Another “wayang” by Thio Su Mien? Parents’ appeal to Education Minister to express concern about CSE
April 30th, 2009 | 
Author: From The Informant Network Team
We have received a tip-off that an online petition has been set up by a group of “concerned parents” to lobby the Education Minister to review AWARE’s CSE.
It is not known if the originator, K F Khoo, is a member of COOS.
Since AWARE is now led by a new exco which is against the contents of the CSE in the first place, it is highly likely that they will scrap the programme altogether which obviates the need for these parents to petition to the Education Minister to do so.
Also, the CSE has been around for 2 years and there were no complaints from the public. Neither was there a petition like this to convey parental concerns to MOE.
This is obviously a ploy to deflect intense public scrutiny of Dr Thio Su Mien’s role in the saga after MOE release an official statement in support of the CSE.
MOE has contacted Dr Thio to seek clarification and facts to substantiate her claims. So far, Dr Thio has not replied.
We cannot rule out that this latest petition is another “wayang” orchestrated from behind the scenes by certain people in order to garner support for the embattled Thio.
If there is anybody who knows the identity of the writer, please contact us immediately at wayangparty@hotmail.com
Dear parents,
We need your help – and your signatures!
Many of us are concerned about recent press reports about ‘comprehensive sexuality education’ (CSE) programmes conducted in schools by AWARE that endorse homosexuality and anal sex as ‘normal’ or ‘neutral’.
For example some statements from the current CSE programme (as reported in “Nothing ’sneaky’ about elections”, Sunday Times, 26 April 2009) include:
Anal sex ‘can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom’.
‘Avoid using the term ‘husband’ and use ‘partner’ instead, so it is more inclusive. For example, ‘homosexuals have partners, not husbands’.’
If you are concerned that such programmes have been brought into our schools, and taught to our children, we would like to invite you to join us in signing the letter at
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/parents_sex_ed_appeal/
Please do so by 10 May 2009.
We hope to send this letter, with as many of your signatures as possible, to the good Minister for Education to express our concern about such programmes being actually conducted in our schools.
We are confident he will give it due consideration.
With your help, we hope that our children will get the best value-added education in our home we call Singapore.
We also hope that we will all be able to work with our schools in the wholesome education of our children, not least of all in the area of sexuality education.
Thank you for your support!
Posted in 
Tags: 53 Responses to “Another “wayang” by Thio Su Mien? Parents’ appeal to Education Minister to express concern about CSE”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
How more low can they get. The “noble” Thio SM claims the parents complained to her and the authorities? Where are the fact and evidence.
Obviously there is none, and hence the need to now do this petition?
Post petition don’t count… to the blasphemous and slanderous “statement of facts” made by the “talcum powder covered” mentor of Singapore women Tiu SM?
i dun really care about the aware internal thing, but i think this is the correct thing to do
i know asian values are more and more outdated these days and we have to be more open to things like homosexuality and anal and pre-marital sex, but maybe not to our school children la
stirring up homophobia in the general population? hardly a surprise
high time for the overpaid underworked out of touch MOE people to do some answering hahaha…stop hiding behind your useless principals and HODs…face the music! for ordinary folks like us, good wayang kulit to watch!
If they think anal sex is wrong, ain’t they challenging the stand of the government who legalize anal sex between husband and wife?
“i know asian values are more and more outdated these days and we have to be more open to things like homosexuality and anal and pre-marital sex, but maybe not to our school children la”
In the first place, the view that homosexuality is evil is not an “Asian” value. It is an outmoded Western view. The only countries that outlaw gay sex in the region are those that inherited their laws from the British (e.g. Malaysia and Singapore). You don’t see the criminalisation of homosexuality in China.
The sad thing is that most Western countries have long abandoned their backward views and now support full equality for gay people, but Singapore continues to battle with anti-gay fervour.
it’s weird they only launch the petition after MOE rebuttal. Good try, wayang parents! you are setting very good example to your children how to wayang
Leopard never changes its spots….
