Thursday, April 16, 2009

Toasted

I have been watching on the sidelines the election debacle at Aware (Association of Women for Action and Resarch). After all, it is about women and does not in the least affect me. Many have weighed in with an opinion or 2, including PN Balji, editor of the Today newspaper. It is Balji's opinion that the old guard of Aware should not be sour grapes for having many of its people kicked out of the Executive Committee. Instead they should welcome new blood and all. Of course there are those who disagree, pointing out that these 'young turks' are unknowns, unliked, and probably unable. They point out that these newly elected people have not made even a squeek one week after their elections, leading them to wonder if these people are real or not.

Of course people are speculating that the hidden agenda of this new group is to take Aware along the straight and narrow - no to homosexuality and yes to straightlaced religiousity, which is causing concern among the old guard and the more liberal amongst them. Now what is wrong with saying no to homosexuality and being religious? It is a point of view, much as irreligiosity and homosexuality are another set of beliefs? If we tolerate one party to push the homosexual agenda, why can't we let those sitting on the other side of the fence to do so with their beliefs, and respect those views? Whether one side or the other prevails depends on whether and how society supports or rejects either party's agenda.

The old guards should accept that they have been out-maneuvered through the rules they have put in place and maintained for 25 years. If nothing, they left the door open and now they are blaming others for sneaking in? They should kick themselves in their collective behinds instead. If any blame is to be placed, it must rest squarely on the complacent shoulders of the old guard, who, until now, assumed that their way is the only way for women, an obviously arrogant, presumptious and oppressive stance. If this were a military encounter, the old guard will be toast, much like what the British suffered in Singapore at the hands of the Japanese in 1941 - marching down Upper Bukit Timah Road to surrender the flag of the mighty British Empire that had ruled Singapore for more than a hundred years and thereafter to incarceration for the next 4 years, some never living to taste freedom again.

Thank God that they can still do an EOGM. I hope they believe in God because they can do with some divine intervention now. Whether they will succeed remains to be seen.

5 comments :

skeptic said...

"Now what is wrong with saying no to homosexuality and being religious? It is a point of view, much as irreligiosity and homosexuality are another set of beliefs? If we tolerate one party to push the homosexual agenda, why can't we let those sitting on the other side of the fence to do so with their beliefs, and respect those views?"

Because the so-called homosexual agenda is not forcing homosexuality down people's throat. All they want is the same rights as religious groups to do their own thing in the privacy of their own lives. If it is any group that likes promoting its agenda, it is a certain religious group that goes around trying to convert people. I don't see gay people walking around orchard road trying to make other people gay. All they want is the right to be left alone. Don't confuse allowing something with the same as promoting a lifestyle. One is passive and one is active.

Anonymous said...

Today there was a bit article in the newspapers on DBS's management explaining why they chided one of their senior mgrs for taking part in the Aware elections.

I can't see any reason why Sporeans should care about DBS's policy regarding such matters.

Anonymous said...

"All they (the gays) want is the right to be left alone."

That simply is not true. Go and read Yawning Bread.

Anonymous said...

Thio Su Mien, the 71-year-old autieis the mother of Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann who infamously described anal sex as "shoving a straw up your nose to drink" while arguing against the repal of Section 377A which criminalises sex between men during a parliamentary debate in late 2007. Do you your God teach you to speak this way?

If "Homosexual practice is clearly sin against God"...well....I like to see how this bunch of old aunties deal feels if one day they found that their sons or daughter is a gay or lesbian.

Epilogos said...

That's just the same as saying that we should love thieves, murderers and robbers because somewhere down the family chain, one of ours might be one.

No, let us separate the behaviour from the person. We disagree with homosexual behaviour, but we continue to love those who mistaken practice it.