paid SGD5.

la nausea #193,

No, we didn’t debate that specifically. You and I were debating “religion”, small r, inverted commas…. Primarily, we were talking about the political utility of construing Atheism as “religion” so as to not encroach on the head space and hurt the feelings of the Religious. I am referring to Atheism as Religion (common parlance) here, as Curious is intent on fudging the definition. (You should really roll out your disclaimer here: Atheism as Religion is illogical, just in case).

In any case, as we have debated, your so-called “fundamental questions” came in the game late and I believe it was on another topic. Anyway, I see these as questions on assumed fundamentals. And largely nonsensical because the answer can be anything i.e. just because it’s possible to ask: “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” doesn’t make it a legitimate question i.e. something that can be answer. Theologians, allegedly, thought it is. (Another disclaimer of yours you should bring out for the benefit of others: Assuming these quations are not nonsensical). Oh, and I strongly doubt the Religious have dibs on questions of morality. Not that a lot of questioning is done anyway, just a lot of answering :)

I don’t see how Atheism comes into play on however much a lesser extent. You haven’t made the case that Atheism contends with those questions. I am an Atheist and I don’t waste any time asking, and even less answering that brand of gobbledygook. As far as I know, wrangling with those are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for Atheism.

Secular humanism is a different kettle of fish. I don’t know anything about it. Assuming you didn’t misrepresent it, you might well be right: it is a “religion”. Having said that, I didn’t know AWARE was represented by Secular Humanists or define themselves by the dictum: Man’s happiness is the ultimate good (I reckon they will find that phrasing offensive — kidding)

P.S. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy our civil “debates” very much. But shouldn’t you be more intellectually offended by some of the garbage that is flying about? Let me guess: Christian?

This is the result of a 1st world civilised country??? Hardly. I suppose this won’t happen, say, in USA or any other 1st world western countries. Typically, S’porean. We got a long way to go………….

Curious,

I didn’t post the rest of Art 9 because it is long and the requirements on the quorum are completely irrelevant for your purposes, since there is no doubt that they were met.

Sigh, but if you so insist, Art 9 is as follows:

“The management of the society is vested in a general meeting of the members presided over by the President.” <– I have touched on this alrdy.

“At least one quarter of the total membership of the society or 25 members whichever is the lesser, present at a general meeting shall form a quorum. In the event of there being no quorum, the meeting shall be adjourned to the same day at a later time at the same place and should the number then present be insufficient to form a quorum, those present shall be considered a quorum, but they shall have no power to alter, amend or make additions to any of the existing rules”.

Now please tell me how this is relevant? Or is it a lost cause to hope for something relevant from you? All this while you were ranting on about ultra vires and the Constitution and you don’t even have a copy with you? Can we take it that you’ve never read it before this?

If PL#199 is indeed a representative parent, and I suspect he or she might be, maybe AWARE should conduct some kind of Pre-CSE-Parents-Trainers talk to allay their fears, answer their questions, and clarify yet again the material. That’s not to say it will be a consensus-seeking exercise. That’s a non-starter.

Irrational concerns are still concerns.

When i see TSM holding that (pg 74) book with an outstretched hand, that freezed photo, that similarity just cannot be so coincident. No wonder i keep thinking of that pose. Cannot sleep properly becos i see it somewhere but cannot remember.

This saga tells me that
the People must not continue to be Apathetic in other more important issues , if you know what i mean.

We need to voice up when the occasion calls for it.
Else, imagine what would Aware become now if not for the democratic process that allows people to voice their lack of confidence in that team.

Fortunately, in this issue, the aware people were not Apathetic.

I hope people apply this other situations. For example, IF in future an issue was handled such that there is lack of Accountability shown, i hope the people involved voice up against it. Of course, this is assuming there is such an issue.

This Cherian George article is typical of the many opinion pieces that have emerged after the leadership tussle in AWARE.

It is hardly enlightening in trying to draw pretentious lessons in high-sounding values like secularism, representation, transparency, plurality, diversity, civility, moderation and tolerance; when stripped-bare, the episode is purely a primitive struggle for power.

Careful observers should not be deceived into giving the protagonists more credit than they deserve.

PL (Post 198), I fully agree with you.

Josie, if you are reading this, I want you to know that many parents like myself consider you and your team the real heroines. You showed more courage than anyone else in this whole saga and stand up for what you believe in.

The principalities of darkness was evident in the EGM meeting. Josie, you and your team face it with great courage and composure. Many parents are thankful to you and your team for exposing the wickedness of the old Aware which so surreptitiously slipped in their vile anti-family filth into their now discredited CSE program

Josie, you can hold your head high. DBS needs leaders of all sort. If its management has any sense it will know that DBS is blessed to have your. Courageous employee like you are valuable assets to have in the corporate battle front.

The calm people on the sideline watching are not blind, we can see through the biases of the press. We are not like those who got suckered in by the activism of those rabid feminists to vote for the no confidence motion in the EGM. Many of those 1414 who voted for the motion will think that they have won the day. But once the excitement goes away, they will upon reflection realize that they have been actually manipulated by a few who took advantage of the emotion of the day to get them to do their bidding.

@sllim, nope, am an atheist myself (although I wonder why the question you posed should even matter). I am perhaps slightly “intellectually offended” by the other 2 main lines of debate on this thread, viz. the constitutionality of the present Exco’s election, and the objections of ‘concerned parents’ to the CSE programme, but I doubt further argument could advance the debate.

The constitutionality argument peddled by The Watchman, Curious, et al. is wafer-thin: (1) there was clearly a decision by the general meeting to remove Josie Lau’s Exco, even prior to their ‘resignation’; (2) there was no procedural defect by the mere fact of the absence of the President, since members can always elect a replacement chairperson from among their number; (3) even if a procedural defect existed, this was implicitly cured by ratification of the general meeting. Besides, the whole argument misses the basic point that what matters in a CSO is the very antithesis of legality and formalism. The actions of TSM & Co. were so egregious in part because they (ab)used a legal loophole in a surreptitious way.

As for the hypersensitive concerned parents who keep crawling out of the woodwork, I think that (1) such hypersensitivity is beyond the reach of rational criticism; and (2) a parent (for better or worse) has the ultimate responsibility and discretion for deciding what is in his or her child’s best interests. Hence, we can only shrug our shoulders in despair, and hope that what’s deemed to be acceptable in an MOE sexuality education programme is not determined by scruples of the most conservative parent among us.

This is a repost (typo error in the previous post 208)

PL (Post 199), I fully agree with you.

Josie, if you are reading this, I want you to know that many parents like myself consider you and your team the real heroines. You showed more courage than anyone else in this whole saga and stand up for what you believe in.

The principalities of darkness was evident in the EGM meeting. Josie, you and your team face it with great courage and composure. Many parents are thankful to you and your team for exposing the wickedness of the old Aware which so surreptitiously slipped in their vile anti-family filth into their now discredited CSE program

Josie, you can hold your head high. DBS needs leaders of all sort. If its management has any sense it will know that DBS is blessed to have your. Courageous employee like you are valuable assets to have in the corporate battle front.

The calm people on the sideline watching are not blind, we can see through the biases of the press. We are not like those who got suckered in by the activism of those rabid feminists to vote for the no confidence motion in the EGM. Many of those 1414 who voted for the motion will think that they have won the day. But once the excitement goes away, they will upon reflection realize that they have been actually manipulated by a few who took advantage of the emotion of the day to get them to do their bidding.

Hi #187) sllim on May 5th, 2009 6.16 pm,

“Suggesting that the old AWARE was just another religion is duplicitous. They don’t pray for guidance, rely on faith, or anything like that. Don’t you find it demeaning to your own faith if you start calling non-religious groups religions?

P.S. No religion is excluded, and no one religion or segment of society call the play, that’s the inclusiveness.” : slim.

Did I suggest that the old AWARE is another religion? Please show me where I said this. I merely stated that the old AWARE was pursuing a cause in a religiously manner. And the cause it was pursuing was in direct conflict with the majority who ascribe to a religion of his or her own. I figuratively describe the pursuance of this cause as a ‘religion that is not a religion’. It simply means that the old AWARE had been pursuing this cause as if it is a religion.

You have to pay closer attention to what you read, slim, or else others might just jump onto your bandwagon without fully understanding what is going on.

I do not agree that “no religion is excluded“. On the contrary, most religions have been excluded as the old AWARE had been adopting and crafting programmes that are satiated for neutral consumption. How else can you justify the CSE program with your statement? The views and institutional positions of the Catholics, some Christian Churches and Islam were blatantly ignored and excluded so that a program of neutrality could be crafted for neutral consumption. Prove me otherwise if you will. Keep in mind that these comments are but just a reply made in the context of your statement. Please do not deviate from it.

