Open letter to the Prime Minister from an anonymous Singaporean:

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing as a concerned Singaporean and a mother to request official scrutiny into press reporting of the AWARE saga.

I'll share my first-person observations at the AWARE EGM in relation to Straits Times coverage of the event.

1) My 18-year-old daughter and I went to the AWARE EGM on Saturday, 2 May 2009, to observe the proceedings of a civil organisation but the progression of events left us with much disquiet.

a) We noticed a large contingent of men upon entering the meeting hall as we were directed to the "overflow area" in Hall 403 where we sat in the front portion (we were among the last 200 to enter at 2.50pm after queuing from 1.30pm). The men formed about a quarter of the meeting, occupying seats in the back half of the 'overflow'. My daughter observed that this was a meeting for a women's association and was surprised at the substantial male turn-out. I reserved my comments.

b)We were accosted by ear-deafening 'boos' and jeers as we passed the section, but realised that they were not directed at us as much as at the speaker onstage. We were quite unable to hear the opening speech being given by Ms Josie Lau, then President of AWARE, as the heckling went on unabated in tenor and base. In fact, the aggression was so vehement that my daughter was in tears from the sense of intimidation and oppression, even though the hooliganism was not directed at us.

c) It could be clearly observed that a number of men in the front of the section were attired in white 'We are AWARE' t-shirts or pink tops.

d)There were also more than 20 foreign men and women in their midst.

e)Then as the meeting progressed, more than half of them moved to stand with and around the 'old guard' of AWARE, and at the floor speakers' area, continuing to disrupt the proceedings despite calls for order.

e) What really flabbergasted us was that soon some of these associate members with no voting rights took the stand to proudly declare their homosexual status to loud applause from the 'old guard' camp as they spoke in support of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme. In fact, it was impossible for ordinary members like me to try to ask any questions on the floor (as I tried to queue up to do so) as the 'old guard' with half of them men effectively 'barricading' the area and monopolising the microphones in a raucous commotion.

We came away from the whole event rather disillusioned by AWARE and what it professed to stand for. They may still be helping women, marginalised or needy, but they are also involved in the political agenda of some minority groups, even with covert foreign interference.

2) I'm also surprised and deeply troubled that the reporting in The Straits Times has not been honest in presenting the full picture to the public, especially concerned parents following the AWARE saga. There was a concerted effort by both the press and TV coverage not to mention the significant presence of the homosexual community. If I had not been there, I would never have known the truth.

a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story (Wong Kim Hoh) hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.

b) Some members of the press and TV were candidly jubilant as they celebrated the passing of the 'no confidence' vote by punching their fists in the air and hugging the 'old guard' they were standing with.

c) In the sweep of fervent support, the constitutional amendments were also made to allow men and foreign

women full voting rights (in a local women's association that makes the CEDAW report on the state of women in Singapore). In the perspective that such an amendment was thrown out in the previous AGM, the motives may be called into question. The press made no mention of this important development.

I question the cover-up in the press.

In review of newspaper coverage of AWARE developments, I'm also beginning to think that press focus on the sensitive issue of religious involvement was but a calculated red herring thrown out to manipulate public sentiments.

Sir, I am pleading for the authorities to look into this matter as I am becoming increasingly alarmed that minority groups with a political agenda may not have just reached its grasp into a vulnerable women's group, and through it attempt to distort our children's views on sexuality, but has actually infiltrated the press to block out news and prevent the public from accessing the truth. I actually feel frightened that the press in Singapore can attempt to shape my views as it wishes by misinformation or partial information.

from journalism.sg

Who is neutral, really?

Over the weekend, there is more coverage on the AWARE gay advocacy scandal, and Dana Lam, interviewed in Zaobao, the Singapore Chinese daily is totally unapologetic about AWARE's gay advocacy in the MOE CSE. Even Marthia Lee backpedalled a little by saying the CSE instructor manual had been a little careless in the wording, while Dana Lam continues to rubbish the whole idea that there was any tinge of gay advocacy in AWARE's CSE.

And this Channel News Asia "journalist" Pearl Forss, who was seen cheering emotionally at the announcement of the voting outcome of the AWARE EGM, inserts another pro-AWARE old guard mantra into her "report" of the MOE press release regarding sex education, that,

"Homosexuality is seen as neutral in the AWARE CSE."

