Half-truths and innuendos have sunk a worthy programme
In a move that was half-anticipated, the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced in a terse statement on 6th May 2009 that it was suspending the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme conducted by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) after receiving some complaints from the public that the programme was “promoting homosexuality”.
This marked a reversal of MOE’s stance just days earlier defending the CSE and maintaining that “it adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups” despite some Christian groups raising heckles about it. Strangely enough, AWARE had said that it had received only positive feedback from participants about the programme. MOE itself did not receive any complaints until after the recent high-profile leadership tussle in AWARE saw the CSE thrust into the spotlight by a Christian-dominated faction. It now appears that the highly conservative MOE has decided to err on the side of caution, probably in an effort to defuse the issue before it escalated further.
That is highly regrettable. The mere mention of homosexuality has lamentably inflamed matters and obscured the reason why the CSE was adopted in the first place, which was as a response to the growing number of youths afflicted by sexually-transmitted diseases. Such a trend had implied that, among other things, it was possible that MOE’s existing sex-education programme was not doing as good a job as it should.
The CSE laudably tried to fill some of the gaps in MOE’s programme by providing youths with a more comprehensive outlook on the subject. AWARE worked on the premise that the best way to address the problem was to empower youths with proper knowledge about sex and sexuality rather than to deny that pre-marital or same-sex intercourse does take place by shaming youths about its “wrongness”. The ‘shaming’ method has been shown to be rather counter-productive because it discourages youths from opening up and talking about sex-related issues to the adults who might be best-placed to help them.
In its statement of 6th May MOE asserted that the CSE “convey[ed] messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex”. That seems questionable: such a programme would not have been approved by MOE in the first place. The programme, which is over a year-old, would also surely have triggered alarm bells a long time ago.
Furthermore, one trainer involved in the CSE programme has pointed out that the objectionable content circulating on the Internet that was supposedly from the trainers’ handbook – statements like “anal sex can be healthy” and “homosexuality is perfectly normal” – were taken out of context1. Trainers were instructed never to say that such behaviour is “morally ok” and the CSE focused on the health aspects of sexual behaviour rather than attempt to tackle moral issues. Obviously this meant that the programme did not condemn homosexuality or pre-marital sex, but it would be patently absurd to imply that it was “promoting” such behaviour either.
MOE’s flip-flopping has set back efforts to improve sex-education in Singapore. Undoubtedly the ministry wanted to avoid confronting a vocal group of rejectionists, but it could have tried harder to make a case for the CSE with the wider public rather than allow that group’s simplistic and histrionic arguments to carry the day without reply. The likely outcome of this sad episode is that it will leave more youths vulnerable to the fallout from making uninformed choices about sex.
***
1 http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/awares-comprehensive-sexuality-education-cse-re-homosexuality/
—-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
“But the old guards in their haste to grab power, held the election BEFORE the exco resigned on May 2. This ought to be fed back to the Registrar of Society by members.”
Assuming the exco did not resign and did not want to resign. then, another round of egm as you have mentioned and further resources expended ?
what would it hope to achieve except to return whatever decision that has already been taken on 2nd May 2009 – unless the exco might have magically galvanised enough new support to sway their side with further future actions by the old guards and this goes on ad-infinitum until a single decision is firm for two consecutive rounds for either side to win convincingly.
if the quorum can elect an exco, the same quorum can be used to remove one.
#41, 48
A little knowledge is dangerous esp of law.
Juz bear in mind TSM, Rajah & Tann disd not object. And no-one has filed suit to invalidate new new exco.
So MOVE On.
50) loupgarou on May 11th, 2009 12.57 pm
1″if the quorum can elect an exco, the same quorum can be used to remove one.”
Which Aware rule says that?
#46 , lobo76 and # 22 V
You guys got it right. Been trying to articulate these pts into words without success.
Thanks.
51) A Tan on May 11th, 2009 1.46 pm
1″A little knowledge is dangerous esp of law.”
Does it imply that you only have a monopoly of knowledge?
2″Juz bear in mind TSM, Rajah & Tann disd not object. ”
How do you know they did not object but was overruled by the exco as the latter was utterly disgusted and gave up trying to govern Aware , even though the legal counsel had said that the no confidence vote was not binding?
3″And no-one has filed suit to invalidate new new exco.”
I think it should read ” no one has yet to file suit” and it does not mean no one will not in the near future or make a compliant to the ROS.
4″So MOVE On.”
If it was legal then it will stand the proof of time. So why the hurry to move on?
47) lobo76 on May 11th, 2009 10.47 am
1″On clairty’s point of lack of scientific evidence. I wish to add on that to be scientific evidence, it has to be REPEATABLE. i.e If you have some ‘friends’ who managed to become hetero, it means if you apply the same exact same method, the gay 100% (or very near to that) becomes hetero. That is the definition of science, reproducible results.”
Ok a person cannot change his “Race”. There are no ex-Chinese or ex-Indians and a leaopard cannot change its spots. They have to live with what they came with for the rest of their lives.
But there are ex-smokers and there are ex-gays, like the editors of “The Problem of Venus” and “Young Gay American” and Rock Hudson. Why is that?
Where is the scientific proof that gays cannot change to a non-gay like a leopard cannot change its spots?
“How do you know they did not object but was overruled by the exco as the latter was utterly disgusted and gave up trying to govern Aware , even though the legal counsel had said that the no confidence vote was not binding?”
are you indirectly saying that those top lawyers were utterly disgusted and did not want push through all those technicalities which were in their favour and could have easily won hands-down ?
mind you, why didn’t they want to go through all this while we are still speculating on their intention. perhaps, those top lawyers have more brain than you in knowing when to cut loss – scoring technical points will not get you anywhere when the general popular opinion is already stacked against you and real big $$$ is involved by going through all this worthless posturing.
57) Curious
The onus of proof is on you. (i’ve always wanted to say that. lol!) since you are the ones who say it can be done.
The thing about Science is how it can be reproduced and the same result obtained. So don’t tell me how one person who was gay now has a traditional family. (who can even tell if the person just repressed his desire just to conform to society?)
If it can be done, do an experiment and make it happen again and again without fail (or at least what counts for significant percentage) in psychiatry.
“Where is the scientific proof that gays cannot change to a non-gay like a leopard cannot change its spots?”
you are pushing the Burden of Proof (a fallacy itself). why not you come with a scientific proof that gays can change to a non-gay and the proof must be repeatable (withstanding the test of falsification). not easy right ? show it to us …..
49)Curious
“Yet civil society is tolerant. It tolerates the GLBTs and allows them to be FREE to live as they wish, except that they need to obey 377A and accept that same sex marriage is banned under the women’s charter.”
- Spend whatever you need to do this. But no more than $10.
- Eat whatever you like. But only the $1.50 plates (in sakae sushi)
Were you trying to give a lesson in Irony?
How many commentators are aware of the following?
