
Rainbow Harvest
c.dec 2004
Gays are beginning to
realise what blacks learnt long ago, unless You are out here
fighting for yourself then nobody will help you. I think the Gay
community has a moral obligation to continue to fight.
Bayard Rustin (organised
1963 MLK march to Washington)
Words and Music by
Stuart Hamblen, 1953
Teach me, Lord, to wait while hearts are
a flame. Let me
humble my pride and call on The name.
Keep my faith renewed
my eyes on Thee.
Let me be on this earth what You want me
to be.
They that wait upon the Lord, Shall
renew their strength.
They shall mount up with wings as eagles.
They shall run and not be weary,
they shall walk and not faint.
Teach me, Lord, teach me, Lord, to wait.
About
Email
Worship
Video
Links
SGNews
News
Youtube
Online Video
Anti Gay Movement Anti - Gay Movement
The Bible and Homosexuality The bible and Homosexuality
News Articles Selected News Service
Archives
Archives 2007
Archives 2006
Archives 2005
There is (outer) space for everyone - Anonymous
Web Site Created - December 2004
Updated 28 Jan 2012

“We must always take sides.
Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence
encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
Elie Wiesel (Nobel Laureate)
|
Loading
By Yeoh Wee Teck The New Paper Tuesday, Sep 20, 2011
|
I have been out so long to so many
people, outing myself now seems frivolous and excessive.
Many years ago, I even went on CNN to ask Mr Lee Kuan
Yew about the plight of gay Singaporeans. I mean, how
much proof do you really need? But typing the words "I
am gay" and expecting it to be read by the country made
me pause. This seems so finite and there's no turning
back. When Kumar made our front page for coming out,
almost everyone came to me to say: "Kumar being gay is
news to you?" Yes, it was hardly a secret.
But
he took the step anyway and, typing this, I can imagine
how he feels. This finality is actually scary. The world
has changed. A decade ago, this article would not have
seen the light of day. Today, with gay marriages and
civil unions being recognised from Canada to Brazil to
New Zealand, and with celebrities coming out so
regularly, it is no longer a big deal. In young liberal
minds, it is now just a way of life. If you're straight,
great. If you're gay, okay. This is the second toughest
time I've had with my sexual orientation.
The
first was when I decided it was time to come out to my
parents. Like a gay cliche, I'm obsessed with my mum. My
mother is capable of culling guilt with just a sigh or
self-imposed silence. So imagine my dilemma. Had she
objected violently, I would have had to get a bride just
to appease her. But the anticipated drama fizzled out.
We had that coming-out talk exactly once. Once I stated
the obvious, the topic never came up again. That night,
my mother asked if my boyfriend Terence would take care
of me. Would he leave me when I'm old?
My father
was really calm. He just wanted to know when I was going
to buy food for our dog. I think years of living my life
openly but never saying anything prepared my parents for
that moment. After that conversation, I waited. Like
many old Chinese folks, my parents are not expressive.
It's in the nuances. Nothing changed: The nagging
continued about my room, my weight, my dog and myriad
topics too mundane to recall. A Cantonese woman loves
you with food. When she started setting aside soup and
food for Terence, I knew he was in. When she cooks a
corn soup - which I'm lukewarm about - because "Terence
likes corn", he was finally family. And when she pulls
him aside to nag about me, and when he agrees with her
and I end up with stereo nagging, I momentarily wish
they weren't so close.
Terence is involved in
birthdays, Mother's Days, reunion dinners and family
gatherings. It's the same on his side. His cousins knew
about us, then his aunt and eventually all his aunts.
Finally he told his mother. Our lives merged and it's an
endless cycle of family meals and parties. We don't need
an invitation to be there any more because it is
expected. I went on Twitter and Facebook to get my
friends to share their experience of coming out. One
replied: "Today still need to come out meh? I thought
these days people just walk into it?" Well, it seems
that coming out is still hard for some. The overwhelming
reason is trying to spare the parents. "Their mindset is
still very conservative," explained a friend. But for
those who did, the stories are heartwarming. When A came
out to her mother, she "apologised for being what some
would call abnormal". "To my surprise, my mum said: 'Who
says that being in a heterosexual relationship ensures a
lifetime of happiness?
As long as you're happy,
I'll be happy for you'." -Another said her mum had
suspected and asked her dad to talk to her. "He was more
nervous than I was and he concluded that it doesn't
matter if I'm in love with a man or a woman as long as
the person treats me good and I am happy." Her mum,
however, refused to talk to her for two years. She came
around eventually. "Now when people ask her about me,
she will say since I cannot change her, I just have to
accept her. "Most importantly, she is a very good
daughter." When it's time for you to come out, you will.
Chances are, the people around you will react better
than expected. So here I am, out. Hello, I am a gay
Singaporean. |
”Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to
Keep Singapore Going” |
From p. 377 :
Page title:
"Homosexuality - It's in the genes" Preamble from the
editors: "As in many societies, the issue of
homosexuality is controversial in Singapore. From the
heated parliamentary debates in 2007 over whether to
retain or repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which
prohibits sex between men (it was eventually retained),
to the unease over homosexual content in student sex
education manuals, the subject polarises the public. It
was no surprise then that we received questions on this
topic from both sides of the conservative-liberal
divide, including one that asked how Lee would feel if
one of his grandchildren were gay."
Q: What is
your personal view on being gay? Do you think it's a
lifestyle or is it genetic? A: No, it's not a
lifestyle. You can read the books all you want, all the
articles. There's a genetic difference, so it's not a
matter of choice. They are born that way and that's
that. So if two men or two women are that way, just
leave them alone. Whether they should be given rights of
adoption is another matter because who's going to look
after the child? Those are complications that arise once
you recognise that you could actually legally marry,
then you say I want to adopt. Vivian Balakrishnan says
it's not decisively proven. Well, I believe it is.
There's enough evidence that some people are that way
and just leave them be.
Q: This is more of a
personal question, but how would you feel if one of your
grandchildren were to say to you that he or she is gay?
A: That's life. They're born with that genetic code,
that's that. Dick Cheney didn't like gays but his
daughter was born like that. He says, "I still love her,
full stop." It's happened to his family. So on principle
he's against it, but it's his daughter. Do you throw the
daughter out? That's life. I mean none of my children is
gay, but if they were, well that's that.
Q: So
what do you see is an obstacle to gay couples adopting
children? You said, who's going to look after the child?
A: Who is going to bring them up? Two men looking after
a child? Two women looking after a child, maybe. But I'm
not so sure because it's not their own child. Unless you
have artificial insemination and it's their own child,
then you have a certain maternal instinct immediately
aroused by the process of pregnancy. But two men
adopting a boy or a girl, what's the point of it? These
are consequential problems, we cross the bridge when we
come to it. We haven't come to that bridge yet. The
people are not ready for it. In fact, some ministers are
not ready for it. I take a practical view. I said this
is happening and there's nothing we can do about it.
Life's like that. People are born like that. It's not
new, it goes back to ancient times. So I think there's
something in the genetic makeup.
Q: It took time
for Singaporeans to be able to accept single women MPs.
Do you see Singaporeans being able to accept a gay MP?
It's already happening in a fairly widespread fashion in
Europe. A: As far as I'm concerned, if she does her
work as an MP, she looks after her constituents, she
makes sensible speeches, she's making a contribution,
her private life is her life, that's that. There was a
British minister, I shouldn't name him, a Conservative.
He was out of office but he was hoping to become the
leader of the party and we had dinner with a few
friends. He thought he had to come out upfront that when
he was at university at Oxford, he did get involved in
same-sex activities. But he's married now with children,
he's quite happy. So he came out with it. He didn't
become leader of the party and that's Britain. He
thought he had come out upfront and it'd protect him
from investigative reporting. It did not help him. But
had he kept quiet they would have dug it out, then it's
worse for him. So there you are. You know, there are two
standards. It's one thing the people at large, it's
another thing, your minister or your prime minister
being such a person. I mean Ted Heath was not
married. I shouldn't say who the ministers were who said
he's a suppressed homosexual. So the opposition party
leaders were telling me because it's very strange.
Here's a man in the prime of his life and getting on,
40, 50 still not married, and he was that way at Oxford.
So they said, suppressed homosexual. That's the
opposition talk by very reputable leaders who tell me
that seriously. So? And with it of course is
disapprobation, that he's unworthy to be a leader. But
that was in the early 1970s.
Q: Did you come to
this view on homosexuality just through scientific
reasoning alone? A: No, by my observation and
historical data. I mean, in the Ottoman empire, they had
a lot of it. And there was one story that D. H. Lawrence
was captured in Arabia and they sodomised him. The
Ottomans had their share of homosexuals and I'm sure
there were also women in the harems. So? So be it.
Q: What about your acquaintances or your friends
rowing up throughout life, were any of them gay as well?
A: I'm not sure about acquaintances, but not my friends.
I mean, they were all married. But I'm sure there must
have been. This is not something which is recent, it
goes back into historic times. And you have animals
sometimes acting that way. So it's not just human
beings, there's something in the genetic code.
Q:
So this is one aspect where the conservative views of
society are diametrically opposed to your own practical
views? A: I'm not the prime minister, I told you that
before I started. If I were the prime minister I would
hesitate to push it through against the prevailing
sentiment, against the prevailing values of society.
You're going against the current of the people, the
underlying feeling. What's the point of that, you know,
breaking new ground and taking unnecessary risk? It will
evolve over time, as so many things have, because after
a while my own sort of maturing process will take place
with other people. You don't just live and then you cut
off your ideas after a certain time. You keep on living
and you watch people and you say, 'Oh that's the way
life is.'
Q: But are you, personally speaking,
frustrated by this conservatism? A: No, I take a
purely practical view.
Q: But are you frustrated
by how this conservatism is perhaps opposed to the
practical view? A: No, that is life. I cannot change
them overnight. I think society, their own experiences,
their own reading, their own observations, will bring
about the change despite their innate biases.
|
Jan 23, 2011
Gay MP? 'Her private life is
her private life'
But society is not ready for
such openness in Parliament: MM Lee By Elgin Toh |
Social mores at one time
kept single women out of Parliament. The likes of
Ms Penny
Low and Ms
Indranee
Rajah, both sitting MPs and unmarried, prove that
frontier has been breached. Might gay people one day
follow in their footsteps?
Minister
Mentor
Lee Kuan
Yew has revealed that he has no problems with
having homosexuals in Parliament.
The surprising
comment came in an interview in which Mr Lee makes his
most comprehensive statement on homosexuality to date.
It was published in a new book about his beliefs, Hard
Truths To Keep
Singapore
Going. It is available at bookstores with DVD for
$39.90. Asked about the possibility of gay MPs, he
said: 'As far as I'm concerned, if she does her work as
an MP, she looks after her constituents, she makes
sensible speeches, she's making a contribution, her
private life is her life, that's that.'
Mr Lee,
however, made it clear that his personal view did not
automatically become the policy of the ruling
People's
Action Party (PAP), which he no longer leads,
saying later in the same interview: 'I'm not the prime
minister, I told you that before I started. If I were
the prime minister I would hesitate to push it through
against the prevailing sentiment, against the prevailing
values of society. 'You're going against the current
of the people, the underlying feeling. What's the point
of that, you know, breaking new ground and taking
unnecessary risk?'
He said he believed it had
been scientifically proven that homosexuals were
genetically different from heterosexuals. 'They are born
that way and that's that.'
Asked what he would do
if he had a grandchild who was gay, he cited the example
of former United States vice-president Dick Cheney, who
was against homosexuality but whose daughter is gay.
'He says, 'I still love her, full-stop',' noted Mr Lee.
'Do you throw the daughter out? That's life. I mean none
of my children is gay, but if they were, well, that's
that.' He was more ambiguous about whether same-sex
marriages should be allowed or if gays should be given
rights of adoption, noting that 'complications' would
arise. 'Who is going to bring them up?' he asked.
'Two men looking after a child? Two women looking
after a child, maybe. But I'm not so sure because it's
not their own child. Unless you have
artificial
insemination and it's their own child, then you
have a certain maternal instinct immediately aroused by
the process of pregnancy.' Calling his view the
'purely practical view', he said 'we cross the bridge
when we come to it', adding: 'We haven't come to that
bridge yet. The people are not ready for it. In fact,
some ministers are not ready for it.'
Political
watchers and MPs said Mr Lee's views were more liberal
than those of mainstream society, and they did not
expect the PAP Government to change its basic stance.
'They'll still be wary about fielding someone who is
known to be gay at the next election, because they won't
want the election to be sidetracked by the sexual
orientation of a candidate,' said Mr Eugene Tan, law
lecturer at
Singapore
Management University.
'But MM is painting
the larger picture of how what is acceptable is
something that would change and evolve with time.'
Said Mr Charles Chong, an MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC:
'PAP candidates have never been asked to declare our
sexual orientation. MM is right in saying an MP should
be judged purely on his performance, and not on his
sexual orientation.'
Members of the gay community
here welcomed some of Mr Lee's remarks. 'Some of what
he said was heartening, but I wish he would have
extended it to say that decriminal-ising 377A,
legalising same-sex marriage and adoption would
therefore make sense,' said communications executive
Charmaine Tan, 35, referring to
Section
377A of the Penal Code, which makes sex between
two men an offence.
Ms Irene Oh, 27, and Ms
Olivia Tan, 30, would both like to raise children. One
way is to get pregnant through assisted reproduction,
such as artificial insemination or in-vitro
fertilisation (IVF). 'We know some couples who get it
done overseas, but that's very expensive,' said Ms Oh, a
software developer and administrator of lesbian website
Sayoni.com.
They are also open to
adopting children. While welcoming Mr Lee's comments,
they disagreed that
adopting
a child lessened the
maternal
bond. Said Ms Oh: 'If MM Lee is right, then
even heterosexual couples should not be allowed to
adopt, because they, too, have no biological connection
with the child. I think adoption is a great act of love,
and there is no reason to expect adoptive parents to be
any less caring.'
|
Malaysia Kini
Letter to
editor
Gays should 'balik Sodom' soon?
17
Sept 2010 |
I
find the recent exchange of letters and comments on the
issue of the gay church quite amusing for their
hypocrisy. I had refrained from commenting, because the
response has so far been predictable, but for the
record, I think certain things need to be said again and
again for the sake of our children.
1. The meaning of human
rights- Most strange is what seems to be a belief that
for reasons the naysayers have taken remarkably great
pains to repeat, certain people do not deserve equality
and rights as others.
Considering our country
has constantly been battered by racism masquerading as a
fight for the rights of certain communities, the
continued espousing of hatred and rejection of gays is
ironic.
The ethnic minorities of
Malaysia
have been called to go home to China, to India. Perhaps
gays might soon be called to go back to Sodom, if it had
not been apparently levelled to the ground by the hand
of God.
I am more surprised that
negative views on the issue come from
Malaysiakini readers, who otherwise respond
positively to issues of eradicating discrimination of
all kinds, like the fight for the rights of minorities
and the underprivileged, those of the Indian community,
or the Orang Asli, or women's rights. People have stood
up for the rights of death row prisoners. Even animals
have rights on Malaysiakini.
Seen in this context, it
seems gays occupy the lowest rung in Malaysian society,
worse than animals. So following the many lengthy and
convoluted arguments of the naysayers, human rights do
not apply to gays.
This is justified using
the word of the
Christian or Muslim God, but despite constant
claims that these are the religions of peace and
tolerance, forgiveness and love, I have yet to see any
true signs of these qualities in their arguments.
2. Bigotry by any other
name - And sure, it is being repeatedly stressed that
the issue is purely about O Young's church yet I do not
see any restraint in dragging all manner of bigoted and
hateful notions into the argument.
I have lost count of the
number of ill-informed and sweeping statements against
gays made in this 'noble' defence of the church while at
the same time espousing the claim that they have nothing
against gays per se. Really? Then what is 'The truth is
animals
know better what homosexuals don't'
supposed to be if not simply hateful?
I am not interested in
challenging them because it has become very clear that
those naysayers will only believe what they want despite
any logic thrown at them, and there is logic abound in
Pang Khee Teik's
excellent
piece and O Young's
own letter.
Their critics have not read with their hearts
but only with their eyes, focused purely on points at
which to continue their attack.
I don't think people
really care that they object or dislike the idea of
homosexuality. What is obnoxious is justifying it and
propagating your hate over someone who is different from
you. Because your ideas will go on to influence others
to justify their hate, and eventually that will lead to
discrimination and may lead to violence.
If I have my history
right, they burned so-called witches and heretics during
the inquisition because they were 'different'. That is
the power of the majority and it is frightening. If
enough people think something is right, then it must be.
And there go our
human
rights principles.
If we get enough people
agreeing that Penan should not live in the jungles, then
I guess the poor folk will have to give in to the will
of the majority who think their lifestyle is wrong. This
is exactly what is being said, on the fundamental level.
Different situation, same bias.
3.
Freedom of religion - What really bothers me,
though, is the constant argument that all religions feel
the same way. That is pure rubbish. The sort of
so-called condemnation of homosexuality does not exist
in Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist texts.
Some disingenuous
naysayer may find some evidence to the contrary but I
will challenge them to show that the cause is the
scripture, and not social and extra religious, and often
specific, circumstances.
Please remember, the
whole world isn't ruled by your religion or your god.
That is why freedom of religion, and the freedom not
to practice religion, is a universal right. If you feel
your religion wants you to reject homosexuality, that is
your private right. But when you spread your ideology to
others it becomes an infringement of
universal
human rights.
Fortunately for me, my
father has never been a religious person. He never
condemned gays, and even once told me he that a teacher
of my friend was his friend, and laughed that he was
'gay' but not in a negative manner. He said he was a
nice guy.
He also told me at his
deathbed that the 'boyfriend' of my uncle who had a
stroke, was a good man and that my uncle was very lucky
to have him by his side to tend to him in his dying
days.
I always thought my
father was conservative, and in many ways he was. But he
never propagated hate.
From my experience, it is
the less educated or less Western-educated people, and
those more relaxed about religion, who have displayed
impressive tolerance towards gays. I guess one reader
put his finger on it when he said hate has to be taught.
I myself was told off
once about my own hateful statements of transvestites in
university by my best mate, who is straight and
non-religious. I corrected myself right away, and now
having known and talked to a few transvestites, feel
shameful of my error.
Many blue-collar workers
I have met have also never shown any hostility to gays.
It always seems to be the well-educated upper classes
who believe they have been saved, who seem most hostile.
And it is quite clear a lot of the hateful statements
made recently stem from the Anita Byrant school of hate
in the States, and the American conservative backlash
against the gay movement over the past decade.
Interesting how
homophobia is now a Western import. The whole idea that
gays trying to find affirmation here is likened to
militancy is ludicrous. That notion came from Middle
America, one of the greatest exporters of hate in the
world. So are arguments of 'destroying the family unit'.
All very familiar to the Clinton era.
I once saw a documentary
on how a Polynesian transvestite is simply treated as
another daughter in her family. Their family unit has
suffered no destruction, and I am told this common in
the Pacific. So why the fuss?
4. O Young's right to be
Christian - That said, to each his own. I do not share
your belief in your God and will not let your religious
convictions rule me. Christians may be made to believe
that their God is the highest, and people like me are
destined to hell but that's just within your spiritual
sphere, please keep it in there. A lot of us don't
really mind being told this, we just laugh it off.
We of other religions
have our own beliefs as well as to who or what is
highest. Some believe in Shiva, some in
Buddha, some in
Mother
Nature, some in science, and some like my Dad, in
his own innate goodness.
However, in the
spirit of
freedom of religion and expression, I would hold
that it is the right of gay Christians or Muslims to
want to practice their religion in their own way.
Religion is about one's
personal communion with the divine, not some organised
group's self-confessed authority. There is no legitimate
human authority in religion, each and every one up to
the highest so-called spiritual leader, is subject to
the ultimate judgement of the divine, whatever form that
may be.
And that is why there is
no place for religion in politics, because there will
always be someone who is prejudiced in the process of
majority rules.
Critics may bay all they
like, but that is what our constitutional freedom means.
No one has the right to impose his/her method of
religious practice to anyone. This argument has also
been used against the implementation of hudud,
so I find it hypocritical that people can take an about
turn when it comes to differing practices of Christians.
As for some saying they
are only objecting to the sex, well, until Christians
swear on their holy book that they will only
have sex to procreate (hence no more sex for
post-menopausal couples), then I say expression of
intimacy is private between two parties. Some go
missionary, others play scrabble. Personally I think
using fruit in sex is disgusting but that's my problem.
As far as I am concerned,
the passage on Sodom did not specify 'anal sex' yet
every 'good Christian' reads it into the text. For all
you know, the people of Lot wanted to braid the Angels'
hair. And how did Sodom, which concerned men wanting to
go after the angels, drag in other LGBT into the web of
hate? I don't see any references to lesbians in Lot. I
find such things disturbing and anathema to genuine
spiritualism.
So I say, leave O Young's
church alone. You can go tell your friends and kids not
to go there, but please don't spread your prejudice to
ruin things for others who appreciate what he is doing.
Until you have first hand
experience of how your hate turns into tragedy for
somebody's son or daughter, you will no doubt remain on
your high horse. Only last year I passed a house in
Klang and my straight friend told me that a teenager had
hung himself because he could not take his parents'
mental torture any more. As someone in this debate has
said, his blood, also lies on your hands.
|
By Agence France-Presse, 02/09/2010 Malaysia's gay
community begins to push the limits |
When Malaysia's only openly
homosexual pastor announced he was establishing the
nation's first gay church, the proposal was met with a
torrent of outrage and criticism. Reverend Ouyang Wen
Feng faced down threats to block the plan by government
and religious leaders who said it would encourage
homosexuality -- still a crime punishable by 20 years in
jail in the Muslim-majority nation. The church he
co-founded has however been operating quietly in
suburban Kuala Lumpur for the past three years, drawing
a group of gay Christians for Sunday services and bible
studies. Ouyang's battle is part of a campaign being
fought on many fronts in Malaysia, where there is a
growing sense of activism among the gay community which
is beginning to mobilise to fight for its rights. "We
are working on encouraging more people to join the
church, for Christians to come out and live authentic
lives," says the pastor, who was married for nine years
until he "came out" publicly in 2006. "Whether one is
gay or straight or bisexual, they are sexual
orientations, it is not something we do that makes us
gay." Ouyang says the church, which also embraces
bisexuals and transsexuals as well as welcoming
heterosexuals to its services, wants to help the
community know they are not "alone in fighting the
battle". "When I was young, how I wished someone who was
good, highly admired and respected in the society could
come out and tell me 'I am gay too,'," says the
40-year-old. Homosexuality remains a social taboo across
the racial and religious spectrum in Malaysia, a
conservative country which is also home to large ethnic
Chinese and Indian communities. Gay men and women are a
visible presence out in public, and on the Internet
where they are connected through online forums.
However, authorities periodically crack down on the
thriving gay scene, carrying out raids at gay-friendly
bars or massage parlours, leaving some with a constant
fear of persecution. Few feel they can declare their
sexuality openly, and there was a dearth of groups
representing the community until 2008, when the first
"Seksualiti Merdeka" or "Sexual Independence" festival
was held. Organiser Pang Khee Teik, an art gallery
owner, said he was inspired by rising activism in the
region. India and Nepal have de-criminalised
homosexuality in recent years, in Thailand the annual
Gay Pride festival is being revived, and even in
conservative Indonesia there is an annual gay film
festival. "We thought the time was right to replicate
something similar in Malaysia," Pang says. "We are
trying to tell people: you have sexual rights whether
the state recognises it or not." "The long-term goal
could be the repeal of laws against sodomy and oral sex
for instance," says Pang, adding that
anti-discrimination laws are also needed. The annual
festival, which includes talks, music performances and
film screenings, has seen the number of participants
double from 400 in 2008 to about 800 last year. It will
be held for the third time later this year and has
managed to avoid any action from protesters or the
authorities, partly due to efforts to keep it low-key.
But religious figures who have an influential
role in Malaysian society remain vehemently opposed to
the new mood. A top religious body in 2008 also issued a
"fatwa" or Islamic religious ban on lesbian sex.
