You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May, 2009.
sigh. was hoping that open-mindedness and sensibility would win out, but it was not to be so. so the CSE is now going to be reviewed, and the programmes by external vendors to be reviewed. and AWARE’s programme in particular, was singled out.
Again i make no claim to knowing what is in the guide – I have not seen it. But speaking most generally, I think information is power, and all available information should be out there for all to know. the “ignorance is bliss” stance is not my thing; neither is taking a ‘moral’ stance on something that, quite frankly, unless u are a geneticist (because of the lack of solid evidence), u are not qualified to do. we don’t know how sexuality and one’s sexual preference is determined; just because there has yet to be proof of the influence of genetics does not automatically mean that it is therefore a ‘lifestyle choice’.
That aside, I was very glad to to see in the papers today, two letters slamming TSM’s view that anyone who was vocal and opposed to her thinking was ’sexually challenged’: they, as did I, found that incredibly offensive. (on another note, my ‘I’m on page 73′ t-shirt has just arrived 
it’s a nice fit, too.)
P.S.: I seem to have found my ‘activist’ streak: also attended the Pink Dot event… and I am in the pix!!!
(http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30212930&id=1166152950. ) Honestly, I never saw so much pink in one place; and TSM would have a fit and then some, seeing so many beautiful (but not to her) people of the LGBT community out and about. We should have just dropped her in the midst…
P.P.S: Attended the “Action for AIDS” memorial too. Personally, I think they should do away with the performances; it makes everything seem contrived and detract from the actual gravity of the topic at hand. Notably, the Christian part of the prayers offered stressed that AIDS cut across all classes and boundaries, and makes no distinction, and affects “all people regardless of sexuality”. Another notable absence: no Muslim religious leader was there. Hmm.
She just won’t get it.
so the press was gently reminded [by the authorities] that their coverage of the whole AWARE debate was a bit skewed towards the ‘old guard’. Hence, today’s publication of the Feminist Mental TSM’s letter in the press:
First, the fact that Aware has done sterling work for women in the 24 years of its existence is not disputed. The ‘ex-new exco’, in its press statement, acknowledged this contribution and declared its commitment to build on these foundations.
[Let's take this at face value. If you want to honour the work that the Past Exco has done: why get rid of them? If you know that people are doing good work, you do not get rid of the people who build the foundation - and then, at the EOGM, try to claim those achievements for yourselves. If you have a disagreement on ONE POINT, all you have to do is bring it up. Not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Honouring means getting rid of someone? you need to clarify that, please.]
What was a matter of concern to the ‘ex-new exco’ was that in recent years, Aware had veered towards promoting the homosexual political agenda. Aware sponsored the premiere of the movie Spider Lilies, which was about lesbian love. When asked about this, former Aware president Constance Singam said the film explores themes that Aware supports in its Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme.
[Whose 'matter of concern' is this? Yours? As you noted, only the 'ex-new exco's' concern... Is there room for pluralism of views here? Are you confusing, in your twisted, single mindedness, awareness with promotion? Eh, please lah: they are two separate things. So in other words, if you don't mention it, it's not there la. Pls take your head out of the ground.]
Aware’s CSE has been taught in schools for more than two years. Its CSE instruction manual to schools expressly states that homosexuality is neutral and normal. This is a controversial proposition and parents should be concerned about the non-neutral content of the CSE programme. In fact, many are.
[Actually, the purpose of education is to inform. Not to moralise, not to make judgements. That should be left to the parents. It is neutral - because it says that sexuality is sexuality. It does not say that one or the other is wrong. TSM on the other hand, is slapping herself in the face by saying the CSE is non-neutral by not condemning homosexuality outright. Condemnation is NOT a neutral feeling, in case she has not noticed.]
