CITIZENS WATCH - CULTURAL & MORAL AWARENESS

Video-Arshavin-01 to 07

2010-08-27T00:01:00.000+08:00

Video-Arshavin-08

2010-08-26T23:51:00.001+08:00

Video-Arshavin-09 to 11

2010-08-26T23:43:00.001+08:00

Video-Arshavin-12 to 13

2010-08-26T23:39:00.001+08:00

Video-Arshavin-14 to 18

2010-08-26T23:36:00.001+08:00

Video-Arshavin-19 to 22

2010-08-26T23:32:00.001+08:00

Video-Arshavin-23 to 29

2010-08-26T23:29:00.001+08:00

Video-Arshavin-30 to 39

2010-08-26T23:28:00.000+08:00

An update on California's Prop 8

2010-08-23T00:47:00.001+08:00

An update on California's Prop 8
Since our last update to you, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has now issued an indefinite hold on any new same-sex marriages being performed in California while the Prop 8 case continues on its way through the appeal process. The ruling by the 9th Circuit is good news because it will prevent the legal confusion over the status of any new same-sex marriages if Prop 8--and the will of the California voters--is ultimately upheld by the 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

It will take concerned Americans and organizations like Focus on the Family® to continue to protect our children and our country from the ongoing efforts to devalue marriage and family.

A Thought For Our Educational System

2010-08-23T00:46:00.001+08:00

21.08.2010
A Thought For Our Educational System
In one of my last postings I commented that this is happening in our schools and tertiary institutions. Either we as parents and concerned citizens give in to these Homo Activism or we better wake up and post online to be heard by MOE and MHA. We need to be constantly reminded.
We are kidding ourselves if we think this is not happening here in our beloved Singapore. The mighty USA is under siege with their Homo Activists all powerful with a supportive President inplace.
This recently came out from “Focus On The Family USA”. Isn’t it happening here? Its even being exposed on Fox News about a school doing it and a parent said its being done behind closed doors away from the parents’ eyes and parents kept from the loop:-
“It's "back-to-school" time and parents are trusting that their kids will be learning in a safe environment.
But what parents may not be aware of is that there are activist groups promoting homosexuality in many of our classrooms. These groups realize that if they can capture the hearts and minds of our children at the earliest ages, they will have a significant advantage in the clash in values we are currently experiencing in our culture.

Candi Cushman, our education analyst, recently brought to my attention an emerging trend that could directly impact families across the country. During a recent summit on "bullying prevention," the nation's largest homosexual-advocacy group called on the federal government to "endorse and provide funds" for homosexual-themed elementary school curriculum. Under the innocent-sounding name of "Welcoming Schools," this controversial, stealth curriculum has already been piloted in several public school districts.
But these activist groups also realize that most parents would strongly object to these messages being promoted in public schools. So now they've started introducing homosexuality lessons--sometimes even sexually graphic information--in the name of "tolerance" or under the cover of "safe schools initiatives" or "anti-bullying programs."

What is SIECUS?

2009-07-16T16:05:00.000+08:00

Sex Information & Education Council of the U.S. (S.I.E.C.U.S.)

The organization describes itself as "a national, nonprofit organization which affirms that sexuality is a natural and healthy part of living. Incorporated in 1964, SIECUS develops, collects, and disseminates information, promotes comprehensive education about sexuality, and advocates the right of individuals to make responsible sexual choices." (SIECUS web site: www.siecus.org)

SIECUS advocates abortion, masturbation, and homosexuality, and actively promotes its agenda in the classroom, usurping parental control and undermining the family unit.

How does SIECUS promote its values ?

SIECUS promotes its beliefs by infiltrating the educational system, including elementary and secondary schools, with its agenda. The organization's web site, at www.siecus.com, states:

"A comprehensive sexuality program will respect the diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community..."

What does SIECUS believe ?

According to the organization's own web site, SIECUS holds the following positions on major sexuality issues:

On Parental Involvement :

- SIECUS usurps the role of parents in sex education, and approves of providing adolescents with contraceptives, without parental knowledge, according to statements at its web site:

"While it is generally desirable for parents to be involved in their children's contraceptive decisions, the right of each person to confidentiality and privacy in receiving contraceptive information, counseling, and services is paramount."

On Homosexuality :

- SIECUS is partial to homosexuality and believes it should be legally protected as a civil right.

- Consider the following Position Statements of SIECUS regarding sexuality and religion, posted at its web site:

"Religious groups and spiritual leaders can helpfully involve themselves in sexuality education and in promoting the sexual health of their constituents, including those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual.... professional guidance can assist religious leaders in how best to minister to their constituents regarding their sexual needs. It is important for religious institutions to minister and allow full religious participation to individuals who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual."

"Individuals have the right to accept, acknowledge, and live in accordance with their sexual orientation, be they bisexual, heterosexual, gay or lesbian. The legal system should guarantee the civil rights and protection of all people, regardless of sexual orientation."

On Abortion :

- SIECUS believes abortion is a "right" of women:

"Every woman, regardless of age or income, should have the right to obtain an abortion ... and at a reasonable cost."

On Pornography :

- SIECUS defends pornography, according to statements posted at its web site:

"Adults should have the right of access to sexually explicit materials for personal use. Legislative and judicial efforts to prevent the production or distribution of sexually explicit materials endanger constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and press ..."

On Masturbation :

- SIECUS promotes the use of masturbation, according to statements posted at its web site:

"Masturbation is a natural, common, and nonharmful means of sexual self-pleasuring that is engaged in by individuals of all ages, sexual orientations, and levels of functioning. It can be a way of becoming comfortable with one's body and enjoying one's sexuality, whether or not in a sexual relationship. No one should be made to feel guilty for choosing or not choosing to masturbate..."

The late Mary S. Calderone, M.D., M.P.H., co-founder and president of SIECUS for many years, previously was former medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest abortion provider in the world. "What Margaret Sanger did for birth control and Rachel Carson for the environment, Dr. Calderone has done for sex education," wrote People Magazine.
-------------------------------------
A.W.A.R.E. collaborated with S.I.E.C.U.S. and used their material to teach our school children with a good example being the “school C.S.E.” sex education programme.

What kind of Women's organization is this that espouses to fight for Women's rights in Singapore but also knowingly collaborate with such an organization with such stated aims. That shows that no matter how they try to get back into society, they will continue to try to fight for gay rights and create conditions espoused by S.I.E.C.U.S. in Singapore.
------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread: Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are
In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda"
- Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !

A Letter From Thio Li-Ann In Rebuttal Of A Gay Supporter

2009-07-15T17:45:00.004+08:00

1. I am a little tired of the torrent of abuse and defamation that I have been receiving, and blatant emotive misrepresentations of my position. I was going to stay above the fray but given this insidious attack on my academic reputation (aside from many ad hominem insults), I feel I must cast some clarity on certain issues.

2. Let me clarify some issues. I do not know if Mr Graves-Pryor is trying to be incendiary by suggesting I am racist or if he is trying to lump all forms of what he calls “discrimination” together and so to incite hatred towards me. As a woman and a person of colour, I find this incredibly offensive. As an Asian, I find this bullying and rage makes me wonder about the state of both academic freedom and civil discourse in the US – I was unaware that you had to subscribe to a certain orthodoxy before one could be welcomed into a certain academic community, as Mr. Graves-Pryor seems to be insinuating. As a scholar, I would point out that the norm prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one that is

(a) very much depends on the issue at stake i.e. which right is being contended for and

(b) is not universally accepted as a matter of law, though it is probably universally contended for as a matter of politics. It is neither an “Asian” nor “Western” issue,it is something contested within all societies, including the US, though admittedly, a minority opinion in most law schools.

