-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Lesson from AWARE - Defending Core Values
- Thread starter Goh Meng Seng
- Start date
Then why the bickering and backstabbing amongst themselves ie. our dear opposition.
Everyone wants to be head chef, nobody wants to do the cooking?
SOME OF MY FRIENDS WIVES ATTENDED THE egm,,AND WERE SO PUT OFF BY THE brute FORCE OF THE OLD TEAMS...also,, some university don had brought in students who signed up as member..to boo the new teams...
now after they wrest control by BRUTE FORCE. they passed the new bylaw that new member were NOT qualified to vote.
ISNT IT A GREAT IRONY..that they prohibit future similar way to wrest power after they just DID EXACTLY THAT
i am neutral to both..but if the old guard behaved like that.....i am afraid more problems and troubles for womenhood...
well the majority of women folks are decent..and know their rights..they dont need such AWARE..
ALSO..we seen many BALD headed lesbian in the EGM...ASKING OTHER MALE ATTENDENTS wuestion like...'do you hace a huge dxxk..why look at me......'
TOTALLY DISGUSTING AND AGGRESSIVE LESBIAN BEHAVIOURS...there wer4e also many gays community in the EGM AND INCLUDING nmp sIOW. WHO ARE THE ADVOCATOR TO LEGALISE GAY ACTIVITIE.......
The AWARE now is totally tarnished by such events,,,so decent women folks should stay away.............
ALSO..we seen many BALD headed lesbian in the EGM...ASKING OTHER MALE ATTENDENTS wuestion like...'do you hace a huge dxxk..why look at me......'
TOTALLY DISGUSTING AND AGGRESSIVE LESBIAN BEHAVIOURS...there wer4e also many gays community in the EGM AND INCLUDING nmp sIOW. WHO ARE THE ADVOCATOR TO LEGALISE GAY ACTIVITIE.......
The AWARE now is totally tarnished by such events,,,so decent women folks should stay away.............
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
they are like that what, u don't know meh ...
they are lascivious towards women & aggressive towards men ... bald headed, NS style crew cut, or trim the hair very very short like men's hairstyle, wear men's shirt/trousers/shoes, swagger around ...
an eyesore & give me the creeps ...
the other way around - men wear women's clothes - more comical ...
TOTALLY DISGUSTING AND AGGRESSIVE LESBIAN BEHAVIOURS...there wer4e also many gays community in the EGM AND INCLUDING nmp sIOW. WHO ARE THE ADVOCATOR TO LEGALISE GAY ACTIVITIE.......
The AWARE now is totally tarnished by such events,,,so decent women folks should stay away.............
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
they are like that what, u don't know meh ...
they are lascivious towards women & aggressive towards men ... bald headed, NS style crew cut, or trim the hair very very short like men's hairstyle, wear men's shirt/trousers/shoes, swagger around ...
an eyesore & give me the creeps ...
the other way around - men wear women's clothes - more comical ...
Dear Mr. Goh,
When you talk of Defending Core Values, do you agree that:
The most important Core Value to defend is
Do Not let Gay and Lesbian destroy our society and family by promoting homosexuality... or else Singapore will sink to Hell
I am not against Gay or Lesbian, but the sexual behaviour.
When you talk of Defending Core Values, do you agree that:
The most important Core Value to defend is
Do Not let Gay and Lesbian destroy our society and family by promoting homosexuality... or else Singapore will sink to Hell
I am not against Gay or Lesbian, but the sexual behaviour.
Last edited:
"I am not against Gay or Lesbian, but the sexual behaviour."
So impotent gay is okay
So impotent gay is okay
I see the homo bashing crowd is out in force today
from the passions you have shown so far in your postings..
i am beginning to suspect if you are really gay...
Sir, with this kind of belated comments, I would think that it is best you remain silent about the whole thing.
Hindsight is always 20/20
Hindsight is always 20/20
from the passions you have shown so far in your postings..
i am beginning to suspect if you are really gay...
Well I'm a lot more passionate about things financial and economic
Go ahead and read my other posts
I'm only here because I find the likes of Thio Su Mien extremely irritating
I've got enough religious nuts in the office trying to convert everyone from the CEO to the tea lady
And I'm into PUSSY not DICK
Have lots of practice
Will be getting MORE thank you very much!
being a believer of Jesus, i am surprised you don't understand why they do the things that they did...
It's the way they did it that pissed me off
just like those Christians who tell me to resign from my church and join their fellowship because God speaks to their pastor directly (Mon to Sun)!
what pastor? God can speak to you if you convert..
and you can bypass the purgatory...
