Sign up for a DBS credit card in support of the NEW Aware

[kakowi]

There is an attempt to get DBS cardholders to relinquish their credit cards in protest of the new Aware’s attempts to address the pro-gay stance of the old Aware.

This is reminiscent of the earlier attempts by a few gays that seek to boycott DBS simply because they are donating to a family centric charity.

They felt that this family centric charity is anti-gay.

At that time, it was just an attempt against a bank.

Now it is an attempt against an individual.

How low can a person get?

How low can they get?

……………..

It is therefore moments like these when we need to reflect on the issues.

We have no problems with gays fighting for their rights.

All we are saying is that gays should not be using Aware as their platform.

We are also saying that the past leaders of the old Aware should not be using the activist organization to promote homosexuality.

They claim that they did not.

The new Aware claim that they did.

To such a sufficient extent that they felt the issue must be redressed.

……………..

Who is right and who is wrong.

It must be noted that TT Durai denied everything and it takes an external audit to uncover the facts.

Therefore the Government should step into this case and see if there is a basis that the old Aware has been promoting homosexuality because of a self-interested past leader.

If there is a reasonable basis for this, then the Government should tell the old Aware to cease and desist.

It should not allow a feminist activist organization to be used by homosexuals or mothers of homosexuals to promote the cause of homosexuality.

If they want to, they should form their own organization and be upfront about their pro-gay stance.

The problem must be bad enough for the new Aware to step in and redress it.

……….

Therefore we must not allow these civic conscious people to have their livelihood victimized by people who wants to attack in an underhanded cowardly manner.

Let us therefore join hands and sign up for a DBS credit card in support of Josie and the new Aware.

It is only fair, just and right that we should oppose cowardice and underhanded behaviour.

It is one thing to disagree. It is another to hurt.

This is a time when we need to stand up and be counted.

Sign up for a DBS credit card today.

Gays. of course, need not apply.

 

[commoner]

was it the girls or the CHURCH who is behind the AWARE Coup,,,

All from the same Church and so coincidentally does not know each other?

Where does lying numbered in the 10 commandments?

 

[DrPanacea]

was it the girls or the CHURCH who is behind the AWARE Coup,,,
All from the same Church and so coincidentally does not know each other?
Where does lying numbered in the 10 commandments?

Did the new team lie? I find no evidence.
I salute Josie and her team for taking over the helnm of AWARE. And of course to Thio Su Mien for guiding them. Kudos!!

 

[kakowi]

was it the girls or the CHURCH who is behind the AWARE Coup,,,

All from the same Church and so coincidentally does not know each other?

Where does lying numbered in the 10 commandments?

You are making an assumption that the Church is interested in enforcing its ideas on society.

The Church makes its stand and enforce its stand on her own members. She does not force it on others. Same as any other religious organization. If you want to be gay, that is your choice. She will tell you that it is wrong and why according to her, it is wrong. But she does not force you.


Where does lying numbered in the lives of human beings? Are we really so sure that they lied? Only they will know the extent of the phrase 'know each other' and perhaps only you will know if you quoted them out of context.

What is also important is to ask - did the old Aware lie when they said they did not promote homosexuality.


People have missed considering the possibility that the old Aware has indeed promoted homosexuality outside of its charter. And that the new Aware stepped in to address the situation.

Given the power of the old Aware and their political influence, who will be so brave to tell them that they are moving in the wrong direction, outside of their charter and it is time to be neutral towards gays, rather than pro-gays.

 

[Boliao]

was it the girls or the CHURCH who is behind the AWARE Coup,,,

All from the same Church and so coincidentally does not know each other?

Where does lying numbered in the 10 commandments?

Hello, you know Church how big or not? They have 4-5 sessions on Sat and Sun. I don't even know my colleague who sits 4 desks away from me.

 

[shOUTloud]

You are making an assumption that the Church is interested in enforcing its ideas on society.

....

Given the power of the old Aware and their political influence, who will be so brave to tell them that they are moving in the wrong direction, outside of their charter and it is time to be neutral towards gays, rather than pro-gays.