3. I am tired of the insinuations that I am in favour of oppressing any community in Singapore or elsewhere. I think an appreciation of the context of Singapore and of the truth of things is needed. The law on sodomy is a law on the books and was kept on the books after full free and very robust democratic debate. It has since been exercised a few times, to my knowledge. The government applies it with restraint and has adhered to its policy that it will not be pro-active (for example, in the 1980s there used to be police operations in public places where homosex activities were known to be taking place). In Singapore, people do not really care whether someone is homosexual or not, as we tend to look at the merit of a person, for example, in the workplace. I would be the first to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ideological persuasion in the my own academic environment. It is the truth or strength of an idea that counts in scholarship and teaching, and we teach, we do not propagate one ideology. Perhaps things are done differently in a foreign land. My own view, and the way I conduct my classes, is to subject any topic to scrutiny, presented as an object of analysis rather than one of allegiance or affection. People will have their own opinions as opinions are cheap and easy to have. But my task as a professor is to subject things to academic interrogation and let people draw their own conclusions.

4. I have colleagues and students who identify themselves as homosexual. Some are hostile to the views I have expressed as a politician, some are hurt (and I have had really difficult conversations with such students whom I greatly liked as individuals, who expressed their disappointment at me for my views but I had to point out that everyone is entitled to their convictions which are complicated things. Some understand and know I respect them as people and some do not want to have conversations with me anymore. That is their prerogative)

5. That said, there is in Singapore a great concern when activists campaign to change social norms and to equate heterosexuality with homosexuality as a basis for changing policies and cultural understandings. If you wish to enter into the free marketplace of ideas, you must contend with opposing views. As must I. What I object to is the colouring of any principled moral opposition to homosexuality as “bigoted” and ignorance or “hatred”. What I find ironical are the tactics of those who call themselves “oppressed” to oppress. Some activists have no qualms in destroying reputation, insulting, slandering those who do not agree with their political agenda.

6. I have friends who identify as ex-gay. They point out to me that the homosexual community is the most vicious when they try to speak out. What about this oppressed minority group? One of them said to me: If they have a right to sexual orientation, do I not have the right to sexual re-orientation? All they get is vilification and abuse and charges that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and it is a fallacy to believe they can seek to mute unwanted same-sex attractions if that is their choice. I appreciate this is a controversial matter, but that is the point. It is controversial and unsettled. What I see as a scholar is an attempt by one side to censor another out of ideological preferences. That is intolerant and totalitarian. It is the attempt to impose a dogma about a theory of human good and nature in the name of a fake ‘liberal neutrality’ which is in fact a substantive and contested ideology, even if it is the ideology of preference to many in western democracies.

7. I trust that members of the academic community appreciate that in matters of public morality, as oppose to commercial legal frameworks, one is apt to find the greatest divergence of values on a global level though there are convergent trends as well. The Singapore government takes a pragmatic stance towards the issue of homosexuality. While I do not think anyone should lose their job because of sexual orientation (as this is irrelevant to the performance of the job), I would not support for example, same-sex marriage which is also based on a discrimination against sexual orientation paradigm. Sexual orientation is relevant to the institution of marriage. What A sees as an equality issue (and that is a substantive argument masquerading as a formal one), B see as an issue the definition of ‘marriage’ or ‘family.’ It is a substantive issue. Is there only one view in relation to moral controversies? Or, may only one view be taught at a law school while competing views are snickered at on the basis of a false intellectuality?

8. Homosexuals in Singapore are by and large affluent and literate; building developers target high quality residences for their consumption. They have space to lead quiet lives which is what most of us want. They are basically left alone in practice. However, when you enter the public arena and demand to change social norms, which others resist, do you expect a walkover? When reasoned arguments are presented against the homosexualism agenda, which any citizen in a democracy is entitled to do, what happens? Homosex activists hurl abuse, death threats. They have demonstrated nothing but abuse towards their detractors. This is not the way to win respect. This is not conducive to sustainable democracy in the long-term. I argue it is a horizontal chilling of speech by the most malicious of methods. Homosex activists may see it as a “rights” issues (and I have academic friends and feminists who disagree “sharply” with my viewpoints but refuse to vilify me because they know who I am and respect me as a scholar), others see it as a matter of a “goods” issue, about the nature of public morality and social norms. And these debates are played out on a global basis.

9. I appreciate I am in a minority in the context of US academia for holding this view, but does this then disqualify me as immoral (let me say what Mr. Graves-Pryor considers immoral, others recognise as highly moral, principled as well as the need to have moral courage to articulate views which elicit vicious responses) and “unfit to teach human rights?” That’s libel. Mr Graves-Pryor is wrong to assume that expressing viewpoints that attract vitriolic attacks is an opinion held “without repercussion.” Does he appreciate the repercussions I have sustained to my academic reputation for my political views expressed in the context of parliamentary debates in an independent country? I have paid the cost for my convictions and principles. Is he now wanting to be my debtor?

10. Now, as a scholar, I have not written about homosexuality and the law in any direct sense. Simply because it is not a research interest of mine, or has not been up till now. It is also an area which attracts a great deal of personal attack, which no sane person invites, as this current furore shows. The only time I can think of where I indirectly referenced it in a law review article was in relation to issues of definition and how one identifies a ‘human right.’ That is, is a human right natural, is it a subject of political preference, an object of political capture? If human rights are meant to be universal, why is there so much local resistance? Is same sex marriage, for instance, a human right? Some may like it to be as a matter of personal conviction or politics, but it is not a global right, certainly not a customary international law norm, though there have been treaty-based interpretations of it e.g. ICCPR and ECHR jurisprudence. That is how I teach the subject.

I see it as a regional legal right, a contested one at the UN (though as a scholar, I will observe that the dominant view is to see sexual orientation as a right without defining the broad term) and a constitutional/ civic rights issue in many countries, particularly those in western liberal democracies (though not limited to the ‘West’). For example, the Delhi High Court recently interpreted a sodomy law as unconstitutional, but that is limited to the state of Delhi and the next day, a famous guru took out a motion to challenge this. This shows that it has become a politicised issue of significance in India but it also shows the sharp divergences of views in that country. This is how I teach. I examine views of both sides. I let my students make up their minds. I do not evangelise my students into one way of thinking as I know some professors do, perhaps because they hold different views about teaching and the role of an academic. People will disagree.

As a scholar, I adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). As a Singapore citizen, I will defend my right to speak to my domestic politics. As a politician, when I was in the House, I did. I may have opinions about the US but I do not have the standing to speak to American politics. I do not presume to. Do Americans then presume to speak to Singapore politics? Of course they can express opinions, an the internet age facilitates the free spread of ideas, but

I would say, butt out, let Singaporeans debate it amongst ourselves. We have brains.

We do not wish to be neo-colonised. And if you think that the homosexual community is oppressed in this way, you speak from ignorance. The government of Singapore may be politically controlling in many areas pertaining to actual political power, but it takes a fairly hands off view on matters of public morality.

