They came for me
I am an AWARE Comprehensive Sex Education trainer.
Here are some updates in response.
I also strongly denounce using death threats against anyone.
official stand: http://we-are-aware.sg/cse
Online Petition http://www.gopetition.com/online/27163.html
Contents of blog post
1. Exclusive info passed on to me
2. Response to the Media articles released SINCE 24th Apr.
3. THE email from Thio Su Mien
4. Links to all online posts about Aware’s Comprehensive Sex Ed that I could find
Latest : Updated 25th Apr 3pm New additions of the day in RED
but then, a bomb gets dropped into my corner and i’ve to deal with it.
I’m glad I spoke up for the GLBTQ when I had the chance to.
Because today, you spoke up for me
=========================================================================
ITEM 1. Exclusive info passed on to me
—————————————————————
IMPORTANT:
Some ex-AWARE staff has informed us that the EGM preparations are now handled by the New Exco’s VOLUNTEERS ONLY.
The AWARE staff (REALLY BRAVE PEOPLE, Please send them flowers) have been reassigned to do other things. Or fired ( Manager got fired on the night of the Great Lock Out remember?).
I vouch for the authenticity of this info. They are people working at the heart of the AWARE saga but cannot use their name publically now.
I pdf it so that it does not get altered as it gets circulated
http://www.geocities.com/mathia_lee_yu_chun/Contradictions_Exco.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/mathia_lee_yu_chun/Raw_transcript_Aware_23Apr_PressConf.pdf
======================================================================================
ITEM 2 Response to the Media articles released 24th Apr
——————————————————————————
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_367834.html
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/424496/1/.html
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/424471/1/.html
On the death threats the New Exco received. I want to declare my STRONG PROTEST against the use of death threats against anyone — not matter how much you may disagree, or even how much wrong they do you , death threats must NEVER be used, and NEVER be condoned.
On allowing Men to vote in AWARE. —– There are 2 schools of thought within Aware, one believing it should be a Women’s organisation by ONLY women (so that it’s representative of women’s needs) , and the other believing that you don’t have to be a woman to stand up for gender equality (like you don’t have to be an animal to stand up for animal rights, a child to stand up for children’s rights). We put this motion to VOTE, and we respect the voted outcome
We do not take over an organisation simply because we belong to one school of thought or another
On the positions of all the players –
The Old Guard of AWARE makes their statements — http://we-are-aware.sg/statements
The New Exco makes their statements — http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_364307.html, http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_367834.html
The Government makes their statements — http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_368322.html
The gay community makes their statements — http://www.yawningbread.org/ , http://www.fridae.com/newsletters/newsletter.php
I’m waiting for the National Council of Churches of Singapore http://www.nccs.org.sg/NCCS/Statements.html to make their statement.
With the public sentiment the way it is, the NCCS, I believe,should NOT remain silent.
The closest thing is a 2003 statement on homosexuality http://www.nccs.org.sg/NCCS/Statement_Homosexuality.html
But the AWARE saga is NOT about homosexuality per se. It is about how different parties put forth differing views in civil society, where each others’ views conflict at a fundamental personal level. I’ll like to hear NCCS. If you’ll like to as well, do write in http://www.nccs.org.sg/NCCS/Contacts.html
http://www.theseminarianmovie.com/
Joshua Lim is currently making a movie about a student in a Christian Theology Seminary who’s in a gay relationship. It speaks of how he struggles with his faith and love. Joshua is a Singaporean film-maker who is now pursuing a Masters in Theology and the Arts at Fuller Theological Seminary.
His first film, The Olive Depression was about what it means to retain your humanity, your choice, your freedom, in an environment where these are crimes.
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/the-olive-depression/
On what Dr Thio Su Mien alleged about our Comprehensive Sex Ed program
official stand: http://we-are-aware.sg/cse
Personal Stand:
On Abstinence
Our class takes a lifelong perspective. All school education applies throughout our lives, and most girls would have sex at some point, whether it is next year, next decade or when they are 50.
Abstinence only message will be applicable for now, and will no longer be applicable when they are married. Focuses on teenage sex gives people the false impression that sex is dangerous only for teens, and age alone somehow makes it safe. That’s not true.
The independently verifiable facts are that each year approx 30K babies are born, 12 – 14 K abortions are done, of which 2/3 are on married women. The majority of female HIV patients are infected by their faithful partners – boyfriend or husband.
This was unacceptable to me, that in an educated society like Singapore, women are putting themselves in a position where they even have to consider an abortion – I wanted to do something about this. And so we need to empower women with the info and skills to prevent them from getting into this position at all. I believe that this is the most rational position that anyone who is genuinely respectful of life ( i’m coming from a Christian perspective here, and I am a Christian) can take.
What do we teach about homosexuality?
We don’t impose our views. In the first 2 sessions, we explore view points by asking the students what they think. Our aim is to open up students to the fact that there are many different views, and to open up their minds to all these different views so that they can think about it, and make their own choices based on their own personal values.