Since the government has mentioned that they will not interfere in Aware dispute but leave it to be settled internally, this is like giving Derek Hong, Shawn Tay, TSM, Jose Lau and their supporters encouragement to fight according to their will, strength and wits.
I feel ISD should issue and institute warrant of arrest like the way they did in August 2002 against the JI extremists, as this will soon be exploding into a national security issue when thousands of people meet in an EGM and start fighting when they cant agree to disagreements.
Even with MOE’s press release clarifying the past AWARE school programs has met with the MOE criteria and boundary, it does not equals to a 100% foolproof from unofficial deliveries of personal ideas & beliefs, if there is astray trainer who might have made use of AWARE and schools as bridges to reach out.
MOE recent statements are fair & just based on the visible items that were officially submitted, checked, delivered and filed. If students are exposed to special sharing after the programs, then things will goes on quietly & away from the visibility of MOE and parents. Of course, this would only happen if there is errant trainer.
Exco of AWARE should make sure that all their trainers & members do not make use of its label to deliver personal beliefs that were not endorsed by the institution.
Should MOE conduct further background checks with greater depth? Should MOE assign volunteers from parent’s group to follow-up with all students and the respective family members to check if there is any private communication with errant trainer several months after the programs. (of course that’s alot to do if the pre-checks are inadequately carried out).
A few more questions I am asking:
Did MOE restrict trainers from teaching the students beyond the classroom?
Did MOE restrict trainers from distributing personal contact details to students? (This is like protectionism but it is necessary if pre-checks are inadequate).
Is it OK if Trainer teach without MOE & AWARE’s boundaries during class but after class the Trainer inculcate differently?
I do trust that the AWARE’s materials which were approved by MOE are fit for its purpose and meet all criteria. What I like to probe is whether the existing MOE criteria is adequate and whether there are sufficient muscles to deploy more extensive pre-checks, post-checks and audit to ensure that nothing goes astray. Sounds a bit like perfectionism here, but I think being kia-su is worthwhile.
It is really a worry for things that might goes on After Class. Not During Class.
It’s never an issue with supporting homosexual or not. If the new aware committe managed to take over aware this weekend, you will see how they’ll change the sex ed program.
No one is going to teach our children about safe sex and contraceptive any more, abortion might even be banned if they have their way. All our kids will learn that the only way is to abstain from pre-marital sex. But be honest. Who practise sex only after marriage now?
I also notice that they also started a “God Saves Aware” facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=75793889673
So it is interesting to see the development!
I want to point out a blatant lie by the MOE.
The first external agency to be invited to the MOE schools to provide sex and sexuality* education was none other than Focus on the Family, showing once again the pro-Christian bias that the PAP government has long held.
Focus on the Family provides non-factual information regarding gay and lesbian sexuality, and those non-facts are motivated by religion.
Given this to be the case, how can the Ministry now claim that sex ed in schools is secular?
Is the omission of religiously loaded words like “God” sufficient to declare that the sex ed progarm in MOE schools secular?
Unfortunately, the statement issued by the MOE is short on details.
Note: I used sexuality and not sexual orientation.
Yeah, let’s reject Western values like equal rights and homosexuality, and bring back wonderful Asian values like child brides, gendercide, polygamy, foot binding, arranged marriages, eunuchs and slavery.
While we are at it, let’s also reject Western concepts like privacy, western medicine and democracy!
`Adolf Hitler once said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it.”‘ — to brainwash and control people this way.
i think it is not prudent to play with fire pressuring the MOE by garnering petitions and escalating the issue. leave lobbying and quit poking the govt agencies or risk being totally annihilated. my three cents’ worth of advice.
I tend to agree with Jabber. Its very hard for the MoE to monitor these things, even if there’s a plethora of paper work to fill out, detailing everything being taught in one of these workshops.
Along with his earlier mentioned points, i questioning whether or not some of these outside trainers came in and used a different lesson plan from the one originally submitted to the MoE for approval?
