AWARE Sex Guide Suspended

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

ok then...you were there so you are in a better position...however i did find josie and the pussycats post eogm press conference vid clip on the 2nd quite interesting and revealing...

Actually, they had the floor all the time. They were in charge and controlling who spoke and when. Well, they tried to, anyway. They gave the sound men instructions to shut off the mikes until they gave the go-ahead. The truth is that they had plenty of opportunity to explain themselves, but they lacked the ability to do so. Josie and Maureen took the mike several times--and said nothing that was even half-intelligent. They didn't seem to realise that they had to come intellectually prepared for a debate. They degenerated into saying "Shut up and sit down" because they had nothing more intelligent to say.

This is like saying that the better debating team never gave the losers a chance. The losers lost because of their inferior ability.

 

[bellepepper02]

you know about Li Ann...it is a pity about her apparent religious fundamentalism and homophobia because she is not a bad egg and very much the liberal on most other matters...also a razor sharp mind...oh well what to do...

On what matters is she liberal? Would really like your answer on that. Just that I find it hard to consider how she reconciles her homophobia with liberalism as a philosophical outlook. Maybe she hasn't thought through the contradictions in her belief system.

 

[bellepepper02]

ok then...you were there so you are in a better position...however i did find josie and the pussycats post eogm press conference vid clip on the 2nd quite interesting and revealing...

I'd forgotten about that so I went back to those clips. As you say, very interesting.

Some points of interest:

+They claim that their election was legitimate, and that they just happened to come from the same church.

They forgot that their FM had already blown their cover--by saying she had mentored them! Do they really expect people to believe that it was sheer coincidence that six people in an exco of 11 came from the same church, and that five of them happened to run for office-bearing positions?

And as soon as they came into power, they were aggressive and nasty to anyone who was not from their church, putting them in a position where the best thing to do was to resign.

+They boo-hooed that they were questioned about their religion and their sentiments towards gays. They claim the older members said they could not run for office if they were against gays. This was discriminatory of them, they said.

AWARE older members who are used to 30-40 members attending AGMs, thought something was up when they suddenly saw 100 members coming in whom they had never seen before. As the evening wore on, they googled the names of some of these members, and Jenica Chua's and Josie Lau's husband's name came up in anti-gay articles. That's why they asked them to identify their religion and proclaim their attitudes towards gays. AWARE embraces all women--it cannot have office bearers who are prejudiced towards some types of women.

Where did these 100 new voters come from? AWARE should now go through these names and check if they are from COOS. Did they bus in voters? That will show if these women are as innocent as they claim.

+They say AWARE does not appeal to the mainstream woman. That we only had 200 or so members. Jenica Chua says AWARE's members don't represent the broad spectrum of Singapore women.

AWARE was not set up to be a popular women's organization. A bunch of uni profs, journalists and other leading women intellectuals at the time set it up in the mid 1980s, chiefly to be an organization that does research and advocacy on women. Later they also provided counselling and legal services. AWARE's philosophy is feminist, and this guides all their projects. The mainstream woman doesn't approve of feminism. Obviously, AWARE's membership consisted of feminist, liberal women, who agreed with this philosophy. However, AWARE's work (research, adocacy and action) has always been targetted at helping mainstream women.

We should not confuse the character of our membership (liberal, feminist) with the goals it set for itself, which was to help other women. That was a major mistake Josie and friends made. That's why we said they just didn't understand what feminism was about. Feminist women don't serve themselves--to be feminist is to be committed to helping other women, those who have not enjoyed the privileges we had in terms of education, income, etc.

Jenica Chua wonders if the type of members AWARE has would allow it to represent the range of women's problems experienced across society, especially in writing the CEDAW report. Poor Ms Chua forgets that AWARE is a research organisation. You don't have to be a battered woman to find out what a battered woman needs and wants for herself and to advocate for her cause. Does she think abused women and women without education should write the CEDAW report then? Is that why they dissolved the CEDAW committee that had worked together for years, and who were commended by the UN for their detailed work?