It is clearly her insertion because no other reports I have seen has that statement. She is clearly showing her pro-old guard bias by repeating that mantra.

And from what source did they get that mantra from? Apparently, they think they have collected a "slip" from their favourite smearing target, Thio Su Mien.

The problem is

1) Thio Su Mien is an extremist and does not represent me. I'm sure a lot of parents angry about the AWARE CSE would agree with me.

2) Pro-gay extremists tries to draw parallels between them and the civil rights movements in the US or the Jewish Holocaust, as though we segregate our beaches according to sexual orientation or round up gays in concentration camps, which cannot be further from the truth. Singapore has been very tolerant of gays. But to them anything short of gay pride parades and anal sex clinics in secondary schools would probably be seen as "neutral".

3) Like the pro-gay extremists, people like Thio Su Mien believes there is no middle ground. To her, being neutral about homosexuality is probably enough reason to burn in hell.
Getting Thio Su Mein to say the AWARE CSE is neutral means nothing.

Anybody who read the instructor's manual for AWARE CSE knows that it is far from being neutral with words like "Homosexuality is perfectly normal".

If the AWARE CSE is seen as neutral, there will not be any controversy.

AWARE as unrepentant and extreme as it is, should be permanently banned from access to all public services, not just MOE.

To fight the gay activists is to be anti-science?

One of the favourite argument of the gay activists is to smear dissenters to be anti-science, flat earth, creationist types. This is obviously an underhand bullying tactic.

Science does not have any conclusive opinion on homosexuality. And even if it does, one can never rule out that it merely a fad that may not stand the test of time.

Take lobotomy fro example. It used to be an accepted scientific method for treating schizophrenia in the early 20th century. Even the sister of John F Kennedy underwent the treatment. Let me describe one specific type of lobotomy: "transorbital lobotomy"

it involved lifting the upper eyelid and placing the point of a thin surgical instrument (often called an orbitoclast or leucotome, although quite different from the wire loop leucotome described above) under the eyelid and against the top of the eyesocket. A hammer or mallet was then used to drive the leucotome through the thin layer of bone and into the brain. The leucotome was then moved from side to side, toto sever the nerve fibers connecting the frontal lobes to the thalamus.

Does it make your stomach turn? I like to think I am a man of science, but even when science is cock sure, it can be dead wrong. If a Christian were to speak up against lobotomy in that era, one can be rest assured that he or she will be attacked as an anti-science flat earth creationist. If you believe in God, then you should trust God to have placed the spark of enlightenment in your heart, in your conscience. Using the Bible to fight Science is a losing proposition. God gave us a big brain for a reason, and it is intellectual laziness to revert to the Bible when we fight what we know in how heart, is barbarism.

The Gay Strawman

Gay advocates, smarting from their defeat after their gay agenda was exposed by the scandal that is the AWARE CSE, are resorting to strawman arguments to defend their lies.

It goes along this: People who oppose the supposedly neutral AWARE CSE are influenced by their American Christian Right. The American Christian Right advocates homophobia and abstinence-only sex education, faith based conversion of gays etc etc, which are faulty in one way or another. Ergo, parents who complain about the AWARE CSE must also have the same faulty reasonings, as well as imposing religious fundamentalists views on the secular society.

First of all, it will take quite a tool to think the AWARE CSE is neutral. Why was the instructor's manual confidential? If the manuals were shown to the principals, do you think any principal will greenlight their gay agenda?

Second, of the thousands who complained, there are plenty of Buddhists, Muslims and free thinkers. To assume all these Singaporean parents who would otherwise be slimed as apathetic to be influenced by American Christian Right gives a little too much credit to the American Christian Right.

Remember, Thio/Josie could barely find any support outside their church, or the ex-new team wouldnt have looked half as silly.

Third, I have yet to see any group emerge to collectively represent the viewpoints of any significant group of the outraged parents. Only MOE knows exactly the composition of each parental complain. To assume the parents pursue the exact same agenda like that pursued by the Christian Right, for eg abstinence only education or hostility to gays is simply disingenuous if not downright dishonest.

As usual, it is just part and parcel of the dirty tricks the gay activists use to censor dissent.