11. I am deeply offended at Mr. Graves-Pryor characterisation of me / my views as immoral. I disagree with his views but I do not threaten his job. I am offended by the insinuations of some that I am unable to teach in a manner which reflects both intellectual integrity and basic courtesy to colleagues and students, particularly those with “sharply disagreeing” views. Perhaps this is a function of American law schools where classrooms become political platforms rather than venues of academic enquiry. I do not know, I have no first hand experience.

12. I am disappointed at the basic lack of reciprocity. When some NYU professors come to Singapore and articulate views which may be disagreeable to official policy of the government, or the views of academic colleagues, we afford them the basic courtesy in the interests of authentic intellectual exchange, to express their views. We do not allow a song and dance and vicious attacks to be made on them. Perhaps, (some) Asians are more polite after all.

13. I was invited to NYU by the Law School. I was honoured by this recognition of my academic scholarship. I looked forward to meeting a new community of scholars of a respected institution. Now my ‘colourful’ political views have been “outed” so to speak (it is old to me, I have already gone through a local round of abuse in 2007, death threats and other acts of viciousness) and I have been roundly insulted and attacked. This is how you treat your visitors? Do you mean only those with acceptable political views or those who keep their political views personal for fear of such vicious responses are to be entertained? You will breed academic cowardice and a paralyzing homogenisation if this is the case. I am not suggesting that NYU in fact does this, I am merely pointing out the logical consequences of this kind of action / reaction / inaction.

14. I am tired of this obsessive and narcissitic obsession with ONE of the speeches I made during my 2.5 years tenure in Parliament. Perhaps my detractors would like to review the range of my speeches, from organ donation to foreign workers to women’s rights to by-election motions to the right to vote, before they so readily condemn me. Perhaps they would like to review my academic record before sitting in judgment, with such hubris and incivility. Perhaps they need to reflect that the ‘culture wars’ are called ‘wars’ for a reason but that they can model reasoned and civil discourse rather than perpetuate a culture of vulgarity and violence.

15. What seems to be getting activists in a twist is my speech in support of the government’s stance to retain the sodomy law. Please note, it was not even up for discussion until another MP raised it in a specific targeted parliamentary petition, full of fine sounding rhetoric and little substance. This matter was debated in Singapore for months. I played my role in the democratic process by uttering the views of the majority of Singaporeans. Most MPs who spoke to it supported the retention of the law. They recognise Singapore is a socially conservative society and were faithfully expressing the views of their constituents, to rebut the homosex activist campaigners who also had their mouthpiece in Parliament. Anyone concerned with the democratisation of Singapore society should view this as a progressive step. Anyone only concerned with their agenda will of course only seek to attack their detractors. But then, is politics about the common good or just partisan agendas? Is this not a fit subject to academic enquiry?

I had the support of the vast majority of the House as well (though of course, it may surprise you, there are dissenting voices in Parliament and even within the ruling party). After the debate, many were grateful that I had not bowed down to the intimidatory tactics of the homosexual community and been their voice. Many within and without the House came to thank me personally. Some weeping. Many were concerned with my welfare after the flurry of vicious attacks I received after the speech, as they recognised how vile many were. I am sure Mr Graves-Pryor will say: serves you right for speaking such bigoted views. I wonder whether he sees the bigotry and intolerant ‘tolerance’ in that kind of reaction and the double standards rife in this type of discourse? I am against physical violence towards all people as a fundamental norm, but ironically, those who paint themselves as advocates of personal liberty have no hesitation in squelching mine. Lets be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name

16. Now, I do not expect you to agree with my views. But does Mr. Graves-Pryor expect me to conform with his? What bullying. But that is something I have come to recognise as a common tactic of some activists. This is in fact a threat to a free society, whether to equality of citizenship, religious freedom and free speech.

17. Mr Graves-Pryor and I am sure, many in the NYU community may dislike the tenor of my speech, but it boils down in substance to differing conceptions of the common good and the good life, over epistemology, ethics, morality. And let me put things in context

a. I am not a member of the Singapore government. I am not in the position to “oppress” anyone. I am in the position as an individual, to be oppressed. Which is what has happened.

b. My support for what you sir may consider an oppressive law is a function of my right to speak to matters of law and policy as a Singapore citizen and as I was then, a member of Parliament.

c. My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say “some” because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats.

d. Does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they are gay? Or that someone should be subject to heterosexual sensitivity training to ‘cure’ their ‘deviant’ beliefs? Of course not. Now, does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they believe heterosexuality and family values (yes, we can debate ‘family’) should be socially supported and the social norm? Or that someone should be subject to homosex sensitivity training because they believe heterosexuality to be the norm?

e. One reason I spoke out as clearly as I did was because that was my constitutional function, to bring forth an alternative view. I am not a professional politician. I am interested in the soundness of argument rather than perception. I am aware of how politicised this issue is and how emotion drives most of the argument, particularly on the side of those who denigrate their detractors as emotional, while manifesting that same trait. That comes from my training as an academic.

f. Another reason is frankly, a tiredness with this sort of bullying towards anyone who opposes the gay agenda. (And I know gays who oppose the gay agenda). One of my colleagues, an untenured professor, wrote an Op Ed supporting the retention of the sodomy law and the policy of non active enforcement. An argument raised was that law has an educative function in signalling social mores.

Removing the law would signal a different set of values that colleague was opposed to. What happened? That colleague received a torrent of abuse. People wrote to our dean demanding that colleague

(a) be removed from her job
(b) be subjected to homosex sensitivity training
(c) be required to teach pro-gay cases from abroad (which in fact were referenced in lectures while not celebrated).

We do not tolerate such self-righteous intolerance in Singapore. At stake is genuine academic freedom and civil discourse. Who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor in this context? Or does an unrelenting hubris occlude the ability to see the truth of things in different contexts?

18. I wonder whether Mr. Graves-Pryor bothered to read the entirety of my speech and to appreciate the context and the fact that I will not let any of my junior colleagues be bullied by intemperate activism if I can help it. I also wonder whether Mr. Graves Pryor saw the bottom line in my parliamentary speech which was and remains this: “As fellow citizens, homosexuals are entitled to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour.” I am sure it will not go far enough for him or those who share his views in this politics of identity. This disagreement is socially magnified many times.

If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected.

Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to “sharp disagreement” with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral disagreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.

If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so.

Dean, if you wish to circulate my views and clarifications to the faculty, that is your prerogative. I have no desire to come into a hostile working environment where people believe half truths and false insinuations about me. If they wish to dislike me or my views, let it be for the views that I actually hold, not the ones maliciously imputed to me.

I remain respectfully,
Li-ann Thio
------------------------------
Even in USA, she's fighting a battle against the House of Mr S.A.Tan.
------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread: Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are
In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !

Presentation1

View more presentations from guestfe7fdf.

Sleeping With The Devil

2009-07-15T13:28:00.004+08:00

An Ardent Gay In The USA Democratic Party
Your Say - Posted : 15/07/2009 1:26 PM

- This is what's in store for us in Singapore & Asians in the near future if we carry on sleeping:
- Who's sleeping with Mr S.A.Tan?