1. Oral and anal sex between consenting heterosexual adults have been de-criminalized in Singapore since 2007.
2. It is apparently not a crime in Singapore for two consenting adult females to engage in sex with each other. Section 377A Penal Code applies only to males.
If sex education is to continue in schools, MOE must come out and clarify how students’ questions about anal sex and homosexuality are to be dealt with.
58) loupgarou on May 11th, 2009 4.46 pm
“their actions speak for themselves, the use of so much stealth, subterfuge and lies all in attempt to deceive the public”
That must be a veritable reference to the purveyors of the nefarious CSE which the MOE has suspended because it is “explicit and inappropriate” for 12 year old girls.
@57 curious
“Ok a person cannot change his “Race”. There are no ex-Chinese or ex-Indians and a leaopard cannot change its spots. They have to live with what they came with for the rest of their lives.
But there are ex-smokers and there are ex-gays, like the editors of “The Problem of Venus” and “Young Gay American” and Rock Hudson. Why is that?
Where is the scientific proof that gays cannot change to a non-gay like a leopard cannot change its spots?”
Smoking is a chemical addiction to nicotine- nicotine for your information is as addictive as heroin
http://scienceu.fsu.edu/news/healthsmart/health9.html
Nicotine as Addictive as Heroin, Cocaine
The Royal College of Physicians in Britain said that nicotine should be controlled like a drug or medicine because it’s a powerful addictive substance like heroin and cocaine, Reuters reported Feb. 8.
There is no comparison between sexual orientation and smoking- you cant change your sexual orientation any more than you can change your race – you may give up an addiction but not your orientation
As for Ex-gays- the Ex-gay movement is full of failures- John Paulk the poster boy for EXODUS an Ex gay christian movement was found patronising a gay bar http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Paulk-Southern%20Voice.html.
Reparative therapy aiming to convert a gay person into a straight person is totally discredited by mainstream psychiatrists and psychologists-
“Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation” http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/resolution97.html
Your choice of Rock Hudson is laughable- he was a closet gay – living his public life as a straight person but having a gay life in private- this is not a case of changing sexual orientation- it was a charade he was forced to put on to protect himself and his career. People put up fronts for many reasons- look at Ted Haggard, pastor of a mega church is the USA – found soliciting the services of a male prostitute. Another example of a person who does not have the courage to live honestly.
“If you think that the above discriminates the gays, then please note that incest pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality are also banned. Have you got a problem with that too?”
What intellectual dishonesty- lumping pedophilia and bestiality with homosexuality- typical of the statements issued by fundies in the USA- to create revulsion – for your information a relationship conducted in private between consenting adults harms no one- whereas pedophilia and bestiality involves non consent and thus violence against the being involved- again , chose your examples using your brain , instead of spouting anti-gay rhetoric from fundamentalist christian agenda imported straight from the USA.
“Yet civil society is tolerant. It tolerates the GLBTs and allows them to be FREE to live as they wish, except that they need to obey 377A and accept that same sex marriage is banned under the women’s charter.”
Again , what nonsense- what if I said you can be straight but you cannot have straight sex- it goes against logic- AND SHOW ME where in the woman’s charter that says gay marriage is banned.
64) clairty on May 11th, 2009 6.55 pm
1″Your choice of Rock Hudson is laughable- he was a closet gay – living his public life as a straight person but having a gay life in private- this is not a case of changing sexual orientation- it was a charade he was forced to put on to protect himself and his career.”
At least he married a woman by the name of Phyllis Gates. Why can’t a gay guy?
Why do you have against a woman? Is it because she reminds you of a close relative?
2″look at Ted Haggard, pastor of a mega church is the USA – found soliciting the services of a male prostitute. Another example of a person who does not have the courage to live honestly”
They say that an empty mind is a devil’s workshop and that applies to Ted but he has gone back to his wife.
3″What intellectual dishonesty- lumping pedophilia and bestiality with homosexuality- typical of the statements issued by fundies in the USA- to create revulsion.
What about incest? Do you accept that incest between consenting adults in private should be allowed too? Is that an example of your intellectual honesty?
4″or your information a relationship conducted in private between consenting adults harms no one- whereas pedophilia and bestiality involves non consent and thus violence against the being involved.”
Then can a consenting father and an adult daughter have a sexual relation in private too? What consent does a male dog needs if it initiates and enjoys a venal relations with a woman?
For the the harm caused to society by gay sex you need to delve into Parliament’s intentions when it enacted 377a.
5″Again , what nonsense- what if I said you can be straight but you cannot have straight sex- it goes against logic.”
But no one is stopping you from having sex with a woman or better still with the person you love most-you. Sex is natural behavior between a man and woman he loves and not between a man and a man or a man and a child or a man and a ewe.
Have you ever considered that if the world is totally full of gays and lesbians then man as a species will soon become endangered and then extinct.
6″AND SHOW ME where in the woman’s charter that says gay marriage is banned.”
I shall table Section 12 (1) of the Women’s Charter under “Avoidance of marriages between persons of same sex below if you are so ignorant :
12. —(1) A marriage solemnized in Singapore or elsewhere between persons who, at the date of the marriage, are not respectively male and female shall be void. “
59) lobo76 on May 11th, 2009 3.06 pm
1″The onus of proof is on you. (i’ve always wanted to say that. lol!) since you are the ones who say it can be done. ”
But it was you who said “If you have some ‘friends’ who managed to become hetero, it means if you apply the same exact same method, the gay 100% (or very near to that) becomes hetero.”
The reverse is also true. If you cannot prove that there was NEVER an instant that a gay has turned into a hetero then your hypothesis becomes a scientific truth. But sorry the editors of “The Problem of Venus” and “Young Gay American” who became ex-gays show that yours is still hypothesis indeed.
61) lobo76 on May 11th, 2009 3.13 pm
1″- Spend whatever you need to do this. But no more than $10. – Eat whatever you like. But only the $1.50 plates (in sakae sushi) Were you trying to give a lesson in Irony?”
What irony? The same ban applies to people who have a predilection to commit pedophilia, incest, necrophilia and bestiality but they don’t squeal like a stuffed pig in a poke/ They realize what they do is wrong. Why can’t a gay?
60) burden of proof, sometimes a fallacy by itself. on May 11th, 2009 3.07 pm
you are pushing the Burden of Proof (a fallacy itself). why not you come with a scientific proof that gays can change to a non-gay and the proof must be repeatable. show it to us ”
See my answer to Lobo in (1) above.
58) why didn’t they object ? could there be something more ? on May 11th, 2009 2.50 pm
“How do you know they did not object but was overruled by the exco as the latter was utterly disgusted and gave up trying to govern Aware , even though the legal counsel had said that the no confidence vote was not binding?”..Curious
1″are you indirectly saying that those top lawyers were utterly disgusted and did not want push through all those technicalities which were in their favour and could have easily won hands-down ?”