"Homosexuality is going to destroy the world as we are
not thankful to God's creation and we are going against
His wishes," says outspoken Islamic cleric Harussani
Zakaria. "Homosexuality is a very bad thing. God has
created men and women, how can it be man with man, and
woman with woman?" The gay community takes heart from
small steps, including a recent Malaysian Film
Censorship Board decision to reverse a ban on the
depiction of homosexuality and allow gay characters to
be featured in films. But in an indication of the
distance campaigners still have to go, the new
guidelines also stipulate that gay characters must
repent or go straight before the credits roll. "They
recognise that we do exist and that is a something
positive, at least," says Azri, who has a boyfriend of
five years, as he sips coffee at one of Kuala Lumpur's
upmarket shopping malls. "My ideal world is to be
recognised as a couple and enjoy the rights just like
any other heterosexual couples," says the boyish-looking
28-year-old. "We can't rush, we are slowly building the
momentum." |
Straits Times
"We Hope He has Learnt a lesson"
Buddhist, Taoist Leaders accept Pastor's apology
Wed, Feb 10, 2010
|
THE
apology was accepted the old-fashioned way - in person,
over a pot of hot tea, and with a firm handshake.
After nearly a week of being watched on YouTube and
other online forums, Pastor Rony Tan yesterday met the
leaders of two religions he had disparaged in online
video clips, that got him into trouble with the Internal
Security Department (ISD) this week.He apologised to the
leaders of the Singapore Buddhist Federation and Taoist
Federation and promised to work on improving the
relationship between his religion and theirs.The founder
of Lighthouse Evangelism, an independent megachurch with
12,000 members, has stayed out of sight. His family
issued a statement late last night, saying: 'We
understand the gravity of the issue. We have taken steps
to resolve the matter, and would like to put this behind
us and focus on promoting religious harmony.'Pastor
Tan's personal call made all the difference to the
Buddhist and Taoist leaders yesterday.
Front
Page PDF
|
Today 01 Jan 2009
Selected Part 2 - T ranscript of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's
interview with National Geographic
|
Q: "Actually, it's an
interesting question that just came up recently that
I was going to ask you about. I know that you put a
premium on racial harmony and religious harmony and
it's actually more or less legislated here, right?"
Mr Lee: "Yes, because you can have enormous
trouble once religions clash."
Q: "Well, the
two things I've been interested to ask you about
that because I agree with you is number one, the
recent rise of Evangelical Christians in Singapore."
Mr Lee: "As a result of American efforts."
Q: "I don't know if it's American efforts but I
went to the New Creation Church and you might as
well have been in Tennessee , it was exactly the
same. As soon as you walked through the door, it was
exactly the same but it seemed very popular. Is that
a new monkey (?) ranch in there?"
Mr Lee:
"No, I don't think so. You see most Chinese here are
Buddhists or Taoist ancestor worshippers, I'm one of
them, so it is a tolerant society, it says whatever
you want to believe in, you go ahead. And these
youngsters, the educated ones, Western-educated
especially, now they are all English-educated, their
mother tongue is the second language. Therefore,
they begin to read Western books and Western culture
and so on and then the Internet. So they begin to
question like in Korea that what is this
mumbo-jumbo, the ancestors and so on? The dead have
gone, they're praying before this altar and asking
for their blessings and then they have got groups,
Christian groups who go out and evangelize. They
catch them in their teens, in their late teens when
they're malleable and open to suggestions and then
they become very fervent evangelists themselves. My
granddaughter is one of them. She's now 28. My wife
used to tell her look, don't go for any more of
these titles, just look for MRS. It's just around
the corner, God will arrange it."
Q: "Well,
in the US, as you say, it's import from the US or an
export. These people have been very politically
active."
Mr Lee: "Well, they know here that
if you get politically active, you will incite the
Buddhist, the Taoist, the Muslims, the Hindus and
others to do similar response. We used to teach in
the schools in the 1980s to get back some moral
values as a result of Westernisation, Confucian
culture as a subject in itself for the Chinese
whereupon the Malays, the Indians and so on, they
reacted. They wanted not Confucian culture, they
wanted their religion, so we decided we'll stop
this. So we took the concepts of Confucianism and
put it into civic subject, that society is more
important than the individual, that the individual
must care for the society and the interests of the
society must take precedence over the individual,
which is contrary to the American or Western system
which says the individual trumps everything, freedom
trumps everything, freedom of speech, freedom of
whatever you tolerate even at the expense of making
others feel inconvenient. If I don't like abortion,
you're a doctor who aborts people, I shoot you."
|
ST Forum
27 July 2009
Don lost the chance to field her arguments in
marketplace of ideas
Leon Michael Ryan
|
IN THE wake of Professor Thio Li-ann's decision not
to teach at New York University (NYU), much as been
made of a lack of tolerance of diverse views in that
university. Both Prof Thio and Mr Eugene Tan from
Singapore Management University have cited the
sequence of events as a display of intolerance. With
respect to both the learned professors, I feel this
is a mischaracterisation of what transpired at NYU.
A right to express one's views freely comes with the
right of others to disagree with those views, and
one must take courage to defend what one believes
in. The NYU position throughout this unfortunate
sequence of events has been that while the faculty
may disagree with Prof Thio's position, it believes
that academic freedom should be respected. Even when
alumni threatened to boycott future fund-raising
events unless Prof Thio was refused access, the
university was steadfast in its position that it
would not force Prof Thio to withdraw.
It is disingenuous to
paint the disagreement as a suppression of alternative
views. Surely one cannot be naive to the fact that the
attitude in the United States towards homosexuals is
significantly different from that in Singapore. Just as
Prof Thio was entitled to her view that homosexual acts
should be criminalised, so were the NYU faculty and
students entitled to their view that such discrimination
is abhorrent. In many ways, what happened at NYU has
been disappointing. By cancelling her courses, Prof Thio
has lost the chance to field her arguments in an open
marketplace of ideas. The NYU students too have lost the
opportunity to be taught by someone who, all views
aside, is an extremely intelligent academic with a great
presence in the classroom.�
|
Mutual respect key to peace in pluralistic
society
03 June 2009
Straits Times Forum
John Hui Yip Khiong
|
I REFER to Monday's letter by Dr
Thio Su Mien, "Militant religionism? It's family
values", in which she states that my letter - "Militant
religionism the real threat to social harmony" last
Saturday - "incites anti-religious hostility,
threatening social disharmony".
This is a serious allegation.
First and foremost, let me state that I have nothing
against Christianity or Christian values. I am a
committed Christian who went through a few years of
full-time theological education to secure a Master of
Divinity. A fair-minded reader should notice that
nothing in my letter was written against Christianity or
any religion. I specifically mentioned that "militant
Christians" are only a minority among the broader
Christian community and therefore, I am not criticising
the Christian community as a whole.My letter also did
not demonise Christian values and mainstream values. It
was targeted not at religions in general but at
"militant religionism" , which refers to a type of
religious position that does not respect the freedom of
others to have the space to speak out and live out their
different moral values in our pluralistic society.Let us
all adopt an attitude of mutual respect and mutual
understanding because these are important ingredients
for peace and harmony in our pluralistic society and
secular state.
|
May 30, 2009 AWARE SAGA
How ST covered the story ST's editor answers critics
of this newspaper's reporting of events By Han Fook
Kwang, Editor
|
I HAD been reluctant to write this piece defending
The Straits Times' coverage of the Aware saga. Some
of my colleagues had wanted the paper to put out its
side of the story in the face of criticisms over how
we covered the saga. But I wasn't keen to make the
paper the focus of this long-running debate, for
I've always felt that newspapers shouldn't be active
players in the stories they cover. Our job is to
report accurately and fairly what is happening and
to make sense of it for our readers so they can draw
their own conclusions. However, critics have
assailed us over these very issues, and I have
little choice now but to set out the facts
concerning our coverage after two MPs spoke about it
in Parliament this week. On Tuesday, Nominated
Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann said that reporting
on the saga had been biased and lacked a diversity
of views. She did not name The Straits Times but
everyone listening to her would have concluded that
she was referring to this newspaper. Were we biased
and one-sided in our coverage? This is best answered
by detailing how we covered the story.Many have
forgotten how this story began. Aware held its
annual general meeting (AGM) on March28, and for
almost three weeks few knew that the group's
leadership had changed in a dramatic fashion that
day. The old guard team who were tossed out did not
announce it. The new president, Mrs Claire Nazar,
and her team were silent. It was only on April6 that
The Straits Times was tipped off that something
unusual had happened at Aware and we began work on
the story. Our first report did not appear until
April10, because for most of that week we had tried
hard to confirm with both sides - the old guard and
the new - what had happened. Founder members and old
guard leaders of Aware spoke to us. They confirmed
that the election had taken place legitimately and
according to Aware rules, which allowed brand new
members to seek leadership positions right away.
They were distraught, not at seeing their preferred
list of candidates lose the election, but at the
manner in which the new team moved in. Their account
was that the majority of the 102 people who attended
the AGM comprised new members who had joined in
recent months. Most were unknown, and most stayed
silent during the AGM. When it was clear that the
new members were contesting executive council
positions with the intention of taking over the
organisation, older members tried to ask them who
they were but received few clear answers.
We were faced with a
curious situation. Here was a new team of women who had
contested and taken over Aware. Yet, three weeks after
they had taken charge of this well-known group, they
remained unwilling to explain who they were, why they
had acted and what they intended to do with Aware. These
are basic questions that any group which takes over a
society, grassroots organisation, union, clan or country
club should expect to be asked if it pulls off as
successful a leadership grab as this appeared to be.In
the days before our first report appeared, our reporters
tried hard to reach members of the new leadership. We
were willing to report whatever they had to say, but our
reporters were stonewalled by everyone they reached. Ms
Jenica Chua confirmed she was in the committee but
refused to speak. Repeated calls to Ms Josie Lau and Ms
Lois Ng were not successful. Ms Lau's husband, Dr Alan
Chin, had joined Aware as an affiliate member and had
been present at the AGM, but he too would not speak to
our reporter. Even the new president, Mrs Nazar, refused
to say anything until the day she confirmed that she had
resigned after just 11 days at the helm.More than once,
those approached in the new team asked for a set of
questions to be sent to them in writing by e-mail. Our
reporters obliged, only to receive no answers by e-mail
and no face-to-face interview either.
After Ms Lau was
appointed president, The Straits Times continued to hope
that Aware's new leadership would see fit to open up
about themselves and their plans. Attempts to reach
individual exco members failed as everyone insisted that
only the president was authorised to speak to the media.
Yet Ms Lau did not make herself available either,
despite numerous attempts to reach her by telephone,
e-mail and text message. Instead, she chose to make her
first public statements on a television current affairs
programme. The Straits Times reported what she said
there.Those who accuse us of being one-sided in our
reporting in the first two weeks after the story broke
are right in a way. But it was not because we
deliberately sought to shut out the views of the new
group while providing the old guard space in this
newspaper. The new leadership was often absent in our
pages because they chose to remain silent, for reasons
best known to themselves.It was not until April23 -
almost a month after the Aware AGM - that Ms Lau and
some members of her team finally decided to open up at a
press conference. The Straits Times sent a team of
reporters and covered it comprehensively with reports on
Page1 as well as in the inside pages.Some have
criticised our extensive coverage of this story and
wondered why our reporting was so 'breathless'. There
are many reasons. As this story played out, we witnessed
some highly unusual twists. Aside from the leadership
change, Aware's new president resigned within a
fortnight. Her replacement, Ms Lau, was criticised
publicly by her employer, DBS Bank, for taking office.
The Straits Times was prepared to give the new team as
much space as we had given the old group, and more if
necessary, to answer all those questions which had been
on everyone's mind: Who were they, why did they take
over Aware in the manner they did, and what did they
hope to achieve?
It was only at that
April23 press conference that senior lawyer Thio Su Mien
revealed herself as the mentor of the women who had
taken over Aware, and made several comments explaining
why she felt Aware needed fixing. We reported that press
conference extensively, and followed up by running
extracts of what Dr Thio and others said, as well as
their answers to additional questions our journalists
put to them. We had maintained throughout that The
Straits Times was prepared to run what the new
leadership said, and we did so, in the interests of
providing balance in our coverage so readers could
better judge the merits of the arguments.Our readers are
not always aware of the work journalists do behind the
scenes to try to present reports that are factual and
objective, or the lengths to which we go to persuade
those who are unwilling to speak to engage with the
media and open up. It was certainly not for lack of
trying on our part that the views of the new team led by
Ms Lau and her supporters did not appear more often in
our pages, especially in the early stages.Mr Sin Boon
Ann, in his speech in Parliament on Wednesday, accused
the press of 'framing this episode as one that carries a
religious undertone' and, in the process, polarising
Singapore society. We should again let the facts speak
for themselves. From the outset, we wanted to find out
more about the new group, but because they were not
willing to speak, we had to do our own research. Our
checks showed one common link initially: several members
of the new group had written letters to the press
expressing concern about the perils of promoting a
homosexual lifestyle in Singapore. We subsequently also
found out that several of them belonged to the same
Anglican Church of Our Saviour. We reported these
factually.Were we wrong to have highlighted those links?
The April23 press conference confirmed what The Straits
Times had reported. Dr Thio, who also attends the same
church, revealed that she began monitoring Aware's
affairs about a year ago because she was disturbed by
what she saw as signs that it was promoting lesbianism
and homosexuality. She then began urging women she knew
- including many in her church circle - to challenge
what she perceived to be Aware's attempts to redefine
marriage and families.
What of the 'religious
undertones' which Mr Sin accused the press of promoting
in its coverage? This is totally mistaken, and akin to
shooting the messenger. In fact, the strongest
expressions of concern over this were not made by the
press, but by various other parties.As Deputy Prime
Minister Wong Kan Seng observed in an interview with
this paper: 'The Government was worried about the
disquieting public perception that a group of
conservative Christians, all attending the same church,
which held strong views on homosexuality had moved in
and taken over Aware because they disapproved of what
Aware had been doing. This caused many qualms among
non-Christians, and also among Christians who believed
that this was an unwise move in a multiracial,
multi-religious society. It was much more dangerous
because now, religion was also getting involved, and it
was no longer just the issue of homosexuality.'No higher
authority in the Christian community than Anglican
Archbishop John Chew of the National Council of Churches
of Singapore (NCCS) issued a clear statement that the
NCCS did not condone any church getting involved in the
Aware dispute. Leaders of other religious faiths also
put out statements to reinforce NCCS' message.Why did so
many feel it necessary to speak out on the danger of
mixing religion with politics in the Aware saga? It
wasn't the press which gave them the idea.Was it because
of what Senior Pastor Derek Hong of the Church of Our
Saviour was reported to have said from the pulpit,
urging his flock to support the then new exco in Aware?
He had said:'It's not a crusade against the people but
there's a line that God has drawn for us, and we don't
want our nation crossing that line.' We leave it to
readers to decide.Far from The Straits Times raking the
ground with an anti-religious agenda, we provided the
available facts surrounding the makeup of the new group
for readers to draw their own conclusions. Subsequent
events showed that we were not barking up the wrong
tree.Mr Sin wondered if 'the press would have been so
quick on the take if it were women from another faith
who took up the cause instead'.He ought to know better
than to use the religion card in this fashion. If Mr Sin
is accusing The Straits Times of being in favour of some
religions against others - a very serious accusation
against a newspaper with 1.4million readers of every
religious shade - he should substantiate his complaint.I
hope the facts I have set out above will help readers
understand better our coverage of the Aware saga. Were
we right in every aspect of our coverage? Of course not.
Journalists are human, we make mistakes and we have our
blind spots. Our record is that we are upfront about our
errors and apologise for them promptly. Our internal
processes, which involve several layers of editing and
gate-keeping, ensure that individual reporters do not
push their own agendas. We have also carried out our own
internal review of our coverage and have found that we
could have done better in several respects. For example,
we should have pressed the old guard more on Aware's
school sexuality programme and the appropriateness of
some of its content.But I stand by the professionalism
of our reporters. The personal attacks against the
integrity of our journalists sadden me because they show
the vindictiveness of our critics and the length to
which they are prepared to go to attack our
professionalism. In fact, there appears to be an
organised campaign to discredit the media, with mass
e-mail being sent, including to Reach, the government
feedback portal.The Straits Times has no hidden agenda
to push this line or that, or to favour one group
against another. On this story, as with others, we were
driven by our desire to provide as much information to
our readers as possible, in as timely a manner. That
remains our primary objective.
|
Militant religionism the real threat to
social harmony
30 May 2009
Straits Times Forum
John Hui Yip Khiong
|
I REFER to Nominated MP Thio Li-ann's recent speech
in Parliament, in particular this part:
'Militant secularism is an illiberal and
undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views
in the public square and so to privilege its
atheistic values, as in communist states. Secular
fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to
mute religiously informed convictions in public
debate, by demonising a view as religious. Militant
exclusionist secularism is thus a recipe for social
disharmony.' Professor Thio's statements are correct
academically but they do not reflect the real threat
in Singapore. An empirical examination shows that
religious people enjoy freedom to speak out on their
religious values in the public space (for example,
against euthanasia or homosexuality). In general, we
do not see any militant secularists threatening the
freedom of religious people in living out their
religious moral values in the public space.
What we do see,
however, are various instances of 'militant Christians',
a minority group among the broader Christian community,
encroaching on the space of others who do not share
their Christian moral values. The recent attempt by Dr
Thio Su Mien to persuade Christians to join Aware to
push forward Christian moral values is one example. It
shows a lack of respect for others' differing moral
values and space to live out their different moral
convictions. Such 'militant exclusionist religionism'
has already generated disharmony, judging by debates in
mainstream and online media. The real threat to social
harmony therefore comes not from militant secularism but
from militant religionism.
|
There's no uniform religious
view in a multi-religious society
30 May 2009
Straits Times Forum
Lai Nam Khim
|
I REFER to Wednesday's report, 'No 'bright line'
between religion and politics'. I found it most
unfortunate that Nominated MP Thio Li-ann is
attacking secularism, and painting it as a gag on
religious views in public square. What Professor
Thio fails to appreciate is that the issue is not
about secularism (or atheism) versus religion. In a
multiracial and multi-religious Singapore, there are
no uniform or generic 'religious views'. When a
particular religion participates in public space, it
does not do so under a generic label ('religious')
but under the label of a particular religion (for
example, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism).
Unless there is active participation and discussion
by the many religious denominations, and a consensus
reached by the collective group, no one particular
group can claim to represent a 'religious view' of
Singapore in general.
Thus, when Prof Thio
pushes her religious view (for example, her objections
to homosexuality which are shaped by her religious
background), the public perception is not that she
represents the religious view, but rather that she is
imposing her Christian sensibilities on others. With
that context in mind, the reference to the Aware
controversy was not, as Prof Thio put it, a view that
'religious groups should not get involved in secular
organisations'. Rather, what was disconcerting about the
incident was that it was a case of one particular
organisation from one particular religion pushing for
one particular agenda, and subverting a publicly secular
organisation on the quiet. In a plural society, such an
act is dangerous, divisive and destabilising. Any
religious group which wishes to further its views based
on its religious conviction must do so publicly, paying
special attention to the sensitivities of other races
and religions, and must invite other groups to
participate in reaching a collective common ground.
Failure to do so will surely invite censure and strong
reaction from other quarters, religious or otherwise.
The Government is right to urge restraint and keep the
political arena secular. This is not a gag on religious
views, but rather an appreciation that in a
multi-religious society like Singapore, there is no
representative and uniform religious view and that any
one religion wishing for greater participation in the
public and political arena must do so responsibly and
with great sensitivity to other religions, as well as
the non-religious.
|
MP apologises for oversight
28 May 2009
Straits Times
|
MP FOR Tampines GRC on Thursday
apologised in Parliament for citing an e-mail from a
writer whom he said he did not know, and for not
verifying the substance of the contents. Rising to
speak when Parliament resumed its session after a
short break on Thursday afternoon, Mr Sin Boon Ann
said: 'On reflection I thought I should have sought
some confirmation from the writer of the e-mail, or
separately verify the contents of the e-mail since I
believe the privilege of free speech in this House
imposes the higher standards of diligence on the
part of its members. 'But to that extent I have
fallen short of these standards. I proffer my
unreserved apology to those involved.' Mr Sin
referred to excerpts of the e-mail from a Cheryl Ng
when he launched a stinging attack on the media's
reporting of the recent Aware saga, and took The
Straits Times, in particular, to task. Among the
accusations he made in Parliament on Wednesday: The
Straits Times reporter covering the saga was
'hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the
extraordinary general meeting'; that members of the
press were jubilant at the ousting of the new guard;
and that there was a media cover-up of an amendment
to give men full voting rights in Aware. Mr Sin
wondered if the press could be called on to report
responsibly and impartially and to present the facts
neutrally and objectively 'when some of its own
members feel rather passionately about the issues in
the public domain'. The accusations brought into
question 'whether there should ever be an
unregulated press', he added. The press had quickly
framed the contest as one between the Christian
right and homosexuals and lesbians, he said, adding
that by presenting it as an issue with religious
undertones, the debate had polarised society.
Responding to Mr Sin's comments, Straits Times
editor Han Fook Kwang said on Wednesday that he was
disappointed that the MP 'saw fit to read out an
e-mail in Parliament attacking' the newspaper
without verifying the contents.
|
'Intolerance' is a threat That poses the
biggest threat to S'pore, says Prof Koo in apparent
reference to Aware saga By Jeremy Au Yong
28 May 2009
Straits Times
|
INTOLERANCE, not the economic
crisis, poses the biggest threat to Singapore,
Associate Professor Koo Tsai Kee (Tanjong Pagar GRC)
warned in Parliament on Wednesday. While the
economic slump will pass, religious and racial
bigotry could bring about Singapore's downfall, he
said during the debate on the President's Address at
the opening of the new session of Parliament. 'This
economic crisis cannot set us back permanently. It
is a passing thunderstorm,' he said. 'But if we fall
prey to religious and racial bigotry, then it will
be a growing cancer in society.' Although he did not
state it explicitly, it was apparent that Prof Koo
was referring in part to the recent leadership
tussle at the Association of Women for Action and
Research (Aware). The controversy sparked a divisive
debate on issues such as religion and homosexuality.
'I see an increasing number of Singaporeans
identifying themselves with race and religion. That
in itself is nothing wrong if seen in the right
perspective,' he said. 'But I see small groups
becoming self-righteous and becoming intolerant of
diversity. This intolerance may be our downfall.'
Singapore has succeeded so far as it has a system of
tolerance and meritocracy, one which embraces
diversity and inclusiveness, he said. Still, he
warned that the country was not in the clear yet:
'We are still a young country. In the history of
nations, we are still a long way from proving that
our success in peaceful co-existence can withstand
the test of time.' The Minister of State for Defence
used the examples of Sri Lanka and the former
Yugoslavia to show how multi-racial, multi-religious
societies had fractured. He contrasted this against
cities like New York and London which embraced
diversity and tolerance 'in huge doses'. 'While we
focus our energies on solving this economic crisis,
we should never lose sight of the long-term
challenge of building a tolerant, diverse and
inclusive infrastructure where everybody has a
private space within the bigger common space,' he
said.
|
Couple guilty of sedition
28 May 2009
Straits Times
|
A CHRISTIAN couple have been
found guilty in Singapore's first sedition trial for
distributing seditious and undesirable publications
as well as possession. SingTel technical officer Ong
Kian Cheong, 50, and his wife, UBS associate
director Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 46, were convicted
on Thursday of four charges after an 11-day trial.
They were convicted of distributing seditious or an
undesirable publication, The Little Bride, to two
Muslims in October and March 2007; and sending out
another seditious booklet, Who is Allah?, to another
Muslim in December that year. These two publications
had the tendency to to promote feelings of ill-will
and hostility between Christians and Muslims. The
Little Bride was deemed objectionable as it dealt
with matters of religion in such a manner likely to
cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or
hostility between the two religious groups. On the
day of the Protestant couple's arrest on Jan 30 last
year, police seized an assortment of items from
their Maplewoods condominium, including 11 titles
consisting of 439 copies of comic tracts which were
seditious. Their defence that they had no knowledge
of the contents of the tracts they sent out was
rejected by the court. Judge Roy Neighbour also
disbelieved Chan's defence that her husband had no
knoweledge about her tract orders and purchases. 'I
do not believe that the first accused (Ong) was
merely the 'postman' in the distribution of the
tracts having no knowledge of what was being
distributed to members of the public,'' he added.The
case was adjourned to June 4 for Deputy Public
Prosecutor Anandan Bala to address the court on
sentence. Mitigation will be presented by their
lawyer Selva K. Naidu then. The couple can be fined
up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to three years on
each of the two Sedition Act charges. For
distributing an objectionable publication, they can
be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to 12
months. The possesssion charge is punishable with a
fine of up to $2,000 and/or up to 18 months in jail.
|
27 May 2009 The New Paper
Church group members harass student for days
They approach him outside school, ask for handphone
number, then keep calling and sending SMSes
By Veena Bharwani May 28, 2009
|
THEY hang
around outside secondary schools and approach students.