The bottom line is , respect for each other, even though we disagree. If the students bring it up, we acknowledge that some religions do hold homosexuality as being wrong. But just as we’ve learnt to respect each other’s religion where dietary restrictions are concerned, and not to impose on each other, we can also respect each other’s religious views in the same manner.
Our Program contents?
Part 1 : Exploring different views and values — we do not use the terms “right” and “wrong” on any view
Part 2: factual info on contraception and STIs — here we do have “right” and “wrong” eg. AIDS can be cured is clearly wrong
We do tell the girls that condoms are not 100% effective, and that it depends a lot on the user to be consistent, and to use it correctly. Which is why we teach condom usage — there are wives who suspect their husbands of philandering and using condoms is one way they can protect themselves. I bring up research done in NUH where only 1 out of 2000 patients cited condom failure as the reason for abortion — most cite reasons where abortion could be prevented had they used the appropriate contraception.
Part 3: Negotiation and communication skills — That girls all have sex for fun or are simply promiscuous is a myth. We hear stories where girls have sex because they did not know how to communicate / negotiate they’re wants. We also know that many girls go out with people they know very little of, and they want to be safe but don’t know how. So we explore different ways they can be safe, but do not impose a singular method that they must follow. Eg. Giving scenarios and discussing which is safe and which is more vulnerable.
============================================================
ITEM 3 : THE email from Thio Su Mien
————————————————————–
Someone told me that this broke out on STOMP:
——————————————————————————————————-
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Dear All
Please see Attachments on some recent developments in Aware. Aware is a woman’s organization which conducts comprehensive sexual programmes for girls and it runs this programme in some of the schools. They encourage girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls. It would be a good idea to join it and change its focus to other problems of women and families.
..Please ask your like-minded friends to join Aware so that you can give the vote to those who wish to be an agent of change for the Lord. They could also contribute to the activities of the oprganization as there is much to be done for women and families in this dowturn of the economy. Unfortunately, I cannot surface but shall be assisting in the background . I attach the Aware membership application form for your use. The Aware application form has a section as to who ( if any) told you about Aware. You can just leave it blank . Please let me know whether you can join and attend the AGM which will be towards the end of March 2009. The fee is $40/ and should be mailed to the Aware Office ( see application form).
Look forward to hearing from you. Please call me. May I have your phone no?
Blessings,
Su Mien
======================================================================
ITEM 4. Links to all online posts about Aware’s Comprehensive Sex Ed that I could find
——————————————————————————————————————-
(please add more links in my comments if you know of more)
http://www.aware.org.sg/?page_id=88
News
Aware’s holistic approach to sex education
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20080425-61776.html
Blogs
AWARE’s accomplishments (from our facebook group)
http://sgblogs.com/entry/contributions-made-aware-over-years/335075
Need to Bring Sexuality into the Open (Constance’s letter about AWARE’s CSE)
http://sgsexnews.blogspot.com/2007/05/need-to-bring-sexuality-into-open.html
Education key to tackling problem of underage sex (Written by AWARE)
Sex Education — 3rd world mentalities in a supposed 1st world country
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=1617
http://singapuranews.multiply.com/journal/item/1680 (written by Mathangi, fellow AWARE member)
Discussion about her article is here: http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=10781&highlight=sexuality
Mathia’s Articles
( STRICTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS ONLY, UNLESS STATED)
Just because I have my own personal views does not mean that I have to impose it on others, during our CSE class.
A lifelong approach to sexuality education is needed.
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/a-lifelong-approach-to-sexuality-education-is-needed/
(Unpublished letter for AWARE)
AWARE’s comprehensive sex ed programme.
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/aware_sex_education/ (published letter on behalf of AWARE)
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/12/27/thorny-issues-with-sex/
The limitations of the “Be Faithful” message
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/be_faithful_fallacy/
Teenage Magazine gives misleading advice on teenage sex
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/teenage-magazine-gives-misleading-advice-on-teenage-sex/ (Unpublisehed letter for AWARE)
Condom Effectiveness
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/condoms-85-or-99-effective/
Preventing HIV and STIs – what the state and church will not tell you
HIV subsidies
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/living-with-hiv-in-singapore/
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/say-yes-to-aids-treatment-subsidies/
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/hiv-subsidies-on-waste-taxation-and-justice/
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/subsidised-drugs-for-hiv-patients/
HIV is likely to go undiagnosed or undetected
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/false_choice_health_rights/
When should law and policy disregard moral values
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/morality-and-law-%e2%80%93-marry-able/
Like this:
51 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
[...] Read the original here: They came for me [...]
[...] A recently leaked series of emails that was originally posted on STOMP even suggests that some of the new members of AWARE were instigated to join the organization based on the vile propaganda that AWARE “encourages girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls“. (See here). [...]
This is REALLY getting ugly… I’m going to post this in a few places.
And hey… take care, okay?