Again, without any neutral 3rd party on hand to monitor and watch these people as they teach, its hard to be sure. Also, its entirely possible that the school staff may or may not be sympathetic to the trainers views, and thus be willing to turn a blind eye.
Bush got re-elected playing the homophobia card.
Be well aware the people who uses fear as a tool for support and see that usually they were wrong on a high number of things
Did MOE restrict trainers from teaching the students beyond the classroom?
Did MOE restrict trainers from distributing personal contact details to students? (This is like protectionism but it is necessary if pre-checks are inadequate).
Is it OK if Trainer teach without MOE & AWARE’s boundaries during class but after class the Trainer inculcate differently?
————————————
Based on what I read from Mathia Lee’s post in solobear’s site. No. AWARE CSE trainers do not give out personal details, not contact any of the students after lessons, neither do they offer advices. Instead, students are redirected to their respective school counsellers.
Mathia Lee is AWARE’s CSE trainer.
http://mathialee.wordpress.com
Please stop using “ASIAN VALUES” to justify homophobic views. If you have done any studies on “ASIAN VALUES” you will know that Asian cultures are more sexually liberal than this Christian Right conservatism that’s invading Singapore today.
You guys are seriously becoming a hopeless bunch…keep this up and you’ll be asking if the Security Guards in School are monitored while patrolling, whether teachers are watched over when teaching sensitive topics….etc.
I mean WTF is wrong with….argh….this is getting too stupid. I’m should’ve just been silent.
Oh yea, and I was posting to say, JohnnyKidd if you weren’t kidding in your previous post, those weren’t really Asian values…we Asians now consider those stupid values of the PAST.
Asian values are more of like, filial piety, respect and justice and many more other values taught by Confucius. So please do not diss at Asian values, because it benefits none of us.
While there is no such thing as “Asian Values”, it looks like Asia (ex Japan) is homophobic… according to wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality
I would like parents to think carefully. The CSE issue has been twisted out of context to suit certain party’s agenda. If you read carefully you would have noticed that nothing in the materials suggest that AWARE is promoting a gay lifestyle. As a parent of school going children, I have no problem putting them through the CSE program. In fact, I am grateful for this. To allow my children to discuss these issues in a school environment and with the guidance of trained teachers and specialists is the best things MOE can do for us. The school’s environment provides them a safe environment to discuss, debate and debunk issues such as these with the teachers and fellow students. Let’s not prentend that those things listed in the CSE program do not happen or that our kids are not savy enough to glean such information from the internet. Sex education is not just about the birds and the bees but many other things in between. What is worrisome for parents must be if our kids come to their own misguided conclusions on such subject or worse, been misguided by the bias or the ignorant.
Ok all you parents, read this carefully – the full Comprehensive Sexuality Education pragram – before you say more!
http://voicethread.com/?#q
Got ROLE PLAY somemore, wah piang eh. At the very least we parents should be given the INFORMED choice whether or not we want our kids to be taught all this stuff. MOE say parents never complain. Well, parents dunno how to complain?? Wake up lah, kids will also not complain since these courses are conducted by school, and have the aura of legitimacy.
I am very interested to know why the old ex-co so obviously pushing the gay agenda and educating our kids against what they must know is the social norm and highly offensive to many people’s family/moral values. Are they also linked by the fact that they are all of a certain kind? You know what I mean lah.
Eeee homophobes! What century do you belong to?
PLEASE, if your children ARE homosexual, it’s BY BIRTH!! It’s GENETICAL and NOT psychological. They just don’t tell you until they confirm it for themselves.
READ THIS!
On December 15, 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.
The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted the same measure on January 24-26, 1975.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology)
If you can use the internet, I wonder why you haven’t read the above yet. *rolls eyes*
Hi Eterna2 @Thu, 30th Apr 2009 9:54 am
Thank you for providing the trainer’s link. We read your message that the trainer did not disclose contact number to students.