These men then give Bibles to the students and talk to
them about God. The men, usually in their 30s, then ask
the students for their handphone numbers and urge them
to attend cell group meetings in their church. This is
what some students from Greenview Secondary in Pasir Ris
have encountered over the past few years. This is not
the only school that has seen religious groups right
outside their school gates. Last month, The New Paper
reported that two men were distributing religious
materials to students from Shuqun Secondary just outside
the school in Jurong. The principal of Shuqun Secondary,
Mr Adolphus Tan, put a stop to it immediately and asked
the men to go away. But in this recent case concerning
Greenview Secondary, it was a parent who decided to act.
Mr Patrick Tay, 58, stepped in to protect his son, 13,
who was approached by two men from a church outside
Greenview Secondary in January. Mr Tay, who runs a
trading company, added: 'My son had just started
secondary school this year so he is a bit 'blur'. They
then asked for his handphone number and my unsuspecting
son gave it to them not knowing what to do.' Shortly
after that, he claimed his son kept getting repeated
SMSes and calls from these people asking him to attend
their cell group meetings at Cornerstone Community
Church in Katong. Said Mr Tay: ' I felt they are
targeting younger kids like my son who are timid and
don't know much. 'I am a Roman Catholic myself and I
still am offended as they are not respecting our
different religious beliefs.' Mr Tay said he went to the
church shortly after the incident to tell the members
who had sent SMSes to his son not to bother him anymore.
Principal alerted He also alerted the principal of
Greenview Secondary about the matter.
Mr Tay didn't allow us to talk to his
son.The New Paper called the Cornerstone Community
Church and e-mailed our questions about a month ago. But
the youth leader did not get back to us.We called the
church again a week later, but still couldn't get a
comment from them.The New Paper spoke to five other
Greenview Secondary school students who said that they,
too, have been harassed on different occasions by men
from various churches who were either distributing
Bibles or asking for their handphone numbers.Said a
female student, 15: 'They have approached me twice in
the past two years. The first time was two years ago.
They asked for my handphone number but I declined to
give it to them as they are strangers.'She was
approached again in March, this time by two men who were
distributing Bibles.'They would not let me pass them so
I just took the Bible and quickly walked away so they
would leave me alone. I informed my parents who got very
angry and reminded me to be more careful next time.'The
principal of Greenview Secondary, Mr Koh Kok Khai, said
he is aware of the situation.He said: 'We have reminded
our students to be mindful when approached by strangers
outside of school. They have also been advised not to
share personal information with these strangers.'A
vice-principal from a secondary school in the West said
his students have also told him of similar
incidents.Sensitive issue Another teacher said there is
little schools that can say or do as it is a matter of
personal religious beliefs - a sensitive issue for all.
Said the 29-year-old English teacher: 'We try not to
tell kids what is right or wrong when it comes to
religion as schools are a secular space. We would advise
them immediately to tell their parents about the matter
and let them handle it.'Parent Pushpa Dhinakaran, 45,
said that while such a trend is worrying, she
understands that there is little schools that can do to
prevent such things from happening.'If it is happening
inside the school premises, then it can be stopped, but
this happened outside school.'The best we parents can do
is warn our kids to be careful when talking to
strangers,' she added.
|
May 27, 2009 Embrace diversity, tolerance
Straits Times
|
IF SINGAPORE
falls prey to religious and racial bigotry, the economic
crisis would become a growing cancer in society, instead
of just a passing thunderstorm, Minister of State for
Defence Koo Tsai Kee warned on Wednesday.Speaking to
Parliament, Mr Koo noted that there are a growing number
of Singaporeans identifying themselves with their race
and religion, which is 'nothing wrong if seen in the
right perspective' . He is worried about 'small groups
becoming self-righteous and intolerant of diversity.'
'This intolerance may be our downfall,' said Mr Koo, who
is also MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC.'Singapore is a
multi-racial and multi-religious country which has
succeeded... because of our system - our system of
tolerance, meritocracy, embrace of diversity and
inclusiveness. 'Most countries with such a mix of
population and religions would fail, said Mr Koo, citing
Sri Lanka as an example. He said that Singapore is
successful for now, but it is still a young country, a
long way from proving that its success in peaceful
co-existence could withstand the test of time.He also
raised the example of Yugoslavia, once a relatively
peaceful country with different tribes, ethnic groups
and religions. Originally a role model among Third World
countries, the republic suffered an ethnic cleansing,
which Mr Koo said was a human tragedy which destroyed
the people and state. 'Yugoslavia is past tense. It is
history,' he said.Mr Koo added that to succeed,
Singapore needs be among the global cities that are most
progressive and dynamic, embracing diversity and
tolerance in huge doses.'Two such cities immediately
come to my mind - New York City and London,' he pointed
out, adding that in those cities, nobody feels like 'an
alien or a weirdo' and that there is 'sanctuary for
everybody'.'There is space for everybody to wander,
explore, and be himself or herself. This is the kind of
tolerant, diverse and cosmopolitan global city we should
be,' said Mr Koo. 'While we focus our energies on
solving this economic crisis, we should never lose sight
of the long term challenge of building a tolerant,
diverse and inclusive social infrastructure where
everybody has a private space within the bigger common
space.'
|
May 23, 2009 DR THIO'S LETTER Offensive
to call people 'sexually challenged'
ST Forum
23 May 2009
Jamie Alicia Nonis (Ms)
|
I read Dr Thio Su Mien's letter on Monday ('Gay
activists a key constituency of Aware') with a
curious mix of appalled bemusement. Referring to the
'activist homosexual group' that was present at the
recent extraordinary general meeting of the
Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)
in support of the old guard, Dr Thio stated: 'Many
sexually challenged women were among the most vocal
and vociferous supporters of the old guard'. I have
never heard the phrase 'sexually challenged women'
before. At face value, the phrase appears to suggest
that a�woman is somehow a second-rate female if
she is sexually inclined towards her own gender. As
we all know, the word 'challenged' is often used in
association with a particular disability, such as
'visually challenged' or 'mentally challenged'. Dr
Thio's juxtaposition of the word 'challenged' with a
woman's sexuality suggests that such women are
sexually incompetent, flawed, defective or
incomplete, which renders her remark rude and
offensive.
|
Supporting gay rights does not make one gay
ST Forum
23 May 2009
Indulekshmi Rajeswari (Miss)
|
I REFER to Dr Thio Su Mien's
letter on Monday, "Gay activists a key constituency
of Aware". I was at the Association of Women for
Action and Research's extraordinary general meeting
from start to end. Gays did not comprise a numerical
majority at the meeting. Being a supporter of rights
for gay people doesn't make one a homosexual,
lesbian or homosexual activist.I support the
Palestinians' right to live their lives without a
wall dividing their communities, but that does not
mean that I am a Palestinian. Nor am I a Palestinian
rights activist. I am not sure�why Dr Thio calls
the supporters�of the old guard "sexually
challenged". Does she mean they are somehow
physically or psychologically sexually impaired?
Just because I was a "vocal and vociferous supporter
of the old guard", does that make me sexually
challenged?
|
Self-described feminist mentor's actions
invited a reaction
Letter to ST Online
19 May 2009
Tim Mou Hui
|
I REFER to Monday's letter by Dr Thio
Su Mien, 'Gay activists a key constituency of Aware'. I
would like to highlight a number of statements she made
that serve no purpose other than to confuse. I am
perplexed how Dr Thio can, in the same paragraph, say
that Aware's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE)
manual 'expressly states that homosexuality is neutral
and normal', and then go on to attack the content of the
CSE programme as 'non-neutral' . But that is a minor
point. What strikes me as most curious is how Dr Thio
seems to have conveniently forgotten that anal sex
between heterosexuals is legal when putting forth the
argument that anal sex is against the law. It appears
that she perceives anal sex as an activity only
homosexuals are capable of, and in which heterosexuals
would not engage.
Dr Thio has also chosen to view the
support that 'sexually challenged women' provided to the
old guard at the Aware extraordinary general meeting as
a sinister indication that 'homosexual activists seeking
to impose their values' have become a 'chief
constituency of Aware'. She seems to have overlooked the
fact that she and her feminist 'mentees' had made
unfounded and moralistic attacks on an entire group of
society while orchestrating an unjust takeover of a
civil society group. It is hard to imagine that Dr Thio,
with her vast experience as a 'feminist mentor', did not
expect sexual minorities to stand up and defend
themselves. How then does she indicate statistically
that homosexuals have become a 'chief constituency of
Aware'? However, I must agree with Dr Thio's assertion
that discerning Singaporeans can examine the evidence to
make up their own minds on this issue. Singaporeans are
generally progressive and I am confident we are able to
see past the smoke to inch towards a more inclusive and
egalitarian society.
|
DPM Wong is right, all should be mindful of
Singapore's secularism
12 May
ST, letter to editor
Vincent Tan
|
I REFER to last Friday's article,
'Questionable takeover but crucial service'. In it, the
Bishop of the Anglican Church in Singapore, Dr John
Chew, argued that the women who took control of the
secular group, Association of Women for Action and
Research (Aware), performed a 'crucial service' to
Singapore by highlighting the 'revisionist sexuality
norms' that were purportedly taught by Aware in
schools.Let me state unequivocally at the outset that I
respect all religions and people with religious beliefs.
However, the statement, by a leader of the Christian
community, is somewhat misleading.The themes that were
advocated in the programmes conducted in schools focused
mainly on the virtues of abstinence and the proper use
of contraception to prevent the spread of sexually
transmitted diseases among teenagers.
To claim that 'mainstream society at
large would be grateful for the... vigilance of the
Christian community' equates to saying that our secular
society should adhere to the beliefs of a narrow segment
of a vocal religious minority.Much has been said about
how the group of women seized power and was booted out
at the recent extraordinary general meeting. I believe
the lessons to be learnt have been well-articulated by
Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng - that we have to be
tolerant of people with different opinions, and people
with different religious beliefs, including those who
are not bound to a particular religion.After all, our
society is made up of people from a multitude of
religions as well as non-believers, people of different
races, and people who are straight and those who are
gay. As we continue in our quest to be an inclusive
society, let us all be acutely mindful of our
differences, but even more conscious of the glue that
binds us together as Singaporeans.
|
"Sexual discrimination is not neutral"
Letter from Benjamin Lim Todayonline
May 10, 2009
|
In
‘Homosexuality is not neutral’, (May 8), Mr James Ray
makes an astute observation in the pressing necessity to
tackle sexuality issues, especially in the context of a
growing collective conservatism that marks the social
ethos of Singapore. However, I disagree with many of the
points raised in his paper. Sexuality is the silent
pervasion of society: it is the thread that weaves
society into a larger, single fabric - at which we have
now found ourselves at odds. Mr Ray’s argument, that the
physical nature of sex involves the union of 2 differing
sexes, fusing with the purpose of creating another human
being, is an archaic antithesis of the real state of the
country’s sexual psychology. The stark truth of the
matter is that such dominant sexual exclusivity, whilst
still a majority, has given to a greater diversity of
differences in sexual choice. To myopically insist
otherwise would be to delude oneself on the facts of a
changed, and changing societal mentality. Further, to
fixate on the alleged moral wrongs of any other possible
sexual arrangement would be completely schizophrenic,
for the simple fact that sexual activity is not always
conducted on the premise of procreation. Moreover,
ignoring such blatant discrimination on homosexuality -
failing marriages, adultery, pre-marital sex, and
teenage pregnancies are more immediate, and tangible
effects of a breaking social fabric. These are the
issues of the day, to discuss, to debate, to salvage.
The youth of our nation have enjoyed a
privileged education, whose purpose is not just to
impart knowledge, but to instil sound logical ability to
discern for themselves. I take pride in the very fact
that I am a product of such a superior system, and am
grossly insulted by the commotion that Mr James Ray
orchestrated over the listing of homosexuality as
‘neutral’ in Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education
training materials.A mere listing
of neutrality by an organisation, whose focal point was
never on sexual preference to begin with, has been
misconstrued, and taken too far out of context. By no
stretch of implication, does the fact that a neutral
stand on homosexuality mean an approval or promotion of
it. Rather, it protects cohesion by choosing not to
promote hatred and animosity towards any sexual minority
- and, in so doing, allowing a deeper understanding for
society as a whole, as opposed to vehemently divided
parts of the same piece.
|
We can't discriminate based on sexual orientation
Letter from Tim Mou Hui
Todayonline
May 10, 2009
|
I would like to highlight and
counter some fundamental flaws in the arguments
presented by Mr. James Ray (‘Homosexuality is not
neutral’, May 8). First, to demand that the sexual union
between homosexual couples fulfill the same potential of
creating another human being before being considered as
“natural” is illogical because of the obvious
physiological differences in both circumstances. While
procreation may be the natural outcome of the sexual
union between a man and a woman, it is dogmatic to
impose this arbitrary criterion on homosexual couples
for their relationship to qualify as natural. Second,
the writer is all for his children attending talks
“based on the fact that homosexual acts are not normal”
and not otherwise because children are “young and
impressionable”. While I respect the writer’s stand on
his children’s upbringing, he is effectively saying that
when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, the young
should not be presented facts in an even-handed manner
and be left to decide their own stand as an informed
individual. Instead, they should be fed only one point
of view, without being presented the merits of any
other. I fear that such thinking will only perpetuate
bigotry in our society and lead us further away from
egalitarianism while other progressive societies surge
ahead.
Last, the writer states that
homosexual acts are illegal under Singapore law, and
thus cannot be considered as neutral. The law is indeed
a useful defense for those whose arguments have run out
of logical ground. Penal codes are by no means an
accurate reflection of what is moral and acceptable.
Some countries have laws restricting the movement and
action of women. Does the writer suggest then that
women’s rights be forsaken in those countries?As a part
of the larger global community that denounces gender,
racial and religious discrimination, it has become
morally untenable in Singapore to support discrimination
based on sexual orientation. A balanced, neutral
sexuality awareness education drive is but one small
step in eradicating such discrimination that belongs
only in the dark ages.
|
Phrasing homosexuality as 'neutral' is a good
way to go. Letter from Margaret Tan Ai Hua and Teo
Thiam Seng Todayonline
May 10, 2009
|
We refer to
“Homosexuality is not neutral” (May 8). Mr James Ray
claimed that homosexuality is not neutral based on his
argument that it is “not natural” and that it is
illegal. The argument on the “natural order” of things
is a straw-man argument. Biologically, there are
increasing evidence by psychologists and scientists to
suggest that sexual orientations go deeper than mere
lifestyle choices and that there may be genetics at work
that swing persons one way or another. Even nature
(animal kingdom) has numerous bisexual, asexual and
transsexual examples as biology evolves with its
environment. Socially and culturally, different sexual
orientations exist thousands of centuries ago (eg.
Greece, China, etc.) and continue to exist today. The
law that makes homosexuality illegal in Singapore is
inherited from the British Victorian code of conduct,
underpinned by Christian morality, instituted then to
impose heterosexuality on the society in order to
facilitate making women the property of men.
Homosexuality is not neutral as long as heterosexuality
is not unbiased. For the record, we are a happily
married heterosexual couple and proud parents of one. As
concerned parents and with one of us having gone through
a convent education, with its obligatory sex education
programme that preached only abstinence (complete with a
scary abortion video), we applaud Aware’s comprehensive
sexual education programme. It is high time youngsters
are given a more realistic and complete picture of what
is involved as they develop sexually, to be taught not
to be ashamed of their body and respect it at the same
time, that pleasure is not a sin and yet may come with
negative consequences, including HIV/Aids.
We hope the Ministry of
Education (MOE) will also consider the feelings of
parents like us who are neither “liberal” nor
“conservative” but are concerned that our child gets a
well-balanced progressive education, not premised on the
morality of a single group in society.Singapore is a
multicultural and multi-religious society and MOE must
recognise that not all religious groups and
non-believers think of homosexuality as immoral or
criminal. At the end of the day, what we want for our
child is that he grows up non-discriminative and non-
prejudicial, is able to make critical decisions and to
love and be loved. Phrasing homosexuality as neutral is
a good way to go.Please do not deny our child such an
education simply because a select group is more vocal
and louder than the rest of us.
|
STI 02 May 2009
Civil societies are subject to secular, not
religious, scrutiny
Yuen Kwong Chow
|
REFER to Wednesday's report,
"EGM venue changed to Expo Hall 2". It is worrying to
read that a religious leader reportedly said: "We don't
want our nation crossing that line." The Association of
Women for Action and Research (Aware) is registered as a
civil body, not a religious body, and should remain so.
Leaders of religious bodies are welcome to express their
views on moral values and practices, but to be involved
directly in the leadership tussle of a civil society
because of differences in beliefs arising from their
religions is a different matter. In multi-religious
Singapore, it is most critical that the conduct and
affairs of all civil bodies are subject to the scrutiny
of the relevant secular authorities and not religious
bodies. The comments in the article, attributed to a
weekend sermon by Pastor Derek Hong of the Anglican
Church of Our Saviour, were unfortunate. It is a great
blessing that different religions flourish freely and
co-exist peacefully in Singapore, thanks to a secular
government. |
STI , 02 May 2009
Lim Li Koon (Ms)
The inescapable irony of religious righteousness
|
I AM a Christian and the irony does
not escape me that I find it all the more alarming that
the new executive committee (exco) of the Association of
Women for Action and Research (Aware) consists of mainly
Christians, backed by their church leaders and
members.Senior pastor Derek Hong of the church to which
most of the new exco members belong reportedly called on
his flock to support new Aware president Josie Lau and
her "sisters" at the organisation.Members of the old
guard responded by urging their own supporters to join
the women's organisation.Forgive me if my knowledge of
the Bible serves me wrong, but I don't think all this is
in the spirit of Christianity, or Christ, for that
matter.Surely Christ's call is to "be the light of the
world", to live a life of love and integrity that would
benefit people around us, and thus influence others to
be likewise.
Ms Lau and her band of "sisters" would
have got my respect had they set up an alternative
Christian women's organisation to Aware, through which
they would then have had complete legitimacy to promote
their religious values concerning many issues, including
homosexuality.Instead, Singaporeans now wait with bated
breath for today's face-off when a mainly homogeneous
Christian group pits itself against a more diverse group
of individuals who had come together because of a proven
concern for women's issues.While it is anybody's guess
what the outcome would be, history has shown us that,
more often than not, religious fervour is a powerful
force to contend with.
|
Ex-Aware panel members voice distress at 'sacking'
ST Forum, 02 May 2009
Azmeen Moiz (Ms) (This letter carries 13 other
names)
|
AS COMMITTEE members of the
Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (Cedaw), we are disturbed by the sacking
of not just the chair, Ms Braema Mathi, but also the
entire sub-committee. On April 16, honorary treasurer
Sally Ang of the Association of Women for Action and
Research (Aware) informed Ms Mathi by e-mail that the
latter's term had ceased as of the date of the annual
general meeting (AGM). On April 18, she said in an
e-mail: 'May I reiterate that under the Aware
Constitution, the Cedaw sub-committee that you chaired
had been dissolved and your office as chairman ceased on
the date of the AGM, March 28.' We say sacked because:
# To the best of our knowledge, no
other committee or chair was informed under the
Constitution that it had been dissolved - only the Cedaw
committee;
# The Constitution does not state that
the office of a chair of a sub-committee will
automatically lapse with a new executive committee
(exco). Instead, the Constitution specifically states
that members of each sub-committee may elect their own
chair and that the appointment of the chair shall be
approved by the exco; and
# In the past 24 years of Aware's
history, no chair or sub-committee of any ongoing
project has had its term cease in such a manner.
We still do not know why.Ms Sally
Ang's e-mail dated April 18 also suggested that we did
not produce the draft Cedaw shadow report by the time of
the AGM. At the AGM, Ms Halijah Mohamad, a Cedaw member,
had clarified that the draft report was not ready.We
wrote on April 22 to the exco to protest against Ms
Mathi's sacking and to reiterate that we were not behind
schedule to submit the final report to the United
Nations. No response was received. Instead, Aware
president Josie Lau wrote a letter to the Forum Page on
April 24 ('Aware chief: Sub-com head was not sacked'),
implying inefficiencies.So we repeat: The original
deadline for the Cedaw sub-committee was March, but it
was changed for reasons including the need for further
research. We will be in time for submission to the UN
whose website shows no date of submission right up to
2010 for a country report on Singapore.Many of us had
the honour of producing the last Cedaw shadow report in
2007. We note that none of the new exco members has ever
expressed interest in joining our ongoing Cedaw
sub-committee. We are distressed at being sacked without
consultation.
|
30 April 2009 Straits Times print forum
Termination had nothing to do with performance, says
ex-employee
Schutz Lee (Ms)
|
THERE are a number of factual
misrepresentations in last Saturday's article, 'Centre
manager sacked for insubordination, says vice-president'
, which I wish to clarify.I started work in Aware in
February on a part-time short-term contract basis. My
contract was to end on May 31. I was not meant to work
part-time after May as reported.April 10 was 13 days
after the annual general meeting (AGM) on March 28, not
'very shortly after the election results' as Aware
vice-president Charlotte Wong said about reporters
contacting the new exco members. On April 10, Mr Wong
Kim Hoh's story on the AGM was published. On April 11,
in an e-mail message, Ms Wong complained to me about
breach of confidentiality.The fact is, I was away from
Singapore on a holiday from April 1 to 8 and went back
to the office only on April 9. I had no access to the
files while away. Mr Wong certainly did not get the
numbers from me as Ms Wong alleged.On April 14, when I
discovered the powder-filled envelope, Ms Wong was
besieged by reporters in the Aware centre. I did not
want to alarm the reporters further. I slipped out
quickly and quietly as my priority was not to put health
at risk if the powder was a bio-terrorism substance.
Similarly with electronic newsletters
to members. I wanted members to get the extraordinary
general meeting notice sooner as they were asking for
it. If I knew what to do, why did I need to wait for an
executive decision? How is it insubordination?When faced
with IT problems, I will call our vendors. On April 17,
at around 4.30pm, I gave Ms Wong the password for the
president's e-mail that had been used previously by Mrs
Constance Singam. She tried and told me the password was
wrong. I had no idea the password was changed. I called
the administrator to rectify the problem immediately.
Within an hour, I gave Ms Wong a new password before she
left for the day.Whenever Ms Wong complained to me about
online registration of members, I alerted the webmaster.
He has since enabled his programmer to receive e-mail
confirmation of every online registration so mistakes
may be spotted right away. As far as I know, the problem
is looked into. I have done my job. It has nothing to do
with my performance.
|
30 April 2009 Straits Times print forum
AWARE'S SEXUALITY EDUCATION PROGRAMME Concerns
addressed
Anthony Yeo Consultant Therapist Counselling
and Care Centre
|
THE clarification and statement
by Senior Minister of State for Education S. Iswaran, as
well as yesterday's letter by Ms Deeksha Vasundhra from
Aware's former Comprehensive Sexuality Education
development team ('What the school programme teaches
students'), should put to rest the concerns of the
current executive committee of the Association of Women
for Action and Research (Aware) regarding homosexuality
being taught during sex education in schools. It is also
gratifying to learn that the Ministry of Education
(MOE), in its letter yesterday, 'MOE: No complaints from
parents, Dr Thio', has endorsed the programme offered
thus far, with no complaints from Dr Thio Su Mien and
parents. This is a sure testimony that there is no issue
with the content. It is even more reassuring that MOE
had permitted this programme to be taught in schools,
even if it contained minor information on sexual
identity and orientation, as we know how prudent MOE can
be - to the point of being prudish at times - when it
comes to such matters in sex education.