Maybe you are cannot read properly. It says above ” “How do you know they did not object but was overruled by the exco as the latter was utterly disgusted and gave up trying to govern Aware.”
The “latter” means the exco, not the lawyers, silly billy.
2″mind you, why didn’t they want to go through all this while we are still speculating on their intention. perhaps, those top lawyers have more brain than you in knowing when to cut loss – scoring technical points will not get you anywhere when the general popular opinion is already stacked against you and real big $$$ is involved by going through all this worthless posturing.”
How do you know that no lawyer or no member is contemplating a law suit or a compliant to the ROS? Why engage your brain in neutral when you post a reply?
“@V 65 At least he married a woman by the name of Phyllis Gates. Why can’t a gay guy?
Why do you have against a woman? Is it because she reminds you of a close relative?”
Have u heard of sham marriages or marriages of convenience?I will not sink to your level , as regards your last comment.
“They say that an empty mind is a devil’s workshop and that applies to Ted but he has gone back to his wife”-
I dont even know what you mean by that- he was head pastor of a mega church in the USA and he had an empty mind?-..you mean he had nothing to do but fill his mind with homosexual thots?–read the articles on the web about him- he continues to be a heterosexual with ISSUES– and he continues to earn a 6 figure salary if he continues with the counselling — doesnt that mean trying to live a lie so that you can continue to receive monetary rewards- http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/29/lkl.ted.haggard/
“What about incest? Do you accept that incest between consenting adults in private should be allowed too? Is that an example of your intellectual honesty”
you obviously read selectively or you are blind– the concept is that of harm- incest is actually common in ancient civilisations- ancient Persia is one , and marriage between close relatives is common in European Royal families – but people have learnt this results in in-breeding and the consequent genetic disorders that follow- hence society discourages incest.
“For the the harm caused to society by gay sex you need to delve into Parliament’s intentions when it enacted 377a.”–
For your information , 377A was not enacted by our parliament – it was a hangover from Victorian England imposed on the colonies.We just inherited an archaic law which England has already rejected as being against basic human rights .
“But no one is stopping you from having sex with a woman or better still with the person you love most-you. Sex is natural behavior between a man and woman he loves and not between a man and a man or a man and a child or a man and a ewe.”
Again absolute nonsense- would you , a heterosexual force yourself to be gay?- that is what you r saying- that a gay should make himself straight – as for the rest of your statement , it is not even worthy of a retort- the usual crap of linking bestiality and pedophilia to homosexuality- for your information most pedophiles are straight–
” The chance that your child will become a victim of a sex offender is 1 in 3 for girls & 1 in 6 for boys.”
**Source: The National Center for Victims of Crime and
“50% of the abusers were parents of the children. 18% were relatives.”
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/what-is-pedophilia.htm —– DID YOU SEE THAT – 50% were molested by their parents – since gays dont have children , they can’t be the perpertrators , can they ? Use your brains
“Have you ever considered that if the world is totally full of gays and lesbians then man as a species will soon become endangered and then extinct.”
Slippery slope argument – the fact is , the world is NOT all gay and lesbian- it will never be -between 2-10% of any population is- natural selection obviously sees a need for the gay gene hence its persistance thro time- there is plenty of straight people to procreate and maintain the world popuilation.
I stand corrected on the Women’s charter but I am sure as society progresses , homophobic language will be a thing of the past, just like church sanctioned slavery and racism
It is obvious reading the comments here that the opposing camps are entrenched in their views- on one side , the view is in terms of HUman rights for gays as a minority group , a view that is adopted by many advanced societies in the West , with a view there is room for everyone and that everyone’s voice has a place in society’s discourse. On the hand , a group of people , who , by the dogma that they adhere to, refuse to accept any other view.
NO one , has the right to trample on the rights and aspiration another person as long as that aspiration does not cause harm or encroaches on another’s rights and aspirations. Everyone is equal- not some are more equal than others. This is my last post on this matter because it is pointlessto continue talking to closed minds.
54) Curious on May 11th, 2009 1.48 pm
“1″if the quorum can elect an exco, the same quorum can be used to remove one.”
Which Aware rule says that?”
The AWARE rule which provides that power is vested in the General Meeting.
“6″AND SHOW ME where in the woman’s charter that says gay marriage is banned.
I shall table Section 12 (1) of the Women’s Charter under “Avoidance of marriages between persons of same sex below if you are so ignorant :
12. —(1) A marriage solemnized in Singapore or elsewhere between persons who, at the date of the marriage, are not respectively male and female shall be void. “
Now who’s the silly billy when it comes to the English language? ‘void’ means of no legal effect; ‘ban’ means something forbidden by the law.
“How do you know that no lawyer or no member is contemplating a law suit or a compliant to the ROS? ”
BECAUSE no-one in his/her right mind would consider wasting time, effort & $$$ in an exercise of futility. Moreover, R &T ‘s advice on the no confidence vote not being binding was merely an OPINION based on his interpretation of the AWARE constitution and not a definitive statement of the law, which has to be made by the COURTS, as counsel stated clearly at the EGM.
So, if you REALLY believe that a law suit or a complaint to ROS will hold water, file it yourself. Else move on to something more productive.
This is my take on the entire situation, which is quite the reverse of what Mathia is suggesting but which I think makes more sense (I suggested it; of course it makes sense !) -
If MOE had come out before the EOGM to say that it was going to suspend the EOGM, it would be perceived to be taking sides, as that would give ammunition to the supporters of the (at that time) new Exco.
MOE instead chose not to interfere in the politics of AWARE at that time, by making a non-statement, ie. that it had received no complaints. Note it does not follow from saying that it had not received any complaints, that MOE regarded the CSE as appropriate.
Supporters of the old Exco / AWARE should not be ungrateful that MOE appears to have waffled over the CSE. If MOE had made its intent clear from the beginning, the old Exco / AWARE might not be in office now.
But there are ex-smokers and there are ex-gays, like the editors of “The Problem of Venus” and “Young Gay American” and Rock Hudson. Why is that?
—-
and who are these people? a google search doesn’t even bring out “the problem of venus” or “young gay american”. neither can you find them on amazon..
meanwhile,
Hudson never publicly acknowledged his sexuality. While Hudson’s career was blooming as he epitomized wholesome manliness, he and Willson were struggling to keep his personal life out of the headlines. In 1955, Confidential magazine threatened to publish an expose about Hudson’s secret homosexual life. Willson covered this by disclosing information about two of his other clients, in the form of Rory Calhoun’s years in prison and Tab Hunter’s arrest at a gay party in 1950.