BUT…..
Trainer’s name is known to all students.
Trainer’s blog and website contain trainer’s name.
Blogs & website may contain trainer’s personal e-mail address.
Blog & websites may contain revolutionary beliefs.
Some time ago, DPM Wong Kan Seng said, “Singapore is very porous”. Living in this porous land, everybody is porous, things penetrate into us, we absorb things, so do the youngs. This make it even more important to control what is released and the channels.
readhis: No idea what you’re saying. What certain kind? Can you talk English?
And parents CERTAINLY know how to complain.
PS: The petition seems to be overrun with fake names and spammers LOL.
What could be on Thio’s mind when her team launched a planned takeover of Aware, “Christian evangelists should teach our sexual education programmes instead. That life begins at cell level, that christian should only marry those from the same religion,that evolution is a conspiracy dreamt up by satan… blah…”
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pressparliament/pressreleases2009/statement.aspx
The Royal College shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that lesbian, gay and bisexual people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organisation followed suit in 1992.
—-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/26/content_3970520.htm
In 1997, the word “hooligan” was deleted from China’s criminal code in reference to gays arrested for soliciting in public places.
The move is considered by many as the de facto decriminalization of homosexual acts and was followed in April 2001 by the deletion of homosexuality from the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders.
Now, marking gay-awareness month June 12 by flying kites in Beijing, Shenyang and Fuzhou, and turning out in numbers for the country;s first national gay and lesbian festival December 16 in Beijing, organized by Cui Zi’ en, a gay associate professor at the Beijing Film Academy, are acts that illustrate changing attitudes toward the pink revolution.
The fact that there is now an online petition set up calling for MOE to review sex education programmes does not actually support the new Exco’s position. It simply underscores the fact that they could have started public dialogue about the programmes any time they liked, just by speaking up, without any takeover shenanigans.
More here:
http://www.glass-castle.org/blog/2009/04/here-comes-horse.html
Jolene
Jaunty Jabber (1:54pm):
“Some time ago, DPM Wong Kan Seng said, ‘Singapore is very porous’.”
LOL at choosing to quote Wong Cant Sing of all people…
To reader @4:00pm
Do enjoy the humour. Wish you a wonderful Labour Day.
Regards
Just like to point out that the petition itself has not been spidered by any of the search engines yet, only results shown are links from site like yours which only jsut appeared.
Also I have yet to see any forums til just an hour ago even mentioning the petition, yet it has 1000 signatures. I already thrawled the top few local popular forums to verify this.
Which means the signatures were already there “privately collected” before the petition was announced to public. Most likely via email. Or to be more explicit, its most likely COOS emailed their supporters to sign this petition 1st to buff numbers and make it look impressive.
All well and good since these may be genuine signatures. BUT whats not right is that by doing so they are tricking peopl into believing the 1000+ signatures are from the average “parent on the street”.
An online petition to MOE over a few statements that are considered offending is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Online means on the Internet, and on the internet you can find thousands of images/ paragraphs / stories,etc, which are going to be much worse.
Then what about all the sensational magazines/ books/ media on sale throughout Singapore? Why not petition against all these unwholesome literature as well?
Seriously, one should consider whether you want to educate students in a safe setting, or you prefer them to learn through the wild wild world?
To Jaunty Jabber and Cynical:
Please note – instead of going off wildly with your alarmism – that school teachers sit in on the sex ed classes provided by external agencies.
Read my lips: don’t panic!
To Robox,
Hey, I have stated very clearly and repeatedly, it is not about “during class”, it is the “after class” that we are concerned. If students become followers of errant trainers, outside the curriculum, is where visibility is absent.
Regards
To Jaunty Jabber
Pls have some faith of our children. They are not as simple as what you think. They have brains and intelligence. They are not like those teenagers decades back. They can be more knowledgeable in terms in this area than any of us (coz of their net surfing habit).