There seems to be two major issues at hand.

1. Did AWARE push for homosexuality? Old Aware says no, new Aware says yes. Still subject to more clarification. I hope old Aware sue new Aware jialak jialak for spreading such rumours.

2. Did new Aware lied to get their way into Aware and are they trying to push their fundamental Christian views onto others?

I dun think they lied to get into Aware but they have been lying since with the constant backtracking. Now with Thio Su Mein out, it is obvious that it is a conspiracy to take over Aware even though "they dunno each other".

"So what if it is a conspiracy?" you would say. I agree, really but it seems to be a big deal as the new Aware had been twisting and turning since the whole thing started till Thio Su Mein called for the press conference.

Now the fundamental Christian views are out in open and they are pushing it down everyone's throats that Aware is pro-gay. I had read their defense and I am not sure "not condemning gay behaviour" is equivalent to "promoting gay culture."

I am heterosexual and I enjoyed heterosexual activities. Homosexual porn made me squirm in disgust although lesbian porn can be quite erotic. However,I had never thought of condemning these group of people to the point of taking over secular organisations and destroying other people's years of hard work.

 

[mscitw]

peasant lau and her rabid religious taleban are fighting hard with bapoks clamouring for social acceptance for their hedonist lifestyles.

both should declare a truce and give each other a good fark to see things from different perspective.

 

[papa san]

Let's be very focus abt this. Signing up for a DBS credit card or for that matter any other banks' credit card must be based on the merits of costs/benefits to members. Any one with a reasonable IQ will know how to decide on this ! It must and should never be politicise. LOL

 

[kakowi]

There seems to be two major issues at hand.

1. Did AWARE push for homosexuality? Old Aware says no, new Aware says yes. Still subject to more clarification. I hope old Aware sue new Aware jialak jialak for spreading such rumours.

2. Did new Aware lied to get their way into Aware and are they trying to push their fundamental Christian views onto others?

I dun think they lied to get into Aware but they have been lying since with the constant backtracking. Now with Thio Su Mein out, it is obvious that it is a conspiracy to take over Aware even though "they dunno each other".

"So what if it is a conspiracy?" you would say. I agree, really but it seems to be a big deal as the new Aware had been twisting and turning since the whole thing started till Thio Su Mein called for the press conference.

Now the fundamental Christian views are out in open and they are pushing it down everyone's throats that Aware is pro-gay. I had read their defense and I am not sure "not condemning gay behaviour" is equivalent to "promoting gay culture."

I am heterosexual and I enjoyed heterosexual activities. Homosexual porn made me squirm in disgust although lesbian porn can be quite erotic. However,I had never thought of condemning these group of people to the point of taking over secular organisations and destroying other people's years of hard work.

I had read Chua Mui Hoong's article in the Straits Times today. And the follow-up articles on the issues. There are a bit too much information for me to digest at this moment but my impressions at this time are the following allegations:

(1) there is a fundamentalist christian conspirarcy against gays;

(2) the new Aware has insufficient basis to say that the old Aware is pro-homosexual; airtime was given to the old Aware to refute the claims; airtime was also given to the interview with the new Aware which shows the new Aware in a relatively bad light.
​

It seems to be that the articles had already made their judgment and is now merely framing the points of reference to shape public opinion.

Why do I say that?

Because the basic impetus for the new Aware to move into this role is not fully addressed.

To ask the old Aware to refute the points is like asking TT Durai to refute the points without any independent audit.

The independent audit/journalism could have focused on two aspects:

(1) Is there self-interest involved in the old Aware. Here they can investigate if any of the committee members have gay children or are gays themselves. Privacy should be accorded them. But the facts should be disclosed if these committee members have such self-interest. This was not done. At least to my knowledge.

(2) The activities done by the old Aware - do they have the ultimate result of shaping public opinion, ministerial actions and government favours towards gays. Do their actions carry that sort of implication? Remember we are dealing with an activist organization here.
​

If there is, then the new Aware should be given the benefit of the doubt and journalism should have taken a deeper look at the actions of the old Aware.