USA Honors Anti-Christian Radical -By that definition: Anti-Religious.
The Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director John Berry — an open homosexual and ardent “gay” activist apologized to and honored homosexual activist icon Frank Kameny. Kameny calls religious conservatives like AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera " Christiaofascists" and says “gay is godly” — even though he is an atheist. President Obama’s agenda on homosexuality and transsexuality is as unknown to the public as it is radical. If he fulfills all of his promises to the self-styled “Queer” movement — including homosexualizing the U.S. military — the American people will be less free than we are today. Obama meets in the White today with homosexual and transsexual activists as part of his celebration of June as "Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender Pride Month".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda"
– Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !

How Can I Tell if My Child is Struggling?

2009-07-14T16:53:00.001+08:00

There are many things that can make parents wonder if their child is confused about their sexual identity. It’s true that this struggle is not one teens are eager to share with a parent, or anyone for that matter. In the often fuzzy arena of understanding your teenager, here’s how to recognize the serious warning signs.

Help Them Open Up : The best way to make it more likely your child might share a sexual struggle with you is to respond with an attitude of compassion and understanding whenever these types of issues come up. Your reaction to the subject of homosexuality when it comes up in conversation, on TV or through other relationships sends your children a message about whether you are a safe person to confide in.

Reacting with a grimace and saying, “That’s disgusting!” communicates hostility. Just consider: would you feel comfortable sharing a personal temptation with someone you knew thought “those people” were a disgusting abomination? Probably not.

Usually, people respond with hostility or anger to this issue because it seems so confusing and overwhelming. It’s not difficult, though, to overcome our fears of this issue by educating ourselves with a compassion or from a Religious standpoint.

When you can talk about homosexuality with calmness, knowledge and compassion, your children are more likely to talk to you about it. Basic truths to stick to are understanding that 1) nobody chooses to struggle with homosexuality, 2) a person isn’t guilty just because they’re tempted, 3) homosexual behavior is no worse than any other sin, 4) people can find freedom and healing in their religion or better still from some religious groups which does not proselytize or secretly advocate Gay values (like AWARE) but strictly offer professional assistance, with a compassionate heart, where it is needed the most.

Still, there is no way to guarantee that they will be confident enough to come directly to you. So you do want to know what to look for.

Sure Signs : If your son or daughter has been viewing homosexual pornography or visiting gay, lesbian or bisexual chat rooms online, that is a pretty solid sign that they are dealing with serious sexual identity issues. When confronted about this kind of involvement, most teens will try to dodge with an excuse like “I was just curious” or “I was trying to understand a friend better.”

Please understand that your child probably feels a deep sense of shame about their struggle, and whatever level of behavior they’ve become involved in. Whenever their struggle “comes out,” it’s crucial to reaffirm how much you love them, and that you do not see them any differently.

Other signs you ought to be concerned by include consistent and overt gender-atypical behavior (opposite-sex clothing, mannerisms, etc.), and unhealthy, overly-emotional attachments to a single friend of the same sex

Addressing It : When you observe these types of things, don’t be quick to label it as homosexuality. Simply address what you have observed and ask them questions about it. Don’t assume something is there if it is not plainly true–that can make things worse.

For instance, don’t say: “You and Ah Moy act like a couple of lesbians. You aren’t doing that, are you?” or, “Son, why do you act so feminine? You don’t want people to think you’re gay.”

Addressing without assuming would sound more like this: “I’ve noticed you and Ah Moy spend so much time together, you’re neglecting your other friends. Do you think that’s a good idea?” or, “Son, it seems like you aren’t really into hanging out with the guys. Did something happen?”

It is best for your response to communicate that you care about their well-being, and offer them opportunities to share their feelings. Plus if they already know that homosexuality doesn’t make you totally blow up, you’ve created a much more positive environment for them.

Not So Sure Signs : There are also sometimes “yellow flags” that go up for parents, but aren’t necessarily a sign your child struggles with “same sex attraction” (SSA).

For instance, if they come home from school with a book, flier or brochure mentioning homosexuality; that’s not necessarily a sign.

Material addressing homosexuality is becoming more and more common. Your children will most likely receive information or materials on the subject more than once.

Don’t assume they are struggling just because of something like this (pornographic material is another issue altogether) but take the opportunity to talk openly with them about issues of sexuality and see what they’re thinking.

Try not to get into a confrontation with your child, but do your best to have open dialog about what they’re hearing about these issues and what they think.

They probably just want to show their support for making schools safe. Let them know there are great ways for students to stand against bullying and harassment while still speaking the truth about sexuality.

Effeminate School Students & The Pressure To Compromise

2009-07-14T16:22:00.001+08:00

Your Say – Posted : 14.07.09

1) School life is rough for a lot of people. Most teenagers get picked on, and sometimes hurt, to one degree or another throughout their school experience.
2) Students who struggle with their sexual or gender identity (or who are perceived as gay) are no exception, you’ll know that bullying and isolation during youth is almost par for the course.
3) Some people blame people of faith for this problem–that anyone who doesn’t celebrate homosexuality is in some way perpetuating the violence..
4) The solution, they say, is to exclusively promote a viewpoint that says people are born gay, can’t change, and there’s nothing wrong with it.
5) Gay advocacy groups encourage teens to identify as “allies,” friends who celebrate homosexuality–supposedly the only way to make their campus safe.
6) As a result, these students often find themselves in a bind. Either they must compromise their belief in that there is another way or they compromise on their religion and say that homosexual behavior is okay–and be called an “ally,” a “safe person”–or they can refuse and be labeled a bigot.
7) We believe this is unfair to these students, who don’t hate their gay-identified (or struggling) peers, and have good reasons for believing what they do about sexuality and gender.
8) It’s also unfair to students who identify as gay. Imagine how it must feel to believe that the “normal” people everywhere hate you!
9)This problem is exacerbated by the “Gay Activists” like AWARE telling them that they are born gay and that sex with “same sex” is normal and “a*** sex” is normal.
10) In the diversity of opinion, people with differing–and even opposing–viewpoints can still work together to build a community of tolerance and respect.
11) That is why MOE has FINALLY come out with a new syllabus and tackles these issues but with the stated aim of “upholding” our family values.
12)Tolerance doesn’t mean conformity of beliefs. It doesn’t mean one point of view is upheld and others are silenced. It doesn’t mean a person can label a belief they don’t agree with as hatred so they don’t have to deal with it.
13) Tolerance means we can respectfully express our differences, but then put them aside and cooperate on the things we can agree on, like safety, fair treatment, and kindness.
14) Tolerance means You don’t try to convert our society secretly to accept your ideas.
15) Tolerance means You don’t try to deviously put your ideas into our children’s mind at a young age so that when they grow up, you hope that they will be “converted” to “gay practices & lifestyle”
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!

Is There A Gay Agenda That I Should Be Worried About?

2009-07-14T16:18:00.001+08:00

Your Say - Posted : 14.07.09

When people use the term “gay agenda,” it can bring many different things to mind.

While it’s important to reach out to and love those people in your world who call themselves gay or lesbian, or who are struggling, you also need to be aware that there is a movement to reshape our culture–and it pays no small attention to the hearts and minds of young people.

Not every gay-identified person participates in these often militant efforts, but the efforts are very real and they have specific goals when it comes to youth. Those goals include:

• Promoting homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles as healthy, positive and normal.
• Disintegrating all meaning of gender.
• Silencing and vilifying any different point of view.
• Undermining parental authority to indoctrinate kids.
• Rewriting Religious principles to suit their Agenda.
• Polarizing students, so that anyone who is not “gay-affirming” is labeled a bigot.

These may seem like pretty extreme statements, but there are several organizations and tens of millions of dollars a year dedicated to these goals.
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!