A pity the group mentioned only our 200 members, and forgot to mention that we had 500 volunteers, or that we had improved the lives of 100s of thousands of Singapore women through the legislation and policies we fought for.

+They say AWARE should go back to its original goals.

Who are they to give us such advice? They were never a part of our evolution, never took part in our struggle. What arrogance to think that they are in a position to advise us. They act as if AWARE is some govt organisation to which they had a right, which they could change to fit the mainstream woman.

AWARE was set up by a specific group of women to represent a non-mainstream approach to gender issues. It was their baby--they birthed it and reared it. And that's why Kanwaljit Soin, Margie Thomas, Hedwig Anuar, Lim Ah Eng, and Lena Lim returned to fight against the takeover by usurpers. I saw Koh Tai Ann there too--yet another founder member. Thio Su Mien who was from their generation was never a part of AWARE, though she could have been if she had wanted to. She let her friends join and just basked in their glory. And then she returns in her old age to try to steal it, after everyone else had done all the hard work.

They are like someone who steals your shoes, and then have the gall to complain that it is somewhat worn, and are the wrong colour, and don't fit their feet!

+ Famous last words from Maureen--that AWARE has an outdated corporate governance system.

Do remember your comment, Maureen, when you are sued for the $90K. AWARE is not a corporation, it is a non-profit NGO.

+ Josie says they did not come in to be in charge of AWARE, but were supposed to be under Claire Nazaar, but she resigned.

Funny. She says she resigned because you folks weren't taking direction from her! And it wasn't Claire Nazaar who told Constance Singam to step outside for 2 hours because they didn't need her advice!

 

[londontrader]

DrPanacea;

"Haha. You are beginning to amuse me. Make my day!"

Hello closet homo, You started to amuse me a long time ago............
Why stop now?

"You are so devoid of arguments that you even pick on my typo."

Typical lazy kid, careless in your writing, careless in your thought process

"I suppose you have completely run out of ideas in your hollow head."

Can't win an argument so start hurling insults
That's so matured of you!
it's not school holidays yet little homo boy
better spend time studying your sexuality guide
don't surf the internet so much

"btw way if you had been reading my other posts you would easily conclude, if your are smart enough, that I am no Pappie stooge."

You know little PAPie, when you choose to write statements like :

-----------------------
Yes, LKY would very proud of me. Are you envious? - DrPanacea
-----------------------

People are going to see you as a PAPie, albeit a PAPie who still can't write properly despite all that PAP education!

"I shall not waste anymore time on you. I need to go to the Istana for a meeting soon."

It's Okay, people like you have lots of time to waste
Have a nice meeting at the Istana
Are you attending the janitorial or gardening team meeting?

 

[londontrader]

"Porfirio Rubirosa: Shen use to be quite arrogant cocky and proud from young..."

Used to be?
I find Shen Yi (SC) still very arrogant, cocky and proud, albeit with better PR skills these days. He is increasingly active in the Law Society - a future run for the Presidency, like you suggested earlier.

 

[londontrader]

not that intimate lah...if so i would probably be telling you to shut up and sit down by now...it is just that s'pore is a small place, or use to be before the foreign trash invasion from the 90s onwards

I have a good perspective on that FT invasion. My very first job was on a trading floor in Singapore during the early 90s. It was very much a Singaporean community with the odd expat here and there. I then left for London for many years before returning to a Singapore trading floor in 2008. Now I stand shoulder to shoulder with FTs everywhere. It's not a Singapore I recognize anymore! Such is life.

 

[londontrader]

Absolutely agree. No one should pass judgement as the science behind this is unclear. Lets not pretend that other preferences exist. Bring it out. Don't even say if it normal, abnromal or whatever. Highlight the views expressed by the wide spectrum of the community.