In recent years, MOE has engaged our
centre to offer training to full-time school counsellors
in understanding and counselling students with gender
identity issues. The aim is to equip them with knowledge
and skills to provide guidance and counselling to
students who have such issues.I appreciate the concern
of the newly elected Christian exco members that Aware
should not be pro-gay or promote a homosexual
lifestyle.Unfortunately, this concern should have been
expressed to MOE or been clarified and debated at
Aware's platform, instead of by ousting the old
guard.Since the members are Christians from the same
church, they should use a religious platform to deal
with this issue and not invade a civil society that is
meant to be non-sectarian and secular.I have also been
involved in my professional capacity with various
programmes and projects of Aware for more than 15 years.
In all these years, I have not encountered any of the
newly elected Christian exco members. Nor had I the
faintest idea that Aware was in any way pro-gay or
promoted a homosexual lifestyle.Now this has been raised
by these members, it is indeed a stunning revelation,
not only to me but also to many who have been involved
with the work of the committed old guard of Aware.
|
Today Online Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Don’t pretend that Christian activism doesn’t
exist here
Terence Chong
|
THE saga
playing out at Aware, Singapore’s women’s-rights group,
is now cause célèbre. So far the local media and
observers have responded to the saga in three different
ways. These responses are interesting because they are a
telling indication of the brand of civil society
politics that different quarters desire for Singapore. a
marketplace of ideas The first response is a kind of
interested ambivalence. Many see the Aware drama as part
and parcel of civil-society politics and that, in the
marketplace of ideas, it should be allowed to unfold
naturally if we want to mature politically as a society.
The underlying rationale of this response is that if
Aware is permanently subsumed by Christian
conservatives, then it only means that the liberals were
quite properly taught a humbling lesson in
self-organisation. If the Christian conservatives are
voted out it would be testimony to fighting for one’s
beliefs. There is a flaw in this “marketplace of ideas”
rationale. In a marketplace of ideas, like-minded
individuals come together to form a group to champion a
cause or belief alongside contradictory views for public
appraisal. This is not happening with Aware. Instead,
the new leadership, vis-à-vis this takeover, has sought
to straightjacket the antithetical views within Aware in
the hopes that theirs may be promoted unchallenged. Ms
Josie Lau has spoken of Aware “losing its focus”,
becoming “too diversified” and in need of
“consolidation”. It does not take a stretch of the
imagination to know that this means eschewing the
inclusiveness of Aware by dropping gay and lesbian
causes (Aware received flak for screening Spider Lilies,
a lesbian film) and endorsing only conservatively
defined pro-family programmes. This is not the recipe
for diversity and the healthy competition of ideas.
Bring in the super-nannyAnother common
response is that this bickering has gone on long enough,
and that if the two parties cannot resolve the problem,
the state should step in.This type of reasoning does
local civil society no favours as it swings to the other
end of the spectrum from the first response.Here, people
prefer an artificial veneer of calm over civil society.
They seem to be more at ease with a quiet and sterile
political landscape than a boisterous and vibrant one,
and would probably prefer that the authorities
intervene.Needless to say such an attitude is perfect
for keeping Singaporeans politically infantile while
cementing the Government’s role as a cane-wielding
father figure.Playing the religious cardThe last
response is probably the most serious and politically
retarding. There are some who feel it is wrong to draw
links between the exco’s Christian faith and lifestyle
views, and the direction this would take the NGO.The
rationale here is that identifying the new exco as
“Christians” is akin to playing up the politics of
religion. Expressing this view is a senior writer in the
The Straits Times who wrote, “Unfortunately, the label
that I have heard some people apply to the new crowd at
Aware is not just a simple ‘conservative’ tag. It is
‘Christian conservative’ or ‘fundamentalist’ ... I think
that what is worrying, and dangerous, is that this camp
has chosen to throw down and play the religious
card”.Such warnings push a lot of panic buttons in
multicultural Singapore, which is why it must be
debunked.The strong religious links here should not be
ignored. It has been discovered that many of the new
exco members belong to the same church and one must at
least consider the possibility that their Christian
faith may influence their direction for Aware.After all,
it is not the Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu and Muslim
“conservatives” who are agitating for a new Aware. This
is in no way an attempt to paint the entire Christian
community in Singapore with a broad brush but an
empirical observation of the acts of certain segments
within this community.There are signs that some within
the broadly-tolerant local Christian community have
become more pro-active in making their views heard on
public policies.
In 2004, religious conservatives
campaigned vigorously to resist Government plans to
built the two integrated resorts, with the Christian
conservatives the most vocal. In 2007, the parliamentary
debate over Penal Code 377A, a law that criminalises
homosexual sex, served as a public platform for the
community’s vivid expression of its anti-gay
sentiments.Beyond self-mobilisation, a minority of
Christians have had a history of inappropriate
proselytising in multicultural Singapore.The 1990
Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, for example, which
guards against insensitive proselytising and pulpit
politics, was passed in part due to the alarming
incidents of Christian students attempting to convert
students of other faiths on university campus in the
late 1980s.More recently, a Christian husband and wife
were hauled to court for mailing over 20,000 “seditious
and objectionable publications” against the Islamic
faith, as well as over 20 tracts to their Muslim
colleagues. When asked if the purpose of her act was to
convert Muslims, the woman replied, “I am sowing the
gospel seed, but it is God that converts”Given these
trends, warning against “playing the religious card” is
but a disingenuous attempt to pretend that such
Christian activism does not exist in multi-religious
Singapore.This is unhelpful.Instead, it would be more
constructive to urge the more moderate and liberal
Christians to speak out. The local Christian community
is not homogenous but one that contains a gradient of
values, and it’s time for those who are more inclusive
and tolerant of differing life choices to stand up and
be counted. WEEKENDVTRA
|
Newpaper
Tussle For Aware CONTRASTS It was like a
cocktail party It was a press conference that was
markedly different from the one at Raffles Town Club the
day before. Calm, cheerful, almost gleeful, the old
guard of Aware met the media yesterday to give out their
version of the facts. By Ng Tze Yong April 26,
2009
|
YOU could feel the difference,
the moment you stepped out of the lift at the fifth
floor of Junction8 office tower. GAME TIME: Before the
press conference started, Mr Mark Goh (in spectacles)
gave a briefing to the penalists. --TNP PICTURES: CHOO
CHWEE HUA At 6pm yesterday, the press conference
organised by the Aware veterans was about to begin.
There was easy banter, cheerful chatter and warm smiles
that lit up the room like a cocktail party. Unlike the
tense, terse affair which was the press conference given
by the new exco on Thursday, this one was decidedly
different. You could almost smell the scent of victory.
You could almost spot a hint of glee in the eyes of the
old guard members. On Thursday night, the new exco had
chaired an emotion-charged press conference at the
Raffles Town Club that, among other things, was
disrupted by a heckler. There were shouting matches as
they stumbled over their answers and contradicted one
another. At the end of it all, many questions were left
hanging. They had messed up big time. And the old guard,
experienced old hands that they were, knew it. In the
office of the Women's Initiative for Ageing
Successfully, a converted dance studio where the press
conference was held, they moved about with ease and
confidence, offering drinks and smiles aplenty. There
was none of the distrust, fear and apprehension that
hung in the air of the new exco's conference. 'We are
not here for a tit-for-tat. ..' said former president Dr
Kanwaljit Soin, as the press conference began. 'We are
giving out fact sheets and letting the facts speak for
themselves.' That set the tone for the evening -
dignified, proper, yet casual.
'We do not have a lesbian desk,
so to speak,' said DrSoin to laughter, as she used
newsroom jargon to answer a reporter's question about
whether the old exco was pro-homosexuality.As members of
the panel took turns to speak up passionately about the
saga, Dr Soin spoke again, to laughter:'You may be here
for a long time... we hope you have tah pao (slang for
ordered out) your dinner.'Charm offensiveThe charm
offensive was clearly on but for the old guard, many of
whom have been at Aware for eons.The rapport between the
panel of 11 Aware members and the media was
apparent.Perhaps that was why the ugliness of the whole
affair, the name-calling, the heckling, the dispute at
the Aware centre that had required police intervention -
twice - on Thursday night, was far from everyone's
mind.Instead, it was the experience and the diversity of
the old exco that stood out.The 11 panel members was
made up of nine women and two men.They came dressed in
saris and smart suits. There were Christians, Muslims
and Sikhs.They had been quick on the uptake, organising
this press conference immediately after the new exco
spoke up.And they sat there, smiling, yet ready to draw
swords.3 questions on everyone's lipsWAS OLD EXCO
PRO-GAY?'We are anti-discrimination . We are
anti-anti-anything. ' - Ex-president Constance
SingamWHAT IS AT STAKE?'What has happened at Aware is a
threat to S'pore's pluralistic society.' -
Ex-vice-president Margaret Thomas ON DEATH THREATS 'We
are very sorry that Josie (the new president) has
received death threats. We do not think that such
activities should take place in a civilised society.' -
Ex-president Kanwaljit Soin
|
Tussle For Aware DR NOBODY Dr Thio who?
She burst onto the Aware stage at the
press
conference of the new guard, claiming to have
'mentored' most of them. But most of the old guard don't
even remember who she was
Asiaone April 26, 2009
|
SHE gave
herself the grand title of 'Feminist Mentor', claiming
to have been involved with Aare in its eadays.
But at yesterday's press conference, few claimed to know
her.On Thursday night, Dr Thio Su Mien, a former law
dean, made a surprise appearance at the press conference
of the new exco at Raffles Town Club.She sat at one end
of the table, denying suggestions that she was the
mastermind of the takeover at Aware.Her appearance added
a new twist to the already convoluted saga.Dr Thio is
the mother of Nominated Member of Parliament Thio
Li-ann, who has spoken up strongly against homosexuality
in Parliament.'I'm not sure. I know who are the founding
members of Aware and I don't remember seeing Dr Thio at
any of the meetings or her name mentioned,' said former
president Dr Kanwaljit Soin, who was a founding member
of the 24-year-old Aware.She added to laughter: 'But I'm
not known for a good memory. I have not heard of Dr Thio
as a feminist but, you know, we do have closet
feminists.'The microphone was passed to founding member
Ms Lai Ah Eng.
Laughter'I do not recall...
what's her name...' began Ms Lai earnestly, before
turning to the rest of the panel, which broke out in
laughter.When reminded, Ms Lai prepared to continue what
she was trying to say, but was interrupted by Dr
Soin.'Should we delete that?' she said, turning to legal
advisor Dr Mark Goh in mock horror.'No, we should leave
that!' came the reply.Ms Lai went on to explain that she
was not familiar with Dr Thio, although she has read
articles written by her.Panel members mentioned that
they have heard her name before, here and there, but no
way was she the Feminist Mentor she claimed to be.'I
know of her... I might have met her at one or two social
occasions, but I don't know her,' said Dr Soin.'It is
important to have a institutional memory of Aware, of
what Aware did in the past 24 years, instead of allowing
one particular item, as raised by Dr Thio, to be the
sole criteria by which Aware is judged,' said Ms Lai.The
answers were quickly snuffed out by MrGoh, who
interjected halfway, saying that the panel was not here
to discuss Dr Thio.Despite further probes by the media,
the topic quickly moved on to other related matters.'As
a staunch Roman Catholic, I'm disturbed by this act that
seems to be motivated by Christians.. .' said veteran
member Corrina Lau, rebutting Dr Thio's stance that the
old exco was pro-homosexuality.'Christianity is about
love.'
|
25 April 2009 Straits Times
Why neutral stance on homosexuals
Sexuality programme gives information 'in a
non-judgmental way' By Sandra Davie and Tan Dawn Wei
|
THE Association of Women for Action
and Research (Aware) sexuality education training manual
suggests that homosexuality should be viewed in
'neutral' terms, rather than positive or negative.It
goes on to explain why: 'Homosexuality is perfectly
normal. Just like heterosexuality, it is simply the way
you are. Homosexuals also form meaningful relationships,
and face the same emotional issues that heterosexuals
do.' It was this statement that raised the ire of four
new leaders of Aware - president Josie Lau, honorary
treasurer Maureen Ong, honorary secretary Jenica Chua
and committee member Lois Ng.At their press conference
on Thursday, Ms Ong, a mother of three, said it was the
sexuality education programme that made her worry about
what Aware was teaching children. 'I'm concerned. I'm a
parent. It's shocking,' she said.It spurred her to join
Aware, and be part of its takeover last month.But former
Aware president Constance Singam said yesterday that the
programme was a comprehensive one, designed to provide
teens with information in a non-judgmental way. 'We do
not teach kids to impart judgment, we just give them
information, ' she said. 'Their values come from their
family, and their religion. Words like 'homosexuality' ,
'sexy' and 'virginity' are neutral words because Aware
is non-judgmental' .The sexual education programme
started in 2007 and has reached about 12 secondary
schools, run for small groups of students selected by
their teachers to attend. To date 500 students, mostly
girls, have attended the workshop, which comprises two
three-hour sessions. It was only recently offered to
boys.
The programme was developed over a
year in consultation with parents, youth social workers,
teachers, and academics from a range of institutions.
Mrs Singam said it was put through a rigorous process of
testing before being taken to schools.It was run by
volunteers who were selected after an interview. Before
they could conduct the programme, they had a three-day
training workshop including testing, two shadow-training
sessions, and a number of assisted workshops.Each
three-hour workshop consists of games, role-play,
discussions, and a presentation, covering topics such as
sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, contraceptives,
negotiation skills to resist peer pressure and building
healthy relationships.Mrs Singam also explained that
Aware believed in a comprehensive sex education
programme that did not teach only
abstinence.'International reports, including the 2005
American Psychological Association report, have shown
that only comprehensive sex education is effective in
protecting adolescents from pregnancy and sexually
transmitted illnesses,' she said.'Just look at the
statistics, the huge increase in pregnancies, abortions
in Singapore is worrying. About 1,300 abortions were
performed on women below the age of 20 in 2005 and also
in 2006. From 283 cases of sexually transmitted
infections in 2002, it hit 657 in the first nine months
of 2007.'She stressed the need for young people to have
reliable information.
'Kids sometimes get very misguided
information from the Internet and their peers. We want
to empower teens and young women with the right facts
and the knowledge to make informed decisions, to
understand the consequences of their decisions and to
protect themselves.'Aware trainers who conduct the
workshop said they volunteered because they believed in
what the organisation aimed to do through the
programme.One of them, Mrs Mathangi Kumar, who has two
daughters, said the topic of homosexuality was only a
'very small part' of what the workshop covered.She said
that whenever the topic came up in her sessions, she
focused on getting the youngsters to realise there is a
diversity of views on such issues and to respect them
even if they disagree with them.Dr Carol Balhetchet,
director of Youth Services in the Singapore Children's
Society, said teachers, counsellors and parents should
not avoid the topic of homosexuality. 'It's the reality
for teens these days,' she said. 'There are gays all
around them. What do we do? Ignore it and not talk about
it?'That's dangerous - because then your child will
learn about it from their friends and the Internet.'She
agreed that when broaching the topic, it is important to
avoid making value judgments.'Just present them with the
facts, what it is, what do the laws say about it, what
different religions say about it, encourage them to talk
about it to their parents and then let them make up
their own mind based on their own value system.'Two
fathers whose daughters attended Aware's sexuality
education programme in school had differing views on the
group's approach. One said he was concerned when his
daughter told him about the discussion on homosexuality.
'They didn't exactly say it was
wrong, so I was worried that my daughter came away
thinking that it was acceptable,' he said.
'Organisations that run sex education programmes must be
careful about giving such messages to teens who are at
an impressionable age.'But the other father felt that
the Aware trainer handled the topic well.'The trainer
discussed how people view homosexuality differently,
which led my daughter to quiz me on how exactly our
religion views it,' he said.'I thought it was a healthy
approach to a very difficult topic. But the last thing I
would want is for issues like this to be ignored.'The
Education Ministry said yesterday that in addition to
its sexuality education programme, schools can
collaborate with other agencies, including the Health
Promotion Board, to run programmes.In doing so, schools
are left to ensure that programmes run by an external
agency are secular and sensitive to the multi-religious
makeup of our schools'MOE's sexuality education
programme aims to equip students with the knowledge and
skills to make responsible values-based choices on
matters involving sexuality,' it said.'It is premised on
the importance of the family and respect for the values
and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious
communities on sexuality issues.'It said schools should
inform parents beforehand and allow them to opt out if
they do not want their children to attend the
programme.The two fathers interviewed said they were
told beforehand of the Aware workshop.
|
New paper
More parents seek help about gay kids January 28,
2009
|
MORE parents
are seeking counselling to come to terms with their
children's homosexual tendencies. Psychologist Daniel
Koh saw three such cases of parents last year, which is
more than the number he saw two years ago. He told The
New Paper of a case involving parents who had brought
their 18-year-old son for counselling last year because
he was leaning towards homosexuality. The boy felt
confused and stressed because he was not interested in
girls, and was interested in images of men in magazines.
When their only son spoke about his frustrations to his
parents, they took him to a psychologist. The boy's
father, who is in his 40s, insisted that homosexuality
does not exist, and demanded that the boy be 'changed'.
The parents tried to get the boy to dress in sports
jerseys, shorts and clothes with military motifs. They
also tried to get the boy to play football and adopt
more masculine mannerisms. Outside of sports, they
discouraged him from hanging out with male friends, and
tried to introduce him to girls. These efforts, however,
were strongly resented by the boy, who began avoiding
the issue of his sexuality. At one point, he stopped
talking to his parents altogether. The psychologist
tried to get the parents to understand the boy's
position, and tried to open communication between the
two parties. Eventually, the parents backed off, and let
the boy live his own life.
Mr Koh said: 'This case shows that
being hard and forceful will only make matters worse. If
parents push too hard, they'll just push their children
away.'Mrs Kam-Poh Ee-Lyn, a family life educator who has
counselled young lesbians and their parents, says that
when parents find out their children are gay or lesbian,
they tend to go through psychological stages, like
people who are grieving.First, these parents may be in
shock.Then, they may deny their children's tendencies,
rationalising to themselves that the latter are just
going through a phase.When they realise that such
tendencies are a real issue, they might blame themselves
for their children's sexuality, before coming to terms
with the situation.In any case, Mrs Kam warns that such
conflicts may lead to more serious issues, like children
running away from home.She said more parents may be
seeking counselling about their children's homosexuality
because gay youth are becoming more upfront about their
relationships.Family therapist Juliana Toh, who is
seeing more parents with gay children, also suggested
that the increase may be due to the fact that more
children are feeling confident about their relationship
with their parents, so they are comfortable in
disclosing their gender leanings.She said: 'The most
important thing is to help the parents see that they
have not lost their son or daughter. He or she is still
the same person.''And at the end of the day, all parents
want their child to have a companion, to be loved and
cared for, regardless of this companion's gender.'
|
Booklets available in store MDA says action will
be taken against bookshop as tracts are objectionable
Straits Times
Jan 29, 2009
|
THE lawyer defending a couple
on trial for distributing seditious tracts argued
yesterday that the materials published by an
American firm were openly available in a Christian
bookshop in Singapore. Tecman, at Bras Basah
Complex, sold the Chick Publications tracts, said Mr
Selva Naidu, as he showed pictures of the store in
Bain Street with the materials on its shelves to an
official from the Media Development Authority (MDA)
for his response. As such publications are openly
and freely available in Singapore, a member of the
public will not know that it is an offence to give
away or even possess such materials, argued Mr
Naidu. Also, a member of the public may not know
that such publications may promote feelings of ill
will, hostility, enmity or hatred between different
classes of population in Singapore. Mr A.R. Madeei,
the MDA's senior assistant director (publications),
replied by saying that action would be taken against
the book store as 11 of the tracts were
objectionable. Testifying at the continued trial of
Ong Kian Cheong, 50, and his wife, Dorothy Chan Hien
Leng, 45, Mr Madeei said the contents of those 11
publications could cause hatred and ill will between
different religions. The booklets are published by
Chick Publications, an American firm that produces
and markets Protestant fundamentalist pamphlets,
DVDs, VCDs, videos, books and posters. Its
best-known products are the Chick tracts, which are
comic tracts available in nearly 100 languages. Mr
Madeei told District Judge Roy Neighbour that it is
not possible for the MDA to examine each and every
publication sold in bookshops here as close to two
million books are imported. 'We allow the industry
to self-regulate and refer to us publications that
are in doubt,' he said. In response to a question by
Deputy Public Prosecutor Anandan Bala, the witness
said a tract had a greater propensity for damage as
it could easily be read and accessed compared to a
book. And if there were illustrations, he said it
would definitely create more impact than words. In
his cross-examination of Mr Madeei, Mr Naidu read
excerpts from four books and asked if those passages
were objectionable. The four were: God Is Not Great,
The End Of Faith, The Da Vinci Code and The God
Delusion. Mr Madeei's reply was that these passages
had to be looked at in context, and they might not
be objectionable. But a tract, he said, was
targeted, easily accessible and understood by the
young and vulnerable. 'In a tract, there is no room
for debate at all. Mere statements. A book, on the
other hand, encompasses different points of view and
arguments,' he added. Mr Madeei's testimony took
most of the day's hearing, and he would return
today. The MDA is the regulatory authority on
publications. In the afternoon, Madam Farhati Ahmad,
an administration manager with the Education
Ministry, testified that she felt offended and angry
after reading The Little Bride. She made a police
report on March 6, 2007.
|
New paper
First workshop here dealing with same-sex couples
January 28, 2009
|
SAME-SEX couples, like
heterosexual couples, seek affection, comfort and
fulfilling relationships, says American family therapist
Dr David E Greenan. Both face similar problems, such as
difficulties in having their emotional needs understood
and met. Dr Greenan, 55, conducted a workshop in
Singapore last Tuesday on how practitioners can help
same-sex couples. This is the first workshop in
Singapore dealing with same-sex couples. Dr Greenan says
that same-sex couples do face stress in their
relationships. But in Singapore, they are also less
likely to seek help due to a lack of professionals
trained in same-sex couple therapy, he added. Dr Greenan
said that in same-sex couples, there is a knee-jerk
response to end the relationship as soon as the partners
encounter difficulties. This is because they do not have
a model for reconciliation, and because they face a
sense of isolation and disconnectedness within greater
society. Maintain stable relationships As a result,
same-sex couples find it harder to maintain stable
relationships. He said: 'Heterosexual couples are much
more committed to working through their difficulties
because they have a legal involvement and they may have
children.' Dr Greenan has conducted presentations all
over the world, and specialises in working with same-sex
couples. About 50 counsellors, family therapists, social
workers and psychologists from private and public
practice attended the workshop. The workshop's aim was
to acquaint practising professionals in same-sex couple
therapy.It was organised by Oogachaga, a non-profit
personal development and counselling agency founded in
1999 for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
people.In collaboration with Counselling and Care
Centre, Oogachaga organised a workshop in 2007 on how
practitioners can help young people who are attracted to
others of the same sex.
|
New paper
More gays seek help for relationship
problems Counsellors say arguments over gender roles
common among same-sex couples By Benson Ang
January 28, 2009
|
THEY have little support in
the wider community. So,
more people in same-sex relationships are seeking help
from professional counsellors. This is the observation
of five counsellors interviewed by The New Paper. One
counsellor, who declined to be named, said he has seen a
growing number of same-sex couples, mostly gay men,
seeking help in their relationships. Gay men in a
relationship might argue about gender roles. One may be
the breadwinner while the other does housework at home.
The breadwinner might then ask the homemaker: 'Why am I
the only one earning money?' The counsellor said: 'In
same-sex couples, they have to negotiate the gender
roles, as they have no models to follow. They need to
create a different set of rules.' Another counsellor
said that a year ago, a gay male client in his 20s came
for counselling partly because of relationship troubles.
Depressed and tearful He was depressed, suffered from
crying spells and could sleep only for three to four
hours a night. He had been dating another man, also in
his 20s, for about a year. But he felt insecure about
the relationship because his partner liked to go to
parties, while he spent most of his time at home. The
two didn't live together, and the client felt his
partner wasn't spending enough time with him. They
hadn't had physical intimacy for months.