The second part of your statement reads: “ no one religion or segment of society call the play, that’s the inclusiveness.

Tell me then, why are those who do not embrace any sort of religion calling the shots? Is they not a segment of society too? Why is this segment’s voice more audible & believable, and requiring such a high level of compromise from the other religious bodies? Show me where is the inclusiveness?

Corrrection: My question should read: “Are they not a segment of society too?”.

My heart went out to Thio Su Mien when she waved that book and reminded the audience her name is on page 73. Is that all she has achieved in a lifetime? Did she lend help to any abused women, any discriminated because of her sex, any marginalised because of their religious/racial profile? Her antic reminded me of my 85 year old mother when she had one of her dementia attacks. BTW she is well, and maybe Thio should also seek medication. Respiradol did wonders for my mom.

Gemami

It is encouraging to read well articulated arguments. I have earlier posted several comments on this matter and I got whacked left, right, centre and might i add, even under. Somehow, the word “under” seems appropriate when discussing AWARE. ha! ha!

I can take it if the whacking I got is logical, sensible, objective and convincing. But what i got were jeers, insults and examples which are at best illogical. Some i might add are downright bizzare and senseless. Words were put in my mouth when i had not articulated them at all. Some were just plain ranting.

I gave up finally.

moral of the story………………women’s power in singapore…..don’t play, play

Gemani,

“Why is this segment’s voice more audible & believable, and requiring such a high level of compromise from the other religious bodies?”

I think if we take into consideration ALL the views of ALL the religions in Singapore to make decisions on ALL public matters, you’ll never arrive at any solution. Try it. Imagine yourself in the position of a policy-maker. Where do you start? Maybe finding what values EVERY religion has in common? Try that. Say, on the topic of homosexuality being taught as a neutral word – up to 40% of Singaporeans are Buddhist, and we know Buddhism’s stance on homosexuality is essentially neutral.
So, should we then adhere to the Buddhist view then, because Buddhists make up the highest % of Singaporean.

But it won’t be fair to the remaining 60% of the population!!! (and let’s not forget that among the 60% there would be agnostics and aethists… and even among the people of religions, there would be those with less ‘conservative’ views) So should we take this half’s view then? Oh wait! But won’t that marginalize the views of the Buddhists?

Then how?

You are making a case that the ‘liberal’ groups have a certain tyranny on certain matters especially pertaining to ’secular’ issues. But as you can see, there isn’t a real working solution at hand if you take ALL religions into consideration and try to apply them in matters of policies and public life.

At the end of the day, science and facts from credible sources are the standards that we have to fall back on. At the end of the day, you can’t teach that say, homosexuality is ‘wrong’ because those are values which not everyone can agree with. It is up to the students’ own families and religious institutions to teach the child those ‘values’. Now, values and ‘facts’ are two different matters. Values says things are either right or wrong. Facts says things as they are. for eg- Anal sex CAN be healthy. Because there are bodies of information leading to that conclusion. Of course, the other facts are true as well, that anal sex may lead to other complications etc etc. So, who is to say whether it’s right or wrong?

Ok? One of the reasons why there is such a big hooha is because people keep mixing up FACTS with VALUES. Facts are science-based. Values are influenced by societies and religions.

AWARE’s stance then, really is to stay away from all these issues of values and present the facts as they are. It is up to the individual (and his own religious and family background/influence) to decide for himself/herself if gayness is bad or if anal sex is morally wrong. It presents the facts. The individual judges based on his/her values. There is nothing ‘exclusive’ about this. In fact, it is inclusive because it has given the individual the INFORMATION TO MAKE UP HIS MIND.

NOT providing information is EXCLUSION. and censorship. And that is what people who are against the CSE are really trying to do.

This is a re-post (TOC, can pls remove earlier one – thanks)

Zefly,

This is indeed news to me, and if your argument is what a secular society represents, then I have nothing more to add.

Correct me if I am wrong. My reading of what you have just posted implies that a secular society operates based on facts from science and credible sources and excludes the influence of values from society and religions. I am still trying to figure out how to use ‘inclusive’ in such a definition.

For argument’s sake, let’s take it that you are correct in your assessment. Does it then not merit some sort of intervention from society and religions should the ‘factual’ dissemination of ‘factual’ information go against the values of the larger community? Can the larger value-based community stand up and voice their disapproval to such ‘factual’ informations being thrust upon them as if they are values to uphold and embrace?

So you see, Zefly, the problem started with the blurring of this line, which you have described as fact-based vs value-based. The fact-based doctrine has eaten into the value-based doctrine. A fight is therefore inevitable. It just so happened that a group of self-righteous women decided that they wanted to fight their value-based inclinations they way they did, simply to uphold their values.
We are not going into the manner of takeover and the deception bit, I hope.

heh heh, “principalities of darkness was evident in the EGM meeting” @ NHC post 209.

Thanks for not even trying to couch your argument so that its accessible and acceptable to all Singaporeans, including secular, rational Singaporeans, or muslims, or hindus, buddhists, taoists etc.

Will all respect to you, NHC, well-intentioned but clueless religious types are a real danger to Singapore. As a true blue Singaporean, its heartbreaking to see how some Singaporeans can be so thoughtless as to the cultural make-up of our country. PLease don’t take the stability of our country for granted, please? Do you still not understand, even after all the Ministers have spoken, after NCCS has spoken, after all the other moderate religions have spoken, after Derek Hong’s half-hearted apology, that once any religion starts pushing to impose its absolute views on the rest of Singapore, that other religions will be forced to push back? And that this cannot be good for Singapore? Since absolute religious values just cannot be reconciled with each other? Do you want to create strife, tension, suspicion?

What is it about the above that you cannot understand? Please, its my country so stop trying so hard to screw it up!

I am very happy to explain this to you privately, in simpler language, and with diagrams if need be.

Whatever happened to Watchman and his ultra vires views?

Anyone know if anyone filing any application as per what Watchman has been talking abt.

Or have the scales fallen from the eyes of Watchman. Praise the Observer!

“…that once any religion starts pushing to impose its absolute views on the rest of Singapore, that other religions will be forced to push back?” ; observer.

This is a misquote to suit what you wanted to say. I believe Minister Teo CH intended his message for both parties, that when one party pushes its views too hard, the other party would push back. There was no mention of religion in his remark (do correct me if I am wrong).

Just as Josie and her members had push the old guards too hard when unfairly taking over the society, so did the old guards pushed their agenda (CSE) too hard that resulted in Josie and members resorting to what they did just to make their point.

In order to learn anything from this saga, both parties must now step back and see what went wrong and what can be improved upon. No point continuing squabbling over the small stuff. The old guards missed the opportunity, and failed its members terribly, when they did not pursue the course that would put all doubts to rest. They were only interested in reclaiming their baby, never for one moment, intending to learn anything from the loss.

[...] space and indeed, the values we hold dear have all come to the forefront in recent times. First the assertion that religion (and by that, also their views on homosexuality) encroaching on secular space. [...]

Hi Germani #220,

“Does it then not merit some sort of intervention from society and religions should the ‘factual’ dissemination of ‘factual’ information go against the values of the larger community?”

But what is the values of the larger community? One of the key contentious point of an issue like homosexuality for eg, is that two values are in conflict here. And I’m not talking about the values of two separate monolithic camps here. I’m talking about the same two opposing values in an individual.

The values of ‘morality’ vs the value of respecting and giving equal rights usually exist in the same person, to different degrees! Which is why, for eg, the BIble has been used by BOTH camps, and if we completely exclude every other source of info (including the context under which the passages were written), we can see that the Bible easily lends itself to either argument.

See, if you ask ANYBODY whether their should be equal rights for all, the most likely answer you get is a resounding yes.

Then if you ask about gay marriage etc etc, you get different answers. I have given you, in a comment in an earlier article for eg, how valuing the sanctity of life and the right of a person to abortion can exist in the same person.

In the same vein, we cannot take this ‘values’ of the larger community at face value. They are not monolithic.

NEXT, I would tell you something I came across in a esteemed bookstore on the day of the EOGM, as an example of how difficult it is to enforce something based on some aggregate values of society-

I came across this graphic novel of bible stories, from old testament to new. Ordinarily, there isn’t anything wrong with it, except, when at the end, there is an additional chapter about how the writer hopes the Word of God will reach people.