Understanding Salvation by Faith
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-salvation-by-faith.html
precisely...that is why i said easier said then done
You got something against the Catholic Church is it?
ok got your point
raw material is available ie. the issues to rally around
what's missing is the dynamic leadership
A tale of two communities
In a society as diverse as ours, restraint, tolerance should be order of the day
Simon Tay
THE clash of different interest groups in Aware has made headlines in recent weeks, perhaps too many. With the outcome of the weekend’s extraordinary general meeting now known, attention is likely to shift elsewhere.
.
But there are things to observe from this controversy that should be drawn not only for those directly involved. This is not an isolated incident, nor one that tells us that citizens are doomed to clash loudly and angrily. The lessons that can be learnt pertain to our civil society and how governance evolves.
.
Vertical and Horizontal Societies
.
The Aware saga shows that citizens now relate to each other directly and not only to the government. Singapore is no longer a vertical society, but one with horizontal links.
.
In a vertical society, citizens link only to the government. From the early years of Singapore, and even today, our political leaders have exhorted citizens on the full range of issues, like littering and having more children if we can afford it, so much so that it becomes part of the national agenda.
.
Even when the politics of consultation evolved under former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, we remained a vertical society. Consultation simply meant dialogue between the Government and citizens became more of a two-way street.
.
A horizontal society is one where citizens form different groups that express their own interests and beliefs and act independently of the government.
.
Issues are handled within and between these groups, with less reference and deference to the government, especially on personal or moral issues. The government’s role can then be cut back to refocus on core national issues like security.
.
A civil society can provide more space for citizens to be active and contribute. But it is not idyllic. There can be differences between groups that lead to conflict, which may lead to the kind of electoral battles seen in the Aware saga. There can even be violent clashes between rival camps.
.
However, horizontal society is not necessarily fraught with conflict and therefore to be avoided. Civil society groups can and do work together for mutual benefit.
.
Take for instance, the arts community. While headlines focused on the Aware clash, our arts community came together to select their representatives for consideration to be a Nominated Member of Parliament.
.
The arts community is not without its differences. But these were put aside for a common and higher goal — to ensure that artistic causes receive better representation in Parliament. There are other examples where civil society groups cooperate.
.
Communities of Interests
.
But why do some groups clash? Different viewpoints are only part of the reason. After all, differences can be discussed and understanding — rather than conflict — can result. This is an essential tenet of democracy.
.
This is a second lesson to be drawn from the Aware episode. While the matter was settled constitutionally, by voting, this is a bare legality. Democracy must involve more than the capture of power by votes. Otherwise, both sides only learn the habits of organising for power, rather than of accommodation and discussion. Knowing that differences exist, groups of citizens should increase the tolerance for, and acceptance of differences.
.
But some groups may press for others to be assimilated to their views and seek to oppose or suborn them. This is a third observation we can draw from the Aware case, in which individuals from a church came together because of accusations (subsequently refuted) that Aware promotes gay and lesbian causes.
.
They could have campaigned against Aware, started their own group or complained to the relevant ministry. Instead, their instinct, as promoted by self-described “Feminist Mentor” Thio Su Mien, was to take over Aware. Can one imagine the reverse? That someone who disagreed with the teachings of a religious group try to take over that group?
.
The attitude of most secular groups is to leave religion alone. We must hope conversely that religious groups — however much they believe in their positions — should also respect the rights of other secular groups.
.
This does not mean secular groups must be devoid of religious sentiment. Belief can drive individuals to work for charities, even if those charities are secular. But a line has to be drawn and observed. The more fervent religious groups become in our society, the more we should try to respect that line..
Governing Diversity
.
What if different groups clash? While Singapore is developing a horizontal dimension, the vertical axis of government has a role to play in governing diverse groups.
.
While eschewing liberal democracy, the government has evolved a degree of acceptance for citizen groups. From the early 1990s, Foreign Minister George Yeo elegantly explored this theme, even if he preferred the more conservative term of “civic” society. The Singapore 21 consultation, then chaired by Mr Teo Chee Hean, now Deputy Prime Minister, also explored the emergence of a people sector.
.
Re-reading ministerial statements on civil society explains why and how the Government acted in the Aware episode, or ways in which it refused to arbitrate on the matter.
.
It is not that Government leaders support Aware’s agenda under the Old Guard. Indeed, it is more likely that a number would personally have sympathy for groups that espouse conservative values in sexuality, gays and lesbians. The People’s Action Party’s leadership seems to recognise that they should not ask whether they personally agree with a view put forward by a group. No political leader offered his or her moral preference.