I never knew AWARE did so much for the homosexual community until the Straits Times article today
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_367834.html
I mean, look at what prominent gay activist Alex Au says about AWARE’s achievements in this respect!! He says we hardly did anything!
http://www.yawningbread.org/
Thanks Saint Splattergut!
mathia, i do not believe for once that anyone gay will actually have the time and energy to threaten bitch thio and her fellow bunch of bigots.
she is using the SAME old tactic and strategy that served her causes so well over the past few years.
DO NOT FALL INTO HER TRAP.
[...] of AWARE – STOMP: AWARE – The Hidden Hand – Trevvy Forums: Aware – The Hidden Hand – Mathia Lee: They came for me – TOC: Thio Su Mien comes out – Sgpolitics: Misinformation spread by AWARE’s new Exco is [...]
So they have finally come out to admit what the intention/agenda of taking over Aware as perceived by the old guard and concerned members. The “pirate chief” to coin, Yawning Bread’s description of this whole episode has finally the guts or cheek to appear? why? is it because Ms Lau is now unable to handle this matter anymore without uttering further lies, and hiding the original instigator?
What a disgrace to Christians in general… making outright lies in public about their intention from the start. Really unimaginable.. lies after lies? Is that what they teach at the COOS, tell lies if it is necessary to protect (hide) your agenda?
If Thio SM is believing that what she is planning to do is “noble” – to save the world from the gays and the homsexuals, that why hide behind a facade and claim to have no agenda. What type of mentor or role model is she? We can have less of such people without an impact on our society.
AWARE is a secular organisation for Christ’s sake. Who does she think she is? God Alimighty herself? rendering judgement? Judgement is reserved for the throne of God on judgement day, not some critter like Thio SM.
I too suspect something amiss with the death threat report.
Remember some time ago, Thio Li Ann mention how horribly upset she was with Alfian’s supposed threatening letter? And when the letter was published it full it was nothing like what she made it out to be.
It sounds like they are just playing the persecution card to score sympathy points.
I believe that the death threats were self fabricated by the “new” exco, after all, they have shown themselves to be completely unethical so far, what’s 1 more lie?
why would a militant gay (who ? is there such an organisation? Music and Drama company in SAF?) be associating with a jihadist organisation (muslim terrorist cell?) its is an antithesis of ideology.
Hi,
I’ve been following your blog since AWARE was taken over. I would like to say that i share your view on equality for all and that we all have the right to be different without imposing our views on others.
Unfortunately i can’t vote at your EGM but i will be supporting your cause all the way.
Yours
ZSC
AWARE is now a joke isn’t it?
So much fear and so much hype.
How many people really understand the homosexual and discrimination context in Singapore?
The actions of Thio SM (and her like-minded associates?) shows that some people in the silent majority are starting to draw up “battle-lines”.
Let’s first look at the base issue – homosexuality and discrimination.
I guess-stimate and simplify with the following ratio, which I believe is quite reflective of Singapore society:
5% – Very vocal in bashing discrimination against homosexuals.
5% – Very vocal anti-homosexuals.
90% – Includes a few types. The Bo-Chup – never really thought of the issue. The not-their-problem-yet – typically not anti-homosexuals most of the time. The silent anti-homosexuals – they keep quiet and don’t impose their views on others.
If the majority are not presented with a “yes or no” question, they typically are not anti-homosexuals. Their most probable response is “leave the homosexual be, it’s their life”. That is wonderful, isn’t it?
However, if you ask the majority to indicate a stand “yes or no”, then you will have a very big problem. Why did the repeal for Section 377A (an un-enforceable law) fail? It is because you are asking people to put a “yes or no” to it.
Next, discrimination. There are a whole bunch of anti-discrimination hypocrites out there. Why do I say so?
Now, let’s consider yourself as a parent-to-be. Suppose you as a parent-to-be go to see the gynae for an ultrasound scan. You ask the doctor “boy or girl”. The doctor ask you in return “do you prefer boy, girl, gay, lesbian or bisexual”. That kind of doctor is really anti-discriminating. But who would put up with this?
How about this – Children educators tell you “please educate your children to be bisexual, so that in future they will have a choice, whether to be male, female, gay, lesbian or bisexual”.
Any form of education that does not inform the children of their variety of choices is really discriminatory, isn’t it? Now, would you teach this to your own children?
And how about this – If you already have young children, and a homosexual/bisexual approach you and ask “Can I teach your children to be homosexual/bisexual? I really like them and they like going out with me.”
Think – Why did Thio SM talk to parents with regards to AWARE’s stance on homosexuality?
The silent majority, many of whom are parents and grandparents, are OK with other people being homosexuals, BUT not their own children. Yes, the silent majority are double standards hypocrites, do you want to judge them? If you force them to take a stand with “yes/no” questions, you know where it is going to go.
AWARE should have kept quiet on all matters of homosexuality. Most people will help homosexuals in most situations in the same way people help one another. But don’t ask people to do a “yes/no” thing, do that and you will have people drawing “battle-lines”.
Of course, now it is too late. If the new exco gets ousted or step down, AWARE will be an even bigger joke. Now that AWARE’s past activities involving homosexuals are publicised, expect more people from the silent majority to speak out.