The client was broken-hearted because
he felt he wasn't attractive enough to his partner, and
felt the latter wanted to see other men.To rub salt into
the wound, the client was supporting his partner's
expensive lifestyle, as the client was a well-educated
professional, who earned more money than the latter.But
the client felt he couldn't tell his problem to either
his family or his colleagues, because they didn't know
he was gay, and he was afraid to disclose his sexual
orientation.He also didn't share his problem with the
handful of gay friends he had.'That's how the client
ended up talking to me,' the counsellor said.The
counsellor didn't want his client or himself to be named
to protect counsellor-patient confidentiality, but said
he sees about two homosexual clients a month.Similar
feelings The counsellor said: 'The problems which my
client faced - feelings of inadequacy and insecurity -
are quite similar to those experienced by heterosexual
couples.'But unlike opposite sex couples, my client
didn't have much family or peer support to fall back
on.'Mrs Juliana Toh, clinical director of the
Counselling and Care Centre, is also seeing more
same-sex couples.Her centre saw about 10 same-sex
couples last year. Five years ago, she would see at most
one a year.She believes there are more people in
same-sex relationships coming for counselling because
there are more gay-friendly services available, compared
with 10 years ago.She added: 'It's like with divorce.
Gay people today are less marginalised, although they
still have to look very carefully for who they share
their problems with.'The fact that both parties are of
the same gender does influence the dynamic in same-sex
relationships, she said.Mrs Toh noted that lesbian
relationships are more stable than those between gay
men, because women tend to be better at communicating
their emotional needs to their partners.
|
Hong Lim Green’ to turn somewhat pink
The New Paper
25 Sept 2008
Organiser plans gay pride parade at Speakers’ Corner
By Andre Yeo
|
HONG LIM Park (once
called Green) is open for demos of all shades and hues
(except unlawful ones, of course). So it is no surprise
that the gay lobby here wants to use it in November to
make a statement. Riding on the new, relaxed rules on
protests at the park’s Speakers’ Corner, Mr Roy Tan, 50,
is planning a gay pride parade. But the response to it
has so far been uncertain. Mr Alex Au, 55, one of the
leaders of gay advocacy group, People Like Us, likes the
idea but he questions if it should be called thus. He
said: ‘I am sceptical of calling it a parade if they
can’t walk down the streets. A parade requires linear
movement.’ Ms Jean Chong, 32, a lesbian who is
self-employed and also from People Like Us, said she was
aware of the parade but was not sure if she would be
attending. She told The New Paper: ‘I think most of them
(the gay community) are standing on one side and
thinking about it. ‘Most don’t see Hong Lim Park as a
big step towards more freedom. It’s a form of
tokenism.‘On the one hand, they feel they want to
support it (the parade). But, on the other hand, they
are against the concept of Hong Lim Park because you
should have the right to demonstrate anywhere.’
Following Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day
Rally speech to slowly liberalise the political scene
here, rules were changed such that from 1 Sep, public
demonstrations can now be held at Speakers’ Corner as
long as they do not touch on race or religion.
Organiser Mr Tan, 50,
who works in the healthcare industry, said: ‘I thought
it would be good for someone to organise the first pride
parade and, hopefully, it would be the first of many and
be part of the cultural landscape.’ Mr Tan said that
even if he were the only one at the park for the event,
he would march round the place holding a placard on
Section 377A - a section of the penal code that
criminalises gay sex. Mr Tan said he would be marching
three times round the park singing We Shall Overcome, a
civil rights anthem, to represent the struggle for
equality. He expected people to come but he did not
think many would be marching. He said: ‘Many people are
not prepared to do it at the moment.
The first step is the
most difficult one.’ The management of Speakers’ Corner
used to be under the police, but now comes under the
National Parks Board (NParks). Demonstrators only need
to register on the NParks website. Yesterday, an NParks
spokesman confirmed that it had received a registration
for a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual pride
parade at the Corner on 15 Nov. It is slated to last
from 3 to 7pm. According to the NParks website,
Singapore permanent residents can also take part in a
demonstration at Speakers’ Corner and are required to
apply for a police permit only if they want to organise
a demonstration themselves or to speak at the Corner.
Foreigners will have to apply for a permit to conduct or
take part in any activity at the Corner.
|
Why such leaders should reveal income
Straitstimes Forum - Printed letters, 19 Sept 2008
|
LAST Thursday, the Commissioner of Charities made
known to the public a good initiative introducing
measures of accountability and transparency in the
report, 'Watchdog finds four areas for
improvements'. If there is any reason for its
implementation, it is for the good of all. Is it
religiously and morally justifiable to remunerate
religious and charity leaders from donations
relatively on par with the remuneration of captains
of commerce and industry? The perceived morals of
religious and charity groups is at an all-time low
now. This is due to the misdeeds of a handful of
religious and charity leaders. It is good and just
to weed out pilferers and plunderers in mega
organisations. What prompted them to deviate from
the original, sacrificial nature of remuneration to
a secular standard of reward has contributed to
their offences and consequent fall from human
favour. It is unbecoming of religious leaders to
'exact' heavily from the tithe and offerings of the
church, so that they can own luxurious houses and
limousines, pay for first-class flights and more,
while their congregation slog it out to meet their
family needs and scrimp to pay church tithes and
offerings.
We must consider the
large sums donated to these mega churches by thousands
of donors of all income groups, who do so because they
want their contributions spent on proper and justifiable
causes. Hence, publishing the gross remunerations and
personal assets of all mega religious and charity
leaders, as brought up by Mr George Lim's four-fold
proposal in his letter last Saturday, ('Publish the
incomes and assets of leaders'), is not only fair and
proper, but also, more importantly, tangible, moral and
ethical. Leaders are morally obligated to disclose their
earnings as they are living on public donations. Donors
have the right to know.
|
Funding: 'Religious and charity organisations
should not be run as flourishing enterprises with
endless funding.'
Straitstimes Forum, 19 Sept 2008
Paul Chan
|
I AGREE with Mr George Lim's
letter last Saturday. ("Publish the incomes and
assets of leaders") and share his sentiments that it
would be a cognitive disconnect and social
incongruence for religious leaders to lead a
luxurious life. The four proposals are concrete
steps to transparency in governance. I feel grey
areas need to be addressed, too. Looking from
different perspectives, I propose clear-cut
directives to prohibit donation money to be
channelled to investments or businesses. Commercial
activities are fundamentally contrary to the
objectives of donations and contradictory to the
spirit of charity. Religious leaders should abstain
from diverting donation money to other activities
and concentrate diligently on disbursing the funds
to needy beneficiaries. Where is the need to
increase yield when donations come in millions?
Strict rules should be
in place to prohibit charity organisations to channel
donation money for investments or business in any form.
When the fund runs low, appeal for more donations.
Reserves should be parked as fixed deposits in banks.
Period. Business holdings and commercial interests of
religious leaders are private and need not be made
public if they receive no remuneration or benefits in
kind from the charity. But if they do, for the sake of
accountability and transparency, whatever they receive
from the charity should be made known to the public.Cut
off commercial activity in charity organisations and you
don't have 'conflict of interest' from related parties.
The worshippers and donors are not "stakeholders" of the
funds in the hands of the keepers. The only noble duty
of the custodians (servants of God) is to disburse the
money to the needy and less fortunate. Nothing else.
Religious and charity organisations should not be run as
flourishing enterprises with endless funding. For true
transparency, remove investment, loans and commercial
activity from all charity organisations.
|
Big business now: 'I am awestruck at the payscale of
local church pastors. These churches are now like mega
corporations.'
Straitstimes Forum, 19 Sept 2008
Chi Han-Hsuan
|
I REFER to the report, "Seven
major religious groups with annual incomes of over
$10 million each and who heads them" (Sept 11). I am
awestruck at the payscale of local church pastors.
Many are paid more than chief executive officers
(CEOs) of business entities. These churches are now
like mega corporations. The question, however, is
whether church pastors can justifiably draw huge
salaries from the tithes and offerings which are
meant for God's work. As a former City Harvest
Church and Faith Community Baptist Church goer, I
have given my fair share of offerings, hoping to see
that 90 per cent of the money could be spent doing
God's work. Little did I realise that much of it has
been used to fuel the lavish lifestyles of the
church founders.
To circumvent the misappropriation of donors' funds,
there should be clear guidelines on what church pastors
should be paid and the ceiling for their salaries and
allowances. From what I understand, these churches make
it mandatory "in the name of God" for all true
Christians to contribute 10 per cent of all their
earnings to be pledged as tithes for the church. I
remember these church leaders telling me that one would
be "robbing God" if 10 per cent is not rightfully
returned into God's kingdom (based on the scripture of
Micah). However, the grey area is that the Bible did not
specify what percentage the church leaders should draw
from the collections. It is then up to the authorities
to determine what is the ceiling that church pastors
should draw in remuneration. Many mega church leaders
feel that it is their right as God's ambassadors and
spiritual leaders to command high salaries for doing the
ultimate, which is God's work, but do they actually have
a God-given right to exploit that? To draw a salary of
$2 million a year would be considered excessive for a
pastor who draws from funds given by the public, but to
draw $20 million to $35 million per annum is ridiculous.
|
TODAY
Stop making A mockery
of rule of law: Let's accept gays
Why keep such an archaic
statute when there's no intention to prosecute?
Monday • September 8, 2008
HO KWON PING
|
SINGAPORE is known to be
economically liberal, but socially conservative. It
is a rules-governed society with clear parameters
for behaviour, whether political, economic, or
social. And within the "OB markers" (out-of-bounds
markers) of these do's and don'ts, it is a
transparent and fair social order, with no
favouritism for anyone operating outside the
parameters.
This state of affairs governed
the issue of homosexuality in Singapore for many
years. Not only was gay sex illegal, but every
manifestation was openly discouraged — some would
say suppressed — and discrimination against gays in
the public domain (the civil service, the military,
the police, schools, and so on) was commonly
accepted. Indeed, because it was public policy to
promote heterosexual family life as the only norm,
any other lifestyle was considered deviant and
handled accordingly. Repressive though it certainly
was to gays, it was at least very predictable.
Today, official attitudes towards homosexuality
in Singapore are quite different. They are certainly
ambivalent and ambiguous — some would even say,
schizophrenic. On the one hand, many gay
Singaporeans are feted and lauded for their creative
contributions to Singapore, and warmly accepted by
even senior figures of the establishment. On the
other hand, gay sex remains a criminal activity,
even after much public debate on the issue, and any
kind of activity which is seen to promote a gay
lifestyle remains off-limits.
To those who
believe that the non-persecution of gays is already
something to be grateful for, one could argue that
allowing a black person to sit in the front of the
bus while legally forbidding it, is something to be
grateful for. Or, in an analogy closer to home for
the supposedly homophobic heartlanders, should a
Chinese person be grateful if the edict forbidding
Chinese and dogs to enter parks in Shanghai in the
'20s were relaxed in reality, but maintained in the
law?
At another level, my gay friends argue
cogently that non-prosecution (or non-persecution,
for that matter) signals, at the most, simple
tolerance of them, and nothing more. There is a
difference between being tolerated because gays are
seen to be at the leading edge of the "creative
class" — which Singapore is trying to develop as
part of its new knowledge-based, creativity-oriented
economy — and being accepted because of the
recognition that fundamental human rights and the
dignity of the individual extends to gays as much as
to anyone else.
The somewhat schizophrenic
decision to not prosecute an illegal activity has
ramifications beyond the gay community, and has
disturbed some sections of the larger community,
which is not particularly interested in gay issues.
To many thoughtful citizens, Singapore has
always openly claimed that the Rule of Law, possibly
even more than the formal mechanisms of democracy,
is a vital component of good governance. Yet, to
criminalise gay sex and, in the same breath, state
that anyone breaching this law will not be
prosecuted, makes a mockery of the Rule of Law.
Minor though this violation of the principle may
be, the proponents of the concept that the Rule of
Law is a sacrosanct pillar of the Singapore ethos
lament that the Government did not take the bold
step to simply decriminalise something which the
rest of the developed world has long decriminalised;
which most Singaporeans (except, perhaps, the most
fervently fundamentalist Christians or Muslims)
don't care that much about one way or the other;
which the police, courts, and legal community would
welcome simply to remove an archaic, Victorian-era
statute; and finally, which the gay community would
embrace as an important signal that their right to
privacy — a fundamental human right
— is considered to be more
important than the right of anti-gay groups to
proselytise about morality.
Optimists hope
that the decriminalisation of gay sex — a yawn to
anyone except the homophobic and the gays themselves
— will eventually occur. In reality, rather than in
law, gays in Singapore today have never had it so
good, and should within a short time, become
fully-accepted — not just tolerated — members of an
increasingly diverse, and therefore vibrant,
Singapore community.
But if we pat ourselves
on the back for being so "bold" as to accept casinos
and Formula 1 events into staid Singapore, why can't
the boldness extend to a simple act to enable gays
to realise their dream — indeed, their simple right
— to be normal Singaporeans like anyone else, no
more and no less.
The writer is chairman
ofSingapore Management University,executiv e
chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings and chairman of
MediaCorp.
|
Straitstimes Blog
Lessons on courage September 06, 2008 Saturday,
06:00 AM
|
Wong Kim Hoh talks about meeting and
understanding transsexuals. OVER the last couple of
months, I've been getting some lessons on courage. My
teachers were unlikely ones: Transsexuals. Yes, those
folks whom some deride viciously or treat piteously.
I have to confess my own feelings toward them vacillated
between awkwardness and fascination prior to doing this
week's special report. I might not stare but I would
definitely steal more than a glance when I saw one in
public. Is he? Isn't she? How can? Why did? Alas, I
never had a close transsexual friend who could answer
all these superficial questions dancing in my head.
And then, over several weeks, I sat down with more than
a dozen of them. They told me about an existence I've
wondered, but never really thought deeply, about.
What I learnt was sobering. I may not be the most
well-adjusted invididual in the world but I've never had
to agonise about who I am and where I fit in the world.
I've never grappled with agonising confusion,
debilitating guilt and searing shame. I've never had
to make decisions which would break the heart of my
parents, shame loved ones and incur the derision of
strangers. And I've never encountered hopelessness so
wrenching that I would want to kill myself. They
have, and lived to tell the tale. I'm sobered and
chastened by their courage to fight, live, and in some
cases, continue living. And I wish more of us will
have the courage to stop judging them.
|
Home > ST Forum > Online Story April 2,
2008 Enlightened policy deserves praise
|
IT IS certainly
laudable that Singapore has attracted top talent like
Professor Kerry Sieh as the founding director of Nanyang
Technological University's $300 million Earth
Observatory, which is this region's largest, 'MM's
reassuring comments seal researcher's move here'. In a
recent TV interview in Melbourne, Dr Sieh predicts that
yet another tsunami will strike and this will be the
grandaddy of them all.
In fact, he predicted the
Boxing Day earthquake three years ago which resulted in
the tragic tsunami in Sumatra. He handed out fliers,
posters and brochures to residents of the islands worst
hit by the waves. He spoke at churches and schools to
tell people what to do in an earthquake, according to a
report. The Government's forward-looking policy against
homosexual discrimination clinched Dr Sieh's decision to
accept the appointment. He was reassured that he could
live here with his gay Asian partner.
Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao
|
Straitstimes Lifestyle
Feb 10, 2008
Hot off the press By Stephanie Yap TO KNOW WHERE
I'M COMING FROM By Johann S. Lee
|
FIRST, let's make it clear
where this review is coming from. This novel is not
a work of great literature, at least not in the
lyrical sense. Diary-like in its artless, earnest
tone, a typical sentence goes like this: 'The
memories which washed over me came not in a gentle
cascade but in a drowning torrent, not so much in a
montage of images as deep stirrings in my
consciousness. ' But as Lee has said numerous times
in interviews, he has no illusions of being praised
for his prose style, but is more concerned with
writing a novel which speaks to people. With that in
mind, it's safe to say that he has succeeded. As his
cliched but generally likeable characters undergo
soap opera-worthy trials, readers will quickly find
themselves invested in their lives and rooting for
them to find happiness, or at least hope. Our hero
is Ben, the son of a wealthy family who has lived in
London since his university days. Recovering from a
bad break-up with his partner of seven years, he
heads back to Singapore in an attempt to heal
himself. On touchdown, he catches up with his old
friend Yusof, a renowned playwright who has written
a play based on Singapore's first gay novel. In a
rather self-deprecating moment, the writer has his
narrator comment: 'The author left the country
immediately after the book's publication. So he was
a quitter, just like me.'What he was quitting and
whether things have changed since then is revealed
as the story shuttles between London and Singapore.
The development and reakdown of Ben's long-term
relationship is contrasted with his budding
relationship with Peter, an actor in the play.This
is not a novel for those who appreciate subtlety. It
has plenty of overtly cinematic and symbolic bits,
such as a climatic conversation between Ben and a
lover which takes place on National Day, with
fireworks and fighter jets whizzing overhead.
As the novel is
a semi-autobiographic al examination of the writer's own
experiences as a gay emigrant returning home, it
unabashedly draws on real life for major characters and
events. Arts lovers will enjoy the thinly veiled
representations of local theatre personalities, from an
enfant terrible named Yusof to a flamboyant impresario
named Ignatius.It is also no-holds-barred in its
critique of a perceived lack of freedom of expression in
Singapore, particularly with regard to gay pride. Lee
disapproves of heavy-handed censorship, citing examples
such as the bans slapped on events such as a picnic and
a lecture.Yet, amid such pointed criticism, the writer
also presents the perspective of a pragmatic older
person, and how someone like that can appreciate the
Singaporean brand of freedom.At one point in London, Ben
hears on the news that a gay man has been badly beaten
up in what is obviously a hate crime: 'I said to Holly
the first thing that came to my mind: 'This would never
happen in Singapore.''Indeed, one of the book's
strongest points is its ability to capture the conflict
of being caught between worlds - a universal, yet at the
same time uniquely Singaporean, condition.There is the
despair of a lost love warring with the hope of loving
again. And there is the yearning to escape a suffocating
environment for the larger world, yet the inescapable
desire to be drawn back into the embrace of home.
|
TODAYBANKS AND THE POOL OF PINK TALENT
Wednesday January 30, 2008
|
AMERICAN investment bank Lehman Brothers is
planning an unusual initiative in Singapore,
Financial Times reported recently. It is
specifically targeting gay and lesbians who
aspire to be bankers. This follows the success
of a presentation and buffet dinner for 50 gay
students in Hong Kong. Today has learnt that the
banking giant is not alone. Global banks around
Asia are breaking new ground to attract and
retain the best and brightest. Increasingly,
their hiring and diversity policies are taking
into account the homosexual community, which
makes up as a significant part of the talent
pool.At UBS Singapore, for example, benefits
including health insurance are extended to a
staff's "significant other", defined as "a
person who has cohabited with an employee for a
continuous period of 12 months". The couple does
not need to be married, and sexual orientation
is not an issue. Money is a factor in the
competition for talent, but keeping up with
social changes is also important. "This is why
our benefits policy is designed to be as
flexible and inclusive as possible," said Ms
Leona Tan, UBS Singapore's diversity advisor.
Merrill Lynch, on its part, has four
professional networks in the Asia-Pacific region
for its staff, one of which is the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender network, set up last
April. The other networks are for women, young
professionals and parents. The firm even has an
annual diversity week, when it hosts speakers,
events and conferences for the various networks.
"Our efforts in the area of diversity are about
how we can create the most effective and
inclusive environment, one in which we value
diversity rather than simply tolerate it," said
Mr Roman Matla, spokesperson for the bank's
diversity and inclusion team.
Besides Merrill Lynch
and UBS, however, other banks Today contacted were less
willing to provide details of exactly how they are
catering or wooing gay employees. Gay bank staff whom
this newspaper spoke to were not surprised by the
taciturnity of their employers."We are not fully aware
of the firm's diversity policy, as it is not widely
publicised," said a 34- year-old employee of a European
bank here. "I've heard that Lehman and Goldman Sachs are
the more progressive firms, in that they are more
explicit in talking about their policies, normally
through email or employees' handbooks."But are more
events organised specifically for gay employees the way
to go?Perhaps not, the employee said. "To be honest, I
feel it's not an agenda that needs to be singled out -
for example, a skincare workshop for gay employees. I
would just like for the policies to be more explicitly
stated."It does seem, however, that when it comes to
diversity initiatives, offshore banks are ahead of their
local counterparts. Three major local banks told Today
that they did not have staff specifically handling the
issue of diversity. OCBC, however, added that its human
resource policies "do not discriminate against
employees' personal backgrounds including gender, race
or religion".
|
Straitstimes
Dec 16, 2007 Thousands of youth homeless in NYC:
survey
|
A large number of those young
people had been in state or city care at some point
before they ended up on the street. NEW YORK - AT least
3,800 of the people in New York City's homeless
population are under age 25, according to a new survey.
A publicly funded report by the Empire State Coalition
said a large number of those young people had been in
state or city care at some point before they ended up on
the street. About 28 per cent had been in the foster
care system. Four in 10 had spent time in jail or a
juvenile detention facility. A
disproportionate number, 28 per cent, were gay or
bisexual.The group's findings were
announced on Friday by the City Council, which paid for
the study. The estimates were based on surveys of 1,000
young people last summer. They survey found that while a
majority of those young homeless went nightly to city
shelters, 42 per cent slept instead on the street, in
the public transit system, or in empty buildings. |
TODAY 22 Nov 2007
Once-banned gay pop duo given green light for
concert here Alicia Wong
|
IN A sign that
authorities are prepared to work with civil society
groups to tackle the HIV problem, a once-banned gay pop
duo has been given the green light to take part in a
concert here next month.And the HIV Outreach, Prevention
and Empowerment (Hope) Concert will have as its guest of
honour, Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State
(Foreign Affairs and Information, Communications and the
Arts).The gay duo, Jason and deMarco, had a planned
performance here cancelled two years ago after the Media
Development Authority (MDA) rejected an application by
the organiser, Safehaven, a gay-affirmative Christian
support group, for an Arts and Entertainment Licence.The
MDA had then cited "alternative lifestyles are against
the public interest" as its ground for
rejection.Explaining its change of heart, the MDA said
that the organisers had assured the authority that the
aim of the Dec 13 concert is Aids education and HIV
prevention."The organiser for this concert has rated the
performance R18 and has given the assurance to MDA that
the concert is targeted at the high-risk group," said Ms
Amy Tsang, MDA's Deputy Director (Arts & Licensing) of
the Media Content Division in an email reply to Today.Dr
Balaji's scheduled attendance at the concert is not
surprising since he had earlier touched on the need for
the authorities and non-governmental organisations to
work together in tackling the spread of HIV.Out of the
357 new HIV cases reported in Singapore last year, 26
per cent were contracted through homosexual sex.
In an interview with
this newspaper in August, Dr Balaji noted that in the
Australian state of New South Wales, the number of HIV
cases reported each year had, on the whole, been
dropping over the past decade.Dr Balaji had earlier went
on a study trip to Sydney, accompanied by Ministry of
Health (MOH) officials and representatives from Action
for Aids (AFA), gay web site Fridae.com and Oogachaga, a
local gay and lesbian affirmative counselling
agency.Referring to the Sydney trip, Mr Paul Toh, AFA's
Director for fund-raising and programmes, said
yesterday: " I guess the Government has learnt from
other developed Western countries how they can cope in
terms of managing the epidemics within the alternative
lifestyle community."Mr Toh said while everyone has a
role to play in addressing the HIV problem, the
Government "bears more weight" because it has the
"political will to move things at a faster pace".Jointly
organised by AFA and Safehaven, the HOPE Concert aims to
raise awareness on HIV and Aids in the gay community,
said Mr Alphonsus Lee, the chairman of Safehaven.The
concert will be held at the Kreta Ayer People's Theatre,
which can house a 1,100-strong audience. The one-night
only performance will also involve local artists such as
Chua Enlai as MC, Hossan Leong and Selena Tan.Concert
tickets are available only through AFA and restricted
channels, such as nightclubs, saunas and gay website
Fridae.com."We are very conscious of the mainstream view
of such a concert and we would like to be respectful of
their views ... So, we are willing to restrict
ourselves," said Mr Lee.Although this is a "once-off
event the official nod for the HOPE concert is "good
news" since it will help increase local Aids and HIV
awareness, said Mr Bryan Choong of Oogachaga.
|
Nov 12, 2007 Today Online You are not welcome
here, club tells Leona Lo
Phin Wong
|
She has written about
life as a transsexual woman and has given talks on
transsexual issues. But on early Saturday morning, Ms
Leona Lo was asked to leave a Clarke Quay nightspot,
apparently for being a "lady boy". Ms Lo was at The Pump
Room with a Singaporean Chinese man and woman and an
American Chinese man. She said in an email to the media:
"The bouncer … asked one of my friends if he knew me. My
friend replied 'Yes'. Still, the bouncer … asked me to
show him my ID. He said the bar did not welcome 'lady
boys'." Ms Lo told Today she refused to show him her
identity card because it was unfair that she was "being
singled out". Ms Lo and her friends then left the bar.