One point however that must came across clearly is that no one should be discriminated purely based on their sexual preference. That should be the fundamental issue.

Scroobal,

Here is a non-technical summary of what science has say about this issue:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Personally, I find the science clearer than previously thought

You might also want to read the "other kind of science" produced by the likes of www.narth.com which COOS likes to quote from.

 

[scroobal]

Sorry, I was caught up with something else, thus the orginal short response. Thank you for putting this across comprehensively.

Firstly, the stand by Thio and company purely on the basis of dogma should not be taken at face value. Any dogma worth it weight in salt must be based on logical premise primarily with faith (or hope) given some leeway.

The issues of sexuality and all that it throws out must be addressed firstly by the parents and then by the school. Unwanted pregnancies, STDs, scarred outcomes of erroneous relationships, challenges of getting into a relationship too young are all out there. Only the blind and the deaf, will think otherwise.

Thus far, I think we are all in agreement.

Its becomes grey or shades of it when the desire surface to term things as normal and or natural and which cannot be substantiated by consistent observation but by merely taking the word of humans deemed to be experts on the basis of an academic qualification. I would rather they do not attempt any sort of classification.

My opinions are shaped by what I see and learn each day. It however does not mean that I am right and no way can one swallow make a summer. I would however cite one particular event that shaped my thoughts on this. There was a particular class that was junior by one year. It had at the start of the school year, an effeminate chap. To cut a long story short, by the time they reached Sec 3, 7 of them in that class ( even after streaming) became effeminate including a school footballer.

Why 7 in a class of 30 odd. The probability of genes cannot be explained in this instance. I have no doubt that someone are certainly born but not all. In those formative years, hormones run wild. This is where sexual education needs to come in. Of course, one can argue that actually 50 % should be effeminate, gay etc but due to social pressure and outdated value system, the rest have hid their true leanings.

I am with you on such issues as virginity, pre-marital sex, and battle with the hypocrities.

However, as to the role of man and woman. Its much more fundamental than that. To me it has nothing to do with religion or what the majority or the minority think. I am certainly not going to kill myself to defend this stance and I have no issues if people think otherwise. But when it comes to impressionable young minds, I would rather be cautious.

I am however happy with the use of the term neutral.

Just wanted to offer an alternative perspective on this.

Firstly, Josie L and Co did not know of existence of instructor's guide until they got into the AWARE office. The IG is confidential. The IG does not contain the contents of the sex ed programme. Instructors don't go into schools and mouth off the contents of the guide, i.e. telling them that homosexuality is ok, that foreplay is fun. They match what they say to the specific context of the students they're dealing with. There are also different levels of instruction.

My take on this is that sex education should not be moralising or didactic but tell kids the facts. It should convey to students the whole spectrum of attitudes and emphasise that their own values and that of their parents, religion, etc should guide their action and decisions. It should not reflect only the perspective of the conservatives but also that of liberals. Liberal parents have rights too.

Liberal parents stated at the EGM that they do not want their children to be taught that homosexuality is unnatural, wrong, etc. because they don't believe that, and they don't want their children to grow up being judgemental and discriminatory.

.
There are different schools of thought about the etiology of sexuality. Some consider it to be biological, while others think socialisation and psychology, and the primary formation of desires in childhood, have something to do with it. Others think it is a combination of factors. The 'heterosexuality-is-natural' argument has received a dent because scientific studies have recorded homosexuality and bisexuality among animals.

So, while some people may consider heterosexuality to be self-evident, others do not. Today, no bona fide sexuality expert is going to go around claiming that heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is unnatural. And it is sexuality experts who design sex education programmes.

Do Singapore parents and MOE want sex educators to teach kids that homosexuality is not normal? What is that going to do to kids with homosexual tendencies? Do we want to point them towards suicide?