In the chapter, a person with an obviously muslim name in what could easily pass of as a middle-eastern country, came across the book, buys it and upon reading, decides to become a Christian. The established religious figures in that place, obviously modelled on buddhist monks, opposed him preaching. So the abbot decided to burn down his church while he was preaching. In the ensuing chaos, both died and went to heaven to be judged. That is when the abbot was told reincarnation was a lie, and he was cast to hell.

To be honest, that chapter alone offends me on many levels. And I’m pretty sure it will offend many people who came across it.

Now I ask you – would you write to MITA and ask for the book to be removed from the shelf? Or would you keep the book on the shelf?

The answer to that question would go a long way in answering many things you asked.

Dear Gemani

Firstly a Christian Run Theocratic State has as bad a historical track record as a Muslim Run One. Gemani no one is objecting to having people of any faith of any calling having their views, no one is objecting to Josie and TSM’s right to articulate those views, what we are objecting to is the take over or hijack of a secular NGO which did not share the views of the christian moralists to begin with.

Gemani at some basic fundamental level all religions disagree with one another, over who is god, whether there is god, who are god’s servants, whether god is one or three, feminine or male etc etc etc. If everyone fights everything everyday on a faith based basis then Singapore will be unlivable. Have u seen for example what Christian Evangelical Leaders have said about Muslims in the US ? For faiths to live together there must be compromise on the part of both the flock and the leaders..

Thats is the basic reason why a fact based secular society serves as the neutral meeting ground for faiths of all religions to come together and disagree.

Secularism defines a space whereby all these disagreements all these differing voices have a say, make their case and then finally at some point compromising and agreeing to disagree.

Cherian called it right, the takeover of aware was not about having a healthy no of voices, the take over of aware was to SHUT UP an existing voice which they disagreed with.

Those who disagree with the old position of aware are entitled to compromise their views but knowing their pro family pro life pro abstinence mindset I believe them not capable of it.

However nothing stops them from setting up a competing society NGO and that gurantees diversity.

Should meat eaters join an NGO promoting vegetarinism and hijack it ? What were they doing there to begin with ?

Locke

204) observer on May 6th, 2009 12.43 am

1″I didn’t post the rest of Art 9 because it is long and the requirements on the quorum are completely irrelevant for your purposes, since there is no doubt that they were met.”

Transparency is key in any civilized debate. Just because Article 9 is allegedly “long” is not a valid excuse for not posting it.

2″Sigh, but if you so insist, Art 9 is as follows:

“The management of the society is vested in a general meeting of the members presided over by the President.” <– I have touched on this alrdy.

“At least one quarter of the total membership of the society or 25 members whichever is the lesser, present at a general meeting shall form a quorum. In the event of there being no quorum, the meeting shall be adjourned to the same day at a later time at the same place and should the number then present be insufficient to form a quorum, those present shall be considered a quorum, but they shall have no power to alter, amend or make additions to any of the existing rules”.

Are you sure this is the complete Article 9 of the Aware’s Constitution? Are there no more Sections under Article 9?

If so what did the legal counsel of the new exco say that under Article 9 a vote of no confidence was not binding. Why would he say that if the Article 9 that you just posted mentions absolutely nothing about ‘voting”?

According to you Article 9 deals substantively only with rules of holding a meeting, quorum and adjournment. Are you sure we are on the right page?

3″Now please tell me how this is relevant?”

Are you implying that the legal counsel for the new exco was wrong and you are right?

4″All this while you were ranting on about ultra vires and the Constitution and you don’t even have a copy with you? ”

I think its you who are ranting. Show me, if you can, where did I mention the term “ultra vires” in any of my posts.

5″Can we take it that you’ve never read it before this?”

If I have why would I ask you to post Article 9. Now that the Article 9 you posted is not relevant to “elections of officers” can you please post the Article dealing with elections of officers and holding of EOGM.

And please answer the questions I posed before as follows if we are going to have a transparent debate:

a) And please advise if an “Election of Officers” in Aware can be legally held iaw its constitution when the exco had yet to resign, if there were no notice given and if the Election of Officers was not part of the EOGM’s Agenda?

b)According to the ROS,”In carrying out their activities, societies not only have to abide by the rules of their own respective constitutions, but also the prevailing laws in Singapore.” Did Aware conduct the Election of Officers iaw the rules of its constitution?”

Any pro bono advice, learned counsel?

Josie lau is a heroine for launching a hostile takeover of AWARE?More likely that she and that group of fundamentalists are thick-skinned and not even fire can burn through the thickness of their skin.

gemami re #222

Josie and gang did what they did because not happy with CSE manual on homosexuality and anal sex being described as normal. They were peeing on the wrong tree. They shld have peed on MoE.

All is not lost.

They lost the battle to control AWARE. But in so doing, they raised public awareness of issues that cannot and should not ever be “neutral” in a place like S’pore: at least, not until, Damien Siow, AWARE OG and the GLBT militants change society’s views.

Help That Scary Mummy, Josie etc by getting yr friends etc to sign the petition to MoE. Do something for what you believe in.

Bill Maher has commented many times about Religion and Politics. Much of the conversation is beginning to happen to us now, let us be aware of what could happen to us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqNbZKIQUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08faadshLvg

(222)
“In order to learn anything from this saga, both parties must now step back and see what went wrong and what can be improved upon. No point continuing squabbling over the small stuff. The old guards missed the opportunity, and failed its members terribly, when they did not pursue the course that would put all doubts to rest. They were only interested in reclaiming their baby, never for one moment, intending to learn anything from the loss.”

This issue was never even about the CSE in the first place. What I am very angry about is that a sex education programme that is only a very small part of what AWARE does is made into an excuse or reason to destroy an organisation that has many other purposes and functions.

Here is why I DON’T trust Thio, Josie Lau and her team -
- Their total lack of understanding as to what AWARE is about.
- Their being motivated only by AWARE’s sex education and its messages
- Their installation of CCTV in a premise that is a safe place for abused women.
- Their allowing their husbands to lounge in a space that is used for counselling abused women and women in trauma.
- Their sacking of former staff without good justification and reasons
- Their total arrogance in taking over an NGO and thinking they can run it when they have zero experience.
- Their lack of EQ in handling the EGM.

Contrary to what you have said, the old AWARE did not disappoint us who voted for it. AWARE was not just all about sex education for teenagers. This is not about reclaiming a baby. The old staff worked hard to keep a free legal clinic running, affordable counselling services without a RELIGIOUS agenda, a space where abused women could turn to and advocated rights and a space for women. There is no glory to be had in all these works. If Josie and her team showed themselves capable of providing all these services to women in need, why not? BUT they haven’t. They have no clue what an NGO is about, and all they could rely on are people who vote them for religious reasons.

Wow….some of the women AWARE participants can be MPs if they join PAP or SDP,etc lah !

Obamaosamalekas

197) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on May 5th, 2009 11.16 pm

1″Curious seems to really like the Eagles album… everytime say Hell freezes over…”

No, I like ABBA’s song entitled “One of us is crying, one of us is lying.”

Hell freezes over means eternity and a day, or simply, “no way Jose”.

@ la nausée #200 – thanks. I think (but please correct me if I misunderstand) we agree that the NMP scheme is where we start to blur the line between the CSO space and the representative character of Parliament.

This is my fundamental difficulty – I can accept that CSOs have a legitimate role (Cherian, yourself and others make the point persuasively). But the strict conceptual dichotomy between civil society and political activity is pierced in reality at many points and is in fact actually porous due to the NMP scheme and other crossovers between the spaces.

So I would respectfully argue that the posited absolute freedom a CSO has from being representative of society at large is only permissible if its activities do not then impinge in a significant way (and there’s some degree of judgment here) upon the political scene of society; for example by formenting division along religious grounds. And here I certainly take no side in who is to blame.

While we may disagree on how fragile our society is and how tolerant of diverse viewpoints; it is probably not an exaggeration to say that the AWARE saga has been divisive – not so much in terms of the opposing views (I agree that consensus is not an absolute aim in itself) but in the tone of the dialogue/ polemic; the raw emotions it has unleashed in both camps and the dwindling of reasoned argument (which I have no problem with – and btw I enjoy reading your views).

The move away from the difficult real world of rationality and compromise to the simplistic black/white world of emotive single-issue CSOs with their single is what really worries me for Singapore – not the disagreement itself. Quite a lot of historical parallels with other societies in which the gradual erosion of reasoned thought preceded their decline.

230) eh on May 6th, 2009 4.17 pm

“- Their lack of EQ in handling the EGM.”

So mob rule, death threats and storming of the Bastille and hooliganism was positive EQ? Don’t make me laugh, heh heh! Some people can’t recognize the Truth if its turns around and bite them in the gluteus maximus.

