Flogging a dead horse

It would appear that, from what little I have read, that Singaporeans, or at least those who live on this little red dot of an island of ours, is having a field day putting in their 2 cents worth over the incident of Past Rony Tan's sermon on Buddhists and Taoists. Now I must confess that I haven't read much of these comments, nor am I interested in reading any of them. But I do notice that besides apologizing to the Buddhists and Taoists, that some are demanding that Pastor Tan also apologize to the Lesbians and Homosexuals. What next? The Muslims? The Jains? The Government? The man has said his sorries, very publicly, so what else is there to flog? People just cannot leave the issue alone. They must say something. I think they should heed the advice of Jesus, who said, '...let he who has no sin cast the first stone', or the common and wise saying that 'he who lives in glass houses should learn not to throw stones'. I think our Buddhist and Taoists friends would agree wholeheartedly with these.

But of course there will be many who will disagree with me. They see this opportunity to lambast others in the name of their beliefs and self-interest too good to pass up. In this sense, how are they any different from the pastor?

Silvery tongue

To its credit, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has come out to state, officially and unequivocally, that the instructor guide used in the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme run by AWARE are "explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex." (See Today, 7 May 2009, page 1 and Voices section, page 30; Business Times, 7 May 2009, page 3 - "MOE suspends AWARE 's sex education programme")

This vindicates the former AWARE committee's stance that AWARE has lost its direction. Indeed, it appears that AWARE's agenda has been hijacked by liberal elements, either from within or outside, that is pushing their views and preferences regardless of what the rest of Singapore society believes in or prefers. This insidious approach is worse than one where a particular religion is identified and accused of pushing its religious agenda. At least we know where they are coming from even if we may not agree entirely with them. By painting itself as non-religious and non-judgmental, the homosexual 'religious' faction has hoodwinked some, nay, many, naive women (and some men too) in AWARE into adopting, if not applauding, such liberal ideas and perverted practices (e.g. "Anal sex can be healthy, homosexuality is perfectly normal...").

Yes, more than a thousand women voted for the old AWARE guard, but I wonder among these group of people, how many are AWARE of AWARE's practices, particularly with respect to the CSE programme. I, for one,just got to know about it only in the last few weeks. If they are, do they approve? If they approve, will they let their children be schooled in this homosexual 'religion'? Is AWARE now a hotbed of homosexuals and homosexual sympathisers? If AWARE's CSE programme is neutral in its message about sexuality and choice, does the CSE give equal voice and emphasis to sexual abstinence as a choice, as Ms Charlotte Wong, former VP of the ousted AWARE committee has rightly questioned? And even if the CSE seeks to present a balanced view, as the old guard has always claimed, what has it put in place that will ensure that its trainers do not push their own preferences and biases in the classroom?

Josie Lau and her supporters may have lost within the confines of the Suntec City Convention Centre room by the 'ballot box', but it would appear that outside it, there is a significant number of people who are questioning the very practices that moved Ms Lau and her band to attempt to reform AWARE. Today reports that there are 7,000 signatures, so far, from people who have expressed concerns about AWARE's CSE. So before the old AWARE celebrate its 'victory' last Saturday (2 May 2009) for much longer, it must take stock of itself. Its President, Ms Dana Lam said that AWARE "will be open to seeing what has to be done" in response to the MOE ban, but in the same breadth, she said that AWARE will "stand by the programme. After all, we've been running it for almost 2 years."

I am worried. Can we ever trust what AWARE says now? Where along the way has it lost its integrity?

A critique of the secret CSE Manual: http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm - Thank you, Mr Alan S.L. Wong for the link.

RIP

The die has been recast, and the new has become the old and the old the new. AWARE members, many of whom just joined, voted collectively that they want the old AWARE back. The former new have bowed to the will of the majority who voted. Hopefully, we will see the end of this saga which has gripped the nation, young and old, male and female. It was perhaps a good distraction from the constant flow of bad news about the economy. Perhaps it is also timely because we now have to face a potentially deadly enemy - the Influenza A (H1N1) virus, which Singapore is trying its hardest to deny entry to our shores.

Unfortunately, there are hints of the continuing feud amid the threat of a lawsuite, as if the threat against people's lives earlier is not enough. I applaud the new old AWARE committee members, who were brave enough to take up a cause they believed in. Nobody can take that away from them. One may disagree vehemently with their way of going about the whole thing, but through it all, I think they succeeded in drawing much attention to the issue of homosexuality education in Singapore schools. The MOE is looking into this. They may find nothing wrong with AWARE's programme (why would they want to be found with pies on their faces?), but these programmes will face greater scrutiny now from the public, not only from Christians, but from the conservatives among us. And these include Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and even the religiously non-committed, especially those with school-going kids. No one can ever be neutral on this matter.