Jaunty Jabber: I’m sure that the trainers are professional enough that even if their contact information is available, they know how to draw their boundaries; it’s part and parcel of the type of work that they do.
Feminism – the foundation of the old AWARE that the Christian fundamentalists are trying to dismantle – was the ideology that pioneered the notion of “boundaries” in work of this nature.
Why don’t you INVESTIGATE the training of sex ed trainers at the (old) AWARE before trying to whip up hysteria among the naive, of which a certain religion has innumerable numbers of?
You are nothing but a mischief maker, if you want to know, when you merely theorize on possibilities that have ALREADY been thought up of, and for which proactive steps (i.e. boundaries) have been implemented EVEN BEFORE trainers have a chance to set their eyes on the children they instruct.
Many people all over the blogosphere have been irresponsibly tossing sround the question over whether “MOE has allowed homosexuality to be taught in schools”.
First of all, I don’t know how anyone can “teach” homosexuality. What the hell does that mean?
1) Does it mean to teach you how to become a homosexual?
How can that happen if you are not gay to start with?
2) Does it mean acknowledging the existence of same-sex attractions and remaining non-judgemental about it?
The second would be FACTUAL, would it not?
Everyone here needs to grow up: when you provide instruction on sex and sexuality, the question of same sex attractions ALWAYS crops up. And those questions COME FROM THE STUDENTS, and not initiated by instructors. (Here’s where I feel that the old AWARE has not been representing themselves effectively.)
These questions crop up because it is a REALITY.
Isn’t it far better that the instructors are prepared well in advance to answer those questions instead of condemning gays and lesbians listening into a state of frequently irreparable guilt?
Do people have any idea how deep seated gay and lesbian guilt can be, and how far reaching the damage it can cause is?
Then there’s the follow up question to #2: “Are we encouraging gays by being non-judgmental?”
Yes, indeed!
We would be encouraging gays and lesbians to affirm their identity and provide that much needed boost to start living life as normal, well adjusted gays and lesbians.
And what’s wrong with that?
Is the alternative better? And for whom?
The bloodthirsty religious hounds want nothing short of an outright condemnation and severe judgement. What they want is for gays and lesbians to grow up emotionally and psychologically impaired.
Maybe they also think that it is a good business strategy: get despairing gays and lesbians into their reparative therapy programs, convert them to Christianity and get them to pay the notorious tithes that help to enrich their mullahs’ bank accounts.
I suggest that we should be far more concerned whether MOE allows Focu on the Family to disseminate NON-FACTUAL information on sexuality in general, including gay and lesbian sexuality.
the petition is started possibly because FM thio cannot substantial her earlier claims.
if AWARE under the old guards had truly did what she claim earlier on, i am certain MOE would have been swarmed with complaints.
but there is not even a single one.
so, LL, must quickly try to cover axx.
petition means we are concerned, we are afraid, we dont want, but LL, we got no proof for our allegation.
Admin: Why the xxx didn’t you publish the two messages I posted here?
What guidelines did I break?
Are you in cahoots with the SG government?
Hi Robox,
Can you look through your comments posted here? We don’t think any was censored.
Please repost again if they did not appear.
Due to the high volume of comments we have been receiving, some may get deleted accidentally.
To Robox @01-May-09 1:39am
Please respect the rights of others, everyone has a view and the view may not be the same as yours and may not be supporting yours.
When you assumed that I am a “nothing”, then you should really treat me as “nothing” and my existence you shall regard as non-existence, and need not reply to a “nothing”. If you replied my comments, as you have already done so, I shall understand that in fact I am “something”, not nothing. Thank you for assuring my existence.
Wish you a Labour Day without nothing.
Hi Jaunty Jabber
Frankly I’m puzzled by your earlier comments. Why did the issue of “after-class” or “during-class” even come in? We are just discussing about the curriculum of the CSE by AWARE which nobody has even complained about till now when MOE responded to the allegations by Thio Su Mien.
Aware is not a Christian organisation.