.
Instead, the Aware episode seems to suggest that the Government will set out broader parameters of acceptable behaviour. So long as they keep within those boundaries and do not threaten safety or public order, the prevailing attitude is to refrain from interceding as much as possible. If they have to intercede, they seem careful to act with restraint and fairness.
.
Going forward, the Government would do well to remain watchful but not anxious about most citizen’s groups.
.
Singapore society is becoming more complex. Civil society and interest and voluntary groups and associations have become more active. So have organised religious groups. Differences are inevitable.
.
But conflicts can be managed and clashes avoided. If not, groups run the danger of Government intervention or worse, increased distrust and disinterest of average citizens in their cause.
.
The preferred means for managing conflicts and avoiding clashes between civil society groups should not be the vertical strong arm of the Government. Nor even the test of strength and numbers by one group acting against another.
.
We can hope and expect that groups that emerge in civil society will depend first on their self-restraint. This should be borne out of a respect of diversity and a broad appreciation of the rights of others to their own opinions, even if — in their eyes — others do not have the right views.
In a society as diverse as ours, restraint, tolerance should be order of the day
Simon Tay
THE clash of different interest groups in Aware has made headlines in recent weeks, perhaps too many. With the outcome of the weekend’s extraordinary general meeting now known, attention is likely to shift elsewhere.
.
But there are things to observe from this controversy that should be drawn not only for those directly involved. This is not an isolated incident, nor one that tells us that citizens are doomed to clash loudly and angrily. The lessons that can be learnt pertain to our civil society and how governance evolves.
.
Vertical and Horizontal Societies
.
The Aware saga shows that citizens now relate to each other directly and not only to the government. Singapore is no longer a vertical society, but one with horizontal links.
.
In a vertical society, citizens link only to the government. From the early years of Singapore, and even today, our political leaders have exhorted citizens on the full range of issues, like littering and having more children if we can afford it, so much so that it becomes part of the national agenda.
.
Even when the politics of consultation evolved under former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, we remained a vertical society. Consultation simply meant dialogue between the Government and citizens became more of a two-way street.
.
A horizontal society is one where citizens form different groups that express their own interests and beliefs and act independently of the government.
.
Issues are handled within and between these groups, with less reference and deference to the government, especially on personal or moral issues. The government’s role can then be cut back to refocus on core national issues like security.
.
A civil society can provide more space for citizens to be active and contribute. But it is not idyllic. There can be differences between groups that lead to conflict, which may lead to the kind of electoral battles seen in the Aware saga. There can even be violent clashes between rival camps.
.
However, horizontal society is not necessarily fraught with conflict and therefore to be avoided. Civil society groups can and do work together for mutual benefit.
.
Take for instance, the arts community. While headlines focused on the Aware clash, our arts community came together to select their representatives for consideration to be a Nominated Member of Parliament.
.
The arts community is not without its differences. But these were put aside for a common and higher goal — to ensure that artistic causes receive better representation in Parliament. There are other examples where civil society groups cooperate.
.
Communities of Interests
.
But why do some groups clash? Different viewpoints are only part of the reason. After all, differences can be discussed and understanding — rather than conflict — can result. This is an essential tenet of democracy.
.
This is a second lesson to be drawn from the Aware episode. While the matter was settled constitutionally, by voting, this is a bare legality. Democracy must involve more than the capture of power by votes. Otherwise, both sides only learn the habits of organising for power, rather than of accommodation and discussion. Knowing that differences exist, groups of citizens should increase the tolerance for, and acceptance of differences.
.
But some groups may press for others to be assimilated to their views and seek to oppose or suborn them. This is a third observation we can draw from the Aware case, in which individuals from a church came together because of accusations (subsequently refuted) that Aware promotes gay and lesbian causes.
.
They could have campaigned against Aware, started their own group or complained to the relevant ministry. Instead, their instinct, as promoted by self-described “Feminist Mentor” Thio Su Mien, was to take over Aware. Can one imagine the reverse? That someone who disagreed with the teachings of a religious group try to take over that group?
.
The attitude of most secular groups is to leave religion alone. We must hope conversely that religious groups — however much they believe in their positions — should also respect the rights of other secular groups.
.
This does not mean secular groups must be devoid of religious sentiment. Belief can drive individuals to work for charities, even if those charities are secular. But a line has to be drawn and observed. The more fervent religious groups become in our society, the more we should try to respect that line..
Governing Diversity
.
What if different groups clash? While Singapore is developing a horizontal dimension, the vertical axis of government has a role to play in governing diverse groups.
.