234) Curious on May 6th, 2009 8.13 pm

‘mob rule, death threats and storming of the Bastille and hooliganism’

mob rule? Actually, the terms ’strong-arm tactics’ and ‘dirty tricks’ would be more appropriate – keeping members in the dark about the EGM agenda, trying to muzzle free speech ( ‘Shut up and sitdown’ and turning off the mikes), threatening to throw out members because they raise questions the Ex-co can’t answer, illegally spending thousands of charitable funds, dismissing loyal staff without valid reasons, sending Ex-co members not from their church elsewhere while they hold a press conference, making members queue up for hours to get in while the red-shirts simply sail through etc. etc.

death threats? Ple-e-a-se, we’ve heard it all before, didn’t FM’s daughter claim to receive the same? if it was really true, FM and Gang would have had on bullet-proof vests, and arranged for a bullet-proof screen for the (ousted) Ex-co. And how come no real police at the EGM but pte guards hired with AWARE’s (illegally pilfered) money?

storming the Bastille? the only ‘Bastille’ stormed was the ousted Ex-co, constitutionally and legitimately. Rightly too. (And anyone who doesn’t believe this should file a legal suit rather than whine and gripe about Article 9)

hooliganism? agreed. Sally Tan was a hooligan, and so was the red-shirted volunteer who shoved the ex-Aware and now-rehired staff who was exercising her constituional right to attend the EGM as an AWARE member.

#204) observer on May 6th, 2009 12.43 am

Observer, I implore you to stop educating Curious. You can see that he is indeed a furious Curious. So let’s not dissuade him from building up his case and taking it to the courts. After all, lawyers need the kind of fat fees that Curious will be paying.

And after the fun and games at the EGM , its kinda boring now and a lawsuit by Curious would be just the thing to spice up the day. Assuming of course that he’s not just hot air.

So Curious, go ahead leh! We are all waiting for your legal challenge. But are you sure you want to do that? After all, the voting at the EGM was democratic wasn’t it? Come on, move on. (Snicker)

Curious,

ABBA is so… gay. Which is kinda ironic…

actually we should just shut up and sit down. cos these purported moralists type much more faster and furious than any of us – keyboard outshouting and sticking to a single mantra. very wearing to engage in reasonable debate, we can see where their tradition comes from.

i’m oso quite scared.. Curious has a very aggressive Truth that has a habit of biting people .. where??? lol..

239) eh on May 6th, 2009 11.00 pm

“i’m oso quite scared.. Curious has a very aggressive Truth that has a habit of biting people .. where??? lol..”

Don’t make me laugh, hehheh. You are a real joker. Truth does not have a habit that can’t cure those who tell lies. It just bites them in the gluteus maximus and most of you won’t even know it.

And now that the MOE has come to its senses and suspended the errant Aware CSE I must celebrate with a drink. Yay !!! Champagne anyone?

237) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on May 6th, 2009 10.48 pm

“Curious, ABBA is so… gay. Which is kinda ironic…”

I thought that would please a lot of folks with gender indentity crisis but it is the song not the singer that counts. “One of us is crying, one of us is lying…” aka Josh.

Now that Aware has got its water cut off, I guess the CSE can be shredded and sent to Timbaktoo for burial. The mainstream valuse will always prevail. Get use to it.

Correction : The mainstream value will always prevail. Get use to it.

235) Uncurious on May 6th, 2009 9.37 pm

1″mob rule? Actually, the terms ’strong-arm tactics’ and ‘dirty tricks’ would be more appropriate ”

Not true. Actually the accurate description for the May 2nd day of infamy is mob rule, hooliganism, lynching party by the fringe lunatics, storming of the Bastille and the unconstitutional election of officers before the exco resigned.

2″death threats? Ple-e-a-se, we’ve heard it all before, didn’t FM’s daughter claim to receive the same? if it was really true, FM and Gang would have had on bullet-proof vests,”

I read the police reports have been lodged.

But though Josie and her brave colleagues did not win the battle with the mob they have won the war and the MOE has suspended Aware’s errant CSE as “too explicit and inappropriate”.

So eat your hearts out because mainstream values will always prevail in good olde Singapore.

224) Zefly,

You have just drawn up an excellent case on why one segment of society cannot push too hard. You speak of the conflict of values within one embodiment of self. Put it together with the fact-based vs value-based context and you get an even bigger problem. So you see, it is of paramount importance that a secular society has to thread with utmost care and caution. This has to be the primary concern when dealing with the multi-mix of what the society is made up of.

We are getting a clearer and clearer picture as the day go by and we are now hearing that MOE has rescinded its support for the CSE program run by AWARE. The thing is, Dana has been quoted as saying she finds nothing wrong with the program “because we have been running it for the past two years”. She is turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the actions of MOE, not questioning why MOE finds it necessary to pull out its support, and not listening to the currently 7000 online voices crying out for a better understanding of the CSE program.

Let us not suffer the small stuff and play the name-calling and put-you-down game. Let us now assess what the new-old-AWARE is going to do after enduring this painful saga. Are they going to learn from it or are they going to pretend that takeover was just a nightmarish dream that had already come to pass?

Mind you, no matter how we squabble over here, no matter how one group of supporters lord over another, the fact remains that there are now no less that 700 AWARE members who belong to the Josie camp – members who are pro-Christian, pro-values, pro-life, anti-alternative lifestyles. This is the truth.

To add to this, you can be sure that these 700 members will be doing all they can to make life difficult for the new-old-exco. Can we say the same for the 1414 members who supported the old guards? Will they be there to give support to the old guards whenever the need arises? These should be your concern. These are the concerns the supporters of the old guards should be spending their time and energy on. Continuing to squabble here over an issue that had already being decided is not productive and plain useless.

Who will have the last laugh? This is the question.

Hi 225) lockeliberal,

I thank you for the points you brought up and I agree that in a secular society, the ideal formula is fact-based. Unfortunately, as I am sure you will agree, life is far from ideal. I have opined and limited my opinion of value-base to the values espoused by religions. I have not even touched on the cultural values, racial values, traditional values, personal values etc embodied in each individual. When you put all these into the pot, you cannot pretend to say that fact-based will be the successful formula and is still the way to go. The different bases must, invariably, be interlinked – these bases that go into the composition of the society at large.

Sigh, gemami, since you haven’t given me an answer regarding the example of the offending chapter in the book, i shall presume that you don’t exactly have a very good answer to that…

Now, some people would believe that what is illustrated in the chapter is true, there is nothing wrong with what’s there. But suppose I am a Buddhist parent, (and the book is most likely aimed at kids) and I take great offense at the portrayal of monks being evil and cast to hell for their belief in reincarnation, would you agree that I should get the support of many offended buddhist parents and write to MITA to have the book banned from the shelves? Mind you, I can say it promotes hate for the Buddhist community.

But as a Christian yourself, would you agree that it is right of me and say, 7000 buddhists to forbid the transmission of, in your opinion, ‘factual’ information?

Zefly, I am surprised that you are asking for the offending chapter. It has been widely made known, the old guards have commented on it, MOE is looking into it and here you are asking a kuching-kurap like me to show you that part of the book this is now creating this raging aftershock.

You have given me another illustration and with it, it gives me more reason to ask you to consider for one moment, whether the sentiments of the Buddhist ought to have been taken into consideration. Who can fault the Buddhist parent (in your illustration) should he decide to take the course of action you mentioned?

Alao, you are being overly clever to attribute my opinion on another matter, that is the manner of takeover by Josie and team, and to use the term ‘factual information’ for this issue. No brother, the fact here is that the AWARE CSE program teaches uncorrupted minds that acts attributed to being a gay , a lesbian and a homosexual is perfectly normal. This is furthest from being ‘factual information’.

And guess what else? The offending part was first told to us that it constituted 30 minutes of the whole lesson. Then it became ‘a small part’. It further became a ‘5 minute part’. Now I am hearing that it is only 3 minutes. Has anyone bothered to take on these discrepencies?

Erm… Germami,

I was referring to the book I came across at the bookstore in #225. You can go back and re-read the comment carefully.

Your answer to the question will go a long way into answering the issues surrounding the CSE.

Gemami

(TOC pls delete my earlier long post that you didn’t want to put up)

a secular society is not fact based.

I assume we agree that religions in general have codes of morals and beliefs that are un-falsifiable. They are mostly based on religious texts, scriptures, oral traditions and derive their sole justification from these. As such, between religion to religion, we have contradictory and conflicting values that range from daily life habits to moral systems. The fact is that there is no way to mitigate between the conflicts of moral viewpoints between particular religions given that their justification lies only in the interpretation of texts and are entirely un-falsifiable.