Peril At Our Doorstep

2009-07-14T16:17:00.002+08:00

Your Say - Posted : 14/07/2009 2:17 PM

Homosexuality is becoming a way of life for many young people who are buying the lie that they are born homosexuals. The world equates same-sex attraction with an innate homosexual identity, so those who struggle with homosexual feelings are told it must be who they are. This what the gay activists are PUTTING INTO OUR CHILDREN'S HEAD"

The APA (American Psychiatric Association) has recently changed their stance on homosexuality. This article was posted on onenewsnow.com:

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”
----------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!

Comment Taken From DorkyDawg:

2009-07-14T16:13:00.002+08:00

Your Say - Posted : 14.07.09

Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!

A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley.

- A.W.A.R.E. did it and now trying to insert itself into mainstream again with so-called pro-women activities for now.
- Another face has reared up – “New Charter of Compassion” raised by people from present A.W.A.R.E leadership.

This agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:

"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior."

"Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."

Focus on the Family provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:

1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
(Such as - Pink parade, Sentosa parties, etc in S'pore)
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
(Such as - Gays vs. Religion as in AWARE saga)
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
(Media coverage & Corporate Singapore)
4. "Make gays look good."
(Such as - Media coverage in Singapore)
5. "Make the victimizers look bad."
(Such as - Josie group & Media coverage at EGM)
6. "Get funds from corporate America."
(Corporate Singapore doing same for A.W.A.RE.)

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
“ Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

“SLEEP ON Singapore while the MENACE continues its work to convert you, your children & our Nation”

Concerned Parent & Citizen

2009-07-09T16:34:00.002+08:00

A letter sent to the Cabinet & MPs c/o REACH email.

09.07.2009

Dear
Prime Minister,
Senior Minister,
Minister Mentor,
Cabinet Ministers
& Members of Parliament,

From: Citizen

RE: Concerned Parent & Citizen

I am a regular contributor of REACH@reach.gov.sg since the start of the AWARE saga which enlightened me on the apparent dangers faced by our society today. Do forgive me if my letter is meet protocol due to my poor grammar and humble ignorance.

It is with a deep-seated concern for our children and our society and what the future will hold for us if citizens such as me and like-minded citizens do not start to take active participation in our own well-being and also our society that I am writing to you now.

As we journey into a new millennium, it is understandable that our society has to evolve within and without to keep step with the changes in and around us to stay relevant, be more cosmopolitan and survive the challenges facing our little Red Dot.

My family and I fully empathize with and support our Govt’s various initiatives & actions, as has been shown in the sacrifices which we have made past and present.

Nevertheless, the deep-seated concern we have is, albeit, my own opinion, is that our society is now beset by an organized and vocal “Minority” with “moral” issues, such that, it is now assailing the very bastion of our society, which is; the family unit, and where the “Minority” amongst the gay society is pushing for a change using our very private/ public institutions, media and also into the corridors of power in private business & in Govt, to subtly effect the very changes on our moral fabric as an Asian Nation.

What is happening in USA should not be a template for us as an Asian nation to follow. It is heartening that MOE did finally follow through on its stated objective to make the family unit as the moral backbone in our society. But, it will not be enough if nothing is done to forestall or even restrict the “unimpeded access and opportunities” that the vocal “Minority” presently has in penetrating all sectors of our society to convert our young and naïve children and a generally passive public. If Govt is not careful and watchful, we will one day turn into another “USA”.

I have attached an article on the “Gay Agenda” which of course is from a Christian movement, but, take away the Christian contents and you will see how the “Gay Agenda” is being implemented in our little Red Dot. Slowly and quietly.

Without doubt, our security agencies are competent and ever watchful but as a stake-holder, I wish to convey my apprehensions regarding these “Minority” and how it will affect our society. How has it come to that and why is it still allowed such “space” is a mystery which is still not being addressed? How is it that so many major companies are supporting them in kind?

Realizing the inadequacy of REACH as an instrument to voice out our disquiet, as a parent and concerned citizen, I speak for others of my kind when I say that we are unhappy about how a major media, ST, has not shown impartiality as was seen in the recent article on AWARE which was accorded a full page when our new NMPs were announced.

Hopefully, MOE and all departments in our Govt, on it’s part, will stay vigilant in accepting AWARE or any of it’s kind which comes in various shape & colour such as the new entity, “New Charter of Compassion” which, in my opinion, may be another “front” by the same people who espouses and actively promotes gay Rights. The “Gay Agenda” is very real and has been working overtime within our society as we sleep. It veils itself in “sheep’s clothing” and usurps the position of fighting for “Human Rights” & “Diversity” & “Inclusiveness” while surreptitiously pre-positions itself in promotion of the “Gay Agenda” in our own backyard.

As Govt has stated clearly that ‘gays” have now been openly accepted into the Govt fold and even into our various political organizations such as PAP Youth, I am fearful that the “Minority” will try to effect changes within our organizations, such as attempted by an individual, who joint PAP Youth for some years and openly stated her intentions in public. I am fearful that one day we may see (maybe not in my lifetime but in my children’s lifetime) it may culminate into another “Lee Teng Hui” who destroyed the primacy of the Kuomintang from within; which is how the “Gay Agenda” works.

My letter to your Excellency and honoured Members of Parliament is to highlight this creeping danger within our society. That is all we, as concerned parents and like-minded people can do as I have indicated earlier in this letter that we have only one avenue to voice out our concerns and that is REACH where our concerns and opinions hardly reach the masses. We hardly have any defenses against such machinations and manipulation. We do not even have a support organization.

Furthermore, this is hardly a religious angle but actually an issue which concerns our very well-being as a Nation state, its ideals and its promotion of family values.

Last but not least, on behalf of concerned parents and citizens, I wish Govt will come to the fore on these matters to assuage our concerns and fears and consider looking into this “Gay Agenda” issue, creeping into our society and Govt; with utmost urgency and speed.

Thank you.

Unmasking The Gay Agenda

2009-07-07T16:13:00.003+08:00

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14696/CFI/family/index.htm

Excerpts from Concerned Women of America (CWA). Although it is a Christian movement but by no means irrelevant to what’s happening in our own backyard. For non-christians, just delete away the religious aspects and look at how the “Gay” activists “conquered” America.

This will provide you the “Reader” an insight as to how and in what manner our home-grown “Gay” activists in Singapore have been working overtime to influence our children, our young, our society, in our educational institutions, in our public spaces such as in the Arts, theatre, Media and in Govt. While you are sleeping, they are always working. Many Companies are supporting them and their programs financially:

The Goal:
As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the gay agenda. At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are equal. If it feels good, do it.

Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.

This creates cultural and moral anarchy.

Plan of Attack:
Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct by force of law through federal edicts such as hate crimes legislation, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned same-sex marriage. All such government mandates grant special protected minority status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.

Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be tolerated, but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan celebrate diversity supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of tolerance and diversity.

Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded homophobic, hateful or discriminatory. They are to be silenced by all means possible.

Homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the gay agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled,
The Gay Agenda:

• On hate crimes laws: Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.

• On hate thoughts and hate speech laws: Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.

• On influencing public policy: Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.

• On same-sex marriage: Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.

• On gays in the Church: Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.

The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.

In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda.

They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.
Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:
• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.

Desensitization:
Desensitization, wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.

As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.

With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.

Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, The wages of sin is death.)

And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.

The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.

As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the Everyman. In no time, they said, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
Prophetic words from two very smart men.

Jamming:
Jamming refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda. Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, wrote Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested.

But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.
And so words like homophobe and heterosexism were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a homophobe, a hatemonger, a bigot.

Not even churches are safe.

Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. Such an unholy alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. [T]hat alliance can work for gays.
And, oh, how it has.

Conversion:
Conversion means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.

In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.

Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent and only later his unsightly derriere!
So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of hide the ball. In order to achieve widespread acceptance of gayness, they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of gay civil rights.

In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to consummate a so-called gay marriage. Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for civil rights. Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.

Therein lies the deception.

But There’s Hope

There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction.

Gayness is not an immutable or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.

There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the gay agenda and our national moral integrity.

With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.

AWARE On ST’s “Prime News”

2009-07-07T12:45:00.003+08:00

AWARE On ST’s “Prime News”

ST dd 07.07.09 (PgA10)

So, what a blaze of “glory” for ST. Very well timed to give AWARE a big boost and even a full page.

AWARE has still not given up and will push the boundaries as per their stated stand. You can see from today’s ST news.

In the first place, they have no business giving the “man” a vote as they are a group created to fight for “Women’s” rights.

In my view, the general public has been hoodwinked all these years. They did not realize that fighting for women’s rights was only the platform and a guise to a bigger issue and that is (a) repealing of Section 377 & 377A (b) to change people’s mindset to embrace the LBGT views.

The time will come soon, when, AWARE will allow male associate members the right to vote. No more “associates” by then. Anybody can join then, but, the first criteria to be used will be that you must “either be pro-gay” or already a gay. Therefore, if you are a woman and don’t belief in their constitution that supports gay rights, then, you as a woman, cannot join up. Sorry-lah, you have to look elsewhere for help.

What is AWARE? It stands for “Association of Women for Action and Research”. Maybe in future, they should take out the “Women” bit.

You can bet that many of the “men” are “gay”. So, no more chance for a takeover. What a washout and a sell-out for women as a whole.

In those early days, who would have figgered that the “inclusive” part in their constitution will be used to get involved in gay issues? Govt and the Public have been “had or suckered”.

Finally, it’s not Josie Lau’s fault that the “money” had to be spent. Given the short time and the constraints and pressure by the Old Guard, it was laughable that the Old Guard now have the temerity to say that Josie’s group should have asked for help from AWARE volunteers. What a big joke. AWARE’s new committee wont “sue” Josie because they have no grounds for it. Period!

Another IMPORTANT thing to point out is that Concerned Parents & People should take note of those Companies involved in supporting the Old Guard. Without these Companies’ monies, the Old Guard will not be able to promote their “Gay” causes. They should extract out a “caveat” from the Old Guard that “donated monies should not be used in support of “Gay” rights”. Those Companies can also be considered in cahoots with the Old Guard for supporting anti-family values. We should voice out our views loud so that these Companies will not help AWARE in furthering their stated goal of supporting anti-family values.

Dear Parents & Supporters of Family Values, can you see what obstacles we have in front of us? Regrettably, if not for my young children and my humble job, I would have started a lobby group myself. People like us still have some ways to go to be free of the shackle to carry the banner. What of you who are retired and still strong in mind and spirit and free? Is there any amongst you who would take up this challenge. I will not think twice and be the first to be a member.

Nine New Faces In Parliament

2009-07-07T12:35:00.001+08:00

Image by willposh via Flickr

It is refreshing to see new faces in parliament and to openly state their intentions upon taking up the NMP posts.

Pushing for change was one of the reasons Govt has introduced this new lot to add a different dimension in terms of diversity of views. This is laudable of Govt.

The worry of having another Siew Kum Hong in their midst to stir up another controversy is still relevant.

My opinion is that it is not wrong to stir up another controversy which is good for society at large so long as it does not involve anti-family issues. Controversy helps to facilitate changes in society.

The remark by SMU Law lecturer Eugene Tan, taken from today’s ST dated 07.07.09 that SKH “brings something different to the table” is a fair description of what Govt is doing as Ex-NMP Banerjee said, quote ”After all, the NMP scheme seeks to provide diversity and different perspectives in Parliament” unquote.

But, Eugene Tan should realize that ‘SKH did more than that by “stirring” up the public with the LBGT issues and with his open support of the AWARE old guard’, and did not see the bigger picture where SKH’s activities and association with a pro-gay movement caused much duress to the public at large and a danger to society’s moral setup.

You cant tell the public that ‘he was at AWARE’s EGM in his personal capacity’ since he was the one who raised the issue of LBGT rights. Being an NMP also required of him to be impartial. You cant hide your actions behind the cloak of “personal capacity”.

Hopefully, the Art’s nominee, Audrey Wong will “walk the talk” by raising only issues facing the Arts scene vis-a-vis the public & Govt. She has kept a low profile and there’s really much material on her on the internet. Mostly all work related. As long as she does not end up as “the other” side of SKH, her motives are for the promotion of the Arts to the people, then, the general public will welcome her. We’ll just have to wait and see.

New NMPs In Parliament

2009-07-07T11:48:00.000+08:00

Silent Majority
07 Jul 09 , 11:44 AM

Agree with "A brand new slate of NMPs in the House"

Happy are those who belief.

On the other hand, having read Audrey Wong's position in the news, she highlighted her stand on issues facing the Arts scene. I hope she is the real deal where promotion of the Arts vis-a-vis society & Govt is involved and not end up as another Siew Kum Hong espousing anti-family values.

Newly Elected NMPs - A brand new slate of NMPs in the House

2009-07-07T11:46:00.002+08:00

REACH Blog:

07 Jul 09 , 10:40 AM

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC090707-0000120/A-brand-new-slate
IT WILL be a slate of completely new faces in the House, all nine of them - the maximum number of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) allowed by the Constitution. But you might recognise a few familiar names

One surprise is former national swimmer and Olympian Joscelin Yeo, who makes the move from pool to politics; She views being an NMP as an extension of the work she is doing at the swimming school she runs with her brother and with the Youth Ministry of New Creation Church.

Mr Laurence Wee is the executive director of Presbyterian Community Services.

Conspicuous by their absence? Any of the former slate of NMPs - including Mr Siew Kum Hong whom had sought second terms.
------
Loretta Chen and Beatrice Chia were not shortlisted either.

Thanks for the wise decision of Parliamentary Select Committee in shortlisting NMPs that reflects the majority view of Singaporean who prefer upholding family values.

Latest Comments On Sex Education Thread

2009-07-06T01:04:00.003+08:00

REACH BLOG:
(Some general debates on-going)

Red Panda
05 Jul 09 , 21:56 PM

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/440540/1/.html

Law Minister K Shanmugam has said:

- Singapore will not decriminalise gay sex but the courts have the power to decide how the law, Section 377, is applied. Section 377A of the Penal Code deems sex between men a crime.

- Section 377 will remain as homosexuality is still not accepted by most Singaporeans.

- We have the law. We say it won't be enforced. Is it totally clear? .... we don't think it's fair for us to prosecute people who say that they are homosexual

- the government will not take the lead in repealing the law.
----------

The government stand is firm, clear and fair to both mainstreams and GLBT. Homosexuals have freedom to do it in their bedroom, but pushing their lifestyle to be accepted by mainstream majorities is a BIG NO.
----------------------------------------------------------

Silent Majority
05 Jul 09 , 18:24 PM

Dear CW

Just in case, my last sentence "If you still don’t get it, I have no more words for you other than there is a “block” in you" is not a personal attack, given the limited time I have.