If the homosexual issue gets exploded, the ONLY people who suffer in the end are the homosexuals. Oh, but who really cares? The idealistic people only think of pushing their ideals.
Sometimes, keeping status quo and not doing anything does work wonders.
If you have seen the movie “Jesus Camp”, you will know who is the militant one…
Whoever concocted has also knowingly or unknowingly dragged in another religion into this…
Hi Mathia, I’m just wondering why Thio says that ‘they encourage girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls.’
Is there anything in the sex ed program that will cause her to believe this?
With regard to male membership, have you considered the possibility that it is for targeting the M2F transsexual population who identify themselves as women?
“Keeping status quo and not doing anything” is an insult to every activist and NGO on the planet.
Jeremy: “Keeping status quo and not doing anything” is an insult to every activist and NGO on the planet.
Well, I did mention “sometimes”, didn’t I?
Seems like Jeremy doesn’t know when to take action and when not to take action.
Of course, that is expected of activists – always wants action, easily offended.
While activists push their agenda and ideals, who ends up being the casualties?
Reminds me of them tree-huggers activists. Starve the kids and save some trees.
Aren’t there better ways to get things done?
Broadly speaking, Josie and team will be bashed for their “stormtrooper” way of doing things, but who really has the moral high ground now (with respect to the perception of Singaporeans)?
The majority will not scrutinise the details – whether or not Josie and team made up stories or made inaccurate statements. Right now, people will focus on some of the past homosexual-related activities of AWARE and scrutinise the comprehensive sex education program. I guess parents will want MOE to investigate as well.
Now all it takes is the “wrong” use of just a single word in the comprehensive sex education program and you will see a witch-hunt. Oh yes, there are many good stuff in the program, but now all that is required is some people testifying, then the witch-hunt starts.
Quite sad isn’t it?
Well, if activists can’t have a broad view of how things are progressing now, that’s too bad. You can take a dig at whatever details you want, Thio and company have played their cards right. And if you are still not aware, non-christians can be anti-homosexuals as well.
I would tend to agree with CM’s assessment that (i) vocal groups (“pro” & “anti”-homosexuals) both likely constitute small minorities; and that (ii) when we force a “yes/no” on something like repeal of 377A, then the situation gets complicated. That said, I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion that status quo is best. But of course, CM has cleverly nuanced his reply with “sometimes”. I would like to offer some additional comments, using the question of 377A as an example.
Right now, it seems like the situation is deadlocked. The pro-repeal camp sees 377A as a symbol of discrimination and an ever-present Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every homosexual. The anti-repeal camp, on the other hand, fear that repealing 377A might be a precursor (rightly or wrongly) to worse things like overt promotion of gay lifestyle, same-sex marriages, etc. I also suspect that a significant number of Singaporeans share similar (but not necessarily strong) sentiments. In short, we are not quite there yet in developing a broad national consensus on this issue.
As I write this, I am neither for nor against either camp. I also will not attempt to justify the arguments on either side. I am simply assessing the situation dispassionately. Personally, I have no strong feelings about retaining 377A. If a clear majority of Singaporeans wants to repeal 377A, then I would not object to that.
The question is: where do we go from here? One possibility is for activists to keep up the pressure through civil society channels, and wait for the ground to shift. In the long term, demographic changes and shifts in international opinion may make it easier for society to change. But in the meantime, this would entail a long-drawn fight for space within civil society, as “pro” and “anti” groups continue to slug it out. AWARE’s current predicament is a case in point.
Here I would like to offer some food for thought on how everyone can move forward in a constructive manner. What we perhaps need is an intermediate compromise that a clear majority can live with. An overly idealistic approach will only end up pushing the wrong buttons and provoking the worst sort of reactions. So here goes: to satisfy the “pro” group, we repeal 377A and enshrine the principle of “no discrimination on the basis of sexuality”. But at the same time, we also build in measures to reassure the “anti” group, i.e. no same-sex marriages, reaffirm traditional family as the basic unit of society, etc. And we promise to revisit this entire basket of issues in 20 years. This way, everybody walks home equally unhappy. The “pro” group can claim a symbolic victory, while the “anti” group can claim that they have successfully reaffirmed the sanctity of the family. We leave the second round to the next generation.
Sounds too far-fetched? I’m just throwing out ideas here. Moving forward requires engagement and compromise, and ultimately hard choices if we want to get anywhere.
Your understanding of the whole situation is extremely flawed, CM.
It is fine if you want to do nothing. Even if it is only “sometimes”. That is your right and you are absolutely entitled to it. But don’t expect others to do so.
People do object to the details – just take a look online and everyone is calling out Josie’s team precisely because they made up stories and inaccurate statements.
The whole issue is not about homosexuality, the church has simply drawn in the issue to attempt to draw the support of the conservative majority, and you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
I am very concerned about the circumstances of the sacking of centre manager Schutz Lee.