Now, this would perhaps not matter should Singapore be comprised of only one homogeneous religious group (considering that even with each religion, there is a diversity of views and interpretations). But the fact is that we are a plural society, made up of a largely diverse religious population.

Given that there is no way we could ever hope to reconcile the often contradictory values of the various religions, or even to get them to come to terms (seeing that they are not falsiable nor open to refutation, only re-interpretations), the only way a plural society could achieve stability is to be secular, i.e. resting its basis of governance and civil laws on common interests of the people.

To continue:

Secular governance and secular society based on democracy (which we are supposed to be) have this overarching goal – to ensure that every individual has the means and rights to live a good life as he/ she deems fit, on the condition that he/she does not cause injury to others with his/ her interpretation of a good life.

Now this is exactly why what you term ‘a religion with no religion’ must be louder and takes more prominence and stage than every other religion, because this is the only framework by which each religious individual is free to practice his/ her beliefs as he sees fit, and not threaten other religious groups with very different agendas or takes on the same issues. To call this a ‘religion’ would be very wrong since this is not a framework built on unfalsifiable texts, but rather an understanding that without such a framework, to live in peace is impossible.

and:

Aware is a liberal, secular organization, and it is established based on the belief in individual choices. It is not a national organization and does not profess to speak for all women in Singapore. There are many more women’s organizations in Singapore, including the Young Women’s Christian Organisation. Every civil society organization has a different agenda and different purpose.

Likewise, Aware rests its foundation on secularism and liberalism. Its purpose is to propagate liberal ideas to women, i.e. helping those women who turn to it to move on and live a good life as they so define. Inclusiveness simply means that it offers it services to anyone regardless of their background etc.

Since Aware sets itself up to be a secular organization, its aims cannot rest on religious morals or take into account a consensus of all the moral values in Singapore and coming up with one that pleases all religious groups. Its role is very simple, to advocate for women’s civil rights in Singapore’s civil laws, to help women who are in need to make informed choices based on the secular premise that they can choose how to live their lives. This is why it is important religious overtones must be absent in Aware’s functions and services.

The manner of taking over Aware is crucial here. As I have mentioned earlier, Aware is not the only women’s group in Singapore. You said ‘Well, who has been ‘imposing’ for the past 24 years.” How is that imposing? With a membership of only 200 or even 300, how could you say that it is imposing?” There are many other women groups in Singapore, and many are faith-based. This is not the only group in Singapore with an agenda. Every civil society group has a particular agenda.
What is very outrageous here is the fact that a particular church of a particular denomination decides to silence a group that holds contradictory views to its own. It does not seek to discuss, negotiate or offer an alternative. It does not choose to set up another group to advocate its own views. Rather, it assumes that it has the moral authority to silence alternative views because of its self-righteousness. The very manner in which this religious group chooses to air its views and uphold its values is the issue here – tantamount to saying ‘Because you think differently from me, I will not allow you to have a voice anymore.’ – or ‘Shut up and sit down’. As a secular society, we should not, and cannot allow such a thing to happen.

one more thing – go read locke’s Letter of toleration. that’s one thing you righteous people sorely need.

“The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.

Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.

It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity, established for the preservation of those things, his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment, consisting of the deprivation or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy.

But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivation of any part of his goods, and much less of his liberty or life, therefore, is the magistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man’s rights.”

John Locke, CHRISTIAN philosopher, 1689.

Dear Eh,

Give me some time to digest your postings. Appreciate the trouble you put in to share your thoughts with me. I shall reply in good time. Thanks.

(255)

Yes, thanks, looking forward to it.

Meanwhile would be useful if you refer to JS MIll. I really think the foundations of a theocratic state and a democratic (much as we are not really one) one are very very different, and we need to figure out where we stand on if there is ever going to be a discussion.

Dear eh,

Let’s imagine a different scenario : A group of ladies (parents) from, say Keppel Club are very concerned with the Sexuality Education that is being promoted by AWARE and they comes from diverse backgrounds and religious groups. They decided to join AWARE and contest the election so that they can make a change to the development there. Now the concerns are still the same but it is a different group makeup now. What will your comments be now ?

(256)
Define ‘make a change’.

Does it include sacking the present staff and volunteers, locking the venue, changing the fundamental premise of liberalism?

Define the ‘group’.

Do they know anything about aware other than the CSE? Do they share the same agenda that AWARE does – informed choices based on liberalism?

(256)
If I don’t like the way churches preach against anal sex, should I get a bunch of pro-anal sex activists and takeover the churches the same way? Shall I actively shut up people who don’t like anal sex?

@eh, I agree wholeheartedly with all you’ve said, except for your very last sentence in this passage:

What is very outrageous here is the fact that a particular church of a particular denomination decides to silence a group that holds contradictory views to its own. … As a secular society, we should not, and cannot allow such a thing to happen.

I would argue that the word “secular” should be replaced with adjectives like “liberal”, “democratic or “tolerant”. The very same outrage would have been committed if an avowedly secular group tried to suppress the activities of a church or some other religious organization. In either scenario, you would have one group of citizens infringing the “civil interests” of others, in particular, their right to speak and act by the dictates of their conscience.

Also, I’d like to add that the principle of toleration is not founded simply on our desire for self-preservation within a plural, potentially fractious, society. It also has a positive aspect: we respect an individual’s dignity and capacity for self-determination when we permit her to pursue her own conception of the good life, even if we think she is mistaken. Only then do we recognize her as a morally responsible, autonomous person. It follows that a liberal society must, to a certain degree, accommodate a right to speak and do wrong.

just want to inform you all some key figures among the church leadership in Singapore supports Josie’s cause but not her actions. How shocking!

That is what you get when you put a whole bunch of women together in a psuedo position of authority. Drama more then a whole season of CSI.

Hi Eh,

I’ll try to reply to your comments in 3 parts. Hopefully TOC will allow them.

Part One…

Allow me to point out some discrepancies and align them to my perspective.

“ They are mostly based on religious texts, scriptures, oral traditions and derive their sole justification from these. ” :Eh.

I won’t say ’sole’ but rather ‘main’. There is the Divine aspect to consider as well, that leads to eternal salvation.

“As such, between religion to religion, we have contradictory and conflicting values that range from daily life habits to moral systems. “: Eh.

Conflicting practises, not conflicting values. I cannot place value on a community that is still not yet being accepted into mainstream society. It is key to remember this.

“But the fact is that we are a plural society, made up of a largely diverse religious population.” :Eh.

It is good to keep to the focus of pluralism. This is why you do not see one religion trying to impose its ‘unfalsifiable’ interpretations on another, very unlike the imposition of the GLBT community, with its own derived-at ‘unflasifiable’ theology which you have also correctly pointed out that its framework is built not on ‘unfalsifiable texts’.

I agree that it cannot be classified a religion but I was making the point that it was advocating the acceptance of their ‘unflasifiable’ practices, in equal measure with one who espouses a mainstream religion. The conflict arises from here.

“… the only way a plural society could achieve stability is to be secular, i.e. resting its basis of governance and civil laws on common interests of the people.” : Eh.

Very true. So now we argue over the definition of ’secular’. It does not mean the exclusion of religious considerations, or the cultural values, the traditional values, racial considerations and ethnic norms and practises. Secular cannot be allowed to tug at the foundations that supports the core values that make up the social fabric of a society.

It is perhaps good to note that a secular society in the Oriental Asian context is very different to the secular nature of the Western world where there is less emphasis on traditions and where there is a main common national identity, very much different from that of multi-mix Singapore.

Secular, in Singapore, has to be a mixture of all these considerations, to find a common ground, so to speak. And in Singapore, this common ground excludes the segment of society that believes in same-sex marriages and GLBT.

“Part 2…”

“ Aware is a liberal, secular organization, and it is established based on the belief in individual choices.” : Eh.

I have some questions based on this statement.
1. How liberal is ‘liberal’?. Are there ‘liberal’ differences between say, the Western community to the Asian community? What about liberalism in the racial context? We cannot deny that majority of Singaporeans are value and faith-driven. Equally so with racially, culturally and tradition-driven values.
2. How secular is ’secular’ given the high-pressure force applied by the GLBT community supported by AWARE?
3. Why isn’t there a GLBT society to better represent them, instead of riding on the coat-tails of AWARE, just like the call for Josie to start a Pro-Life and Pro-Family Society of her own?
4. Why is “the belief in individual choices’ not applied to those who do not belong to the mainstream, who are faith-driven, value-driven etc? Excluding them is as good as going against the secular nature that is being preached.