Very soon, the new exco will convert it into Christian Organisation.
They are a bunch of so called high-powered people that greedy in power with hidden agenda to take over.
Bible dated few thousand years ago and we are now living in 2009.
Dear Jaunty Jabber,
I understand your concern. But let me highlight a similar yet different scenario, to help you see things in a different perspective.
Assuming the CSE is conducted by a Christian trainer. She blogs regularly about her Christian beliefs, in particular her beliefs in abortions, homosexuality, etc.
This is a highly connected world. Her students know her name, and can hence easily find her blog.
However, as a professional social worker, she tried her best not to include her personal views into her training. Assuming although her personal beliefs dictate that she disagree with some of the topics in the training instructions, she felt that the entire CSE programme as a whole is sufficiently important that she continues be a CSE trainer despite her disagreement. And as a professional, she will not allow her personal beliefs to influences the agreed training methods.
However, to a secular pro-plurality parent, should I be worried that she is unprofessional? And even if she did not give out her contacts, my child can easily look up her blog, with her Christian beliefs. I do not wish my child to become a Christian. So I should raise this issue that the Christian trainer is unsuitable! Because I do not agrees with her personal values, and do not wish my child to be influenced by her.
So in this scenario, there is 2 main issues that we should consider.
1. Is the beliefs of the trainer acceptable for general public. As in, are they socially harmful as such, they are illegal? Or is it just that you as an individual disagrees with her beliefs?
For the former, obviously it is legal and right to highlight the issue as such, actions can be taken to remove such harmful beliefs.
In the case of the latter, you have a right to highlight the issue and withdraw your support from the organization. However, you have no rights to accuse or cast suspicions on her professionalism without evidences, just because you disagree with her values.
It is a very common human flaws to assume that persons with some differing moral values are immoral persons.
An example to highlight what I meant.
A moral upright person believes in honesty, compassion, etc.
But this particular person also believes that homosexuality is unnatural, and should be condemned and discouraged.
A gay activists felt that homosexuality is not a choice, and people should not be condemned just because they are different.
Now this moral person assumes that the gay activist is a morally poor person because unlike him, the activists actively supports something which he feels is wrong.
HENCE, the gay activist is likely to be less honest, and less compassionate, because he is morally empty.
So now, do everyone see the fallacy in this argument? This is an instinctive but logically wrong assumption.
Now back to my original discussion. Why should anyone be any more worried about a pro-gay (not true) being a CSE trainer? Why are no one worried about Christian teachers in secular schools? Or for the fact, what about Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, etc educators in schools?
I is very common for people to think deviant people are less trustworthy, because they are different, and unknown. Is goodness of the heart a trait singular to only the holy and believer?
Am I morally empty, because I felt that God or gods are irrelevant? Am I more likely to be an unscrupulous, unprofessional person because I believe that we should accept and not discriminate against homosexuality?
And the last question to highlight the fallacy,
Should all educators, and social workers stop blogging on their personal views and beliefs? Because the students and clients they are helping will be easily influences by their beliefs?
The only reason that they should stop is because their views, and beliefs are harmful or totally unacceptable to the given society.
Singapore is not a Christian country. Some religions felt that homosexuality is unacceptable. However, note the word “some”. There are also liberal who may be theists or otherwise that felt neutral or acceptable. Ours is a pluralistic society. There is no single view on homosexuality, unlike murders, adultery, etc…, where a sufficiently large majority have a common agreement that they are harmful to the society, and undesirable for the social mores.
Hence, I would advocate everyone to be more open minded and constantly remind yourself that your views and value is not universally agreed by the rest of the world. What is wrong to you, may not be wrong to some other dude or gal in some other part of Singapore.
We should not assume a person is totally evil just because he committed an evil act. The world is seldom black and white. Everyone is gray. Even the most sadistic killer would have his kind moments. We just need to look closer. However, this does not mean we should be all accepting. I am saying, we should try to look at the whole picture, instead of just concentrating on what we wanted to see.