Gay movement now resorting to terrorist methods

An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Church of Our Saviour office at Margaret Drive, in Queenstown, last Thursday.

The envelope was addressed to the senior pastor of the Anglican church but it was not known if the name of the pastor, Reverend Derek Hong, was indicated.

No Escape: Male Rape in US prisons

I've been sentenced for a D.U.I. offense. My 3rd one. When I first came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall white male, who unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically.

Gay rights activists often repeat the mantra that homosexuals are born that way. You cannot change either way. I like to dispute that. Take a look at the report published by Human Rights Watch on male prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse in the United States.

What is interesting is this

vast majority of prison rapists do not view themselves as gay. Rather, most such rapists view themselves as heterosexuals and see the victim as substituting for a woman.
...
Perpetrators of rape typically view themselves as heterosexual and, outside of the prison environment, prefer to engage in heterosexual activity.

Can homosexuality be a choice? The report seems to imply so, for some men. So, should prisoners be given CSE on the safe and healthy way to engage anal sex, since "studies" have shown that abstinence-only education does not work?

Get your copy of the AWARE CSE at Tampines Court blog

After all the talk about transparency and openness, the AWARE old guard didnt seem to have put their CSE online for all to judge for ourselves. Instead, they try to trivialise the concerns by saying the offending sections are not shown to the students or the homosexual parts are a small proportion of the whole course, or that the parts about anal sex or pre-marital is very neutral. The truth is anything but. Judge for yourself, take a look at the Tampines Court blog. That blog has a link to the originals.

As much as I dislike Josie/Thio and their methods, the AWARE old guard is just pot and kettle.

My problem with homosexuality II: What gays want

What does the gay movement really really want? They had worked had to create the perception that gay people are really just like the rest of us, but with special needs that are consensual and harms no one. But is that the complete truth?

4) Why GLBTQ and not GLBTQI

The I here refers to incest. Take a look at an example of "incest activism" here: Brother and sister fight Germany's incest laws. For all the talk of being tolerant and inclusive, the gay activists and their AWARE comrades are noticeably quiet about incest. Why dont these liberals fight for acceptance of this "alternative lifestyle" as well? I'm talking about mutually consensual incest, not Joseph Fritzl. Do they find incest "unnatural"? Are they suffering from traditional moralistic hangups, perhaps from the Abrahamic religions?

Do they think abstinence education will be effective for siblings sexually attracted to each other?

Who is the victim in consensual incestuous sex? If the increased risk for having children with birth defects is the main concern, all the more we need a good proper sexuality education to ensure birth control is done correctly, right?

Besides, couples do not have to be siblings to be at a heightened risk for having children with genetic defects. Therefore, such couples should be treated the same way as incestuous ones?

Or do they totally accept incest as a "natural and healthy" but recognizes that society abhors such behaviour and choose to ignore the needs of incest community, to save their self interest?

5) Gays dont really want to repeal 377A

It is a silly law. It attracts the sympathy of moderates, maybe even some conservatives. It creates an impression of an oppressed community.

However, in it's current state of no active enforcement, it does encapsulate the attitude of Singapore: As long as gay sex is discretely, privately, consensually done between gay men certain of their identity, there should be no need to fear the law.

It does leave open the possibility of blackmail and extortion, but so do heterosexual relations. It's not unheard of for women to regret having sex and falsely accuse the men of rape. Or other freakish circumstances, like police investigations on unrelated charges that reveal consensual gay sex taking place.

I think the law needs fine tuning, and is best left to people with smarter minds than me.

Until then, 377A will remain a powerful rallying cry for gays to lobby for more power and rights, and they are not in a big hurry to repeal it.

6) Gays don't really want to get married

Despite all the lobbying especially in the US, the gay community dont really believe in marriage as an institution. You can blame the homophobic society pushing them to extreme liberalism, but the gay community has no beliefs in monogamy, despite their attempts to manufacture an image of being just like regular folks who want to settle down, get married in a church and raise children.

Take a look at the first article on yawningbread.org regarding the AWARE takeover. Alex Au digresses in that article to talk, not about gay rights, but on the failure of abstinence education. Everybody sees the world through their tinted lenses, and clearly he wants as much sex with as many men as he can get, with consent of course. For such hedonists, marriage is an inconvenience.