“ Its role is very simple, to advocate for women’s civil rights in Singapore’s civil laws,” : Eh.

And Singapore’s civil law clearly does not cater to the GLBT community and its practises more than the mainstream segments of society. The nature by which AWARE has been advocating women’s right, cannot include the manner in which they have prepared their CSE programme. Placing the onus on parents to opt-out is a clear indication of subtle infiltration. It ought to have been an opt-in instead, if it wants to show that it is working within civil laws.

“ This is why it is important religious overtones must be absent in Aware’s functions and services.” : Eh.

This is debatable depending on which side of the interpretation of ‘Secular’ you are on. It is also debatable whether religious overtures do in fact play a part in the decision making process, depending on the religious inclinations of each member making these decisions.

“Every civil society organisation has a different agenda and different purpose” : Eh.

True, and most have remained within the realm and parameters of what they stand for. Unfortunately, AWARE’s agenda has seeped into mainstream society, and to put it bluntly, has infiltrated and corrupted young and innocent minds with its ‘falsified’ notion of right & wrong, and, normal & normal (no typo here).

“…it is not a national organisation.” : Eh.

Even so, it is behaving like one, whether intentionally or otherwise is subject to open discussion. What we cannot deny is the fact that some of its past members have sat on national institutions, no less the highest office in the land, Parliament. So the ‘national’ connection is inevitable. It is even more important for AWARE to realise this, and its undertakings must go on to reflect this important and precarious situation it has brought upon itself.

“Part 3“…

“I>The manner of taking over Aware is crucial here.” :Eh.

I have no quarrel with those who had been baying for blood regards the manner of takeover. I am on their side. However, the emphasis of the takeover, if we are to learn anything from it, is the underlying reason why the takeover had taken place.

On the one hand, we have a group of supporters painting it as an attempt by a religious group to conquer a non-religious group. On the other hand, we have another group of supporters believing the takeover is necessary to send a loud and clear signal that mainstream society is at risk of the ‘falsified’ notions that are being perpetuated by a non-religious body. Whether we think each one’s reason is valid or not to support their actions, the fact remains that something is not right. What is it that is not right?

So I agree with the statement that the takeover is crucial, only for us to understand why things played out the way it did. This is however, an incident-based episode that cannot be taken as a reflection of the general tolerance level of society at large.

I am surprise that you take your reference from the father of liberalism. Here is a man who argued that “ only churches that teach toleration are to be allowed in his society“. He further argued; “ The Roman Catholic Church can not be tolerated either, because ‘all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince’“.

This is found in the aforementioned Letter of tolerance.

Dear Eh, it may be interesting for you to note that the way I see your writings, is that, it is very much in line with what I think your idea of an idealistic society ought to be. I have said this many times before, what is ideal may not be real. In short, your argument is a case of Idealism vs Reallism.

Your ideal society is one that is all-encompassing, all-embracing, all-tolerant. It is good and it is something all societies must strive for. Unfortunately, we have to be realistic and be content to be a realist.

The real world operates, at least in Singapore, by a set of laws, civil laws to govern our day to day activities. And these activities have clearly excluded the segment of society that AWARE so wants to represent. No problem with this undertaking, but it must operate within the confines and constraints of this reality.

John Locke’s philosophy of an inclusive society took centuries to come into effect. Singapore’s ‘alternative’ society will just have to move just as slowly. This is the reality.

#260. What’s so shocking? That is nothing surprising at all. Besides, most Muslim leaders would also support her cause and not her actions. Both the Bible & Quran prohibit homosexual behaviour.

@gemami, if I may (not too presumptuously, I hope) reply to your last point… the goal of a liberal, tolerant society is a profoundly pragmatic one in the context of Singapore, precisely because we’re so culturally plural.

The only way that we, as a community, can legitimately claim the authority to impose a uniform set of civil laws on every citizen, even if they disagree, is if these laws (1) are arrived at after a full democratic debate in which all views are heard; (2) represent a consensus of reasonably acceptable views from a broad cross-section of society; (3) continue, over time, to be supported by such a moral consensus.

This means that, even if we legislatively exclude the activities of a certain segment of the population (e.g., through 377A), they still have a prima facie right of moral protest, subject to general public order considerations. The debate must go on.

I’d also add that a government which seeks to legislate ‘public morality’ without limits is cutting away the ground from under its feet. A law which is justified on the basis of the moral good of society presupposes that that society is composed of morally responsible, autonomous agents, capable of choosing good or evil, right or wrong. We recognize this moral responsibility only by acknowledging a private domain of conscience which is insulated from the State’s views about what is good or right, e.g. on abortion. This is once again an argument for a robust principle of toleration.

Hi #266) la nausée

I am glad you talk about being liberal and pragmatic in the same breath. This is what I am suggesting. That the conditions surrounding our drive toward liberalism is clouded and restrained by our values. Values that stemmed from our multi-mix of races, religions, cultures, traditions and ethnicity.

Unlike the established and well-defined foundations of the Western form of liberalism, where a ‘new-comer’ could just walk in to embrace it, we cannot say the same for Singapore. We are getting there, but not quite yet. We need to understand this when championing the cause of liberalism.

Interesting also that you mentioned penal code 377A. 377A is the remnant of penal code 377, which was repealed in 2007. Why did a pragmatic government found it necessary to retain this portion of the penal code? Now if one is governed by pragmatism, then one ought to abide by the pragmatic law and accept that going against it is illegal and a crime.

Tell me then, in this context, is the CSE programme of educating our young boys and girls that same sex copulation is perfectly normal. How does one describe such behaviour? You can protest, you can assemble, you can state your case, but what you cannot do is to take it upon yourself, self-interpret that a secular and liberal society ought to be all-embracing, all-tolerant and therefore all-accepting even to the extend of listening to a strange and queer doctrine.

This is one of the points I have been trying to bring across. This is the ‘infiltration’ I have spoken of. Pound for pound, the infiltration of Josie and her members are no different. Can we not see this? A blatant lie or a subtle lie – what is the difference?

So then, when pragmatism is not able to address those segments of society, the grey areas, then what do we do? We take our cue from the government of the day, who have deliberated in their professional capacities and we adhere to those ‘pragmatic’ solutions or boundaries. So we are back at square one. And this is what it is.

The Singapore LGBT community is an evolving one and until such time when all these underlying values that are embellished in every individual is thrown away, society will never see the segment of society as its equal. This is the cold hard fact. And this is what the LGBT community is up against. The sooner they understand this, the better.

Germami,

“This is why you do not see one religion trying to impose its ‘unfalsifiable’ interpretations on another, very unlike the imposition of the GLBT community, with its own derived-at ‘unflasifiable’ theology which you have also correctly pointed out that its framework is built not on ‘unfalsifiable texts’.”

Let’s take a closer look at what you said-

Your premise has extended beyond the Christian fundamentalist view to now include all of the ’silent conservatives’. However, once again, unless we take a straw poll of everyone on the street, there is no way to safely conclude that the majority’s views on homosexuality conforms to yours. What we’ve been hearing so far are views from the vocal ‘conservatives’, claiming to speak for most people.

Next – you seem to have turned the tables to say that it is now the GLBT community who are imposing their ‘theology’ on the rest of society. The other religions do not try to impose their ‘falsifiable’ intepretations on others.

Wrong.

We have to first understand in these context what it means by impose. Impose as an action requires the dominance of one view at the EXCLUSION of another. In this context, we can say that the actions of the extreme right wing has always been about imposition. The view that homosexuality is wrong has to dominate, and no contrary view allowed to exist.

What the GLBT is asking for is the CO-EXISTENCE of their views amidst the marketplace of ideas. They are saying “you may not agree with it, fine. But please let me be heard too.” That is hardly imposition. But your ’silent majority’ are saying, “yes, you can be heard, but only where I can’t hear you.”

And lastly, I’m still awaiting your reply on my question in #225.

The point of contention is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong, or whether it is an “alternative lifestyle” approved by convention.

We live in a society that is a melting pot of diverse cultures and religions – Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism to name the main ones. Each religion treats homosexuality differently, and even within Judaism for ex., the opinions of conservative, orthodox, reform etc jews, differ on subtle points; acceptance but not neccesarily approval of homosexuality, and therefore the accordance of equal rights as congregational members. Buddhism does not explicitly target homosexuality as prohibitive behaviour. Christianity and Islam on the other hand explicitly forbid such acts.