In the account in TODAY, page 5, VP Charlotte Wong was given the password for the email, the same one given to former president Constance Singam, and Wong could not access the email. This is how it can become REAL UGLY. Suppose Singam still has her password (assuming she was not asked to surrender it), and Wong could not log in because it was active i.e. Singam happened to be using it. Wong can technically file a police report for illegal access to official mail. Second scenario: Singam doesn’t want the new President to use her password (she assumes that IT will issue the new president a fresh passowrd), and changes it to something else. Then she’s liable for unauthorised alteration of office computer records. The REAL danger here is the inspector in charge of cyber crimes is not exactly the best man for the job; he tends to go by the LETTER of the law, and not the SPIRIT of the law. Please ask Singam to be EXTREMELY careful. Remember when someone said he will piss on her grave, Professor of Law Thio Li-An considered that to be a DEATH THREAT and made a police report.
Just scanned through the ST Forum… so many letters on the AWARE saga! It’s simply amazing. I wonder if people even cared so much about what AWARE was doing before this.
Suggestion to Mathia: you may want to use some form of HTML formatting (some kind of color font perhaps) to indicate what you have updated in your posts, since you are making frequent changes to the same post. This will make it easier for people to quickly catch the latest information when they revisit your blog.
Thanks Fargoal
You know what? I’m such a tech idiot. I wanna do the color thing, but I don’t know how!!!! WordPress doesn’t seem to have a color function.
Anyone got clues???
[...] Jabber] – STOMP: AWARE – The Hidden Hand – Trevvy Forums: Aware – The Hidden Hand – Mathia Lee: They came for me – TOC: Thio Su Mien comes out – Sgpolitics: Misinformation spread by AWARE’s new Exco is [...]
mathia,
Keep up the good fight. Some of us still care about equality.
You can’t win this fight without hurting some feelings, so don’t feel bad if you have to do it.
There’s no need to be defensive about anything you did, as far as I can tell. Teaching respect of self and others is never wrong. If anyone objects to this, they should be the ones doing the explaining. Not you.
RSE
sigh dr thio, she is the epitome of a damn good
liarlawyerThis was sent to me in a private email so i’ll keep the writer anonymous.
He’s in a gay relationship, so I was really interested in his perspective
It’s a view that dissents from mine, and so I thought it would be great to put here, as something to think about.
—————-Start of copied email ——————————————————
mathia,
we talked about respecting each other’s views blah blah and it seems from some of your writings that you are trying to impress upon the pro-gay people to also ‘tolerate’ the other side.
i disagree with that.
and this article talks about the backlash from Miss USA… it is so well written and to me, explains the drive of advocacy and intense criticism towards suppression.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/miss-usa-and-the-b-word_b_189465.html
oh
and on a side note, prop 8 article – might have some relevance to gay stuff in singapore.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,7071124.story
——————————End of copied email ——————————————
—————————–start of my reply to him —————————————–
I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with, would you elaborate and explain please?
Which part are you referring to? Copy and paste?
And also what you think should be in place?
I’ll like to hear your view
——————————–End of my reply to him ——————————-
—————————-Start of 2nd copied email ——————————–
sheesh,
you said:
The bottom line is , respect for each other, even though we disagree. If the students bring it up, we acknowledge that some religions do hold homosexuality as being wrong. But just as we’ve learnt to respect each other’s religion where dietary restrictions are concerned, and not to impose on each other, we can also respect each other’s religious views in the same manner.
from the article:
But the fight for equality is not just an exercise in name-calling. And it is not a polite exchange between friends about what to eat for dinner. There is no room for preference or belief when it comes to legally enforceable discrimination that is imposed on the entire population
there u go.
————————————————-End of 2nd copied email———————–
—————————————-My 2nd Reply ————————-
I think there are 2 things here
1. How we THINK about homosexuality / gay/bi people
2. How we ACT towards gay/bi people
I don’t think we have any disagreement
You and I both want a change in people’s thoughts and attitudes. We both agree that thoughts and attitudes change through persuasion, and not at the threat of violence or at the expense of freedom of personal belief (Eg. Like what the New Exco did). And so we’re persuading…. Takes time.
You and I also both want non-discriminatory ACTIONS towards gay/bi people. Where ACTIONS are concerned, you don’t necessarily have to agree with each other in thoughts/beliefs, to have non-discriminatory actions. That’s why fair legislation is needed — to protect people’s rights, even when various parties may be unwilling to respect them. The example Singaporeans are most familiar with are our legislation / policies on religious tolerance. It’s an existing platform we can work from. It means ensuring non-discriminatory ACTIONS are taken by all parties in society towards gay/bi people , irrespective of what beliefs/thoughts all the parties might have. Just as we do with our ACTIONS towards people of other faiths and faith-practices.
Hi Jeffyen
“Thio says that ‘they encourage girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls.’ ”
Our workshops are not lectures — we encourage different people to speak up. so that everyone hears different view points and so opens them up to different beliefs and thoughts.
Our stand is that homosexuality is not wrong, people don’t have to feel ashamed of being homosexual.