Let me rephrase it better, "If you still dont catch the drift on our point of view, then, no matter how else we explanation the result will still be the same.

Regards

---------------------------------------------------------------

CW
05 Jul 09 , 18:09 PM

Dear Silent Majority,

I can now clearly understand where you are coming from. I also understand that this is your approach/style when communicating to others. I do appreciate the effort and time you took to detail your reply. In all, thank you.

Regards,
CW

-----------------------------------------------------------

Silent Majority
05 Jul 09 , 15:32 PM

Dear CW,

Whatever comments made on my part is never personal. I am not a demon. Ha!Ha! It is always with the intent to communicate a point and effectively. That is my style. I am thoughtful when I jot down my comments. So, don’t get overly excited when in a debate. Like I said, this is an open forum and some have they own way in conveying their stand for effect.

You are spot on in your opinion from your various past comments. The thing you do not realize is that, there is no 100% proof. We are not God and so no proof. That is why if you had understood all the previous input from other forumers, you would by now have gathered that the forumers have always “accepted” the LBGT as an individual and do not judge them or try to change them “forcefully”. That is why we have gay friends. But, in terms of society “acceptance” does not mean “agree” with their lifestyle but not with their “kind”.

But, we are talking about gays as “adults”. It is still the parent’s right to decide, guide and make the decision whether his/her son/daughter is a gay or not and how to confront the issue.

I have known close childhood friends who were very feminine but grew out of it in adulthood. I have also known close childhood friends who are feminine and turned gay in their late teens and one of them even changed his name and took his boyfriend’s surname. Do you know why I quoted these experiences of mine to you? The reason being these two individuals were influenced by the environment they live in. When I talk about environment, it would mean such as the people you are in contact with: your family, friends you hang out with, location, etc. Mostly, it’s your family and friends. A good example: If you are the youngest and you have 4-5 elder sisters and the strict parents who are generally at arms length away? How do you think the boy will turn out? He will come out with feminine traits, mostly. I haven’t even added in the outside influences. These forces act, mould and influences a child’s mind and what do you think will be the outcome at the end of the day? I don’t need a scientist to proof to me. You are dealing with an individual and you handle them differently when as a child, teenager and as an adult. If you are 3 or 5 years old or even 12 years old, if I were to let you live on the floor daily for the next 5 years, your body and mind will automatically learn to accept it. One thing you have to know, presently, science, it’s a tool in the hands of either sides now to be used to bolster their arguments. The thing with scientific studies is that if you leave out a factor/equation, then, the rest of your studies and it’s outcome is just “rubbish”.

Above were “live” experiences that I quoted. Therefore, no need for scientific studies. Commonsense and logic is the word here. I have quoted you examples from my personal experiences. You can ask for proof until the sun goes down and you will still not get it. Another slightly similar example to quote: If you are kidnapped for long periods under abject conditions deliberately, you will even fall for your kidnapper and die for him probably.

From these examples, I left out something important for last. If you were to play these examples in your mind you will realize that, at the end of the day, the individual can still change. In the end, we are talking about “concepts”. How do you define “concepts”: how a person or culture behaves, or how nature, reality, or events are perceived? This tells you a person CAN change. It’s HOW much he/she wants to change. Sometimes when they go through willing a program of self-help, they might or might not succeed in changing their lifestyle because (a) it’s up to them (b) the environment they go back to. It’s a forum column so I can’t elaborate further as there’s more, but, enough has been said to derive the required answers.

FYI let me go back to “anal sex” where an adult should know better than to engage in such acts. Is it instinct or ingrained in us that it is wrong? Why is that so? It’s because we were taught that it is wrong and the anus is not made for sex but for excretion.

Suicidal behavior is due to the environment we live in; you may call it “society”. I fully agree that they need help, as do kidnapped victims. That is why I myself belief that after the parents, school counselors or any other organizations should help out but, this is only a temporary respite. Because, when in later life, they will have to come face to face with the stark reality that the world will not “agree” but only accept their choice of lifestyle. Let me remind you, I did not say anything about “force”.

The problem with our society in Singapore now is that the activism by vocal minority groups and individuals are trying to push and influence our young’s mindset. That is a No-No. Even Govt has accepted the gay as a person into their midst. What have you to say about that? Nobody is forcing change on them. PAP youth even accepted one or more of them too.

Probably LEE was being too polite to tell you straight what he/she felt, from his/ her replies to you. I have no such qualms. I prefer to engage directly and face the issue outright, even enforcing my point of view if I felt my logic/arguments justifiable and/or sound.

Nobody is forcing a lifestyle change on them. As Asians, we even accept them into our midst, as family, as friends, etc. A good example is Thailand. But, do you think the parent/s agree with their lifestyle? It’s like the Chinese say, “Bo pian”

The final conclusion is that they can change but, it’s how much they want it.

The ACTIVISTS and HARDCORE amongst them are not helping them poor individuals by they militancy, collective peer pressure tactics and deliberate one-sided arguments/ talks/ teachings such as from AWARE & it’s CSE programs. It’s their promotion of their lifestyle and trying to make it stick onto the individual by saying to them that they cannot and really cannot change. Society is not the problem; it’s their minority amongst them that are the problem and the stumbling block for a 2nd chance or maybe a “chance” to “try” for a different lifestyle.

If you still don’t get it, I have no more words for you other than there is a “block” in you.

Regards
----------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 06:23 AM

Dear All,

I recently stated I would not be participating anymore. However, I posted a reply regardless of this. I writing to hopefully nip any thoughts that I am a fool for saying one thing and doing another. I don't want to faulted. I posted because I wanted to share a thought. I could have ignored and left it as it is, but I needed to throw this out there. I don't think it did harm.

In any case, I will be less vocal and eventually exiting this thread. Part of it was because of the unpleasant episode, the other was the exhaustion. I wish to leave (soon) on much more respectful note. Therefore, I want to express my gratitude for at least engaging me and my apologies for my own less-than-outstanding replies. Thank you for giving me the time.

Regards,
CW
----------------------------------------------------------

CW
05 Jul 09 , 05:59 AM

Why do I set this rule? It’s simple. These are people’s lives and we should never go on hunches or internal beliefs. Many in general note individuals, who may identify themselves as homosexuals, are more at-risk to suicidal attempts or other wayward items such as drug abuse.

That is why LEE and I were able to easily come to an agreement on this that both options should be presented to the conflicted individual. If he/she chooses to change, we should have the necessary support systems and encouragement to help him make the change. If he/she chooses to remain homosexual, then we should provide counsel where necessary to help himself/herself have a safe and meaningful life. Regardless of the choice, parents must play an integrated role in the decision-making process.

To that end, if the nurture/environment viewpoint is your personal belief and your preferred method to protect your children from homosexual influences, I will unreservedly respect it.

I will respectfully object if anyone makes the choice to forcefully impose a single option on others. If the day comes that the proof is nurture, I will be on the side to change the environment. Till then, we must learn to respect the differences as well as the boundaries.

Dear Silent Majority, this is only a thought to share. If this is a difference of opinion, I hope we can let it be.