Point is, the CSE program caters to ALL school children across ALL cultures, ALL religions, ALL sexual orientations, ALL income groups, ALL social stratas. It therefore has to appear neutral. Why? So that we do not risk tugging at the delicate threads that hold our diversity together.

4 people in a typically “healthy social unit” as an example: mother, father, children can find themselves relegated to the dysfunctional zone because neither parties seek to understand the other, holding firmly ONLY to the teachings and experiences afforded by the institutions they were brought up in. Just 4 people – 1 social unit. What more 4 billion people?

So IMHO, I feel that our foci should converge on improving the CSE program, keeping one eye on the fact that it has to remain as neutral as possible, in terms of religion and cultural beliefs. Let’s educate the young to not just be sexually aware, but socially aware as well, perhaps?

270) Curious

Correction “In Nazi Germany they used to round them up and shoot them dead !!

Dear #268) Zefly,

Yours is an attempt to narrow the scope to suit what you want to bring across.

Yes, we have been hearing views from all quarters arguing for or against the subject of interest. Yet, your side refuses to acknowledge that LGBT is a grey area of our society. We do not need a straw poll to decide this. We have entrusted the government of the day to discern this for us. It was debated in Parliament, both sides were given ample space to argue their cases and the pragmatic result was one of non-acceptance. Don’t fault me for this.

You read wrongly by suggesting that I was implying that the LGBT community was ‘imposing’ while the larger community is not. I do not know how to convince you if you still do not see the reality of the situation here. It is not for you or me to argue it. The reality is the emphasis on the interests of the larger community – a community which is deemed to be ‘normal’ – to cut a long story short.

To press for the larger community to embrace, accept and adopt same-sex copulation as a norm, as the LGBT community had fought for in 377A, is going against the grain of the mores and values of the larger community – secular or liberal or tolerance notwithstanding.

As for your question, it transcends the realm of spirituality and what you understood from the narration could very well be different what I derive from it.

“As for your question, it transcends the realm of spirituality and what you understood from the narration could very well be different what I derive from it.”

Thank you germami for the none reply.

By your refusal to commit to an easy answer, you have already answered the question.

It’s not an issue of spirituality. It’s back to the issue of ‘tolerance’. What exactly does tolerance mean. Tolerance is an easy word to throw around when there isn’t really contentious or even offensive. In case of the book, the author has the right to his views, that any one who doesn’t share his faith is doomed to hell. And there are some of you (eg Curious) whom would be apt to agree as well. Now, however his views are deeply offensive to some, especially the faiths which he is quite obviously implying with the talk of ‘reincarnation being a lie’.

Again, I repeat, the offended parties could petition for the removal of such books from the public space because it portrays buddhists in a bad light, and may even encourage hate. Suppose that happens. Then what? Christians can then ask for muslim books to be banned from the same reputable bookstore as well because the books say Jesus is not the Son of God… and this can go on, until we only have a narrow ’safe’ unoffensive selection of books.

You cannot answer that question because, assuming your views are the same as the author’s, they are now the offending ones. And you see the injustice if your views are silenced by a petition of 7000 people asking for the book to be removed from circulation.

Let’s not make your case sound holier than what it really is about. The needs of a very vocal bunch of people who do not know how to live alongside views and values that offend them.

Zefly,

It is not about tolerance. It is about intepretation. How else have we been co-existing all these years, of mankind’s existence. It is not tolerance. If it is a question of tolerance, the minority will not have a ghost of a chance.

You know very well, and I have made it quite clear, that where religion or the sipritual aspects of religion is concern, I will not want to enter there. This is because religion cannot be explained in a discourse such as this. It takes years upon years of study and reflection to spiritually divine what is of the spiritual and religious realm.

No brother, we cannot discuss religion. This is why I gave you my answer. The answer is in the non-answer. See?, you cannot understand nor can you grasp this – because it requires a belief in faith.

So then, I say it is a question of interpretation and the interpretation of the society at large, is that this little community of people, whose behaviours and practises are not of the normal descriptive types, as defined by the law of the land, must take its proper place in society. Sad but true, the only course of action they can then take is to slowly win over the trust of the larger community, and they can do this by not threatening the social fabric of that society.

Oh yes, one more thing.

I know you guys have been gloating over your victory over Josie and Co. But I suggest the LGBT community take some time to think over what they have done for themselves to help in the assimilation process.

I think these people, and the Aware old guards in particular, must be gracious enough to thank Josie and Co for what they did to bring attention to this LGBT community. They have done, in 5 weeks, what the old Aware was not able to do in 24 years.

Today, more Singaporeans are more aware of the plight of this group of people than at any time of our 40+ year history. Ironic isn’t it?

“No brother, we cannot discuss religion. ”

Woah. Hold it right there. Weren’t you the one who used the example of the GLBT views as a religion to make your point in the first place?

I’m using what your belief and faith which you hold so dear to illustrate a point my friend. They are allowed to exist in the public space in spite of the fact that they will, and they do, offend some members of society. You can see it easily on a lot of comments here. And yet you not only ask for the right to hold those views, but for us to be tolerant and understanding of them, and also seek for them to exist in the public sphere, on the bookshelves etc etc… AND YET, when it comes to other views which have an equally valid right to exist – eg GLBT’s views that they are normal, you seek to limit them to only a few channels in the public/social dormain?

Sad but true many times the majority decides, and that’s the end of it, but do not try to justify it.

273) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on May 8th, 2009 3.07 pm

“In case of the book, the author has the right to his views, that any one who doesn’t share his faith is doomed to hell. And there are some of you (eg Curious) whom would be apt to agree as well.”

But I am not of the same faith as your mysterious author so how dare you accuse me of agreeing with him !! Where is your credibility?

Maybe the nuance escaped you. Maybe the author was relating a joke, even if it is inappropriate. What is the title of the book?

2″Now, however his views are deeply offensive to some, especially the faiths which he is quite obviously implying with the talk of ‘reincarnation being a lie’.”

I hope you are referring to your mysterious author and not to me saying that “reincarnation is a lie” because I don’t have any such proof yet.

But if you believe in Buddhism then could it be that your previous life your karma was weak , so now you are born and chastened with gender identity crisis?

3″Again, I repeat, the offended parties could petition for the removal of such books from the public space because it portrays buddhists in a bad light, and may even encourage hate. Suppose that happens. Then what?”

That is a non argument. It did not happen and this shows that Singapore is a tolerant society.

In Nazi Germany, they used to round up the gays and shoot them dead!

That is not even remotely contemplated in Singapore, where, though the mainstream civil society quietly don’t approve of homosexuality, it tolerates its chicanery! What more do you want?

Zefly,

I like your style – sometimes – and you seem to have a certain dexterity to narrow things down to suit your argument. I do not think we can align our argument here and I think it is best we call for a truce. Agree to disagree. I’m tired and need to go for a meeting now.

Curious,

“What more do you want?”

Do not presume that the rights of anybody is for you -who thinks he is the majority- to give. It is God given.

“It did not happen and this shows that Singapore is a tolerant society. ”

You exist. It’s not as tolerant as you think it is. Nuff said.

Gemami,

We all do what we can. That’s why it’s called a debate. Besides, as long as it is intelligently argued, we all benefit from differing views. Cheers mate.:)

dear all,

glad to see my short essay got some intelligent discussion. however, this shall be my last post – my mum has decided to regulate my internet usage to 2 hours a day after this aware thing and i think i rather play neopets, facebook and wow than to talk heatedly on a forum.

my parting shots:
1. even if it’s a secular group shutting down a religious group, i will stand up against it. i may not agree with what you are saying but i will defend your right to say it. (beatrice hall)
2. i strongly believe that as long as civil rights of others are not compromised by the actions of one, he should enjoy equal rights under our law. which is why homosexuality cannot be criminalised.
3. yes, singapore is made up of very conservative people and organisations, but let’s keep the conservatism in our own space and give the rest the space to live their lives as they define. that is what a secular, liberal country is about. that is what tolerance is. and that is what i want in my country.

those who seek to impose their readings of morality as a universal absolute, u have to agree to a state where one day we need to abide by the values of every group – no char siew, head scarves for all, fri, sat and sun cannot work (GOOD), and cannot have onions and blah.

k la. dun want to play le.

bye bye!!!!

279) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on May 8th, 2009 5.26 pm

1“What more do you want?”..Curious

“Do not presume that the rights of anybody is for you -who thinks he is the majority- to give. It is God given.”…Zefly.

But are you in heaven yet? If not then you have to obey Singapore’s laws.

Here you only have a right when society owes you a liability. There is a racial minority but there is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in law and therefore society does not owe the fringe lunatics any liability. Yet civil society is tolerant.