At Willson’s urging, Hudson married Willson’s secretary Phyllis Gates in order to put the rumours to rest and maintain a macho image. The news was made known by all the major gossip magazines with one story, headlined “When Day Is Done, Heaven Is Waiting,” quoted Hudson as saying, “When I count my blessings, my marriage tops the list.” The union lasted three years. Gates filed for divorce in April 1958, charging mental cruelty. Hudson did not contest the divorce, and Gates received an alimony of US$250 a week for 10 years.[5]
In Gates’ 1987 autobiography My Husband, Rock Hudson, the book she wrote with veteran Hollywood chronicler Bob Thomas, Gates insists she dated Hudson for several months and lived with him for two months before his surprise marriage proposal. She claims to have married Hudson out of love and not, as it was later purported, to stave off a major exposure of Hudson’s sexual orientation. However, after her death from lung cancer in January 2006, some informants reportedly stated that she was actually a lesbian who married Hudson for his money, knowing from the beginning of their relationship that he was gay.[6] She never remarried.
According to the 1986 biography, Rock Hudson: His Story, by Hudson and Sara Davidson, Rock was good friends with American novelist Armistead Maupin and a few of Hudson’s lovers were: Jack Coates (born 1944); Hollywood publicist Tom Clark (1933 – 1995), who also later published a memoir about Hudson, Rock Hudson: Friend of Mine; and Marc Christian, who later won a suit against the Hudson estate. In Maupin’s Further Tales of the City, Michael Tolliver links up with a closeted macho icon referred to as Blank Blank, which has been interpreted as a thinly disguised caricature of Hudson. Maupin claimed after Hudson’s death that he changed details to avoid the character being recognised as Hudson.[citation needed]
The book, The Thin Thirty, by Shannon Ragland, chronicles Hudson’s involvement in a 1962 sex scandal at the University of Kentucky involving the football team. Ragland writes that Jim Barnett, a wrestling promoter, engaged in prostitution with members of the team, and that Hudson was one of Barnett’s customers.[7]
52) JayF on May 11th, 2009 12.18 pm.
“Fake Hysteria? Extremist plotting in secret? Oh noes! Someone call the MOE and ISD!!”
Actually plenty of people already have. And things are being done about it. But unlike hypocrites, they don’t go around screaming at how clever they are.
“Looks like the MOE disagrees about the CSE hysteria being fake. They also agree that the Aware CSE programme had breached their guidelines. Want to try again?”
Yeah, and the graduate parents scheme, was a great scheme too, wasn’t it? As well as the ideal classroom size being 40 students. Who are you trying to kid? So, the MOE is now the best arbiter? Haw! MOE is simply reacting to the pressure exerted by people such as you. It’s sad, isn’t it? When people like you take the result caused by your pressure and go around proclaiming that you have been vindicated.
#70) Uncurious on May 12th, 2009 12.30 am
54) Curious on May 11th, 2009 1.48 pm
This is a tired old issue but for clarity -
Actually there were three requisitions filed after the AGM and which were ALL passed at the EGM. The first was for a no confidence vote in the then exco. The second was for the removal of the exco by the EGM and the third was to elect a new exco by the EGM. Proper notice of these requisitions was given. All three requisitions were passed at the EGM. Therefore the EGM had the authority to remove the exco and to appoint a new exco as well.
Counsel from R&T had said at the beginning of the EGM that his advice was his opinion based on his views but made it clear that the final arbiter would be the courts.
Regarding the resignation and Josie & Co., counsel said that in his opinion it was not mandatory that they resign (although other lawyers present disagreed) but that
In view of the no confidence vote, it was courtesy, convention and common sense (his words) that they did so. They apparently took his advice.
67) Curious on May 11th, 2009 8.51 pm
“The “latter” means the exco, not the lawyers, silly billy.”
assuming that you were right, so ? how does it matter anymore when it is your dear friends who resigned after that – even though they have felt disgusted about the whole process. the objective of the old AWARE of wanting to get them out was met ( crytalized with much joy and celebration). you do have a fertile and imaginative mind to come out with this and that scenario and this is moot after the resignation.
“How do you know that no lawyer or no member is contemplating a law suit or a compliant to the ROS? Why engage your brain in neutral when you post a reply?”
and how do you know that it will happen in the near term or long term unless you are very privy to such intention ? why would anyone or ROS want to waste time on this matter when the ‘final settlement’ (just like in any legal disputes) was already being decided. perhaps, just to address some ego of some people like you, a casual go-through-the-motion may just well be conducted just to assuage whatever flimsy rationalization some may still harbour about the whole affair.
50) JayF on May 11th, 2009 12.18 pm To HT.
“Fake Hysteria? Extremist plotting in secret? Oh noes! Someone call the MOE and ISD!! ”
It’s as clear as daylight:
The ‘Extremists’ are the FM & JL & Gang .
The ‘secret plot’ is FM’s attempt to subvert AWARE’s secular agenda to her christian fundamentalist one using JL & Gang as proxies. (Note that JL & Gang said nothing about the CSE before the unmasking of the FM. Obviously they had no idea about it until the FM told them so)
The fake CSE hysteria is still very much in evidence, orchestrated by FM and her cat’s-paws (as evidenced by the parents’ petition to MOE) to divert attention from their real agenda (the subversion of Aware’s secular agenda).
Thankfully, no need for ISD or MOE, the secret plot has been scuttled by the EGM.
“Looks like the MOE disagrees about the CSE hysteria being fake. They also agree that the Aware CSE programme had breached their guidelines. Want to try again?”
Did you notice that MOE’s ‘disagreement’ and statement about ‘breach’ of gudelines came after a series of flip flops? Obviously there’s something going on behind the scenes. Perhaps the DPM will come out soon with a statement about it ‘on the sidelines’ once whatever’s going on there is resolved.
@gemami (#45), unfortunately, it’s a grave misconception that ‘children who display signs of alternative sexuality’ are in need of intervention. Mere effeminate behaviour does not imply that a boy is gay, and vice versa for a girl. Using external behaviour as a criterion for singling out ‘confused’ students is going to be both under-inclusive (many gays/lesbians don’t fit the mainstream stereotypes) and over-inclusive (many straight children will have to undergo the serious, needless distress of being subject to extra ‘masculinization’ or ‘feminization’).
Moreover, the archetype of a ‘manly man’ has perpetuated violence and discrimination against women for millennia. A rejection of the straitjacket of gender stereotypes is thus at the core of standing up for women’s rights.
GLBTs form in general a “diffuse and anonymous” minority. There’s no way to reliably single them out for separate but equal treatment. Such singling out would also be unjust and discriminatory, because it signals to GLBTs by its very silence on the topic, “Hey, the CSE is comprehensive enough to deal with thorny issues like pre-marital sex, incest (family abuse), and pedophilia (child sexual abuse), but not with homosexuality.” It seeks to expunge GLBTs from society’s very consciousness, so that our children grow up with the idea that GLBTs are alien to our culture, our daily life.
So any CSE worth its name must address the topic of homosexuality. And to me, the tension is between (1) the risk of ‘promoting homosexuality’, and (2) the benefit of not ostracizing gay/lesbian teens, so that the problems of STDs, depression, suicides, and multiple sexual partners can be targeted in the fullest way possible within a supportive setting, without ‘potential’ GLBTs being singled out because of what others assume to be their sexual orientation.