Her IC states her sex as "female". A spokesperson for
The Pump Room would neither confirm nor deny the
incident yesterday, saying there was not enough time to
investigate the matter. Mr William Graham, director of
the club, said: "The Pump Room has no general policy to
exclude any particular groups other than the age
guidelines we publish.
"We do however
reserve the right to refuse entry, at our discretion, to
any individuals whom we feel are not in adherence to our
entry policy."For example, if the customer does not
adhere to our dress code, is below our age guidelines,
or if we feel they might create a disturbance or
misbehave in the establishment based on prior
experience, we might not welcome them." According to the
bar's staff, the age limit is 21 for women and 23 for
men on Fridays and Saturdays, and 18 for everyone on
other days. The dress code bars sandals, slippers,
shorts and sleeveless shirts.Ms Lo, 32, said she was
wearing a "typical silver dress"."I've been there
before. The band has even sung 'Happy Birthday' to me,"
she said.In her email, she added: "Ironically, Pump
Room's anchor band is Jive Talking, which features a
transgender lead singer."Ms Lo recently launched From
Leonard To Leona, a book chronicling her experience as a
post-operation transsexual. She underwent sex assignment
surgery in 1997 in Thailand.
|
Nov 10, 2007 ST Forum NMP Thio must
also address abortion and death sentence in order not to
be branded a hypocrite
Peter Lee Peng Eng
|
THANK you for presenting Dr
Thio Li-ann's case on the repeal of Section 377A to the
public, 'A fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire' by Ms Li
Xueying (ST, Nov 2). I think Dr Thio is right to express
her moral position on this issue. However, I think a lot
of the negative reaction she is getting may stem from
the fact that she is perceived to be solely targeting
the homosexual community with her views on sexual
licentiousness and gross indecency. As sexual
licentiousness is a problem afflicting all genders and
sexualities, Dr Thio must be equally outraged about
unnatural and immoral acts among heterosexuals as well,
all of which are not criminal acts in Singapore, such
as:
1. Oral and anal sex between
heterosexual couples (after all, this is also akin to
'drinking with a straw through the nose' and must be
equally repugnant to her). 2. Adultery between
heterosexual couples. 3. Premarital sex. 4.
Prostitution. 5. Masturbation. 7. Sex between
lesbian couples.
When your journalist,
Ms Li, asked her about her views on other moral issues,
she gave a rather vague reply. As Dr Thio believes
policy making in Singapore should be guided by some form
of morality, and has made a stand on sex between
homosexuals, suggesting that what is morally
unacceptable to her should be considered a criminal act,
she must make equally strong stands on the
abovementioned issues. These are sins of equal magnitude
in Christianity, all of which are as detrimental to
family values as homosexuality. Unless she makes fervent
calls for the criminalisation of these directly related
issues, she may well seem to the public to have double
standards, and a hypocritical viewpoint, and to be a
homophobic 'hate-mongerer', bullying only a particular
segment of the community. In order not to be perceived
as a hypocrite, Dr Thio must also address abortion and
the death sentence, as Christianity does not condone
killing another human being. These are far more
important moral issues than homosexuality, and I hope
that as our NMP, she will not be, in her own words, a
'lousy friend', or in this case, a 'lousy citizen' or
'lousy NMP' by keeping silent on these issues, and make
known her views with even greater fervour and
directness. Remaining silent and/or equivocal on these
issues will only affirm her detractors' worst
criticisms.
|
Nov 8, 2007
ST Forum Think twice before seeking to
force change in sexual behaviour
|
I REFER to the letter by Mr
Shawn Tay Liam Yaw, 'Homosexuals should know that
change is possible' (Online forum, Nov 6). I
disagree with his assertion that homosexuals can
change, and that the degree of change depends on the
motivation of the one seeking help from recovery
support groups. The 'recovery support groups' Mr Tay
mentions are, I believe, practitioners of so-called
reparative therapy, a disingenuous term used to
describe attempts to change a person's sexual
orientation through behaviour modification or
religious counselling. Reparative therapy tends to
emphasise the physiological ability to engage in
heterosexual intercourse, or the suppression of the
homoerotic response. Both of these outcomes fall
short of the complex set of attractions and feelings
that constitute sexual orientation, and cannot be
seen as definitive proof of a change in sexual
orientation.
Medical
authorities have challenged the purported effectiveness
of reparative therapy, with the American Psychiatric
Association concluding in a statement in 2000 that 'in
the last four decades, reparative therapists have not
produced any rigorous scientific research to
substantiate their claims of cure'.Indeed, proponents of
reparative therapy have failed to provide rigorous,
objective assessments of their findings, relying instead
on self-reports and the subjective impressions of their
therapists.Moreover, concerns have been raised about the
potential health risks of reparative therapy, which
include depression, anxiety and self-destructive
behaviour.The Australian Psychological Society noted in
2000 that reparative therapy tends to overstate the
treatment's perceived accomplishments, while glossing
over the potential health risks to patients.Given the
dubious success rate and detrimental effects of
reparative therapy, individuals grappling with their
sexual identity should think twice about programmes that
seek to force a change in their sexual behaviour.It
would be healthier for them to sort out their feelings
in a non-judgmental environment, by enrolling in
counselling programmes by Oogachaga or other neutral
support groups in Singapore. Eugene Quek Wei Liang
|
Nov 8, 2007 ST Forum
Booklet on gays: SMU should support students'
mature actions, not restrict them
|
WE REFER to the letter,
'Allowing SMU students to launch booklet, event on
gays sends wrong message' (Nov 3), by Ms Low Xiang
Jun as well as various other letters responding to
this matter. Ms Low raised an important and valid
point about the role of tertiary educational
institutions in Singapore. SMU's mission is to
develop socially responsible leaders and innovators
who will help shape the future of Asia. Fundamental
to this mission is our commitment to provide
students, faculty and staff an intellectual forum
for open discourse and dialogue, even on
controversial matters. The highest aim of education
is not to teach students what to think, but to teach
them how to think - critically, rationally and
creatively. We encourage students to express their
views, but equally important, to recognise and
respect the views of others, which may differ widely
from their own.
In this instance, a group of
undergraduates has developed a project aimed at
giving a voice to an under-represented group by
sharing their stories. Their purpose is to educate
and promote understanding - not to advocate a
particular lifestyle, but rather to provide insight
that will enable their fellow students to develop a
more informed perspective. This is not inconsistent
with the objectives of the 'Leadership & Team
Building' course. Ms Low may wish to note that the
group has stated very clearly in the publication
that the members are 'not representative of gay
activism' and many of them 'come from backgrounds
that neither condone nor promote homosexuality' .
The intent of their publication is neither
contentious nor divisive. The group has stated that
they are only presenting voices which are 'real and
come from real people'. Readers are given the
latitude to form their own views and opinions. The
university should support such mature and sensitive
actions on the part of its students, not restrict
them. Our role is to respect and protect open
dialogue and learning, permitted that the means
employed to create awareness do not infringe
university regulations or the laws of Singapore.
Professor Howard Hunter President Singapore
Management University
|
19 Oct 2007 Straits Times
Why S. Africa allowed same-sex marriage
GOH CHIN LIAN
|
SOUTH Africa became the fifth
country in the world to recognise same-sex marriages
last year. Having had rights denied during the
apartheid era, which lasted for more than four
decades from 1948, the country wanted to ensure
there was equality for all, including those who were
gay or lesbian, South African Constitutional Court
judgeAlbie Sachs said yesterday during a panel
discussion on family law at the International Bar
Association' s conference here. 'Because of
apartheid, the majority knew what it was like to be
discriminated against because of who you were, not
what you've done,' he told The Straits Times. 'And
people who suffered discrimination could understand
how others would feel.' During the panel discussion,
South African lawyer Zenobia du Toit outlined the
legal developments marking those changes. In 1996,
South Africa became the first nation with a
Constitution that forbade discrimination on the
grounds of sexual orientation.
This formed
the basis for subsequent court decisions on issues
like allowing same-sex partners to jointly adopt
children. In November last year, a law on same-sex
marriage came into force. Asked about a bid by some
groups here to get the Government to repeal a law
criminalising gay sex, Justice Sachs said he did not
have advice for Singapore. But he explained that in
South Africa's case, the Constitutional Court
declared the sodomy law unconstitutional because it
'invaded the protected rights to equality, to
privacy and to dignity'.
|
A prayer to scrap anti-gay law
Fri, Oct 19, 2007 The Straits Times
By Lydia
Lim
|
On Monday, Nominated MP Siew
Kum Hong will read an unusual prayer out in
Parliament - a plea to repeal section 377A of the
penal code. That is the part of the law that
criminalises sex between men. Mr Siew will be
presenting a Parliamentary Petition to scrap 377A on
behalf of gay activists. The appeal is called a
'prayer' in legal speak. His move has already
sparked fierce debate in some quarters.
A conservative
group has just launched a keep377A online petition,
which charges that a repeal would foist homosexuality on
a society that is not ready for it.While MPs have
welcomed the use of this 'legitimate channel' by an
interest group to put its views across, there is also a
concern that if the gay lobby pushes too hard, it might
provoke a conservative backlash.MP Irene Ng says that to
date, the conservatives have not called for the law to
be enforced rigorously and that 'live and let live'
attitude has given homosexuals the space to live as they
want to.So where is the ongoing tussle over 377A likely
to lead?
|
ST FORUM18 Oct 07
NMP in no way overstepped his role
|
WRITE in response to Ms Jenica
Chua Chor Ping's letter, 'NMP overstepped role in
championing gay cause' (ST, Oct 17). While Mr Siew Kum
Hong is supposed to be non-partisan as a Nominated MP,
the non-partisan nature of his appointment refers to
neutrality where party political affiliation is
concerned.It does not mean that he should remain
non-partisan on matters of great public interest, such
as the debate on whether Section 377A of the Penal Code
should be repealed. Otherwise, what would be the value
of appointing NMPs?
Indeed, the constitutional provision
for the appointment of NMPs in 1990 was made to ensure a
wide representation of community views in
Parliament.This being the case, there is nothing wrong
with NMPs choosing to represent community views that
they believe are valid and justified. Thus Mr Siew, in
sponsoring the Parliamentary Petition to repeal Section
377A, has in no way overstepped his role as an NMP. In
fact, considering that Mr Siew is a 'straight' man and
has therefore no cause to be associated with
homosexuality, his willingness to represent that
community's views in relation to the repeal, in the face
of widespread opposition, is admirable and should be
applauded. Ooi Jian Yuan
|
ST FORUM18 Oct 2007
SHOULD SECTION 377A BE REPEALED? Why is one law
'archaic' and not the other?
|
MS LIM Poh Suan wrote that
repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code - a law
criminalising gay sex - would threaten the family unit
and 'lead to the disintegration of our social fabric'
('Removing Section 377A threatens family unit'; ST, Oct
16). She forgets that gays are part of a family unit and
many parents, siblings and other relatives - who are
concerned that the law would discriminate against their
gay loved ones - do support the call for the repeal.
In some ways, it is similar to
interracial or inter-religious marriages - I have
witnessed parents who were initially disapproving coming
around after they got to know their child's partner and
see the sincerity and realness of the relationship.
Section 498 of the Penal Code, which makes it an offence
to entice, take away or detain a married woman with the
intention of having illicit intercourse with her, will
be repealed. One may argue that repealing such a law
would signal to society that adultery is acceptable, and
this would threaten the family unit and children
especially - more so than Section 377A, as it is
applicable to all families.The Ministry of Home Affairs
explained that Section 498 concerns an archaic offence
which is no longer relevant in today's context. How is
it that Section 498 is deemed 'no longer relevant in
today's context' but Section 377A is still relevant? Tan
Yen Ling (Ms)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN HER letter, Ms Lim Poh Suan implies that gays destroy
family values. I would like to correct that view. Family
values are challenged when there is infidelity between
husband and wife, when parents are too busy working to
take care of children, when parents inculcate the wrong
values in their children, when family members do not
learn to think.
A family is not broken up just because
a friend, a neighbour or even a relative is gay. It is
absurd to blame parenting failure and family problems on
external forces and the Government.Repealing Section
377A is about love and compassion, and seeing all people
as equals. Let not religious dogma deny fellow
Singaporeans their right to exist. Chua Chee Hiang
|
Straits Times Oct 1, 2007
Homosexual friends: Let's fight the
hypocrisy By Tessa Wong
|
WHILE working on last week's story about youth
attitudes towards homosexuality, I found myself
thinking about the time I went through a sea change
in my own perceptions about this issue.Until I
entered university, I had always fancied myself as
someone who could strike an adequate balance between
reason and matters of faith.But it wasn't until I
made my first gay friend, Mark, that I realised the
unbridgeable gap between the two.Mark and I met and
clicked on the first day of class at university in
England when I was 19. What with me being a
typically sheltered Singaporean youth - my previous
experience with homosexual issues was limited to
gossiping about the resident lesbian couple at
junior college - I found Mark's sexual orientation
fascinating.It was a novel experience hanging out
with him, just as I would with any other girlfriend,
chatting all day about guys and Christina Aguilera's
latest fashion disaster.But as our friendship
deepened and the novelty wore off, Mark shared with
me the constant struggles he faced to be accepted as
a gay person, not only with his devoutly religious
family, but also in society in general.As I began to
see him more as a person rather than just 'the gay
friend', I also became aware that I had been
'exoticising' Mark. By deliberately preventing
myself from seeing him as a regular person, I was
not facing up to the fact that his homosexuality was
something I was supposed to see as an abomination.
Having been brought up in a
conservative background, I had always subscribed to
the notion of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. Gay
people were all right, I thought, just as long as I
didn't have anything to do with their 'wrong'
lifestyles.But as Mark and I grew closer, I began to
see how difficult it was putting that truism into
practice.Being gay wasn't a detachable part of
Mark's identity. His sexual orientation was also
embedded in every aspect of his life, from his
relationships with his family to his outlook on
life, to how he treated others.So how could I as a
friend truly love him for who he was, when I could
not accept every single part of him?At this point, I
began to question what exactly was so wrong about
homosexuality. From what I saw in Mark's life, gay
people were just like everyone else, and fully
capable of holding stable, loving relationships,
unlike what I had been taught previously.After some
soul searching, I realised that not only could I not
accept the illogical flaws of that truism, but I
also had to make a stand about what had become
obviously clear to me - that homosexuality is not
something intrinsically wrong.I'm sure that a number
of young people reading this are facing a similar
dilemma when it comes to dealing with homosexual
friends.My advice? If you really want to love the
'sinner', don't call it a sin. Otherwise, it would
just be pure hypocrisy.
|
STRAITS TIMES Sep 22, 2007 Views divided,
so gay sex law stays By Jeremy Au Yong
|
'My view is that gayness is
something which is mostly inborn, some people are
like that, some people are not. How they live their
own lives is really for them to decide. It's a
personal matter,' PM Lee said. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND
LIM THE decision on whether or not to decriminalise
gay sex is a very divisive one and until there is a
broader consensus on the matter, Singapore will
stick to the status quo.Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong was explaining the Government's decision not
to repeal section 377(A) of the Penal Code, even as
it introduced to Parliament recently a raft of
proposed changes to that law.He was responding to a
question from a Law undergraduate, who said she was
concerned about the kind of image Singapore's stand
on this issue left on foreigners, including the
talent that it wished to draw here.
Mr Lee said in
reply: 'If everybody felt like you in Singapore... we
could change 377A and we would de-criminalise gay
sex.'But the fact is many people in Singapore feel
passionately to the contrary to the point of view which
you have argued. And you have to take cognizance of
that.'He said that the Government's view was that it
should not push forward on this issue but follow along
as societal views shifted.'And as of today my judgment
is the society is comfortable with our position. Leave
the clause' he said.Sharing his own views on
homosexuality, he said it seemed to him that it was a
trait people were born with.He stressed, however, that
that did not mean gays should set the tone here.'My view
is that gayness is something which is mostly inborn,
some people are like that, some people are not. How they
live their own lives is really for them to decide. It's
a personal matter,' he said.'I think the tone of the
society should really be set by the heterosexuals and
that's the way many Singaporeans feel.'He also made
clear that the issue was something Singapore would deal
with on its own. It did not need foreign speakers coming
here to 'add sugar and spice' to the debate.He was
referring to a recent decision by the Police to cancel
the permit for Canadian academic Douglas Sanders to
speak in Singapore on the subject.'Within Singapore, we
will have to work this out in our society, and I think
that's what we will do,' he said.
|
STRAITS TIMES Sep 18, 2007 Gay
teacher's outing a milestone in debate
Dr Peter Goh Kok Yong
|
I REFER to Mr Paul Jacob's
article, 'A teacher's disclosure and the issue is
out in the open' (ST, Sept 15). I applaud Mr Otto
Fong's honesty and courage in coming out as a gay
person and a teacher. It is indeed a milestone in
the gay debate in Singapore. Despite the large
number of passionately argued letters that have
appeared on the gay issue over the past months, we
actually have not progressed very far. As Mr Jacob
pointed out, the loudest voices come from both ends
of the spectrum of tolerance. Neither end is likely
to be swayed by the other. Sitting silent in the
middle is the largely conservative majority who may
yet change their opinion of gay people if only they
get to know them. That is why Mr Fong's coming out
is so significant. Unlike black people striving for
racial equality in the US in the 1960s, gay people
are invisible in many societies, including
Singapore. Hence, the debate remains largely
conceptual, with highly skewed academic data and
examples thrown in by the opposing camps. What is so
obviously missing is the subject of the debate
itself - the gay people. For fear of societal
rejection and discrimination, most gays in Singapore
remain in the closet. While Mr Fong does not
represent every gay person in Singapore, his
identity and life humanises the gay issue in a way
no amount of well-constructed arguments can ever
achieve. What is equally significant is the fact
that Mr Fong is a school teacher. The concern raised
by Mr Jacob is whether Mr Fong is able to provide
neutral, unbiased advice to young students who may
be uncertain about their orientation. The
reality is that there has never been any neutral,
unbiased advice given to students on sexuality.
Heterosexuality has always been the biased model.
While the Education Ministry may want to acknowledge
the concerns of parents who are uncomfortable with
gay teachers in schools, it would do well not to
continue to hide them in the closet. It should
publicly acknowledge the existence of gay teachers
and assure parents that all its teachers, gay or
straight, are expected to uphold the utmost
standards in their professional conduct and will not
impose their personal values, including sexuality,
on the students.
|
Where is the Demon, Patrick Lee, 08 Sept
2007 |
I began as a zealous christian
attending the Church Of Our Saviour in 1975 and
finally resigned as one of their Divisional Pastors
in 1995. I did not recognized it then but I was a
victim of their intimidation and control through the
use of the Bible to incalcate fear and guilt in my
mind and heart concerning sin and morality.
Consequently I felt compelled to tell them about my
homosexual lifestyle which blossomed when I was 8
years old in 1968. I responded to their counselling
and severed all soul ties with all my gay friends
for almost 20years. Strangely I seemed to have
received "special strength" to stop my gay cruising
and thus seemed to have been healed or "changed".
But I was not sure whether I was truly healed or it
was just a vain attempt to lead a celibate gay life.
I had doubts because I still found men sexually
attractive but was afraid to act upon my gay
fantasies due to fear of eternal condemnation. This
was during the mid-1970s and at this time my
homosexual struggles were not seen as a spiritual
problem but only as a consequence of the fall of
Adam. But in the mid-1980s, the Church of Our
Saviour stumbled upon the "Deliverance Ministry" and
it was taught that every sinful act is under the
influence of a ruling demon. This is derived from a
scripture in Ephesians 6:12 which states: "For our
struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against
the rulers, against the powers, against the world
forces of this darkness, against the spiritual
forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." The
Deliverance Ministry was initially spearheaded by a
Lucy Tan and subsequently came under the leadership
of Douglas Koh. All of a sudden there were more
demons let loose than there were hungry ghosts
during the Chinese 7th Month Festival. Chained
smoker were told they were possessed by the spirit
of nicotine. Overweight men were told that they were
possessed by the spirit of obesity. Others such as
spirit of lust, spirit of adultery, etc, etc....
alas it is not me who did it but the spirit in me
that did it. Again this erroneous enlightenment is
based on the scripture written by the Apostle Paul
in Romans 7:19 & 20 which says "the good which I
want to do, I do not do. But I practise the very
evil I do not wish. But if I am doing the very thing
that I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it,
but sin dwells in me." There is so much folly and
errors but all christians seemed to have been struck
blind. They have been taught to accept and respect
their pastors as God's chosen mouth piece. Hence
they rendered blind obedience and dared not to
search out the scriptures to validate what have been
taught to them. Had they read the Bible in the Book
of Acts chapter 17:11, they would have known of the
Berean Christians who did not simplistically
accepted the teachings of Paul but studiously
studied the scriptures to make sure that the
teachings of Paul were not fasle.I had my
reservations about the Deliverance Ministry but as a
Divisional Pastor in the church I should not have
doubts but faith. So to enhance my healing from my
homosexual past I yielded myself to the Deliverance
Ministry, to let them cast out of me the spirit of
sodomy. Most people who underwent deliverance
usually would shout, scream, cough and spit out bags
and bags of yellowish/greenish saliva. But there was
no visible signs of any demons leaving my body and I
was told to have faith in what they have done for me
and that some demons leave the body in a quiet
manner. !2 years after I was appointed as a Pastor;
I decided to quit from the Church. I could no longer
continue in denial that I was a naturally born gay
man. There had been moments in the 12 years as a
Pastor, that I have given in to my gay fantasies. I
have never kept it as a hidden secret but always
confessed it to Derek Hong.In the end, there were 2
faces in the mirror. I saw my gay sexuality as a
mystery gift from God and that He has appointed me
as His servant. But Derek saw me as a man who saw
the Light but loved the darkness more than the
Light. (John 3:19)It was inevitable but we have to
part way. Nonetheless, I give Derek credit for
giving me a wonderful written testimonial
acknowledging my many contributions in the
development of Church of Our Saviour. I wonder if he
has any regrets but this is what he wrote:"He held
the position of a Divisional Pastor and was
responsible for duties such as preaching, baptisms,
weddings and funeral services. Patrick also coaches
people in dance and drama, and has directed several
successful dance musicals. In the past few years,
Patrick also helped the church to participate in
community service projects. He has an ability to
teach clearly and interestingly. Patrick undertakes
tasks with determination and diligence. He has often
shown himself to be reliable in the areas of his
competence"The church may not be able to accept my
gay sexuality as a gift from God but they cannot
deny I have an anointed and a proven ministtry. Love
always,
|
AN OPEN LETTER FROM OTTO FONG
08 Sept 2007
|
I am Otto Fong. I have
been teaching Science in Raffles Institution for the
last eight years. Being a teacher has been the most
rewarding part of my professional life thus far. My
students continue to amaze me daily with their wit,
maturity, independent thinking and leadership. It is
very fulfilling that I am a part of an institution that
moulds the future generation of Singapore’s
leaders.Leaders are people who can rise above the tide
of popular opinion, people who are guided by the
conviction of rightness and justice and in being so
guided, lead others towards that right path. Recent
events leading to my action Recent events have made me
decide to write this open letter. In April this year,
Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew – one of the school’s
greatest alumni – called homosexuality a “genetic
variation”, questioning the validity of criminalising
gay sex. In July, MP Baey Yam Keng expressed support for
the repeal of Section 377A of the penal code (which
criminalises gay sex acts). In August, Malaysian
columnist and ordained pastor Oyoung Wenfeng released
his inspiring new Mandarin book “Tong Gen Sheng”,
encouraging gay men and women to come out of the
closet.A few evenings later, I attended a forum
organised by People Like Us on gay teachers and
students. A few brave twenty-something guys asked, “Why
has there been so little guidance available to me as a
gay teenager?” It was a question that I had asked myself
often, growing up.When I became a teacher in 1999, I
looked back on the good guidance my own teachers gave me
as a template, and tried to be a better teacher to my
students. Besides teaching them Science, I spent
considerable effort in imparting good social values:
give up your seats to the needy, save the handicapped
parking lot for those in wheelchairs and their
caretakers, respect people regardless of profession or
social status.How hate is perpetuatedYet, in the eight
years I have taught, I have done little for that small
group of students who are gay. When the religious group
Focus on the Family masqueraded as sex guidance
counselors and gave a talk full of misinformation about
homosexuality to our students, I was furious but kept my
mouth shut.When my niece returned from school saying,
“Gays are disgusting!” I knew she learnt that hatred
from a classmate, who had in turn absorbed that hatred
from a parent. I knew that this hatred has been
perpetrated for generations. But hatred grew out of
fear, and hatred, as a line in a movie goes, “leads to
the Dark Side.” This is the same environment of hatred I
grew up in, as a gay teenager and student.Until Section
377A* is repealed, there will be precious little the
Ministry of Education can do to help these students. As
a teacher, I am bound by my professional duty to follow
the directives of my superiors.While these events helped
crystallize my decision to come out of the closet, my
motivation remains deeply personal.My family and I. As
far back as primary six, I have been aware of my
attraction towards classmates of the same sex. For those
who argued about nurturing factors of the family, my
brother and sister grew up under the same parents and
remained heterosexuals despite growing up with me in
close proximity.As a teenager, I was very quick to sense
society’s aversion towards the ’sissies’ in my classes.