Our stand is that humans cannot choose their sexual orientation.
i really wonder if Dr Thio realises the implications of her beliefs.
Based on her claims that homosexuality is a CHOICE, and so homosexual people can CHANGE, it follows too, that Heterosexual people can choose and change — and be externally influenced to turn gay.
You know what that means? That means Dr Thio is saying everyone’s a bisexual , and as bisexuals we can choose and pick either male or female lovers, but that from a religious perspective we ought to pick the opposite sex as lovers. Meaning that Dr Thio is probably Bi too.
We include very one who stands for the values of AWARE — doesn’t matter what you identify yourself as, or who you are.
CM, surely you think that people do benefit from Comprehensive sexuality programmes?
Thanks Jerry. Indeed there’s many legal issues. The fortunate thing is that we’ve many lawyers who are AWARE volunteers — their service is invaluable.
Thanks RSE. cynicholas for all your support!
Thanks mathia, I haven’t imagined the bisexual angle before, but it’s certainly a valid point!
I think the biggest problem now is the effect of Thio’s statements on aware’s sex ed program. If no one points out the misinformation, and I dare even say they are outright lies, then more parents will believe what she has said.
Hopefully in one of the next news cycles, ST journalists can point out/debunk the inaccuracies from Thio…. May the Force be with you!
You know what Jeffyen?
We did correct all the misinformation and ST did publish it.
But because Thio’s statements are so sensationalist. the papers (ST, Today, Newpaper) HIGHLIGHTED all those inaccuracies!
And our correction is so factual, they put it in small -print. Sigh.
You know what makes me sad?
Many schools are very wary about ANY course teaching girls about condom use, sex, etc. However, most of them understand the need for it. Hence they do arrange such classes for the girls, but they do not want any backlash or negative feedback from parents, public or MOE etc. If there is negative publicity, I’m afraid they will stop having any such classes to prevent future occurances. Other schools watching, and when word gets around, other schools will also stop having such classes, just to “be safe”.
This not only affects AWARE. The schools might be hesitant to bring in ANY sex ed classes from ANY ONE else, to prevent the possibility of any negative publicity.
The ones who are most disadvantaged are the GIRLS.
Yes the ST did publish some clarifications. Unfortunately, in today’s ST Forum, to achieve ‘fair-and-balanced’, they published a few letters that perpetuate the inaccuracies! I think the ministry and schools are between a rock and a hard place. Let’s see whether the situation changes after the whole thing has settled down…
Hi Mathia,
You may find this video clip of the sermon of COOS Pastor describing homosexuality as a sin useful:
http://wayangparty.com/?p=8311
Fargoal said, on April 25, 2009 at 6:22 am
“Here I would like to offer some food for thought on how everyone can move forward in a constructive manner. What we perhaps need is an intermediate compromise that a clear majority can live with…
…The “pro” group can claim a symbolic victory, while the “anti” group can claim that they have successfully reaffirmed the sanctity of the family. We leave the second round to the next generation.”
Great idea. Actually, that was similar to what they did in the UK with prostitution and homosexuality with the Sexual Offences Act 1967. They decriminalised both, but also regulated them. Prostitution was driven underground since prostitutes weren’t allowed to solicit in the street. Homosexuality was kept private since public acts of homosexuality still weren’t allowed. It even left the government free to ban the intentional promotion of homosexuality under the Local Government Act 1988. The 1967 Act certainly had its own problems, but it kept everyone happy.
Thus, i really don’t see why anti-repeal types repeatedly claim that repealing s. 377A will bring us down a “slippery slope” (gay parades, gay marriage, exploding cows and the end of the world… etc). All the government must do is decriminalise private homosexual behaviour, then firmly draw the line there and leave the situation up for review at some future date. This will have the dual advantage of [1] striking an appropriate balance between individual liberty and public decency (rather than treading on dangerous ground by legislating morality); and [2] creating much more certainty in the criminal law (certainty is *key in criminal law- you want to know that if you do something, you won’t get hauled up).
Hey Fargoal and Dan
Yeh i think that’s actually a good way to go.
I wonder what you would define as “private” vs “public” acts of homosexual behavior though?
Would gay marriage be private or public?
How about safe-sex ed programms / campaigns that specifically reach out the gay community? Private or public?
Kissing in public? Private or public?
I’ll actually rather the law not distuinguish between heterosexual and homosexual sex acts. Then stuff like oral sex in public — that would be treated the same way before the law, whether or not its het or homo.
I liked that line though “repealing s. 377A will bring us down a “slippery slope” (gay parades, gay marriage, exploding cows and the end of the world…”
LOL.
http://ovidiayu.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/why-thio-su-miens-stand-is-good-news/
I was really happy to read this , as well as all the comments in the press about our CSE programme.
I do try to work on the faith that what I’m doing actually is useful (given i’ve only 3 hours, and a conservative teacher has 300 days with the students!). For confidentiality issues, we don’t usually trace these girls we teach once the workshop is over, so we never really know for sure how it benefits them in the long term.