The risk of (1), on the available evidence, is infinitesimal: even if we can believe that sexual orientation is ‘conditioned’ during maturity by social and psychological factors, it is inconceivable that a passing mention of homosexuality in non-judgmental terms will be sufficient to override the hundreds of positive reinforcements for heterosexuality which straight teens are bombarded by outside the classroom, in real life or reel/digital life.
The benefit of (2), however, is substantial. And it’s absolutely criminal to my mind to deprive this potential audience of the fullest support and advice, just so that the already-negligible risk of (1) can be further reduced to ease the minds of paranoid parents.
NATURE, has been forwarded as the reason for homosexuality being ‘wrong’. Other than religious reasons, that is.
This falls into two category.
1. Nature as in the natural world.
This is sorta of, as Mythbusters would put it, Busted. Because in the Natural World, plenty of animal species engage in homosex. THEY then fall back and say we are superior from animals because we can think (higher functions), which sort of removes this as a reason because THEY elevates us above Nature.
2. Nature as in its intended function
Until recently, I haven’t have a really good comeback to this reason, other than it’s a choice that doesn’t harm anyone. However, I was thinking (being NOT a gay) how gays, or even heterosexual couples (never tried), could enjoy anal sex if there are no nerves to transmit ‘pleasurable’ sensations to the brain? So there SHOULD be such nerves in there. Then the question is, if they are in there, does it not mean it COULD be one of the (anu’s) functions?
69) Uncurious on May 12th, 2009 12.30 am
1″The AWARE rule which provides that power is vested in the General Meeting.”
Does that Aware rule also say that the general meeting can elect office-bearers without any notice and that it can elect office-bearers BEFORE the exco resigns?
2″Now who’s the silly billy when it comes to the English language? ‘void’ means of no legal effect; ‘ban’ means something forbidden by the law.”
If you are so good with the English language you would intuitively know that the word “uncurious” does not exist in the English dictionary. Maybe the nuance escaped you?
Ok, lets play with semantics . Let me show you that in a contract, like in a marriage contract , void means yes, “of no legal effect” which also implies it is “not legal” which also implies that any act that is not legal is not allowed and when an act is not allowed it implies that it is also banned ! Voila !
The English language is so brutally complicated for a novice that it is hard to understand why “a SLIM chance and a FAT hope” are the same when it should mean the opposite while “a wise person and a wise guy” are different when it should mean the same! Trust the English!
See also the First Schedule in the Women’s Charter also lists who you cannot marry (banned) under the “KINDRED AND AFFINITY PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP.”
3“How do you know that no lawyer or no member is contemplating a law suit or a compliant to the ROS? ”…Curious.
“BECAUSE no-one in his/her right mind would consider wasting time, effort & $$$ in an exercise of futility.”
Is it not also true that no one in his right mind would elect office-bearers BEFORE the exco resigned?
4″ Moreover, R &T ’s advice on the no confidence vote not being binding was merely an OPINION based on his interpretation of the AWARE constitution.”
But the ROS says that the affairs of a society must be carried out in accordance with its constitution. Was the election of office-bearers valid when it was carried out BEFORE the exco resigned?
5″ and not a definitive statement of the law, which has to be made by the COURTS, as counsel stated clearly at the EGM.”
The court will make a ruling only if the case goes before it, not before.
6″So, if you REALLY believe that a law suit or a complaint to ROS will hold water, file it yourself. ”
Since I am not a member of AWARE, the court will say I don’t have locus standi to file a suit but it would not be impossible for a member to file a suit.
7″Else move on to something more productive.”
I am always productive. That is why we hetero have children. It is you gays who are not productive, wasting your ordnance pushing waste products uphill.
73) HT on May 12th, 2009 10.00 am
1″This is a tired old issue but for clarity – Actually there were three requisitions filed after the AGM and which were ALL passed at the EGM. The first was for a no confidence vote in the then exco. The second was for the removal of the exco by the EGM and the third was to elect a new exco by the EGM. ”
Then post a copy of the EGM Agenda to prove your point.
2″Proper notice of these requisitions was given.”
Lets see what the Agenda of the EGM says.
3″All three requisitions were passed at the EGM.”
They are called “resolutions” not “requisitions.” Were there such resolutions in the EGM Agenda? If so, prove it,
4″ Therefore the EGM had the authority to remove the exco and to appoint a new exco as well.”
Does it mean that the EGM could elect new office-bearers BEFORE the exco resigned?
5″In view of the no confidence vote, it was courtesy, convention and common sense (his words) that they did so.”
But was it MANDATORY under Aware’s constitution? That is what matters to the ROS and the court.
6″They apparently took his advice.”
I think they were disgusted and resigned under duress.
74) do not be so curious. the facts are quite glaring on May 12th, 2009 10.00 am
1″assuming that you were right, so ? how does it matter anymore when it is your dear friends who resigned after that – even though they have felt disgusted about the whole process. the objective of the old AWARE of wanting to get them out was met ”
But was it legally done? Could the election of office-bearers be valid BEFORE the exco resigned?
2″and how do you know that it will happen in the near term or long term unless you are very privy to such intention ? ”
How do you know it won’t unless you are a lesser god?
3″why would anyone or ROS want to waste time on this matter when the ‘final settlement’ (just like in any legal disputes) was already being decided.”
In case you have not noticed, Singapore is a civilized society, governed by the rule of law, that’s why.
re #83
so I take it you would be supportive of gay sperm donations and/or gay adoption of unwanted children ?
81) loupgarou on May 12th, 2009 4.19 pm
1″re #83″
There is no #83 silly billy.
sry. I mean #85
but the point stands.
if you are saying “reproduction” is somehow the criteria to “legitimacy”..
then gay men can reproduce by donating sperm, sperm banks now deny homosexuals (at least in singapore) from donating. do you agree that the policy is wrong? (and do you think homosexuality have a genetic component or not?)
likewise with the donation of lesbian eggs.
–
there are many unwanted children, afterall, there are something like 4000 abortions per year in singapore (some of which are elective), would you recommend that gays be allowed to adopt? after all, the examples of the nordic countries doesn’t show that gays who adopt lead to gay kids.
in future, stem cell technology means that having 1 male + 1 female is not a necessity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-511391/Death-father-British-scientists-discover-turn-womens-bone-marrow-sperm.html
this of course takes the entire “reproduction” thing out of the picture.
—-
and of course, then we should vilify the infertile, the asexual, the post menopausal, post andropausal, the celibates (priests, monks, nuns) and singles capable of giving birth yet remain unmarried because they don’t reproduce.
oh yeah, and to raise the bar. 14 kids ought to be just enough.
this guy with 15 wives and 100 kids is practically a candidate for sainthood
http://www.barossa-region.org/Australia/CHRISTIAN-CULT-LEADER-S-15-WIVES-AND-100-KIDS.html
—
and women like these should be stoned to death.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies–theyre-eco-friendly.html
Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprint
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni – who works for an environmental charity – “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.