I worked hard to distance myself from them. While I was
successful in modifying my outward behavior, my sexual
orientation remained unchanged. My denial gnawed at me,
and the suppression of my true self resulted in
self-destructive behavior during my overseas university
years.Fortunately, my American fraternity mates were
supportive. I began to see a counselor who helped me
accept myself for who and what I am.Returning to
Singapore, I came out to my family. My father, mother,
brother and sister, out of love for their son and
brother, walked the long road to acceptance. It was not
easy for them, but they loved me before I came out, and
they love me after. When I finally settled down with my
longtime companion (we have been together for more than
nine years), my entire family made sure my nieces and
nephews included us in their lives. I loved my family
too much to keep them in the dark, to deny them the
chance to really know me. And they loved me too much to
let some old prejudice tear our family apart.I kept my
sexual orientation a secret at work, and only a handful
of my colleagues knew about me.I don’t want to be a
bonsai tree. Not counting my childhood, I have spent
more than twenty years in the professional closet. I am
nearing my fourth decade on Earth. While I have had some
successes in life, I am not content to be just average.
As I have often told my students, “Why be average when
you can be your best?”Do you know what a bonsai tree is?
A bonsai tree is an imitation of a real tree. It is kept
in a small pot with limited nutrients, trimmed
constantly to fit someone else’s whim. It looks like a
real tree, except it can’t do many things a real tree
can. It cannot provide shelter, it cannot find food on
its own; its life and death are totally reliant on its
owner. It is the plant version of the 3-inch Chinese
bound foot for women: useless and painful.Being in the
closet, pretending to be straight, trimming our true
selves to suit the whims and expectations of others, is
just like being a human bonsai tree. By staying in the
closet, we cannot even hope to be average, much less
above and beyond average.I felt that in order to reach
my fullest potential as a useful human being, I must
first fully accept myself, and face the world honestly.
I have lived long enough to know that what I am is not a
disease, an aberration or a mental illness.Hate is not a
religious valueMany people have cited many ‘reasons’ for
hating homosexuals, just as many people tried to justify
their views that the Earth was flat, that the darker
skinned should always be inferior, and that women should
subjugate their lives to men. The teachings of the
world’s great religious traditions offer many words of
wisdom, but the interpretations of their human followers
are not infallible. As Jesus said in his Sermon on the
Mount (yes, a personal Bible was given to me by a great
lady and I honored her by reading the book), we must
love our neighbors as ourselves. It is a simple
teaching, but one that’s rarely followed by those who
seek to oppress people different from themselves. The
path to enlightenment always faces stubborn resistance.
As Mahatma Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then
they laugh at you, then they fight you…”There are some
people who are using homosexuality to advance their
personal ambitions vis a vis religion. They claim that
the homosexual ‘agenda’ is to make the whole world gay
and threaten the stability of the family. Yet, let us
examine the evidence: Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the
first countries to legalise gay marriage, are more
stable than ever – their population has not been
converted by gays and their heterosexual divorce rates
have even decreased since gays have been afforded legal
rights. (William N. Eskridge, Jr and Darren R. Spedale,
Oxford University Press, 2006).The only agenda gay
people have is to be able to live with the same rights
and dignity as our heterosexual brothers and sisters.
Our very vocal opponents are the ones actively preying
on innocent people, recruiting them to their cause by
spreading fear and misinformation. I hope thinking
people will quickly see that it is this small group of
vocal objectionists who have a more dangerous agenda,
that their fight with gay people has nothing to do with
what’s right or wrong, but is merely a litmus test of
their political influence. For peace and prosperity to
continue, Singapore must always uphold secularism, where
each different segment of the population respects the
beliefs and rights of the others.Can a country with no
natural resources afford to drive away its own
citizens?There is a very pragmatic reason that you
should support the rights and dignity of gay
Singaporeans: in this globally-competitive era,
Singapore needs her gay sons and daughters, just as we
need our Singaporean Muslims, Buddhists, Christians,
Hindus, immigrants, men and women, old folks and young.
Most importantly, we need those gay sons and daughters
because those gay sons and daughters are Singaporean
Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, immigrants, men
and women, old folks and young. Can a country without
natural resources continue to flourish when it starts to
drive away its own children? As I said before, leaders
are people who are guided by the conviction of rightness
and justice and in being so guided, lead others towards
that right path. I am still a teacher. My main purpose
and joy is to teach our youngest citizens, the same ones
who will be the leaders of our nation tomorrow. But, I
feel I am shortchanging both society and myself by
staying in the closet. I must be true to myself. If my
colleagues and students, both gay and straight, see that
being true to one’s own self has great value, perhaps we
can produce a new generation who is truly courageous. A
new generation of young people who are proud to be
themselves, no matter what difference they have from
their classmates. Then I will have succeeded in
providing them a better education than I had the
opportunity to receive during my years in school.So
here’s what I am, and I am a friend in need at the
moment So here it is: I, Otto Fong, have always been and
always will be a gay man. When you ask about my spouse,
I will say he is a man. I am as proud being gay as you
are proud being straight. I am not, as some people like
to label gays, a pedophile, a child molester, a pervert
or sexual deviant. I did not choose to be gay, just like
heterosexuals did not choose to be straight. I am not
going to hell (not for being gay anyway). I am not going
back in the closet. When you ask me who I am, I will
answer: I am a son, a brother, a long-time companion, an
uncle, a teacher, a classmate, a colleague, a part of
your community, a HDB dweller, a Singaporean. And I am
also gay.I would like to enjoy the respect that all
other Singaporeans enjoy. I will not let the closet bind
my feet, because I am made to sprint. I am not
interested in being a bonsai tree, my DNA is programmed
to climb higher. My heart aspires to reach my fullest
potential as a human being.I hope, dear friends and
colleagues, that you look back and remember what I am,
and see that I am not someone you fear. I am essentially
the same person – flawed, imperfect, but brought up
properly by two loving parents to lead a productive,
beneficial and meaningful life. My friends and family
love me for who I am, and I hope you can too. I come out
to you with as much hope and trepidation as when I first
come out to my mother and father. Your support and
understanding are very important to me at this
moment.Thank you, may you prosper in health and
soul.Yours sincerely,Otto Fong8th Sept 2007
|
The Straits Times September 4, 2007 ST Forum -
Online Letter - Yap Kim Hao
We cannot afford
to wait for conservative views to change before
dropping laws against gays
|
I refer to your
report, 'S'pore must stay connected globally to grow'.
(Aug 31) Minister Mentor Lee Yew cited the homosexual
issue again and re-affirmed his positive views on the
issue after what we can always expect was very careful
study and analysis. His need to balance the interests of
different groups in our pluralistc society is
appreciated. The interesting fact that emerges in his
interview with the International Herald Tribune is that
China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have 'allowed and accepted
gays'. He is convinced that it is a matter of time
before Singapore follows suit. But the question is how
much time. The headline of this article states that
Singapore must stay connected globally to grow. Growth
is essential, but can we afford to wait, or grow slowly?
We have a conservative sector of our population, but
they should not hold back the growth of our nation. They
should not impede the progress of the country in
becoming a world-class society. Allowing and accepting
gays is necessary and shows respect for the laws of the
country. To have a law and not enforce it can only mean
that it is redundant and must be removed from the
statute books as soon as possible. The rationale of
keeping the law to satisfy the conservative minority
brings the legal system into disrepute. It is simply not
right to label a minority of the population criminals
because they were born homosexual. What makes the
consensual same-sex sexual act a criminal offence? All
the allegations about irresponsible sexual acts apply to
consensual opposite-sex acts as well. We can ill-afford
to wait and watch the world progress ahead of us. We
need to stay ahead of our competitors in attracting
foreign talent and foreign investment. MM Lee has warned
us of our nation's vulnerablities. We have been able to
overcome one crisis to another thus far. Let us stay
connected and continue to grow. We cannot retain a
fishing-village mentality in the 21st century. Let us
work together in harmony irrespective of race, creed,
gender and sexual orientation to make pluralistic
Singapore a continued success. Dr Yap Kim Hao
|
16 Aug 2007 Straits Times Online Forum
Jason Wee
|
Section 377A
should be repealed - reputation in legal and
multinational community at stake IN RECENT months,
significant debate has raged in the press on the 'gay'
issue. Many arguments favouring retention of section
377A appear to be religious dogma masquerading as
universal truism, which it isn't. When Singapore's Law
Society urged the repealing of section 377A, it stated
that those arguing for its retention were a 'minority'.
Many in Singapore also hold belief systems fundamentally
grounded on acceptance and tolerance. Sometimes the
arguments are clouded by excessive facts and figures.
For example, Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang's contribution,
'Beware the high-risk 'gay lifestyle' ' (ST, Aug 8),
highlighted the promiscuity of gay men with this
statement: '28% of them have more than 1,000 partners'.
Would he then suggest the unthinkable, that gay
marriages be allowed so that overactive libidos can be
contained? Dr Chin further laments that 'not enough has
been done to warn our youth that leading a gay lifestyle
is not cool'. I disagree. In a society where continuing
of the family name is of utmost importance, gays are
often threatened with being disowned, disinherited and
ostracised by family, friends and colleagues. Indeed, I
sometimes wonder why any sane person would choose to be
gay. Perhaps MM Lee is correct in suggesting that this
is genetic. If so, then should we blame God for this
genetic aberration, or blame it on the parents who
conceived such a child? Frankly, keeping section 377A
and not enforcing it is an unnecessary burden. First, it
changes nothing. Second, as asserted by Singapore's Law
Society, 'retention of unprosecuted offences on the
statute book runs the risk of bringing the law into
disrepute'. Worse, if an
openly-gay opportunistic expatriate sues his
multinational company for posting him here, thereby
knowingly endangering him given that his lifestyle is a
criminal offence in Singapore, assertions that the law
will not be pursued would prove a weak defence. Such a
suit could prove financially lucrative for him, but
detrimental to Singapore's standing with MNCs. For the
greater good, Singapore should repeal section 377A. Our
reputation in the legal and multinational community is
important. Retaining section 377A will just keep this
albatross on Singapore's neck forever. Repeal it and the
gay community may celebrate, but it will prove a Pyrrhic
victory. The moment will be consigned to forgotten
history in months, if not weeks. In the long run, our
conservative majority that continues to frown on gays,
the Aids epidemic, the promiscuous gay lifestyle and
their inherent inability to procreate will conspire to
keep this minority group a minority.
|
16 Aug 2007 Straits Times Online Forum
Jeffree Benet
|
Heterosexuals who visit prostitutes
greater risk than gays. I REFER to Dr Alan Chin Yew
Liang's letter, 'Beware the high-risk 'gay lifestyle' '
(ST, Aug 8). Using the good doctor's own logic, look at
it this way: As of July, Singapore's population is
4,553,009, with a gender ratio of 0.954 male to female,
meaning about 2,171,785 males of which 2.8 per cent are
gay (60,809), leaving you with 2,110,976 men who are
heterosexual. The journal Sexually Transmitted
Infections asked 11,000 men in a survey in 2000 if they
frequented prostitutes, and one in 10 said 'yes'. That
comes to about 211,097 cases comprising men having sex
with prostitutes (MSPs). Based on the prevalence of 97.2
per cent of men being heterosexual, and with 9.72 per
cent using prostitutes, you have to wonder about the
real risk and which lifestyle is 'not cool'. Some of the
Third World countries have as many as 7 per cent of
their adult females infected and working as prostitutes
while in the developed world, typically, the percentage
of infected prostitutes is 1 per cent. If MSPs sleep
with this 1 per cent daily, that's 2,111 men exposed to
HIV daily, or 770,515 annually. The virus is not easy to
transmit heterosexually but, over time with multiple
exposures, infection is inevitable. These men then act
as a conduit to bring the virus home, their other casual
sex partners and to their wives. Sounds to me like MSPs
are a higher-risk group than MSMs (men who have sex with
men) which is, by its very nature, is a statistically
smaller pool. And since I don't sleep with men, it's
these MSPs who are worrying me, as they spread their
infections to hetero non-prostitute women, and it's why
there are more of them with HIV than MSMs - because of
their 'lifestyle' which is chosen, unlike MSMs. For a
great hetero viewpoint on gay rights, check out this
article by Cher Tan on www.think.cz/ issue3/29/ 5.html.
|
The Straits Times July
16, 2007 MP Baey all for repealing anti-gay law
By Jeremy Au Yong |
A
PEOPLE'S Action Party MP yesterday spoke out against the
non-review of the law banning homosexual sex. Tanjong
Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng said if it comes to a vote in
Parliament, he would say 'yes' to doing away with the
law which makes it illegal for men to have sex with
other men. He was joined by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong
who had previously made public his opposition to Section
377A of the Penal Code which bans homosexual sex. Both
were members of a forum panel yesterday that included
gay activist Alex Au, founder of gay media company
Fridae Stuart Koe, and Methodist church leader Reverend
Yap Kim Hao. They were discussing the legislation with
about 100 participants. When the Home Affairs Ministry
proposed changes to the Penal Code last year, it said it
would retain the ban on acts of 'gross indecency'
between men. One participant, academic Russell Heng, 56,
asked Mr Baey for his position if Parliament took a vote
on this issue. He said he would vote to repeal the law,
a response which drew loud applause. Explaining his
stand, Mr Baey drew an analogy between homosexual sex
and drinking or smoking. 'There should be a distinction
between what the Government wants to discourage, and
what it wants to criminalise, ' he said. 'The Government
can make it more difficult to access drinking and
smoking, but you are still allowed to drink and smoke.
So, you can discourage homosexual sex without
criminalising it.' He believed the Whip should be lifted
if Parliament were to debate this issue. But he conceded
that - from his understanding - not many MPs would share
his views on decriminalising homosexual sex. Lifting the
Whip means MPs can vote according to their convictions,
and do not have to toe the party line. But Mr Baey
emphasised that he did not think this issue would be
decided through public consensus. 'From what I
understand of how the Government works, I don't think
the Government will make a decision based on a
survey...The Government would want to make its own stand
and position on issues like this,' he said. Changing the
law would require 'some progressive thinking and also
people who are able to influence the Cabinet's
thinking'. Thus, recent remarks by Minister Mentor Lee
Kuan Yew were welcome, he added. 'We should be happy he
made those remarks, and that will pave the way for some
change in the thinking of the current Government.' In an
interview with Berita Harian published two weeks ago, MM
Lee said the Government should not act like moral
policemen, 'prying on consenting adults'. He also
reiterated his view that homosexuals 'were mostly born
that way', but also recognised that Singapore is a
conservative society and cannot go as far as some
countries that recognise gay marriage. Yesterday's forum
also touched on issues about the gay community and what
the religious view on the matter was. Offering his view,
Rev Yap said: 'Contrary to the majority of the Christian
views... I personally would call for it to be repealed
on the basis that this is God's purpose - the existence
of the homosexual community... We know there will always
be a proportion of the population, generation after
generation, who will be homosexual, and they are created
by the heterosexuals. ' At the end of the forum, both Mr
Baey and Mr Siew said it was good to have open
discussion to increase awareness of the issue, but the
absence of a different point of view meant the
discussion lacked balance. Said Mr Baey: 'We were
talking to the con |
Monday, July 16, 2007 On Section 377A
... Forum on gay law well-attended, but change
unlikely: MPs
Nazry Bahrawi
|
THE room was packed, the
panellists were passionate and the questions came fast
and furious. This was the mood yesterday as over 200
people gathered to discuss a hot issue - should
homosexuality remain outlawed here? Leading the
discussion, organised by local theatre company W!ld Rice
at the National Library, were an eclectic mix of five
individuals: MP (Tanjong Pagar GRC) Baey Yam Keng;
Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong; gay activist Alex Au; CEO of
gay community website Fridae.com, Dr Stuart Koe; and
Reverend Dr Yap Kim Hao, a former Methodist bishop who
serves on the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO)
council. Although Section 377A, which criminalises
homosexual acts, may come up for debate in Parliament as
part of the Penal Code changes, for two panellists at
least, the prospect that it would be repealed any time
soon seems highly unlikely. Said Mr Baey: "Personally, I
think the whip should be lifted for a very open debate
and open expression of opinion by the MPs. And if that
was so, I would vote for a repeal of the act. From my
understanding of my parliamentary colleagues, my guess
is that I will be in the minority." However, Mr Siew
told the audience - most of whom indicated during the
forum that they wanted Section 377A repealed - that the
battle was not to convince the naysayers, but those who
are undecided about whether homosexuality should be
decriminalised. The NMP said change would only be
possible "once you get that mass, enough people in the
middle, to agree with you", but added: "I don't think
we're at that point." Mr Siew cited a heartland survey
published in May by Today, in which 62.3 per cent of 300
respondents disagreed that homosexuality should be
legal. "That shows that a clear majority are saying that
homosexuality of people is not acceptable to them." But
even if more people were to support decriminalisation,
that may not be enough. Said Mr Baey: "From what I
understand about how the Government works, I don't think
the Government will be making a decision based on a
survey ... The Government will want to make its own
stand and position on issues like this, and for this it
requires a mindset shift." And to change mindsets,
"you've got to frame it in a lingo that will convince
the Government", Mr Siew suggested. "And what's that
lingo? I think we all know. It's all about growth, jobs,
money. If you can make a convincing case that 377A is
somehow affecting that, I think you've got a really good
chance." He acknowledged that changing the laws on
homosexuality would put Malay/Muslim MPs in a difficult
position with their community. But it is not just the
Muslims who feel strongly about the issue. Reverend Dr
Yap said that within the Christian faith in Singapore
there was a "minority which is vocal" which strongly
opposes any move to repeal the Act. Mr Au, however,
argued that the debate on Section 377A was not one of
religion, but civil rights. In response, Mr Siew pointed
out: "Pitching your arguments in terms of civil rights
... will not take it very far." His suggestion of
linking the decriminalisation of homosexual acts to
economic benefits drew a range of responses from the
audience - as well as other panellists, including Mr
Koe, who said he would feel insulted if the decision
were to depend on dollars and cents. Whatever their
stand, almost everyone present agreed that such a forum
would not have been possible five years ago - a sign
that Singapore is now a lot more open to different
points of view. |
StraitstimesJuly 7, 2007 THINKING ALOUD
Can mum, mum and kids make a family?
By Janadas Devan, Senior Writer
|
I HAVE a good friend who is a lesbian.
She believes she was born one, not having experienced
any heterosexual inclinations since she became sexually
conscious in puberty. My friend has a partner. They are
not legally married, since the state they live in in the
United States does not recognise gay marriages. But
their partnership was solemnised in a Quaker ceremony,
witnessed by family and friends, including myself. To
all intents and purposes, theirs is a stable marriage.It
is also a fruitful marriage, for my friend has two
children, both biologically hers. She conceived them by
means of artificial insemination, the sperms having been
donated by suitably screened men.Apart from the fact
that there is no father in the picture, my friend's
family is normal and exemplary in every way. The two
children are healthy, cheerful, intelligent and
well-behaved. They have two loving parents. My friend
and her partner are highly educated, with five
university degrees between them. They own the home they
live in, they pay their taxes, they save for their
children's education, they are charitable, they never
fail to vote, they attend church every Sunday. They are
model citizens. Of course, there are any number of other
model citizens - in the US and Singapore, in China,
India, Indonesia and elsewhere - who would think my
friend's family is anything but normal. Homosexuality is
against the laws of God and Nature, they would say.
Artificial insemination is all well and good for
heterosexual couples - but not for homosexual ones. A
family must consist of a husband, a wife and children -
not same-sex parents with children. I find all these
assertions incomprehensible.If homosexuality is against
the laws of God and Nature, how come there are so many
homosexuals? What sort of iron-clad laws can these be if
they can allow for so many exceptions to the rule?The
demographics on sexual orientation is hazy, but it is
evident that a fair number in any population is either
homosexual or bisexual. Alfred Kinsey's famous studies
of sexuality in the 1950s claimed that as much as 10 per
cent of American males were homosexual. Most experts
today believe this was an over-estimation.Recent studies
suggest 3 to 6 per cent of adult American males, and
somewhat fewer adult females, are homosexual. Surveys in
other countries reveal similar or somewhat lower
proportions. It is possible such surveys underestimate
the number of homosexuals, since homosexuals are often
reluctant to admit to their sexual orientation.Whatever
the correct figure, it is impossible to believe God (or
Nature) is of the view that Socrates and Alexander the
Great, Walt Whitman and Ludwig Wittgenstein, W.H. Auden
and E.M. Forster, are all somehow deformed versions of
humanity simply because they were gay.'Judge not, that
ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall
be measured to you again.'It is astonishing the number
of people who profess to be religious who manage to
forget this most momentous of statements in Christ's
Sermon on the Mount. (There are similarly powerful
statements in all the major religions.)As for the belief
that there is an ideal family unit - father, mother,
children - and that any straying from this model is
somehow dangerous, it is worth remembering that the
nuclear family as we know it was not always considered
the norm.
Till recently, the norm in many
cultures was the extended family. Some cultures are
matrilineal, with the line of descent and inheritance
being determined by the mother, not the father.No single
model of the family has dominated throughout history.
The traditional nuclear family just happens to be a
structure that contemporary society finds stable and
workable - and it too is changing, as women become more
educated and have careers. And even among today's
supposedly ideal nuclear families, how many live up to
their billing?One in two heterosexual marriages in the
US ends in divorce. Are the children of divorced
heterosexual couples better off than the children of my
lesbian friends?How about the children of single mothers
or of constantly bickering heterosexual couples locked
in loveless marriages?No matter how happy and
well-adjusted the children of lesbian couples may be,
they are always, by virtue of their parentage, morally
suspect in comparison to the products of broken
heterosexual marriages?The only problems the children of
my lesbian friends would face derive, not from the
circumstances of their birth, but from the nature of the
wider society in which they may find themselves.
Fortunately for them, they are growing up for now in a
university town, a liberal and tolerant milieu. If they
were growing up in Utah, say, it would be a different
story. 'You've two mothers and no father? You're a
freak.'One can imagine the taunts they might face in
school if they were growing up in Utah or Alabama
instead of Massachusetts or California.What
about Singapore?It is probably closer to Utah than to
California in this matter. Despite none other than
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew saying 'homosexuals are
mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by
interfering in their private lives', there is
considerable social resistance to accepting gays as
equals.Male homosexual acts remain, officially, crimes
under Section 377A of the Penal Code. The Singapore
Government has in effect adopted a 'don't ask, don't
tell' policy where homosexuality is concerned. And as
for gay marriage, Mr Lee himself, despite his
progressive views on homosexuality, has said: 'We cannot
go that far. We are a more conservative society.'What
are homosexuals in Singapore to do?They really have no
alternative but to accept the somewhat larger scope the
Singapore Government has now afforded them and work to
change society. That is not going to be easy, given the
deep-seated views - the prejudices, actually - of the
majority.The fact that the Government - usually never
shy of forcing through a policy, no matter what the
public resistance to it might be, if it believes the
policy is correct - finds it necessary to give way to
public sentiment in not officially decriminalising male
homosexual acts, indicates the depth of the prejudice
against gays.On the hopeful side, two factors would
favour homosexuals in the long run: One, the growing
vidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis. And two,
the growing cosmopolitanism of Singapore.What will those
who hold that homosexuality is against the laws of God
say when it is definitively established that
homosexuality has a genetic basis? That God deliberately
made a mistake with the DNA of gays - and wishes us to
persecute them for his mistake?And what will they say
when they discover homophobia renders Singapore a less
attractive place to the talented and creative, both
local and foreign? There is a reason why some of the
most creative cities in the world - San Francisco,
Boston and London - are also among the most accepting of
gays.Clever people cannot abide intolerance.
|
July 2, 2007 MM LEE'S INTERVIEW WITH
BERITA HARIAN
|
July 2, 2007 MM LEE'S INTERVIEW
WITH BERITA HARIAN No prying on gays but no marriages
either GAY marriages are recognised by some countries,
but Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew does not see Singapore
going that way. Singapore, a more conservative society,
wants to keep its social norms, he said. But the
Government should not act like moral policemen, 'prying
on consenting adults', he added. MM Lee made the point
in an interview with Malay daily Berita Harian,
published yesterday. He said: 'At present, the West
accepts homosexuals, and some countries even recognise
gay weddings. 'We cannot go that far. We are a more
conservative society.'