By describing homosexuality as 'neutral', AWARE was providing space to help such teens, to help them feel 'normal'. It's an awful thing to go through life considering yourself to be abnormal. It was not trying to promote homosexuality. To my mind, it was the only responsible thing to do. You don't become gay by receiving a lesson on it. This neutral positioning of homosexuality was also meant to guide other students not to discriminate against gays.

The conservatives also took umbrage at the CSE for positioning virginity and pre-marital sex as 'neutral'. Without saying so, through subterfuge and omission, they give the false impression that the instructors don't explain that several religious and other communities in Singapore are against pre-marital sex.

The CSE is conducted within the context of kids today being sexually active and the easy availability of sex materials on the internet (and AWARE had nothing to do with this). All students receive MOE's basic sexuality education programme. AWARE's programme comes in to supplement this. From what I understand, some schools identify students who they feel need such a programme.

Try telling sexually active kids that pre-marital sex is wrong and emphasising to them the virtues of virginity. They will think you are from another planet and switch off. The aim of CSE was to give such students the tools to make responsible decisions for themselves--to introduce issues of values, how to negotiate peer pressure, how to evaluate and form healthy relationships, to teach about safe sex, the consequences (economic and otherwise) of becoming pregnant.

Leading studies have proven that abstinence programmes don't help with containing the teen pregnancy problem.

All of my teacher friends are aghast at the withdrawal of the programme. They say their students badly need the programme. Why would they say so, knowing all the facts that have emerged now about the programme? They know their students, what they're up to, don't they?

Let's see where the narrow-mindedness of the Christian conservatives will lead our teens, in terms of STD levels, teen sexual activity levels, teen pregnancy, suicide rates in the future.

Perhaps AWARE's take on this issue might be useful, so you can see how complex the whole matter is:
http://we-are-aware.sg/cse

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

Perhaps I am the cynical , paranoid sort but on reading that there were OTHER sexuality programs out there for schools to choose,and one in particular was conducted by Focus on Family which is housed at COOS which gave rise to the AWARE hijack and subsequent complaints. I can't help but feel the xtian right conservative voice is not out there to give or fight for space for the liberals............its out to drown it and kill it.



Cheers


Locke

 

[scroobal]

Thanks Bro.

Scroobal,

Here is a non-technical summary of what science has say about this issue:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Personally, I find the science clearer than previously thought

You might also want to read the "other kind of science" produced by the likes of www.narth.com which COOS likes to quote from.

 

[scroobal]

I agree with you 100%. The pattern of action and deeds point in only one direction. You are not paranoid.

Dear Scroobal

Perhaps I am the cynical , paranoid sort but on reading that there were OTHER sexuality programs out there for schools to choose,and one in particular was conducted by Focus on Family which is housed at COOS which gave rise to the AWARE hijack and subsequent complaints. I can't help but feel the xtian right conservative voice is not out there to give or fight for space for the liberals............its out to drown it and kill it.



Cheers


Locke

 

[londontrader]

"I can't help but feel the xtian right conservative voice is not out there to give or fight for space for the liberals............its out to drown it and kill it."

Spot on!
The Sarah Palin clones are busy trying to reverse Roe Vs Wade
I'm sure FOTF will try that agenda in Singapore if the climate is favourable

 

[londontrader]

Yes, I agree. Schools need to take responsibility too.

Bellepepper02,

I understand that only something like 8% of the CSE presentation was found to be objectionable by the MOE. When calmer heads have prevailed, all the stakeholders should be in a position to negotiate some kind of compromise. I hope the current vacuum isn't an invitation for the likes of Focus on the Family to push their version of CSE. We've already seen the kind ineffective dribble that FOTF managed to sell under the Bush Administration.

 

[bellepepper02]

But when it comes to impressionable young minds, I would rather be cautious.

I think this is really the centre of the issue--what do we teach to impressionable young minds.

If we are going to be cautious with them, that means that we are to teach them the conservative values to sex and sexuality, right? Even if we really think gay sexuality is "neutral" or even "normal", we are not supposed to say so.