83) loupgarou on May 12th, 2009 6.56 pm
1″sry. I mean #85″
There is still no #85 silly billy. What are you smoking?
2″would you recommend that gays be allowed to adopt? after all, the examples of the nordic countries doesn’t show that gays who adopt lead to gay kids.
What I recommend or don’t recommend makes not an iota of difference. It all depends on the law.
3″At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.”
Maybe the law should protect her from her worst enemy, herself.
(Dear TOC, please delete my previous near-duplicate post; made a crucial grammatical error. Thanks!)
@Curious,
I had thought that observer in comment #178 to this post had conclusively rebutted your facetious ‘legal’ objections. But seeing as how you insist on pressing a case which clearly has no merit, let me proceed to demolish your sliver-thin arguments.
In the absence of any express provision in the AWARE constitution to the contrary, the general meeting (i.e. the members present at an AGM or EOGM) is vested with the power (by majority vote) to introduce any matter on the agenda, to nominate a replacement chairman from among their number, and to table and pass any resolution (including the dismissing of the Exco). Article 9 of the AWARE Constitution explicitly confirms that the general meeting has “the powers of management”, which includes the power to do all the above. We should note that even before Josie Lau’s Exco ‘resigned’, the general meeting had passed a near-unanimous resolution to dismiss them. This it clearly has the power to do (hence, the ‘ultra vires’ point is moot), subject to the ‘oppression’ point discussed below.
The first crucial question is whether the failure to serve a formal notice before tabling and passing such a resolution means that the member whose interest is at stake (i.e. Josie Lau et al.) was not given fair warning, in particular, whether she lacked a fair chance to decide whether or not to attend the meeting in order to object to the resolution (Tiessen v. Henderson; Lau Ah Lang v. Chang Huang Seng). A failure to give notice does not, however, invalidate the proceedings unless substantial injustice is caused (Welch v. Britannia Industries Pte. Ltd.). Clearly, any procedural irregularity arising from the failure to notify would not cause substantial injustice to Josie Lau et al at the EGOM (cf. Macdougall v. Gardiner; Sum Hong Kum v. Li Pin Furniture), because (1) they would clearly have anticipated, under the circumstances, a resolution to remove them from office had the no-confidence vote gone against them; and (2) they attended the meeting, and therefore had ample opportunity to object, which they failed to use.
A residual issue might be whether the majority at the EOGM acted “oppressively” (e.g., Clemens v. Clemens). But this is an extremely high threshold to meet; there must, for example, be “a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing and a violation of the conditions of fair play which a shareholder is entitled to expect” (Re Kong Thai Sawmill). Moreover, individual members are not prohibited from voting entirely in their own self-interest (Northwest Transportation Co. Ltd. v. Beatty). The question of whether or not there was oppression is a factual one, but a resolution which removes the Exco on the back of a decisive vote of no-confidence is unlikely to be deemed “oppressive” (see for instance, Re Tri-Circle Investment Pte. Ltd.).
So, you may wish to press other arguments against the current AWARE Exco and its policies. But the ‘constitutionality’ point certainly lacks any merit whatsoever.
79) Curious on May 12th, 2009 3.28 pm 69) Uncurious on May 12th, 2009 12.30 am
# Does that Aware rule also say that the general meeting can elect office-bearers without any notice and that it can elect office-bearers BEFORE the exco resigns?
REPEAT: Power is vested in the General Meeting. see also the kind explanation given in post # 86
# If you are so good with the English language you would intuitively know that the word “uncurious” does not exist in the English dictionary. Maybe the nuance escaped you?
Not at all. But it is obvious that my nuance on ‘uncurious’ has escaped you.
#Ok, lets play with semantics . Let me show you that in a contract, like in a marriage contract , void means yes, “of no legal effect” which also implies it is “not legal” which also implies that any act that is not legal is not allowed and when an act is not allowed it implies that it is also banned ! Voila !
I am utterly overawed by your leaps of logic. “of no legal effect’ = “not legal” = “banned”. perhaps la nausee will be kind enough to explain to you the difference between ‘void’ and ‘banned’ in law, as you seem to have missed the -er, ‘nuance’ between them in the ordinary dictionary meanings. And I am flummoxed by the introduction of the First Schedule in the Women’s Charter: are we moving from the realms of gay marriages to incest? Do please elaborate on this surprising addition.
#But the ROS says that the affairs of a society must be carried out in accordance with its constitution. Was the election of office-bearers valid when it was carried out BEFORE the exco resigned?
see post #86. if still not convinced, check with ROS rather than waste time and space on rhetorical questions. Unless of course this is a way of venting your angst over the defeat of JL and Gang.
#Since I am not a member of AWARE, the court will say I don’t have locus standi to file a suit but it would not be impossible for a member to file a suit.
So put your money where your mouth is: AWARE membership costs only $40 (less than a legal consultation). or are all those postings on the illegality of the EGM, etc. all bluster and hot air?
#I am always productive. That is why we hetero have children. It is you gays who are not productive, wasting your ordnance pushing waste products uphill.
How very odd it is that those who claim to be conservative and make the most noise about the CSE are the very ones obsessed with sex. I meant ‘productive’ in the non-sexual sense. e.g. try another argument rather than trotting out the same old arguments on the same topic (and please do not introduce incest).
I will magnanimously overlook the remark about ‘gays’ because I understand that that is what you label all who disgree with your views.
85) la nausée on May 12th, 2009 9.21 pm
1″I had thought that observer in comment #178 to this post had conclusively rebutted your facetious ‘legal’ objections.”
No, he chickened out. And I am still waiting for the whole Article 9 of the Aware’s Constitution and the Agenda of the EGM to be posted.
2″But seeing as how you insist on pressing a case which clearly has no merit, let me proceed to demolish your sliver-thin arguments.”
What? Are you a law student or a lawyer wasting her time on TOC when you could earn big bucks from clients?
3″In the absence of any express provision in the AWARE constitution to the contrary, the general meeting (i.e. the members present at an AGM or EOGM) is vested with the power (by majority vote) to introduce any matter on the agenda, to nominate a replacement chairman from among their number, and to table and pass any resolution (including the dismissing of the Exco.”
That’s a laugh. Where did you learn Constitutional Law? In the jungle? There must be adequate Notice before an election is called and election of office -bearers must be on the Agenda as in the AGM and EGM.
The old guards held the election of office-bearers BEFORE the exco resigned.
4″Article 9 of the AWARE Constitution explicitly confirms that the general meeting has “the powers of management”, which includes the power to do all the above”
Then post the whole Art 9 and the Agenda of the EGM for all to see.