Citing the Church of England, Mr Lee
noted serious tension between the Anglican church in
England, which was more tolerant of homosexuality, and
the Anglican communities in Africa and Asia that
rejected it totally. 'In Singapore, we want to maintain
our social norm, which is that men and women marry and
form stable families within which they bring up
children,' he said. But neither should the Government
pry on consenting adults, he added, reiterating a view
he has expressed a couple of times this year. 'We must
take cognisance of the contemporary world that has
become more accommodating. ..Homosexuals are mostly born
that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering
in their private lives,' he said. Mr Lee also said the
integrated resorts (IRs) and Formula One racing will
increase Singapore's buzz, attract a few million more
tourists and make the island a lively place to visit and
do business.
The IRs are expected to open
from 2009, and Singapore will host the F1 Grand Prix
from next year. Mr Lee said: 'If we remain static and
unchanged, known only as clean and green Singapore, but
otherwise with an international reputation for being a
dull and antiseptic place, we will lose out in this
fast- changing world. 'High-level executives want to be
posted to a country not just for an increase in their
pay but also what lifestyle they and their families can
enjoy.' Hence the need for a lively pop culture like the
IRs and bars, and a vibrant high culture like concerts,
he said. MM Lee also stressed the need for Singapore to
attract foreign talent and foreign workers to thrive.
Foreign talent will create more jobs for Singaporeans,
while foreign workers will do jobs locals avoid and bear
the brunt of layoffs in a recession, he said. 'The more
talent - local and foreign - we have, the more dynamic
our economy and the better-off Singaporeans will be.
'The less talent we have, the less our economic vitality
with fewer jobs, and more unemployed.'
|
21 May 2007 'Today' newspaper
THE GAY DEBATE AND THE BREAKTHROUGH WE NEED
by P N BALJI Editorial Director
|
NO amount of print or pressure, or
even persuasion, is going to change the Government's
stand on what is being described by some as an archaic
and discriminatory law: A law that makes overt
homosexuality a crime in Singapore. That is the only
black-and-white certainty in the on-going debate on
gays. The rest, as they say, is all grey. So why bother
even talking about it, asked a friend exasperated with
the glacial pace in the politics of change here.Over
lunch, we tried to jog our collective memories on the
number of occasions when the Government introduced a new
law or changed a stand because of overt influence from
the outside.Two stick out like sore thumbs: Former
Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Woon's push in
1995 for a law to force children to pay for their
parents' maintenance - the only Act passed by Parliament
since 1965 not initiated by the Government - and the
official embrace in 2001 of a group of nature lovers who
wanted to save Chek Jawa from reclamation. There have
been instances of Government reversal (such as on the
graduate mothers policy) and tweaking (to allow the
restricted viewing of certain movies). But these have
all originated from within, with no overt pressure or
persuasion from without.The Jeremys of this world, as
quoted in Today's weekend report, need to know that this
is a government that guards jealously its self-imposed
change-from- within mandate.For every Jeremy and partner
who want to pack up and go because of the legal
discrimination against gays here, there is a Dennis and
partner, who swear by Singapore's enlightened attitude -
covert though it may be - towards gay couples like them.
I met Dennis, his
partner and two other gays at a 31-year-old lady's
birthday a month ago. They led me into a world of
highly-intelligent, highly-articulate and
highly-successful people. They have an opinion - a
penetrating and alternative one, mind you - on nearly
everything that is happening in Singapore and around the
world. That is definitely refreshing in a place where
debate and discussion, even in a dinner setting, is
lacking.Even more refreshing was to see how the four
gays took care of the two straight women at the table.
They fussed over the women, talking about the latest
fashion trends and bitching about nearly everything and
everybody under the sun. The dinner ended with one of
the women whispering into her husband's ear: "They are
God's gift to women!" I am sure many of the 62.3 per
cent of the heartlanders who said, in a Today survey,
that they are against legalising homosexuality would
have a different view if they got to mingle with these
people more often.That is what happened with Britain's
Ministry of Defence which allowed gays to serve in the
armed forces. Today, seven years later, the ministry's
verdict: None of its fears of harassment, discord,
blackmail and bullying have come to pass, according to
an International Herald Tribune report. If it can happen
in a macho and tightly-regulated environment like the
armed forces, then Singapore society in general should
pose no great barrier. Singapore needs gays, not just
because of the pink dollar and the economic value they
bring, but also because they add a colourful and
intellectual vibrancy to our city.With the law and the
politics on gays unlikely to change for sometime, the
next best thing is for us all to get to know them
better.They have the same emotions we have. A teacher
friend once told me, misty-eyed and all, about the pain
he suffered after breaking up with his partner. Another,
a doctor, spoke of how he is consumed by guilt every
time his parents ask him why he is not getting married.
Yes, gays are normal people and they should be treated
normally. That is the breakthrough we need to achieve in
this gay debate.
|
22 May 2007 Straits Times Online Forum
Dr Yap Kim Hao
|
I REFER to Ms Yvonne Lee's
letter, 'Gay debate continues: Writer responds', (Online
forum, May 17). Ms Lee has quoted from the affidavit for
a court case of one medical doctor, John R. Diggs, Jr,
MD, that homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy. A
closer examination of the affidavit whose source is
supplied by Ms Lee herself shows that Dr Diggs observed:
'People who engage in homosexuality have the same basic
sexual equipment as people who do not.' This meant that
heterosexuals have the same sexual organs and some can
also engage in what is regarded as 'homosexual acts' as
well. Unsafe sex by heterosexuals and homosexuals can
result in the same medical and health risks like those
listed by Ms Lee - promiscuity, multiple sexual
partners, assault and battery and anal intercourse.
Homosexuals do not have the monopoly of such risks. In
reality heterosexuals carry higher risks and spread
sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/Aids to
their sexual partners and unborn children. In the
discussion on natural drives, Dr Diggs wrote: 'We
discourage heterosexual promiscuity, cigarette smoking,
and intoxication of various sorts, even though there may
be a natural inclination to do these things.
Some claim a natural inclination, as adults, to sexually
exploit children. This society discourages to the point
of making it criminal.' Dr Diggs is right that we should
discourage heterosexuals from expressing such
inclinations. At the same time I agree with him that we
should do the same with homosexuals. But homosexual
orientation is not an inclination or a tendency that we
must curb. It is just as natural an orientation as the
heterosexual to engage in heterosexual and for some
homosexual acts as well. Sexuality is common and the
health risks of sexual acts are the same. The
distinctive difference is that of same-sex and
opposite-sex acts. Why do we criminalise one and not the
other? This is where there is a need for equality before
the law and justice needs to be seen to be served.
|
May 9, 2007 GAY DEBATE The freedom to
disagree, respectfully By Victor V. Ramraj, For The
Straits Times
|
IT HAS been argued that the
decriminalisation of sodomy is the first step on a
slippery slope towards a 'homosexual agenda' that
includes civil unions and same-sex marriages. I disagree
with this view and the arguments advanced in support of
it. Still, the debate on this subject has provided us
with a key lesson on the importance of public discussion
on matters of deep moral significance - and the
importance of respectful disagreement. First, a few
comments on some of the claims in the debate. Even in
societies abroad where legal structures such as same-sex
civil unions have been introduced, this did not happen
overnight, but only after significant shifts in social
and political attitudes. If the majority of Singaporeans
find homosexuality offensive, then there is little
reason for them to worry that the entire legal landscape
will change in an instant. If change eventually does
come, it will follow only after open and respectful
debate and a conscious choice on the part of
Singaporeans to become a more tolerant and hospitable
society. Others, particularly in cyberspace this past
week, have challenged the accuracy of empirical claims
behind the argument to retain sodomy as a crime - and
the debate will no doubt continue. I will not repeat
these arguments here. As for constitutional law, formal
constitutional doctrine on such matters is hardly
conclusive. In 1930, Lord Sankey likened a Constitution
to 'a living tree capable of growth and expansion within
its natural limits'. Particularly in Singapore, where
the methodology of constitutional law is still evolving,
there is much to be said for this vision.
Intolerant vs criminal I WANT to turn,
however, to a rather different point that arises from
this controversy. Does branding opponents of
decriminalisation 'intolerant' undermine or effectively
censor free speech? Surely, the answer to this question
is no. Indeed, the reverse may be more likely; opponents
of decriminalisation effectively silence others by
continuing to regard the behaviour they oppose as
criminal. To be branded intolerant is one thing; to be
branded a criminal is quite another. The publication of
letters and commentary in this newspaper shows that
those who disagree with decriminalisation are perfectly
free to express their views. Perhaps, then, the deeper
concern is not that these views will be censored
(plainly, they haven't been), but that others will not
find them convincing. If that is the true concern, then
rigorous and respectful persuasion would be the answer.
If the discussion on Singapore blogs is any indication,
recent exchanges about the decriminalisation of sodomy
have provoked an important debate, one that demonstrates
that Singaporeans, including many tertiary students, are
far from apathetic when it comes to issues of great
social significance. An issue of profound social
importance is receiving the serious public attention,
reflection and debate it deserves. The sources of
identity FOR those who choose to engage in this debate,
let us remind ourselves that our words have profound
personal impact on those around us, on both sides of
this controversy.
Those whose religious views are
tolerant of homosexuality, and especially those of us
with secular-humanist inclinations, must remain
sensitive to the deeply personal and communal role that
religious doctrine plays in the lives of many. At the
same time, we must have faith that those who oppose the
decriminalisation of sodomy on religious grounds will
acknowledge that personal identity need not be a matter
of religion at all. It is possible, even common, to
define one's identity outside of religion - in terms of
one's intimate relationships, career goals, community
service, life-long projects and deep personal
convictions. A person's sense of identity is no less
worthy of respect in the public square on account of its
secular sources. I can only imagine the deep personal
anguish experienced by gays and lesbians in Singapore
when confronted by the criminal law. Their voices should
be heard in the spirit of an open, respectful and
meaningful discussion. Whatever is said in the course of
this debate, it is clear that someone, somewhere, will
take offence. But the ability for all to speak out
should not be taken for granted. There are reasonable
limits to be placed on hateful speech - a view that I
have defended elsewhere. But in the present context, in
a society that is increasingly more open, I find myself
drawn to the pithy comment sometimes attributed to
Voltaire: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it.' The writer is
an associate professor in the Faculty of Law, National
University of Singapore. This essay reflects his
personal views only.
|
Sraitstimes, May 1, 2007
Susan Yap Siu Sen (Ms)
Founding member S A F E
Supporting, Affirming & Empowering our lgbtQ (lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgendered, questioning) friends
and family
|
Whether heterosexual or gay, treat all
equally. SAFE is a group of family and friends who
affirm and support gay and transgendered people as
persons with equal rights to respect, dignity,
acceptance and empowerment in society. We are writing to
express our thanks to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for
his recent comments at the dialogue with Young PAP and
in the interview with Reuters. We appreciate the two
cogent points he made: That homosexuality is a genetic
variation, not an aberration. That the law against
homosexual acts is outmoded. We at Safe are hopeful that
the law that criminalises homosexual acts will be
abolished. Whether heterosexual or gay, we believe that
all Singapore citizens and residents should be treated
equally under the law. We cannot agree with a law that
proclaims our sons, grandsons, brothers, nephews,
uncles, relatives and friends as criminals for a
propensity that is not of their volition, is innocuous
and part of their private lives.
For far too long our gay loved
ones from a young age have suffered deep internalised
oppression, often resulting in the disintegration of
family, compromised relationships, low self-esteem,
stunted maturity and unavoidable deceitfulness. We
support the decriminalisation of oral and anal sex as
proposed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and ask that
it apply equally to all consenting adults. Homosexual
men and women enrich our lives through their
participation in business, the professions, the arts and
government. As we focus on the richness gay people bring
to our lives and our love and support for them, we not
only liberate them, but we also become a society
committed to the Asian values of real family.
|
Official editorial of the Straits Times
Saturday, 5 July 2003 About gay tolerance
|
PRIME Minister Goh Chok Tong dropped
something of a small bombshell this week when he
revealed to Time magazine that the Singapore Government
had changed its policy on hiring homosexuals in the
civil service. 'In the past, if we know you're gay, we
would not employ you,' he said. 'But we just changed
this quietly. We know you are. We'll employ you,' he
revealed. The Government does not seem to have adopted
quite the same policy as the United States military's
'don't ask, don't tell', but the effect is analogous.
Gay people do not have to declare their sexual
orientation - nobody in Singapore is required to,
actually - but Mr Goh seemed to suggest it wouldd be
best if they did, so as to avoid being blackmailed,
especially those in sensitive positions. 'Disclose, and
we won't bother' would seem to encapsulate the new
policy.This newspaper welcomes the change. As the Prime
Minister explained, broader changes in the laws
regarding homosexuality will have to await changes in
the beliefs and attitudes of what remains, by and large,
a conservative society, but this is a step in the right
direction. Homosexual acts will still remain an offence
- but as everyone knows, these sections of the Criminal
Code are not strictly enforced. Singaporeans are not
about to witness gay parades or festivals - but as
everyone knows, private gatherings of the gay community
are not prohibited. And the Government is not going to
institute in the near future a strict
anti-discrimination policy towards homosexuals -
similar, say to anti-discrimination policies on the
grounds of race or religion - but as Mr Goh made clear,
the Government itself will not discriminate against
gays, and large segments of the private sector have long
ceased to make an issue of it. No homosexual in
Singapore is starving because of his or her
homosexuality; no homosexual is jobless because of his
or her sexual orientation. What Singapore has, de facto
if not de jure, is a live-and-let-live attitude towards
homosexuality. 'So let it evolve,' as Mr Goh put it,
'and in time, the population will understand that some
people are born that way. We are born this way and they
are born that way, but they are like you and me.'Some
American studies have suggested that as much as 10 per
cent of any population is homosexual. In all probability
- the science on this is not settled - homosexuality is
as genetically determined as heterosexuality, or one's
height, for that matter. Ethically and logically, it is
as untenable to exclude people on the basis of their
sexual orientation as it is to exclude them on the basis
of the shape of their noses or the colour of their hair.
If it is 'natural' to have snub proboscis as it is to
have high ones, it is as 'natural' to be a heterosexual
as it is to be a homosexual. There is no one model of
the natural; nature is by definition various. Why should
anyone be faulted simply for possessing certain traits -
of gender, race, sexual orientation, or inherited
disability, or even body type - over which they had no
control? 'Blaming' someone for being homosexual is
equivalent to faulting that person for simply existing.
But this is not a position that everyone would agree
with. Many religions - or more precisely, segments of
many religions - explicitly prohibit homosexuality.
These views are sincerely held, and no society, not even
avowedly secular ones like the US, can ignore them. If
Western Europe, Canada and Australia are any indication,
attitudes towards homosexuality will change in the long
term. But the process cannot be forced.
|
|
 |
USA
Dec 04, 2011 -
Bishop Eddie Long divorced Sep 20, 2011 -
DADT is dead 24 July 2011 -
New York Gay Marriage 21 July 2011 -
Willow Creek splits with Exodus 10 May 2011 -
Presbyterian Church allows gay clergy Apr 13,2011 -
Conservatives declare war on "gay" Mar 25,2011 -
Apple dumps Exodus Mar 21,2011 -
Growing Evangelical clout shaping debate Mar 18,2011 -
Support for Gay marriage reaches a milestone Mar
13,2011 -
Radical Love by Patrick Cheng Mar 1,2011 -
Rev Peter J. Holmes, dies at 68 Feb 23,2011 -
Government drops defence of DOMA Feb 16,2011 -
Civil Union passed in Hawaii Feb 09,2011 -
My Take: The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on
sexuality
Jan 23,2011 -
Finding Jesus, In drag
|
 |
SINGAPORE
Sep 27, 2011 -
Miak Siew - S'pore first openly gay pastor Sep 20,2011 -
Your way is OK . Go live and love June 18, 2011 -
Over 10,000 supported Pink Dot Apr 27,2011 -
Is S'pore ready for Gay MP? Apr 20,2011 -
City Harvest founder steps down as chairman Mar 20,2011 -
City Harvest moves to Suntec Feb 24,2011 -
Gambling in Singapore - Sin galore Feb 19,2011 -
City Harvest Church loses members, staff Jan 23,2011 -
Gay MP? 'Her private life is
her private life' |
LATIN AMERICA
May 06,
2011 -
Brazil approves same sex Unions Feb 16, 2011 -
Latin America's first gay cruise set for
December July 15, 2010 -
Argentina legalize gay marriage
Dec 21,2009 -
Mexico City legalizes gay marriage
AFRICA/Middle East
June 10,
2011 -
Tel Aviv's Gay parade draws thousands to the city Apr 15,
2011 -
Pakistan's Transgender tax collectors Feb 10, 2011 -
"God created You":
Bishop supports Gay Ugandans Jan 31, 2011 -
David Kato's Anglican funeral: A tale of
two churches
CHINA/ JAPAN/ HONGKONG/Taiwan/Korea
Sep 21,
2011-
Cho Yong-Gi faces embezzlement charges Apr 26,
2011 -
Japan's first gay politician
Feb 23, 2011 -
We
are not disgusting Jan 25, 2011 -
Beijing's first gay marriage sparks storm
online
Pinkdot sg - the freedom to love!
Pictures (2010) -
Pictures (2009) - click here
(Isa 52:8-10 NKJV) Your watchmen shall lift up their voices, With their voices they shall sing together; For they shall see eye to eye When the LORD brings back Zion.Break forth into joy, sing together, You waste places of Jerusalem! For the LORD has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD has made bare His holy arm In the eyes of all the nations; And all the ends of the earth shall see The salvation of our God.
  
+ BBC - Arch. Bishop Tutu Dec 17, 2007
+ MCC 1973 One God - Troy Perry
+ Rev Yap KH on Christian Dialog
+ Rev Mel White @ Safehaven 2007
+ Ordination of Rev. William R. Johnson, 1972
+ Peggy Campolo - Part 1
+ Peggy Campolo - Part 2
+ Jeremy Marks - Courage
+ Gene Robinson Interview
+ Rev Jay Bakker (son of Jimmy Bakker)
+BBC - Gay Singapore (March 2000)
+ CBC The Politics of Plague July 6 1983 - Rev Falwell & Rev Troy Perry
Roy Clement articles
+Holiness, Tradition and the Pharisees
+Sex in the City
+Evangelicals, Hypocrisy, and +Pharisees
+On Living with our Falibility
+Homophobia in the Church
+What is an Evangelical
+Why Evangelicals must think again
+A Prophet and the Establishment
+No Longer Welcome
+A Letter to an Old Friend
+Letter to Michael
+The Cruxifixion of Truth
Selected articles
27 Jan 07: The Story of a Sinful Church
30 Sept 06 Giving thanks - Freedom in Christ
22 July 06: Nicodemus, Night seeker
06 Aug 06 The Eunuch Seeker -
29 Apr 06: Jesus' last sermon -
11 Feb 06: Brokeback Mountain
07 Jan 06: Would the Church open the door for Jesus?
09 Oct 05: Gay innocent Lost sheep
03 Oct 2005 - Gay rights - a warning against injustice
10 Sept 05: Gay lifestyle Hurricane Katrina,
03 Sept 05: David & Jonathan - A Gay love story
18 Aug 05: The Gay Beatitudes
07 Aug 05: Apostle John - the lover of Jesus
23 June 05: Apostle Paul & Romans -
19 June 05: Gay evangelism,
28 May 05: Paul the Gay Apostle
12 Apr 05: Jesus takes special care of Gays
30 Sept 04 - What does Jesus say about gays?
KATRINA - THE BLAME GAME BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
AUSCHWITZ - HAVE WE FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE GAYS WHO DIED

PROPHECY ON PRESIDENT BUSH - 6 YEARS AGO - ECONOMIC DISASTER

31 Dec 2008 - Gays are marching unto Zion - Christians beware
31 Dec 2008 - DBS Bank and Focus on the Family Singapore
25 Dec 2008 - Proposition 8 - It's time for the fallen church to follow Jesus
25 Dec 2008 - Modern example of Sodom and Gomorrah in Singapore
17 Dec 2008 - Proposition 8 - What they will never tell you
12 Dec 2008 - Proposition 8 - No one is denied unalienable rights
07 Dec 2008 - Hear us from heaven
30 Nov 2008 - The answer my friend is Blowing in the Wind
23 Nov 2008 - A broken message by Pastor Rick Warren
16 Nov 2008 - Proposition 8 - A betrayal
16 Nov 2008 - Proposition 8 and the Christian Right
16 Nov 2008 - Proposition 8 & Evil Principalities
09 Nov 2008 - Angels to visit Singapore Anglican Church
05 Nov 2008 - Proposition 8 - the great shaking - come Lord Jesus come
27 Oct 2008 - To Christians in Singapore - Consider your ways
11 Oct 2008 - The Question of Evil
27 Sept 08 - Singapore Gay parade and neo-colonialism
20 Sept 08 - the 377A returns
13 Sept 08 - American election - power, wealth, glory
06 Sept 08 - A National Day Gay Rally
30 Aug 08 - a church following the traditions of men instead of humility in Christ
23 Aug 08 - the violation of the 10 commandments.
16 Aug 08 - the Story of Bathsheba - the story of a wretched church needing grace
09 Aug 08 - The Betrayal of Canterbury
02 Aug 08 - At Lambeth - Go and Sin No More
27 July 08 - Christian Spin on 377A
20 July 08 - Christian Right - lawlessness
11 July 08 - A False Gospel
21 June 08 - The Fear of the Church
15 June 08 - There can be a revival
06 June 08 - There can be miracles
11 May 08 - the Hand of God
04 May 08 - Were you there
27 Apr 08 - Freedom in facts
19 Apr 08 - Proclaim Christ
12 Apr 08 - Avoid Fundies
05 Apr 08 - Dear Lord Forgive
29 Mar 08 - We shall overcome
21 Mar 08 -Religious extremism
15 Mar 08 - Sodom and Gaylang
08 Mar 08 - Freedom to love again
23 Feb 08 - the lost voice
17 Feb 08 - Holiness belongs to God
03 Feb 08 - "and yet it moves"
27 Jan 08 - greatest threat to biblical culture
20 Jan 08 - Stumbling Block at NCC
13 Jan 08 - Gospels seldom mention Gays?
06 Jan 08 - It's all about love
Dec 07 - Are we Salt and Light to Christ
Dec 07 - A reflection of the Year at Christmas 2007
Dec 07 - the shaking of the church
Dec 07 - Hope Concert - the beginning of a New Hope
Dec 07 - It's all about Love at Orchard Road
Dec 07 - Standing up for Jesus and Not the Majority
Nov 07: the mass effect has come
Nov 07: Love Your enemies
Nov 07 - When we have made ourselves God
Oct 07 - Gays do exist, come as you are
Oct 07: 377A - a non issue
Oct 07: Repeal 377a defeated - a tragedy unfolding
20 Oct 07 - no longer looks like Jesus
Sept 07 - what kind of a spirit are you
18 Aug 07 - The coming Home at Independence day
10 Aug 07 - Lift Jesus Higher
29 July 07 - The war against the Lamb - let us take heed
22 July 07 - Jericho Must Fall
15 July 07 - Victory against the Giants
|