Additionally, the CSE manual goes further in stating that anal sex can be healthy or neutral with consent and a condom. Not only is this against the law, this kind of ‘education’ is designed to condition the minds of teenage students, from ages 12 to 18, towards the acceptability of homosexuality, purposefully equating homosexuality with the norm of heterosexuality. The Ministry of Education has stated categorically that there are aspects of the CSE instructor guide which are ‘explicit and inappropriate and convey messages which could promote homosexuality’. These are hard facts and hardly figments of one’s imagination.
[Anal sex is also done among heterosexuals. So it is not confined to gay men. I have not seen the CSE guide, but to equate anal sex solely with gay men is quite frankly, incredibly wrong.]
On the day of the Aware extraordinary general meeting (EGM), the activist homosexual groups were out in full force, supporting the old guard. Many old guard supporters – those in the meeting hall and volunteers outside – were members of the activist homosexual group and spoke openly of their lifestyle. Many sexually challenged women were among the most vocal and vociferous supporters of the old guard.
[Yes they were vocal. but so were many intelligent, tolerant, straight, Christian women (and men), who were there to voice out against bigotry, against intolerance, against your exclusion of any one who does not subscribe to your narrow mindedness. There were Muslim, Christian, Indian...all sorts of women who spoke out - who saw beyond your fixation on homosexuality, wh0 saw your intolerance, who saw your bigotry. Are you so fixated by the fact that lesbian women showed up that you ignored the straight men and women (of whom there were many, me being one of them) who jeered you down because you had nothing to show, nothing to contribute to AWARE? and by the way, I was surrounded by your supporters, who were so obviously oblivious to what was going on: 'eh, so late, I have to go home and cook dinner".... 'wah how come that side got so many Indians ah...'. And so obviously there just to boost your numbers: they casted their vote and left, without bothering to stay to hear anything.]
If Singaporeans were generally unaware of Aware’s ‘gay agenda’, it however, seems that the homosexual and lesbian supporters of the old guard attending the EGM were in the know. It appears that homosexual activists seeking to impose their values by mainstreaming homosexuality have become a significant chief constituency of Aware. Anyone present at the EGM would have seen abundant evidence of this. Discerning Singaporeans can examine the evidence, in print and from online eyewitness accounts, to make up their own minds.
[Chief constituency? Do you have evidence? Have you done a poll, a census - or are you assuming that everyone who jeered you down was lesbian? Discerning Singaporeans should also note that you stood there, and instead of saying how you intend to contribute, rattled off your 'credentials', which incidentally, had NOTHING TO DO WITH AWARE. Eyewitnesses can see you at the meeting, not having anything to contribute. Not having any plans (including your little Exco you pushed up there), running the meeting like a corporate AGM, using security to escort people out who did not agree with u, and finally, losing your cool completely when things did not go the way you want (really, using your 'No respect for elders' was quite hilarious). So how do you expect to get any respect when your actions show you don't deserve any?
Far from AWARE being fixated on homosexuality, it seems as if you are the one who is the dog with the bone that doesn't wanna let go of it.]
So today in the papers they are discussing the NMP scheme in Singapore. And the ostriches who have stuck their heads in the sand have taken them out of the holes in the ground (but I think there is about 1 kg of sand stuck in their ears and it’s clogging up whatever little brain power they have) to voice their objections to the nominations of gay/(-friendly) people, and completely discounting other contributions they have made to ‘mainstream’ (read: straight) society in Singapore.
Alamak, can you get this: simply because you are speaking about the AWARENESS of sexuality (in all its forms) does not mean you are PROMOTING it. AWARENESS is not = PROMOTION.
You cannot pretend that certain things are not there by not talking about it. You cannot hide behind the veneer of “Asian values” (what is that, anyway? Asian values = denial of something that exists but it’s somehow not ‘palatable’?); neither can you hide behind being ‘conservative’ or claiming ‘majority viewpoint’ to deny that there are alternative voices in society.
Being conservative and holding a certain viewpoint does not give you licence to drown other voices out. Being conservative should also not be equated with being ignorant, or bigoted (defined as ‘utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own’ [from http://dictionary.com]) for that matter.
For the love of all things that is sane, let’s not go down this road.