The Other Page

The AWARE saga has been a long-running one, often characterised, not by women against women, but by sex against sex. For some, it is secularists against Christianity, although there are people of other religions who are just as concerned by the issues - specifically, homosexuality, raised by this group of Christians who now form the core committee of AWARE.

For more than 4 weeks (the whole thing started on 28 March 2009), the issues and personalities have hee'd-and-haw'd. The wounded party - the old guard raising the most voice, if only because the new guard has been inexplicably silent most of the time. This has given occasion for diverse parties to cast aspersions on the valiant new guard who were willing to take action according to their convictions. Even the government has weighed in, warning off would-be religionists (aka Christians) mixing religion with politics.

The wonder of it all is that the voice of the majority has been deafeningly silent. Take a poll and you would probably find that more people in Singapore are against homosexual practices, yet it is the supporters of homosexuality, the old guard of AWARE, for example, that seem to be speaking for the majority. Yes, perhaps people are offended by the way the new guard 'took over' AWARE. If it hasn't been noticed, it was done democratically, according to the rules that the State (the ROC /ACRA ) stipulates, cuts no ice. I can understand. When a rug is pulled under you, you wouldn't stretch out a hand to the 'pullees'. The press hasn't helped either. It is repeatedly using emotive words like 'takeover', "a coup", 'militants', ad-nauseam.

Now religious figures have appeared too, in spite of the point made repeatedly for religions to stay out. But well, I suppose some people think that religion is important in the whole scheme of things. But of course, religious figures are trying to moderate the fight, but in doing so, I wonder if they are not taking a stand themselves?

For me, I don't even have to bring religion into this whole thing in order to express an opinion. Homosexuality is wrong, period. Many people seem to have forgotten how AIDS came about. AIDS is still with us, and it is still incurable, and it is still transmitted via unsafe and unnatural sex practices. Now I believe that any behaviour that puts at risk another's life is wrong, just as you would haul a person to court for trafficking in narcotics. Singapore law even mandates the dead penalty for such people. You may agree or disagree with the death penalty, but in Singapore, it would appear that more rather than less agree with it. And it does seem to be the case that more disagree with homosexuality than those that do, at least in Singapore.

So why are we lambasting those ladies who have the courage of their convictions?

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.

With great freedom

'With great powers come great responsibilities', so Spiderman's uncle advised Peter Parker when he discovered his special spidery abilities. For the last few weeks, we have also heard from people citing 'freedom' and 'rights' as important reasons for supporting the repeal of Section 377A of Singapore's Penal Code - the 'anti-homosexual' statute that has stood since the British, Singapore's former colonial masters, first penned it.

But events of past the week or so again shows the truth of the words 'with great freedoms come great responsibilities'. Apparently some in the 'anti-377A' camp know only of freedom but not responsibility.

First, poet Alfian Saat found it civil and right to hurl abuse at Prof Thio Li-ann for her anti-gay speech in Parliament. This 'poet' found it proper to use such words as 'f**k' and 'piss in your grave' in chastising the Prof for her speech. I have never read Alfian Saad's works. After this, I probably won't be bothered to.

Yesterday, Today (pun unintended) reported that the same Prof has reported to the Police a threat she had received in the mail. To quote Today:

"...the contents of this letter was hateful enough...the words 'hate', 'hatred' and 'hurt' were repeated no less than 10 times..."

It is clear that someone is very serious about the 'freedom' part that all 377A repealers cited for their cause, which without prejudice, includes the freedom to hurl abuse and threaten bodily harm. I shudder to think what Singapore society will become if they had succeeded in their cause of repealing the act. Yes, gay supporters such as NMP Siew Kum Hong and Dr Stuart Koe are condemning this attack. I only hope they now realise the worms, that will surely metamorphose into something more terrifying, they almost released had they succeeded in their cause. You really have no control over extreme elements, if one considers Mr Alfian Saat as one, unless you curb their freedoms in order to maintain civil behaviour.

There is no true freedom without responsibility.

Tallyho

The voting has stopped. The tally is in.

For the Keep 377a faction, it is 15,559 votes, as reported on its website.

For the Repeal 377a faction, the votes have NOT been reported on their website. The last numbers I noticed last night (Sunday night, about 9.20pm) was about 7,900 or thereabouts, but this number also contains duplicates, which the people behind repeal377a.com has taken no effort to moderate. So the total unique votes is less than that. A pity that repeal377a.com is not willing to share the truth of the numbers it garnered, nor its integrity, having started this numbers game first.

Perhaps that is where the majority's reservation lies - honesty, integrity and its hidden agenda? It doesn't matter how much or how fluently one speaks or writes or produces a video, or how loudly ones speaks when push comes to shove. What matters is if you are honest about your cause. Regrettably, I find that the repeal377a.com people falling short here.

p.s. Since writing the above, repeal377.com has reported on the numbers who voted for its cause. That number is 8,120. Apparently, this number is still the un-moderated one, which includes duplicate votes, as mentioned earlier.