5″because (1) they would clearly have anticipated, under the circumstances, a resolution to remove them from office had the no-confidence vote gone against them; and (2) they attended the meeting, and therefore had ample opportunity to object, which they failed to use.”
That is the law of the jungle.
6″The question of whether or not there was oppression is a factual one, but a resolution which removes the Exco on the back of a decisive vote of no-confidence is unlikely to be deemed “oppressive”
So the oppression by the majority is a hallmark of democracy? And the next time you post you will be quoting Mao by saying that “power comes from the barrel of a gun”. Get a life and stop trying to be judge and jury.
Tell me : Was the election valid if it was held BEFORE the exco resigned?
To la nausée:
Your post is well written, and appears to be based on extensive legal research. I am curious about the oppression point, though. The cases you cite relate to oppression of minority shareholders in corporations. I assume there is authority that says the concept also applies to members of societies?
its quite obvious that despite the facts and caselaw, some people have only 1 interpretation of things.
as for the legal language of shall vs must. It was just R&T’s opinion that “shall” is not the same as must, but certainly in context, shall is imperative.
or perhaps since the ten commandments uses plenty of “shall” and not “must” i guess its not mandatory as well..
Curious – Post 68 is directed at you-
being able to write a reply doesn’t mean you have carried the argument- most of your replies are simply unsubstantiated statements,and repeating a point of view over and over again doesn’t make it right.
All we get is mindless drivel like the ones below from you-
“What? Are you a law student or a lawyer wasting her time on TOC when you could earn big bucks from clients?”
“I am always productive. That is why we hetero have children. It is you gays who are not productive, wasting your ordnance pushing waste products uphill.”
Grow up
Dear #76) la nausée,
Allow me to correct the reading you gave to my post @45.
When I said; “display signs of alternative sexuality,” I was not considering the display of effeminate signs as the benchmark for determining whether one is gay or not. I had purposely stayed away from this stereotyping. I was suggesting that the line of questioning used by a student could potentially be a telltale sign that perhaps that student is gay. However, I appreciate your comments as it allows us to see beyond the ‘gayness‘ factor.
The question here is what the CSE programme hopes to achieve. What is the aim of the CSE programme? To whom does the CSE programme benefit most?
I believe one of the aims of the CSE programme is to allow children to come to terms with their sexuality i.e. to be informed of the choices he/she has at his/her disposal and to discover, be comfortable with, and deal with his/her own sexuality. If this is the aim of the programme, then the targeted audience, where this portion of the programme is concerned, ought to be targeted at only those who have doubts, or are confused, over their sexuality.
This is why I have recommended an ‘opt-in’ rather than an ‘opt-out’ programme. This part of the programme could also have been dealt with separately. The idea is protect those who are not confused and are at peace with their sexuality. It has to cut both ways, and cannot be seen as an attempt to educate (the minority), while at the same time creating confusion in the minds of the otherwise sexually-at-peace students (the majority). The programme would then have failed toward this end.
It also does not stand to reason that because we are not able to single out the GLBTs “because they are a diffused and anonymous minority” that we have to subject all-and-sundry to sit through such a programme. This is tantamount to discrimination against the majority.
A right balance and a right approach is necessary. The subject that matters is both a sensitive one to the GLBT student as it is toward the non-GLBT student. We cannot claim to have the interest of one group while ignoring the interest of the other. The focus must have the right balance, which currently, is tilted towards the interest of the GLBT student.
Your lessons on what constitutes a GLBT behaviour, although very enlightening, is beside the point.
80) Curious on May 12th, 2009 3.50 pm
“But was it legally done? Could the election of office-bearers be valid BEFORE the exco resigned?”
so ? it is more important that at the end of the day, the involved parties have come to an agreement / understanding (even if one party turns out slightly or vastly ‘disadvantaged’). nothing if perfect and sometimes you just have to bite your own nails if the whole atmosphere is turning against you.
“How do you know it won’t unless you are a lesser god.”
I do not know at all. You initiated the SPECULATION (emphasis intended), right ?
“In case you have not noticed, Singapore is a civilized society, governed by the rule of law, that’s why.”
I would also say yes generally. in real life, getting your point across (rule of law) can be expensive with no guaranteed outcome that you have intended even if the matter goes to court / arbitration. having final settlement is also playing (allowed) by the rule of law (and as explained above even though one party may still turn out slightly or vastly ‘disadvantaged’ after the settlement).
86) Uncurious on May 12th, 2009 11.24 pm
Errata: all references to post #86 in my above post should refer to #85.
88) Question on May 12th, 2009 11.59 pm
I agree. la nausee’s post in #85 is well-written. Such a pity not everyone is capable of comprehending it.
90) clairty on May 13th, 2009 2.56 am
How right you are. This is the umpteenth time Curious has requested for Art 9 to be posted on this site. Wise up, Guys! Curious isn’t interested in answers; all the questions he has posted in this blog have been raised in other blogs on this website; and all the answers he has posted to the responses given are repeated elsewhere. TOC should consider banning him for inanely repeating drivel.
90) clairty on May 13th, 2009 2.56 am
1″Curious – Post 68 is directed at you- being able to write a reply doesn’t mean you have carried the argument- ”
But I thought your ladyship said that it was your last post on the subject and that meant you don’t need a response?
2″most of your replies are simply unsubstantiated statements,and repeating a point of view over and over again doesn’t make it right.”
That also applies to you.
3 “All we get is mindless drivel like the ones below from you- “What? Are you a law student or a lawyer wasting her time on TOC when you could earn big bucks from clients?”
It is called posturing, to flush out where your opponent is coming from.
4“I am always productive. That is why we hetero have children. It is you gays who are not productive, wasting your ordnance pushing waste products uphill.”
That is called “reality” which folks from the lunatic fringe refuse to face.
5″Grow u”
Why don’t you grow up and be a “productive” member of the society?
68) clairty on May 12th, 2009 12.08 am
1″Have u heard of sham marriages or marriages of convenience?”
AT least Hudson tried to change his “spots” even though a leopard cannot change his but he could. He tried, why can’t you?
2″I dont even know what you mean by that- he was head pastor of a mega church in the USA and he had an empty mind?-..you mean he had nothing to do but fill his mind with homosexual thots?”
Being a pastor does not preclude him having evil thoughts was what I meant.
3″What about incest? Do you accept that incest between consenting adults in private should be allowed too? Is that an example of your intellectual honesty”..Curious
“you obviously read selectively or you are blind– the concept is that of harm- (delete) but people have learnt this results in in-breeding and the consequent genetic disorders that follow- hence society discourages incest.”
So in your selective mind incest is harmful but not sodomy? Then why is it that before the debate on whether to repeal 377A in Parliament, 15000 signatures were recorded in a petition to retain 377A?
4“For the the harm caused to society by gay sex you need to delve into Parliament’s intentions when it enacted 377a.”–Curious
“For your information , 377A was not enacted by our parliament – it was a hangover from Victorian England imposed on the colonies.”