From what I recall of my own early learning about sexuality (not necessarily in school), I have barely changed my attitudes to this day. In fact, sometimes I find that even if intellectually I think something is okay and I accept certain behaviours in others, I don't accept it in myself. The old training comes back to negate it, to make it impossible for me to stray from those early set parameters of sexual behaviour.

So what we are really saying is that we should mould these impressionable young minds in such a way that they will grow up to be conservative in their sexual attitudes. What we are really saying is 'let's use sex education to produce a certain type of Singapore adult". What right do we have to do this?

This is my problem with the parents who successfully managed to halt use of AWARE's sexuality programme through signing a petition. There has always been an opt out form. As parents, they could use this to remove their kids from access to the AWARE programme or any other sex ed programme. So why did they sign a petition for MOE to take off the programme? Their motive had nothing to do with concern over their own kids' education. They wanted to impose their views and will on other parents and other kids. This was about shaping society.

MOE was wrong to give in to them. It should have just reminded them of the opt out form. It should also have given more details about all the various sex ed programmes so parents can make informed decisions.

What we got here is a group of local parents (largely with limited education, and bible thumpers who quote from the Old Testament) deciding how Singapore kids should grow up, what sex and gender ideologies they should be taught. They took precedence over MOE and our ELECTED leaders, the people we selected to represent our interests.

On the whole, having thought this issue through, I think we should not have sex ed in schools (except for maybe the basic minimum to cover STDs and safe sex practices. It should be done in biology or health science classes as it was done for me.) If kids want to know more about sexuality, refer them to their parents, and give them some good book titles and other resoources. Leave them to decide for themselves, just as all of us did, and to be continuallly educated in sex throughout their lives--rather than have it stuffed into them when they are impressionable young kids.

 

[bellepepper02]

Dear Scroobal

Perhaps I am the cynical , paranoid sort but on reading that there were OTHER sexuality programs out there for schools to choose,and one in particular was conducted by Focus on Family which is housed at COOS which gave rise to the AWARE hijack and subsequent complaints. I can't help but feel the xtian right conservative voice is not out there to give or fight for space for the liberals............its out to drown it and kill it.

Locke

Absolutely agree.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

i guess it appears quite paradoxical...not really sure how she squares her belief system with Mill but in my few chats with her on the apparent local illiberal democractic system, she seemd to give me the impression that she was quite open to freedoms of speech and assembly...perhaps li ann takes a very narrow constrictive approach to the "harm principle"???...

but i can tell you one thing...if you want some entertainment...another way to push li ann's button is to get her talking about say Harry Potter or the tv show "Charmed" about the sisters who are witches

On what matters is she liberal? Would really like your answer on that. Just that I find it hard to consider how she reconciles her homophobia with liberalism as a philosophical outlook. Maybe she hasn't thought through the contradictions in her belief system.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

generally i understand and appreciate where you and the old guard are coming from...dr thio's dark arts strategy was unethical and not right... however just would like to make a few comments from what you raised...

1. power grab/'stealing' Aware

perhaps dana and the old guard need to be less defensive on this issue and take more responsibility for allowing such a situation to happen in the first place...i read debbie yong's ST 10/5 article "Getting to know Aware's new exco" and dana's comments on whether the old guard had neglected Aware was not that convincing..."Its not fair to say the old guard has been negligent"...

the fact of the matter is that connie had selected claire nazar ( i shall elaborate more on this point below) and knew that josie was standing for the exco election prior...also curious why the old guard were not taken aback at the sudden increase in membership prior to the agm, especially since dana now says "it is hardly surprising for a research and advocacy group to face a shortage of members. We have never made a secret of it"...yes the old guard shall probably retort that they are inclusive and open...but nevertheless didn't even afew of them become curious at such a sudden increase??