Even to the effect of calling for governmental investigation into the old Aware.

This, to my current knowledge, is not done.

Instead conspiracy theories abound and is the flavour of the day instead of more thorough investigations.

 

[kakowi]

Let's be very focus abt this. Signing up for a DBS credit card or for that matter any other banks' credit card must be based on the merits of costs/benefits to members. Any one with a reasonable IQ will know how to decide on this ! It must and should never be politicise. LOL

That is indeed the case.

But attempts to politicise this is in very bad taste.

 

[Conan the Barbarian]

Being Anti-Gay does not mean the Old AWARE was Pro-Gay.

 

[scroobal]

was it the girls or the CHURCH who is behind the AWARE Coup,,,

All from the same Church and so coincidentally does not know each other?

Where does lying numbered in the 10 commandments?

1. From what I hear, it has nothing to do with the Church. Its just Thio Su Mien, her nephew and few zealots that behind this. The day her email emerged on stomp, she called for press conference on short notice. Members of her church have also persuaded Thio to come clean.

2. Prior to Thio's claim at the RTC Press conference that the old aware is encouraging lesbianism, the new aware actually denied this on all occasions when this questions was posed.

3. Thio's Nephew's wife Josie and her team appear to be proxies. People have issues with them as they misled the public on more than one occasion. They however did not mislead those who voted for them as these were members that were new and joined recently to support them. Its a legitimately elected ex-co but the manner this was done was not in the right spirit. During the elections, none of the new ex-co provided the reason for contesting that remotely matched what Thio said at the RTC press conference.

4. Here is the rub. The old AWARE did not come across as a gay front nor did it carry out a gay agenda. Thio made some strong allegations. She built her allegation on the basis that the sexual education program created by AWARE for schols encourages lesbianism. There is no iota of fact to support this if one reads the program abstract on their web.

5. Maybe the thread starter Kakowi can point out how he can came of the view that AWARE is a gay front.

Once again, this is not the church against AWARE. It is just one person, members of her family and few others.

 

[kakowi]

1. From what I hear, it has nothing to do with the Church. Its just Thio Su Mien, her nephew and few zealots that behind this. The day her email emerged on stomp, she called for press conference on short notice. Members of her church have also persuaded Thio to come clean.

2. Prior to Thio's claim at the RTC Press conference that the old aware is encouraging lesbianism, the new aware actually denied this on all occasions when this questions was posed.

3. Thio's Nephew's wife Josie and her team appear to be proxies. People have issues with them as they misled the public on more than one occasion. They however did not mislead those who voted for them as these were members that were new and joined recently to support them. Its a legitimately elected ex-co but the manner this was done was not in the right spirit. During the elections, none of the new ex-co provided the reason for contesting that remotely matched what Thio said at the RTC press conference.

4. Here is the rub. The old AWARE did not come across as a gay front nor did it carry out a gay agenda. Thio made some strong allegations. She built her allegation on the basis that the sexual education program created by AWARE for schols encourages lesbianism. There is no iota of fact to support this if one reads the program abstract on their web.

5. Maybe the thread starter Kakowi can point out how he can came of the view that AWARE is a gay front.

Once again, this is not the church against AWARE. It is just one person, members of her family and few others.

(1) It is good that someone might possibly believe that the Church is not involved in a Christian Right conspiracy to start influencing public opinion on homosexuals.

(2) As for your point 5. it is my opinion that it is more accurately phrased as "when did Kakowi came to be of the view that the issues viewed can be more balanced".

(2.1) The first part of the answer is on page A20 of the Saturday's Straits Times, column titled: "Old guard members counter allegations of a pro-gay stance"
- "AWARE's old guard yesterday rejected the new leaders' accusations that the assciation had become pro-lesbian and pro-homosexual".

Thus these are the allegations by the new leaders on the old guard. Referred to as 'new Aware' and 'old Aware' respectively.