A parting quote:
“What we see depends mainly on what we look for.”
~ John Lubbock (1834-1913)
“Anal sex ‘can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom’.”
If they indeed said the above, the MOE must seriously look into this matter and bring the people invovled to task. The Gay community is indeed getting bolder and bolder by the day.
I hope the government will impose some kind of jail sentence to discourage such boldness.
In the fifties and sixties and seventies even, our fathers and grandparents never allow the homosexuals to flourish. That is why why don’t have AIDS. And there are maarriages, there are families and there are enough babies. Sad Singapore is having so few babies now. No guessing how this happen.
Oh Jimmy, u must still be a teenager to say such things. I believe u must hv not taken ur GP paper yet or ur parents probably hv inhibited ur critical thinking skill. Don’t feel too lost, I’ll try my best to guide you in the name of humanity. Here are the 3 easy steps:
1. Pls read the history of homosexuals in China on this website.
2. Use wiki to find more about AIDs. It is actually not that well known until early 1980s.
3. Find out why panda population is decreasing.
For No.3, i can give u some leads. The global reproduction issue is mainly due to higher standard of living and personal choice. E.g. Many heterosexual couples are choosing not to give births because of financial constraint/they dislike children/afraid of responsibility/etc.
P/S: Pls don’t guess… I’m just a normal straight guy who happens to be more tolerant of others.
Here are what i found from wikipedia to share with anyone interested in the topic for knowledge. Anal sex is an increasingly popular form of intercourse between men and women, not just gays. There are 3 main reasons:
1. very low risk of unwanted pregnancy
2. preserving female virginity
3. yield more tactile pleasure for the men.
But, do note that the risk of injury is many times higher than normal intercourse.
#
Archbishop Desmond Tutu of Anglican Church in South Africa who won the Nobel Peace Price in 1994 , has this to say.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4 on 18 November 2007, Tutu accused the church of being obsessed with homosexuality and declared: “If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn’t worship that God.”[77]
Dear readers, if you have the time please read the chapter on church reform in this ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu
The COOS is under the Anglican archdiose in Singapore.
Isn’t what Archbishop Desmond Tutu said in 2007 exactly what is happening in COOS which Josie LAu belongs to . The COOS church is obsessed with homosexuality.
We should ask the X tians , is GOD homophobic ??
And to add salt to the wound of COOS, the Anglican Church itself is not in agreement in its ranks about the homosexual issue. Progressive churches in the west like the Anglican Church of England, The North American Anglican church and the South African Anglican Church have a more tolerant view on homosexulality . Read more at
http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/r/Rowan_Williams.htm
refer to chapter on homosexuality
Just look at how people of responsibility in the Anglican Church in the west frame their arguments with sensible reason, fair logic and thinking. and humility unlike The new aware Exco curt and closed argument type of mentality.
Why the difference you may ask , because in the west like UK and USA , the media will ask very pertinent questions to as to how you defend your views about homosexuality.
If they sense a persoanl view involve they will rip your defence to shreds and force you to say it is purely a persoanl view and should not be applied to society in general.
Society is secular and should so.
Why is it so hard for the New Excos of AWARE with members of COOS to admit to themselves that the old EXCO of Aware did carry out their duties with an awareness that Singapore is a secular place with people from a multi religious background and and even bigger majority of people who are secular in their outlook, they may have a religious view but they keep it to themselves knowing that society in general have a market place of pluralitic views.
To Ivy Ling:
Re: “The Gay community is indeed getting bolder and bolder by the day.”
Would you prefer that we were cowed into submission by the immoral hordes hiding behind the badge of religion?
[...] do the poking has garnered 1,200 signatures (scroll to post titled “Check Again”. Edit: This is a much better reference, with the originating email appeal in tow apparently). EDIT: I am highly [...]
[...] enthusiastic response to the K.F. Khoo petition demonstrate the power of faith. If only a portion of this enthusiasm could be harnessed for [...]