2. Claire Nazar

connie selected claire to run for president...now was connie or any other old guard aware of claire's apparent homophobia and pro family(not in favour of divorce) stance prior to claire running for president?...in particular her critical public letter to janadas devan on homosexuality (as highlighted by scroobal in another thread) and a Today article (Feb this year i think) on both she and her hubby boatz who have both declined to take on divorce cases in their legal practices as both acounsel couples having matrimonial problems linked to their church activities @ Cornerstone...what happened here?...did connie and the old guard drop the ball?

3 Ang moh journalist at the post eogm press conference

i found it quite amusing to see the ang moh journalist criticise ST's apparent bias in favour of the old guard and against josie and her pussycats...so much so that he ticked off the ST journalist there for not letting josie and her pussycats answer his question

4 Some amusing light hearted comments with perhaps some truth to it by a Male

" I tell you i am very proud of singapore women! You didn't find it was women behaving badly? No, man, if it happened to men, we will just let the takeover happen"

I'd forgotten about that so I went back to those clips. As you say, very interesting.


AWARE was set up by a specific group of women to represent a non-mainstream approach to gender issues. It was their baby--they birthed it and reared it. And that's why Kanwaljit Soin, Margie Thomas, Hedwig Anuar, Lim Ah Eng, and Lena Lim returned to fight against the takeover by usurpers. I saw Koh Tai Ann there too--yet another founder member. Thio Su Mien who was from their generation was never a part of AWARE, though she could have been if she had wanted to. She let her friends join and just basked in their glory. And then she returns in her old age to try to steal it, after everyone else had done all the hard work.

They are like someone who steals your shoes, and then have the gall to complain that it is somewhat worn, and are the wrong colour, and don't fit their feet!

+ Josie says they did not come in to be in charge of AWARE, but were supposed to be under Claire Nazaar, but she resigned.

Funny. She says she resigned because you folks weren't taking direction from her! And it wasn't Claire Nazaar who told Constance Singam to step outside for 2 hours because they didn't need her advice!

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Bro trust me Shen was a real prick when he was younger, prancing around on his mummy and dady's own tennis court...now not so bad, quite tolerable

"Porfirio Rubirosa: Shen use to be quite arrogant cocky and proud from young..."

Used to be?
I find Shen Yi (SC) still very arrogant, cocky and proud, albeit with better PR skills these days. He is increasingly active in the Law Society - a future run for the Presidency, like you suggested earlier.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

just curious are you saying that all gays are by nature effeminate?

My opinions are shaped by what I see and learn each day. It however does not mean that I am right and no way can one swallow make a summer. I would however cite one particular event that shaped my thoughts on this. There was a particular class that was junior by one year. It had at the start of the school year, an effeminate chap. To cut a long story short, by the time they reached Sec 3, 7 of them in that class ( even after streaming) became effeminate including a school footballer.

Why 7 in a class of 30 odd. The probability of genes cannot be explained in this instance. I have no doubt that someone are certainly born but not all. In those formative years, hormones run wild. This is where sexual education needs to come in. Of course, one can argue that actually 50 % should be effeminate, gay etc but due to social pressure and outdated value system, the rest have hid their true leanings.

.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

yes tend to agree with you on this one...after reading The Sunday Times 10/5 "Sexuality 101" article...it appears that MOE has an approved formal curriculum under the Civis and Moral classes...ironically i gather even the issue of homosexuality is briefly dealt with..."The lesson seeks to inform students of the definition of 'homosexual' and that homosexual acts are illegal under Singapore law...It does not promote homosexuality but follows social norms of mainstream society"

On the whole, having thought this issue through, I think we should not have sex ed in schools (except for maybe the basic minimum to cover STDs and safe sex practices. It should be done in biology or health science classes as it was done for me.) If kids want to know more about sexuality, refer them to their parents, and give them some good book titles and other resoources. Leave them to decide for themselves, just as all of us did, and to be continuallly educated in sex throughout their lives--rather than have it stuffed into them when they are impressionable young kids.