So it’s really heartwarming to read in the press, about how these girls thought they’ve benefited from our programme
On the one hand, I wish that my understanding of the whole situation is extremely flawed, Jeremy.
But on the other hand, this whole matter is a very exciting drama. Highly entertaining. And I have also come up with some hypotheses on what’s going to happen, and why. I’m intrigued, yes.
I don’t care whether the new exco will be ousted or not. Sad to say, given the way things are turning out, whoever wins, AWARE loses plus collaterel damage.
I don’t care whether activists explode the whole homosexual issue aggressively. In fact, it makes for more exciting drama.
I’m interested in the body count, the casualties, and my hypotheses.
** By the way, one of the first few high probability casualties would be the CSE. And mind you, this is regardless of whether the new exco stays or goes.
** You can start counting casualties from Mathia’s comment at (April 25, 2009 at 6:10 pm). So go ahead activists, take more action, let’s see how many bodies we can count at the end of this. I’m expecting one of the next salvo in the form of irrate parents (probably staunch christians) to MOE. Let’s see whether it happens, shall we?
Yes, people may well object to the details aggressively online. It may well be that you get more factual information online than offline. But what is the sentiment offline? The whole issue may not be about homosexuality. That goes to show that Thio and company made a sensational sound strategic (dirty?) move. And you yourself have said it – we have a conservative majority. So, what can you do about it?
——————————————————————————————
Mathia, I’m not sure whether this statement is entirely true “that humans cannot choose their sexual orientation”.
I’m no expert on homosexuals, but I think there are at least 3 types:
1) Genetically a homosexual
2) Influenced to be a homosexual/bisexual
3) Circumstantial homosexual
The conservative majority will accept (1) without problems. It is (2) and (3) that is of great concern.
If there are facts to show that there is only (1) and that (2) and (3) are not possible, then the solution to homosexual discrimination is easy – publicise the scientific/medical information.
But is that really the case?
Mathia, I’m very sure people do benefit from the CSE and it is good to see volunteers like you (but don’t kill your health doing it). If it were up to me, I would stay away from any statement pertaining to homosexuality. I do not “box up” myself with a label to be against discrimination, as long as the important message gets conveyed, it doesn’t matter whether the style is conservative or liberal.
I believe our brains can come up with better solutions than “boxing ourselves up” with labels.
[...] http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/they-came-for-me/ [...]
Mathia, I’m wondering about the background of the following that appears in today’s ST. How accurate would you say this is?
—————————————
[from the new exco]
Some examples from the current CSE programme are:
• Anal sex ‘can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom’.
• ‘People might place premarital sex as negative, but it is really neutral.’
• ‘Avoid using the term ‘husband’ and use ‘partner’ instead, so it is more inclusive. For example, ‘homosexuals have partners, not husbands’.’
These are not ‘neutral’ statements. They contain moral judgments which not everybody agrees with. We are reviewing the contents of the programme as a whole.
Qouted out of context, statements like this can be interpreted many ways.
And while they were qouted accurately, they were qouted out of context.
Before I give the full context ( also i don’t have time at THIS moment, but when I do , I will) , I would like to hear what all the READER”S VIEWS are. Tell me how you would interpret the statements, and tell me what you think. I’ll really love to know. I’ll address them this evening (running late for an appointment now, sorry!)
Thanks!
Hey mathia,
In response to “I wonder what you would define as “private” vs “public” acts of homosexual behavior though?”:
1.) I *personally agree that homo and hetero acts shouldn’t be differentiated. If i had *my way, i wouldn’t care less whether the gay pride parade wants to march in front of my home (it’d be quite fascinating, really ^_^).
2.) However, if i were a government official attempting to strike a suitable balance between the conservative and liberal camps, the “intermediate” step (decriminalising private but not public displays of homosexual affection) would be more achievable.
This isn’t to say that we *should give up hope of equal treatment for homos. Rather, i say we should do more than just leave s. 377A in place (because of injustice, uncertainty, danger of legislating [religious] morality etc), but should be prepared to counter significant resistance to total deregulation of gay behaviour by putting these regulations in place, so that they can’t accuse us of leading society down a slippery slope. Moreover, i think the question should not be decided once and for all by enacting such legislation, but left open to review later on- hopefully when society has become much more tolerant.
Of course, another view is that a complete deregulation of homosexual behaviour may be workable. If i’m not wrong, the US government was prepared to drag America kicking and screaming into letting women (1920) and negros (1968) vote. But whether our government is willing to pay the political price is quite another question, unfortunately. =(
1.) Anal sex *can be healthy with a condom- it’s not a pronouncement on the morality of anal sex, only on its medical safety.
Whether anal sex is moral or not may be left to your judgment. But whether it’s medically safe or not is for doctors- not priests- to decide.
2.) Premarital sex *is neutral in the context of comprehensive sex education programmes.
Again, the programme aims to inform you on how to have sex safely- not on whether such sex is good or bad.