So why do they still lobbying so hard for gay marriage? In the US, married couples have significant tax advantages, so there is a financial motivation. But more importantly, they want to chip away traditional concepts of relationships, and re-create the world in their own image and ideals.

I dont share the moral/amoral clarity of the Bible fundamentalists or liberal extremists. I find homosexuality a complex and delicate issue, often with no right or wrong answers that can last the test of times and changing attitudes.

Just as I dont think Bible fundamentalists are Christians, Christians should not succumb to the smearing tactics of the gay movement to either choose to support them or be labelled a "fundie", or a "sheep".

The gay movement dont really believe in being open or tolerant. The recent events show that these gay activists have no tolerance for Christians.

My problem with homosexuality

There is an obvious attempt by gay activists in Singapore to bully Christians into supporting their cause. I don't think Christians need to succumb to their smearing. However, when speaking to non-Christians, Christians should be mindful not to invoke the Bible, because it carries too many baggages. There are many secular objections that is seldom brought up in the debate, and I will attempt to cover some:

1) Homosexuality is natural

Arguing that homosexuality is unnatural is a losing proposition. Homosexuality existed throughout human history and is present in the animal kingdom. That said, there are a lot of other natural behaviour that most societies abhor, like sexual attraction to children or corpses.

Acts that are also present throughout human history as well as the animal kingdom.

Just because an attraction is natural does not mean it is acceptable. If a paedophile or necrophile fail to abstain from their natural attraction, we lock them up. Would the gay activists argue that abstinence education is useless in this case, and therefore we should include in our sexuality education the safe way for having sex with children and corpses?

The gay activists draw the big distinction with the presence of mutual consent, but the age of consent is such an arbitrary and artificial concept that varies between jurisdictions.

And how does one obtain consent from a corpse?

2) Homosexuality is not a choice, most of the time

Gay activists like to point out they are born like that. They did not choose it as a lifestyle and therefore cannot choose to become heterosexual. Like all acts of advocacy, the mantra should be kept simple, even if reality is not.

I personally buy into the point of view of controversial sexuality researcher Alfred Kinsey that we are all born bisexual. The difference is only in the degree of attraction.

So while there are some gays who cannot choose to be heterosexual, there are plenty more who can. As this muddies up their position, you will notice that gay activists dont like to talk about bisexuals.

3) Homosexuals seek to expand their community

Bearing the previous point in mind, one should remember that all advocacy groups seek to expand their membership, and the gay community is no exception. So even as they self-righteously pan Christian evangelists for imposing our beliefs on non-Christians, they too are trying to impose their sexual liberalism to a moderate world. Just take a look at how hard yawningbread.org tries to draw audiences from diversified backgrounds, including pretending to be anti-PAP since it draws eyeballs, only to sneak in photos of naked men on the unsuspecting reader from time to time.

It is a myth that gays in Singapore are oppressed. Most Singaporeans think that the gay activists are fighting to be left alone in their own private space. But they already have that space. What they really want, is to impose their beliefs into the public space, into your living room, into the classrooms and attract as many people as possible to experiment.

What makes a mostly unenforced Section 377A so dangerous for them is that, while they are "cultivating" an uncertain quarry, the quarry may regret and file a police report, which will trigger enforcement. To be safe, gays will have to limit their cruising to only those who already self-identified as gay, and they don't like that.

To be continued.

Disappointed with MOE

As a parent of two young boys, I have to say that I am very disappointed that MOE allowed gay activists to infiltrate their sexuality education programme via the AWARE backdoor. Even when AWARE didnt have a gay agenda, it is bad enough that they leave something so controversial to a bunch of extremist feminists.

"Here are some extracts. Please note this information is targeted at 12 year olds
.
Page 13
.
1. Anal sex - can be healthy or neutral if practiced with consent and with a condom.
.
...
14. Practicing how to use a condom.
.
15 Now we will demonstrate and practice how to use condoms (5 penis simulators are provided,)
.
6 Trainer will demonstrate the use of a condom and invite participants to practice."

Read more here

What I have learnt lately

In the same chapter where some claims Jesus heals a gay lover of a centurion, Jesus says this: "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."

That's exactly how I feel now, as a Christian/Catholic in the Singaporean blogosphere.