(2.2) The second part is a belief of a christian conspiracy to influence public opinion. This allegation leads to anti-christian feelings and I feel that there is enough of that already.

(2.3) An attempt by a blogger to call for monetary pressure against Josie. That is cutting below the belt. It is one thing to disagree with her stand. It is another thing to bring financial pressure to bear on her.
​

The basis of my involvement are the following:

(3.1) If the intention of the new Aware is to expose homosexual leanings in the old Aware, and if you want to allege christian conspiracy, then you should also investigate into the possibility of homosexual conspiracy.

You need to address the impetus for the original action, investigate independently and discount it before bringing in new variables.

(3.2) It is one thing to disagree with what Josie and company had done and find solutions to redress the way they took over the leadership. It is another to instigate activities against her employer with a view of depriving her of her livelihood.
​

 

[scroobal]

(1) It is good that someone might possibly believe that the Church is not involved in a Christian Right conspiracy to start influencing public opinion on homosexuals.

Bro, hope you don't mind. I think you forgot to answer the question. I will repost for convenience

"5. Maybe the thread starter Kakowi can point out how he can came of the view that AWARE is a gay front."

It will be good if you can share why you think its a gay front.

 

[kakowi]

Bro, hope you don't mind. I think you forgot to answer the question. I will repost for convenience

"5. Maybe the thread starter Kakowi can point out how he can came of the view that AWARE is a gay front."

It will be good if you can share why you think its a gay front.

I thought I just did. Point 2.1 refers.

 

[scroobal]

I thought I just did. Point 2.1 refers.

You might want to read your 2.1 again. Just tell us why you think AWARE is a gay front. Its a rather simple question.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

You might want to read your 2.1 again. Just tell us why you think AWARE is a gay front. Its a rather simple question.

The fact that gays and lesbians are up in arms and making personal attacks against the new AWARE is PROOF that the old AWARE was indeed used as a front for the gay and lesbian community.

The proof is in the pudding!

Gays and lesbians in sinkiepore are a shameless and shameful bunch of beings for trying to hijack a women's organisation for their purposes.

Let the womenfolk do their own bidding. You gays and even lesbians are further from women than you may want to think. They have their own issues and you have yours.

Go set up your own gay and lesbian organisations and stop acting like spoilt brats and denying that your candy has been taken away from you. Go ahead and use teh old AWARE for your needs. I'd like to see how many schools will welcome te old AWARE now that their agenda is known by all.

 

[kakowi]

You might want to read your 2.1 again. Just tell us why you think AWARE is a gay front. Its a rather simple question.

That was the reason why I changed your original question, if you recall my original answer.

Your original question presupposes that I am already aware that Aware is a gay front. I did not answer that question because the supposition is not correct.

My position is that point 2.1 raises the possibility of a gay-sympathetic Aware.

And thus it is this possibility that needs to be looked at.

Thus my opinion is that a more appropriate question is "when can the views be more balanced".

It is to that question that I answer.

Thus whilst your question may be simple, it is a leading question.

 

[scroobal]

Its a simple question. You said its a gay front and I said why and you are not answering it. You are being dishonest to yourself. Its wrong to smear someone without providing some sort of evidence. If you had not stated that its gay front I would not have asked you that.

You know that you have done a wrong. You could have come clean and said that you were led to believe it was a gay front and that you are now unsure.

That was the reason why I changed your original question, if you recall my original answer.

Your original question presupposes that I am already aware that Aware is a gay front. I did not answer that question because the supposition is not correct.

My position is that point 2.1 raises the possibility of a gay-sympathetic Aware.

And thus it is this possibility that needs to be looked at.

Thus my opinion is that a more appropriate question is "when can the views be more balanced".

It is to that question that I answer.

Thus whilst your question may be simple, it is a leading question.

 

[Communist]

peasant lau and her rabid religious taleban are fighting hard with bapoks clamouring for social acceptance for their hedonist lifestyles.

both should declare a truce and give each other a good fark to see things from different perspective.

Lol....LOL...LOL