While eschewing liberal democracy, the government has evolved a degree of acceptance for citizen groups. From the early 1990s, Foreign Minister George Yeo elegantly explored this theme, even if he preferred the more conservative term of “civic” society. The Singapore 21 consultation, then chaired by Mr Teo Chee Hean, now Deputy Prime Minister, also explored the emergence of a people sector.
.
Re-reading ministerial statements on civil society explains why and how the Government acted in the Aware episode, or ways in which it refused to arbitrate on the matter.
.
It is not that Government leaders support Aware’s agenda under the Old Guard. Indeed, it is more likely that a number would personally have sympathy for groups that espouse conservative values in sexuality, gays and lesbians. The People’s Action Party’s leadership seems to recognise that they should not ask whether they personally agree with a view put forward by a group. No political leader offered his or her moral preference.
.
Instead, the Aware episode seems to suggest that the Government will set out broader parameters of acceptable behaviour. So long as they keep within those boundaries and do not threaten safety or public order, the prevailing attitude is to refrain from interceding as much as possible. If they have to intercede, they seem careful to act with restraint and fairness.
.
Going forward, the Government would do well to remain watchful but not anxious about most citizen’s groups.
.
Singapore society is becoming more complex. Civil society and interest and voluntary groups and associations have become more active. So have organised religious groups. Differences are inevitable.
.
But conflicts can be managed and clashes avoided. If not, groups run the danger of Government intervention or worse, increased distrust and disinterest of average citizens in their cause.
.
The preferred means for managing conflicts and avoiding clashes between civil society groups should not be the vertical strong arm of the Government. Nor even the test of strength and numbers by one group acting against another.
.
We can hope and expect that groups that emerge in civil society will depend first on their self-restraint. This should be borne out of a respect of diversity and a broad appreciation of the rights of others to their own opinions, even if — in their eyes — others do not have the right views.
what about the sexy chiobu lesbians?...like say rebecca tan and gwendolyn...or ellen de gen's partner portia?
you are yet another naive gullible fool who has been hoodwinked by Dr Thio and pastor hong...i suggest you read this excerpt from cherian george's article...
They were secretive in their plan to take over Aware and coy about their intentions. Based on their public statements, it is still unclear how much they were motivated by a single issue: their opposition to Aware’s liberal stand on homosexuality. If this was their target all along, it does not speak well for them that they did not state it plainly and publicly at the outset.
If this was not their primary concern, then an even more troubling concern arises. Their allegations at the height of the dispute, that Aware had been promoting homosexuality to children and teens, smack of a cynical (but, sadly, historically effective) political ploy: win support from the masses by turning a marginalised minority into an object of fear.
In many societies, the tactic would have worked. Governments lacking in moral courage are known to side with intolerant forces when they whip up mass sentiment against minorities. Fortunately, it did not work here. The Ministry of Education’s measured and rational response took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents and exposed them as scaremongers.
The Government is not known to be sympathetic to the progressive agenda of Aware’s liberals. Perhaps the insurgents had hoped that dragging the school sexuality programme into the debate would prod the Government to take its side. If so, they miscalculated. If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.
No doubt, the weekend’s events would have made the insurgents feel utterly misunderstood and underappreciated, as losing factions are wont to. They have nobody to blame but themselves. No matter how pure their intentions, their words and actions were patently out of place in Singaporean civil society.
They were secretive in their plan to take over Aware and coy about their intentions. Based on their public statements, it is still unclear how much they were motivated by a single issue: their opposition to Aware’s liberal stand on homosexuality. If this was their target all along, it does not speak well for them that they did not state it plainly and publicly at the outset.
If this was not their primary concern, then an even more troubling concern arises. Their allegations at the height of the dispute, that Aware had been promoting homosexuality to children and teens, smack of a cynical (but, sadly, historically effective) political ploy: win support from the masses by turning a marginalised minority into an object of fear.
In many societies, the tactic would have worked. Governments lacking in moral courage are known to side with intolerant forces when they whip up mass sentiment against minorities. Fortunately, it did not work here. The Ministry of Education’s measured and rational response took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents and exposed them as scaremongers.
The Government is not known to be sympathetic to the progressive agenda of Aware’s liberals. Perhaps the insurgents had hoped that dragging the school sexuality programme into the debate would prod the Government to take its side. If so, they miscalculated. If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.
No doubt, the weekend’s events would have made the insurgents feel utterly misunderstood and underappreciated, as losing factions are wont to. They have nobody to blame but themselves. No matter how pure their intentions, their words and actions were patently out of place in Singaporean civil society.
Similar threads