As I said in Nazi Germany they rounded them up and shot them dead.

Not in Singapore because we are a civilized society, even when your ilks mired it with mob rule, death threats, hooliganism and despicable behavior on May 2nd.

2“It did not happen and this shows that Singapore is a tolerant society. ”..Curious
“You exist. It’s not as tolerant as you think it is. Nuff said.”…Zefly.

I exist not because I chose to exist and I exist to live a quiet life in the suburb, knowing that there are lunatics all around me and I live and let live. What more do you want?

281) eh on May 8th, 2009 5.48 pm

“glad to see my short essay got some intelligent discussion. ”

If it was lifted from the works of John Locke, CHRISTIAN philosopher, 1689 then how it be eh’s essay? In polite circles it is called boarding on plagiarism.

@gemami, I think I’m probably coming in when the party’s already over, but let me just reply briefly to two extracts from your previous postings.

Tell me then, in this context, is the CSE programme of educating our young boys and girls that same sex copulation is perfectly normal. How does one describe such behaviour? You can protest, you can assemble, you can state your case, but what you cannot do is to take it upon yourself, self-interpret that a secular and liberal society ought to be all-embracing, all-tolerant and therefore all-accepting even to the extend of listening to a strange and queer doctrine.

I think we’ve to distinguish here between three different contexts: government law and policy, the public sphere, and the school environment. The principle of toleration does not mean that our laws must be “all-embracing” and “all-tolerant”; government can legitimately prefer one moral conception over all others, as long as that conception is supported by a reasoned agreement among citizens, arrived at after full debate. This in turn means that our public sphere should be as ‘all-embracing’ as possible. The only way a State can justify its use of coercive force on a person is if it has given him or her ample chances to voice his or her disagreement, before and after legislation. You say this:

To press for the larger community to embrace, accept and adopt same-sex copulation as a norm, as the LGBT community had fought for in 377A, is going against the grain of the mores and values of the larger community – secular or liberal or tolerance notwithstanding.

I disagree. I do not think the mere fact that a group of persons makes certain claims about how they ought to be treated violates community values and mores. 377A means only that a gay man cannot lawfully engage in MSM; it does not mean that he may not lawfully criticize, and mobilize public opinion against, 377A itself.

However, the school environment may well involve different concerns from those prevailing in the public sphere. Our main objective in schools is not to ensure robust political debate, but to build intellect and moral character. We can insist that education (at least for younger students) does not, and ought not, to include the development of political consciousness or independent moral thinking among students, or that this should rank far behind other priorities. So we tell them the mainstream view, “Homosexuality is wrong”, without telling them the counter-arguments defended by an important minority in society, because we don’t think young students can comprehend or assess them.

As you see, I’m highly skeptical of this argument, which I think is putting the conservative position in its best light. Why shouldn’t political and moral self-consciousness be nurtured from a young age? If society divides over the issue of 377A, shouldn’t we let our young ones know a little about both sides of this controversy? (I concede, though, that the phrase “perfectly normal” may swing too far towards a gay-tolerant stance.)

Mr George

This piece deserves a follow up.

Yr take on the reversal of MoE stand on the CSE.

Not often government back-tracks?

Hi #283) la nausée \,

I have no reason to disagree with you and you are right “that a group of persons making certain claims about how they ought to be treated (does not)violate community values and mores“.

No one from the mainstream made a big hoo-haa over penal code 377 when it was repealed and couples can how happily go on and have the type of sex they wanted. Unfortunately for them, there are limitations in the form of article 377A where sex between men is still illegal. There was a parliamentary debate over this and the mainstream community was rather cool to the debate.

However, with the recent developments over the Aware saga, mainstream community are beginning to discover that this small community have been ‘infiltrating’ our education system, in a trojan manner, to advance its cause. The explanation from Dana thus far, is far from convincing.

Yes, some children with gay leanings were taught to deal with their sexual orientations, but mind you, these lessons are taught right in front of a classroom full of otherwise heterosexual kids. In the process of attempting to help these sexually disoriented kids find their identities, do you not think it might just confuse the heterosexual ones?

Taking this example, do you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the reaction will be from mainstream society? It cannot be otherwise. It is the same reaction one would get from a trojan-infiltration.

la nausée, with utmost respect, I would like to point out that it does not matter what the concepts are, whether it is government law or policy, whether it is a public domain or a school domain, whether we are all-embracing and all-tolerant or not, the picture is clear – that majority rules. Period.

In every society, there are many areas of concern, econonic concerns, political concerns, family concerns, employment concerns and the list is a never-ending one. In an Asian society, we have additional concerns over those of our non-Asian nationals. We have traditional concerns, cultural concerns, racial concerns etc. At the end of this long list will you then find GLBT concerns, if there is one at all.

So you see, just like Eh, you have painted an ideal scenario where everyone can live in harmony regardless of race, language, religion, sexual preferences and whatever else you may want to add to it. My advise to the GLBT community is to get real, know your situation, know where you stand, approach your agenda with this understanding, be patient, lots of patience because your journey to freedom is a long hard one. Until the walls of the unaccepting society are stripped apart, your struggle continues.

“Until the walls of the unaccepting society are stripped apart, your struggle continues.”

You are right about that Gemami. So knowing all that you know, and me getting this feeling from you that you also want them to achieve their ‘freedom’ one day, why do you then choose to be on the side of the ‘majority’?

The journey for any groups with less than equal rights isn’t one that they can make alone. Without the support of the people on the mainstream, they will fail. Your point about realism is a good one. No one expects it will happen overnight. Not when there is still so much opposition to the idea. If it happens now, there may even be some level of backlash against the GLBTs. But it can happen just that tad bit sooner when one more person decides not to be part of the discrimination.

So what’s more important to you? To be their obstacle, or to choose what your conscience tells you?

Zefly,

You do have a knack for misreading (distorting) what you read.

First thing first, we are agreed that reality supercedes the ideal.
Second, the GLBT is a struggling community and a small one.
Third, the majoritywill always stand in their way, as pointed out in my earlier arguments, which is mainly, the influence of its diverse mix of values and practises among which of those are that which are influenced by religious faiths, traditional, racial and cultural values.
Fourth, because of this opposing tide, the GLBT community will find it hard to break the tide unless it has the resolve of a salmon, and the support of the majority.

What is incorrect is that I am on the side of the majority. I am on neither side but on the side of reason. I have stated clearly, when replying to EH’s essay, that what he had written was based on Idealism, and it is good to work toward that ideal.

On my part, based on what I have written above, I am offering my take on:
1. What the GLBT is up against.
2. That their approach to gaining the confidence of the majority is thus far wrong and unacceptable.
3. That they begin to put into perspective, the fight that is before them (reality vs Ideal).
4. That their struggle is going to be a long, cold, hard and lonely one.

If you read all these as and take them to mean that I am in opposition to the GLBT community, then I can only say that you have read wrongly. Perhaps it is partly due to my fault that there were times when I had posted blunt and provocative comments, but these were made to get the point into the hearts and minds of the GLBT community and to show them the reality of the situation.

I have had my gay friends sitting next to me on numerous occassions when I wrote what I wrote and these friends understand exactly what I am trying to bring across.

If I am not supportive of them, I won’t even bother to spend my time writing all these comments.

#287 gemami

I for one tot you were in opposition “to the GLBT community”. In point of fact I tot you were from COOS.

Anyway pls realise that words may have a meaning different from the intention of the author.

Hi Gemami,

No worries, mate. I do know what you meant about the realities of the situation. Contrary to how I may sound on some occasions, I do believe in a rational gradual approach. Enough hearts and minds have to be won first before legislature can be made fairer, if not, we’ll still have a large number of people baying for overturning the said legislatures. (eg, Roe vs Wade in the US)

My arguments are mainly centred on challenging the usual paradigms that people have. ALL arguments, no matter how well-argued, have loopholes in them, including mine. In this way, it’s not so much about winning, but to trigger critical thinking, and to persuade others to think deeper about these issues – if they want to make a stand, at least know why you are making that stand.

I am not born without discriminations. Many of the arguments I read here were the same ones I would have made a few years ago. How I arrived at the conclusion that my past thinking was flawed was also through this process of challenging my own beliefs all the time, playing my own devil’s advocate.

More openly, it also shows that such issues can be discussed intelligently by two people from different standpoints without descending into immature taunts and name-calling.

At any rate, I believe we should shelf this discussion till another opportunity arises. But believe me, it had been fun, and I will admit to concuring with some of the points you made – just that for the sake of being a devil’s advocate, it would be improper to agree openly. lol!

Cheers.