Then go and delve into the British Parliament’s intentions.
“We just inherited an archaic law which England has already rejected as being against basic human rights .”..Clarity.
Sodomy is never a human rights issue. A human wrong cannot be made into a human right. Genocide is a human rights issue but not sodomy.
5“But no one is stopping you from having sex with a woman or better still with the person you love most-you. Sex is natural behavior between a man and woman he loves and not between a man and a man or a man and a child or a man and a ewe.”..Curious
“Again absolute nonsense- would you , a heterosexual force yourself to be gay?”
NEVER, as a leopard cannot change its spots. But gays can change.
” that is what you r saying- that a gay should make himself straight – as for the rest of your statement ,”
But there are ex gays showing that gays can change their orientation if they want to.
” it is not even worthy of a retort- the usual crap of linking bestiality and pedophilia to homosexuality- for your information most pedophiles are straight”
Is Andy Lee, the NUS undegrad who molested three children a gay or a hetero?
Continue-Part II
Part II
5 Continues..
” The chance that your child will become a victim of a sex offender is 1 in 3 for girls & 1 in 6 for boys.”**Source: The National Center for Victims of Crime and “50% of the abusers were parents of the children. 18% were relatives.”
It shows that America is not the civilized country that Singapore is. What does that prove if your statistics are correct? A swallow does not make it a summer.
“http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/what-is-pedophilia.htm —– DID YOU SEE THAT – 50% were molested by their parents – since gays dont have children , they can’t be the perpertrators , can they ? Use your brains”
So because of what you read, even if it does not apply to Singapore, makes you into a homosexual? Is that it? It makes you afraid to be a parent? Did your parents molest you?
6“Have you ever considered that if the world is totally full of gays and lesbians then man as a species will soon become endangered and then extinct.”..Curious
“Slippery slope argument – the fact is , the world is NOT all gay and lesbian- it will never be -between 2-10% of any population is”
Does that not defeat your argument that homosexuality is a normal human behavior? Show me statistics that gays from 10% of any society.
“natural selection obviously sees a need for the gay gene hence its persistance thro time- there is plenty of straight people to procreate and maintain the world popuilation.”
Is there a gay gene? That is something new to me. Care to amplify? Natural selection weeds out the weak and deleterious genes and promote the strong genes and lets hope than one day natural selection would its job and weed out “gay genes” if ever they exist as you claim.
7″I stand corrected on the Women’s charter but I am sure as society progresses , homophobic language will be a thing of the past, just like church sanctioned slavery and racism.”
I think you stand corrected too that rejection of homosexuality is homophobic or a mental illness as the gay community wants society to think.. A phobia is an irrational fear like agoraphobia or fear of the market place. That is a mild form of mental illness. Rejection of homosexuality is a rational decision by mature members of society to prevent harm to public health, morality, decency and order.
8″It is obvious reading the comments here that the opposing camps are entrenched in their views- on one side , the view is in terms of HUman rights for gays as a minority group , a view that is adopted by many advanced societies in the West , ”
If that is your argument then tell me why in the alleged bastion of human rights, the USA, only 5 errant states approve same sex marriage and 45 do not.
Continue-Part III
68) clairty on May 12th, 2009 12.08 am
Part III
9″with a view there is room for everyone and that everyone’s voice has a place in society’s discourse. On the hand , a group of people , who , by the dogma that they adhere to, refuse to accept any other view.”
Singapore is a civilized society and it lets the GLBTs live their lives quietly unlike in Nazi Germany where they rounded up the gays and shot them dead.
So please be grateful and don’t demand your rights to same sex marriage or repeal of 377A, because if you do, you have to wait till Hell freezes over.
10″NO one , has the right to trample on the rights and aspiration another person as long as that aspiration does not cause harm or encroaches on another’s rights and aspirations.”
No one is trampling on your rights to be equal before the law. The reason 377A was not repealed was because private acts can cause harm to public health, morality, decency and order.
11″ Everyone is equal- not some are more equal than others.”
Yes everyone is equal before the law BUT not all human acts are equal, for example incest, sodomy, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality are against the law in Singapore.
12″This is my last post on this matter because it is pointless to continue talking to closed minds.”
Apparently you did not keep your words. Is that not an ominous sign?
93) Uncurious on May 13th, 2009 1.01 pm
1″90) clairty on May 13th, 2009 2.56 am How right you are. This is the umpteenth time Curious has requested for Art 9 to be posted on this site. Wise up, Guys! ”
If there is nothing to hide why are you all afraid to post the full article 9 plus the Agenda of the EGM for all to see and debate ?
2″Curious isn’t interested in answers; all the questions he has posted in this blog have been raised in other blogs on this website; and all the answers he has posted to the responses given are repeated elsewhere.”
It is called threads not blogs, silly billy. If the same accusations arise then my request for answers will be the same.
3 “TOC should consider banning him for inanely repeating drivel.”
And maybe you should disqualify yourself for incitement and attacking another poster.
81) Curious on May 12th, 2009 3.42 pm
73) HT on May 12th, 2009 10.00 am
“Then post a copy of the EGM Agenda to prove your point.”
Like another poster said in an earlier thread, don’t say I don’t sayang you, oh Spurious Curious :
” Agenda:
1. Confirmation of Minutes of the 24th AGM held on 28th Mar 09
2. Matters Arising
3. Requisition for EGM
4. Proposed Constitutional Amendments ( to be sent later)
5. AOB
Any member who wishes to place an item on the agenda should give notice to the Honorary Secretary no later than 22nd Apr 2009.
By Order of The Executive Committee
Jenica Chua (Ms)
Honorary Secretary
AWARE
Reference: Requisition for EGM
We the undersigned constituting at least 10% of the membership of AWARE hereby request that an EGM to be called to consider and pass the following resolutions:
1. That the current Executive Committee has lost the mandate and confidence of th mebers of the Society to continue as the Executive Committee of the Society on the basis that the Current Exco:
a. has not acted and is not acting in the best interest of the Society; and/or
b. does not appreciate or share the values of the Society; and/or
c. does not have the requisite experience of carrying out the Society’s work or is otherwise inadequate to further the Society’s objectives;
2. that all members of the Current Exco be and are hereby removed from their positions on the Executive Committee; and
3. that a replacement Executive Committee be elected to serve for the remainder of the current term”
#81) Curious on May 12th, 2009 3.42 pm
“4″ Therefore the EGM had the authority to remove the exco and to appoint a new exco as well.”
Does it mean that the EGM could elect new office-bearers BEFORE the exco resigned?”
In a word, Yes.
“5″In view of the no confidence vote, it was courtesy, convention and common sense (his words) that they did so.”
But was it MANDATORY under Aware’s constitution? That is what matters to the ROS and the court.”
Well, the second resolution removed them anyway. And mandatory or not, they did resign anyway. I can’t speak for the ROS or the court. Can you?