3.) I don’t see what’s wrong with using the term “partner”. Again, the aim of comprehensive sex education is to target as many types of sexual practice as possible- not to pass judgment on them.
Lest you seriously think that sex only takes place in the confines of (heterosexual) marriage, just check out what goes on in NUS kent ridge.
The programme doesn’t aim to encourage sex outside marriage- only to inform you that if you want to do it, this is how to do it safely. Take this analogy. I may personally believe that sky diving is wrong and not want to encourage it. But that doesn’t mean that i don’t tell sky divers that they should take certain precautions (wear a helmet etc). My personal belief in sky-diving’s immorality does *not compel me to disregard the safety and life of the sky-diver. Likewise, i may not like homosexuality, but i’ll want to ensure that if it does occur, at least it’ll be done *safely.
In my book, it’s better that a few more people do the nookie outside marriage (if that *will even happen), than that *many more die because they don’t know how to do it safely.
–
In sum, moral judgments are the jurisdiction of moral authorities. Medical education is *not. Disregard for human life and safety in the name of dubious “morals” is misguided at best, malicious and repugnant at worst.
As to the line between public and private homosexuality, i think we can roughly follow the laws regarding public/private nudity. The rationale is similar- individual liberty vs public decency. Following the nudity principles will also create crucial consistency and certainty within criminal law.
Here are my guesses…
‘Anal sex ‘can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom’.
-Anal sex is now allowed between 2 consenting heterosexuals. If you are a homosexual, do take note that it is still illegal.
‘People might place premarital sex as negative, but it is really neutral.’
-Premarital sex, per se, is neutral in the sense that folks shouldn’t be pre-judgemental. Any judgement that is put on it depends on the context in which the sex takes place and also depends on the values of the individual. Is there a loving relationship? Is there coersion or emotional blackmail? Positioning premarital sex as negative by default infers that postmarital sex is positive by default. This need not be true when the context becomes negative, for eg. marital rape.
‘Avoid using the term ‘husband’ and use ‘partner’ instead, so it is more inclusive. For example, ‘homosexuals have partners, not husbands’.’
-Homosexuals are people too, with the same hope and dreams as any person. If they are in a relationship with someone, one can call the other person as a partner.
[...] A recently leaked series of emails that was originally posted on STOMP even suggests that some of the new members of AWARE were instigated to join the organization based on the vile propaganda that AWARE “encourages girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls“. (See here). [...]
hi Mathia,
http://ovidiayu.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/why-thio-su-miens-stand-is-good-news/
Do you really think that the author of the above article is right that the Old Guards can sue Bitch Thio for defamation?
Frankly, it is unfair to judge the CSE on this basis, if we do not consider the context of these three statements. But here are my prelim thoughts. This is really more of an exercise in language.
1) Anal sex ‘can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom’.
This sounds like health advice on the practice of anal sex, in which case the word “neutral” is redundant, unless it means that anal sex has “neutral”, i.e. no positive or negative effect on health. If that is the intent, then I would replace “healthy, or neutral” with “safer”. And to specify “with consent” is a little odd. I would think “consent” should be upfront (in the whole CSE) and apply to all forms of sexual activity. I’m sure CSE would hammer in the point that any kind of non-consensual sex, before or after marriage, is wrong.
2) ‘People might place premarital sex as negative, but it is really neutral.’
I suppose this is from a health angle, i.e. no difference between premarital and postmarital sex from a health perspective. But when I first saw it, it sounded like it was advocating a moral position, in other words, premarital sex is *really* value-neutral, i.e. neither good nor bad. “Neutral” is a position in itself.
3) ‘Avoid using the term ‘husband’ and use ‘partner’ instead, so it is more inclusive. For example, ‘homosexuals have partners, not husbands’.’
This sounds like an attempt to make the explanations neutral with regards to sexual orientation. Homosexuals do exist (fact), and some form same-sex relationships with homosexual partners (fact also). Factually correct, but perhaps politically insensitive (given the disapproval of the conservative majority)?
Rather than say that homosexuality is “normal” or “neutral”, why not say that (i) being confused or curious about sexuality (hetero or homo) is part of growing up; (ii) divergent views on these issues exist; (iii) in any case, one should never rush to do anything prematurely or do anything unsafe when it comes to sex; and (iv) there’s no harm in waiting if unsure.
Or is this sort of constructive ambiguity a little too out-of-touch with today’s teenagers?
on April 26, 2009 at 4:33 pm:
“Lest you seriously think that sex only takes place in the confines of (heterosexual) marriage, just check out what goes on in NUS kent ridge.”
Apologies in advance/disclaimer: I didn’t mean to exclude BTC as well. When i wrote that post, i just happened to be thinking about this website on sexual activity in Kent Ridge.
Your info on AWARE EGM is outdated. Venue is now SINGAPORE EXPO HALL 2 Registration Starts at 12noon; EGM from 2-5pm
Sorry, I’m not sure which is the latest venue now because on someone else’s blog it’s indicated as Suntec City Hall 402. Which is correct?