Regards,
CW
-----------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 05:58 AM

Dear Silent Majority,

I read your reply, partly out of guilt and part out of curiosity. Your latest reply was pleasant compared to your previous one. I therefore wish to offer my apology on being emotional in my previous post.

I have read your points, and generally have no objections to what you said. On point d, I wish to I impart something which I spoke to LEE before.

To any probable homosexual, both options should be presented to the individual. One, should be the option of change, and the other, the option to remain. Let me explain.

I will tell (and will continue to tell) any LGBT who believes their traits were in-born to show me the proof. By proof, I mean hard science and proven facts. Not experiences or statistics.

To be fair, I will ask anyone, including you, to show me the proof that homosexuals result from nurture or environment. I will still set the same standard for proof as I demand it from the LGBTs.
---------------------------------------------------------

Silent Majority
05 Jul 09 , 01:20 AM

Dear CW

I do not know if you’ll be reading it and yet I do know that this has to be written, if not for you, then, for the benefit of others. Whether I was over-reacting or not to your replies to “LEE” is now moot. It was not against you as a person. May I offer my apologies if it adversely affected your well-being. After all has been said, I see that you have still not understood our point of view. I, like most parents and concerned people, are not insensitive or unreasoning people where the LBGT individuals are concerned. The unveiling of AWARE’s CSE program made us realize what a precarious precipice we are standing on. I count some gays as amongst my many friends and we get along very fine.

Our views are very simple:-

a) LBGT shouldn’t seek to impose their views on others:
As PM said, the harder you push, the worse the backlash. Blame the minority amongst the LBGT who are vocal, activists, well organized, highly educated, variously ensconced in public media, Arts groupings, NGOs, etc, taking every opportunity to push their agendas into our majority passivistic throats. They even have a lobby group amongst them.

b) Being LBGT is the individual’s choice:
But, parents, have always had a say in their child’s upbringing. Similarly, the activists should not try to use our educational systems to covertly imbue LBGT views on our children hoping that our young will carry it over into adulthood. That’s really mind-blowing. Can you even comprehend what AWARE tried to do? To change whole generations of our children’s mindset about LBGT from within our educational system. That’s nasty!

c) Homosexual activities:
How do we differentiate ourselves from other living forms? We have a thinking brain, moral ethics, we defecate through the anus. This is the general understanding.

d) A person born feminine does not mean he is outright a gay. The environment at home & outside plays a major part in your life. If you continuously mix with gays, then, your tendencies become more pronounced towards being a gay. But, it does not make you one permanently. Take that environment away and you’ll be able to change under proper guidance and support. Unfortunately, it’s those gay die-hards from bitter backgrounds and/or westernized, that wants to stay different and seeks to expand their kind freely.

e) Asian society is mostly accepting of them but “agreeing” is different from “accepting”. What we are seeing now are western ideals being imposed on us using the mantra “freedom” and “human rights”.

My two cents worth!

Regards

-------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 18:20 PM

To LEE,

I can’t really comprehend what happened but I’m sorry as I have to end my participation in this thread. If I do see you in other debates, maybe about GST or NS, I would probably participate or at least say Hi. Thank you very much for engaging me earlier and for your time. I truly enjoyed debating with you. Please do not reply to my earlier posts as I won’t be responding.

Regards,
CW
------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 18:17 PM

..contd...

I know this reply is not worthy because it holds alot of emotions. That's why I want to drop out, it takes too much out of me. Silent Majority, I apologise for the reply, but as you said: who is to say one is being civil or uncivil.

With Apologies,
CW
--------------------------------------------------------------------

CW
04 Jul 09 , 18:14 PM

Dear Silent Majority,

We have to put an end to this bicker between us. I have always stated my intention was to understand where you guys were coming from. I believe I did declare this in my first post to LEE from the “Objectivity” thread. My purpose of coming to this thread was to seek a reply from LEE after the “Objectivity” thread closed. I got it and I replied back to him. I was not expecting someone else to reply on a post not directed to them.

I, based on my feelings, felt your 7 pages was more an attempt to cast me as a “wolf in sheeps clothing”, and thereby discredit me. I was offended by this. You used terms such as “you and AWARE” in your reply and suggested I had views that was pro-LGBT even though I don’t associate with them. This form of a reply were not counter-arguments, they more an attempt to discredit the person who were suggesting the arguments. I did not understand why you brought incest into the picture as I never suggested it. If your reference to incest was because my argument related to the rights of adults, then please go ahead and support a ban on pre-marital sex, sex other than the purpose of procreation, homosexuality, drinking, smoking, abortion, 4D, toto, women's dress code, death penalty and whatever else you feel is immorally wrong that you wish to impose on other adults.

Your recent reply suggested a very important thing:

“One may be wrong but an opinion is an opinion and who is to say one is being civil or not civil.”

I cannot rebut this because it is very true. It’s only sad you applied it to defend your actions. To that end, I withdraw myself from this debate. I can no longer see whether individuals such as yourself are truly interested in debating and whether you are any different from the pro-LGBT activists. Just like them, you too seem more interested in rejecting anyone who espouses a different view and wish to lobby people for your own causes, regardless of the implications.

I know this reply is not worthy

Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore!

2009-07-06T00:45:00.001+08:00

REACH BLOG:

05 Jun 09 , 23:42 PM

Thank you to [Details removed] and "Letters to ministers"!

It is indeed reassuring and comforting for us parents to know that there are people like yourself that take up our conservative cause and write to the relevant ministries and people in charged.

We are grateful to you and wish to thank you immensely for your concerns, efforts and well written letters. Thank you for posting your letters here.

Also thank you for highlighting this:-

"Dear Mr Han,

I need to raise two issues with you.

First, you asked our Education Ministry "Don't sacrifice sex education" (ST Editorial, May 8) when they announced that all externally generated sex education was suspended. Among many things, you hoped that after the ministry's vetting exercise, they will continue "to draw on the support of...Aware and Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA), in expanding the scope of sex education" because they offer useful perspectives and expertise. Both these organizations are generally perceived as good because they seek to improve the welfare of women, but before you make such recommendations, you need to understand the organizations' intentions (visions and mission) by appreciating their history.

SPPA is part of the International PPA, which in turn has its roots in the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). PPFA is founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger, who is well known for her strong racist and discriminatory advocacy (http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm). Like AWARE, PPFA is an advocate for women's rights but unlike AWARE, their roots and their programs are not pure; they being the largest abortion provider in the USA. For all the good PPFA does, their problem is that they are inconsistent in their views of human sexuality; their problem is that they are inconsistent in their views of human sexuality; their actions show that 'some people matter some of the time' as opposed to 'all people matter all of the time'. Without seeing their program or instructor's guide, I will be very wary of their teachings on sexuality.

If AWARE and SPPA seeks to promote feminism comprehensively, it must be within the context of healthy lifestyles, marriage institution and family unit. You would like to know that no where in AWARE's Comprehensive Sexual Education Instructors Guide v.3 was marriage mentioned (except in an example where marriage was coerced), and thus their sexuality program can hardly be considered comprehensive."

We do Not want Aware or Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA) to teach our children and minors CSE programmes, irrespective of whether their revised instructor's manual is deemed suitable or not.

We simply do not trust these two vendors.

I know that Focus on the Family is good and Fei Yue too.

So parents, please write in to MOE or the Feedback section here on the REACH Home page to voice our disapproval for Aware and Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA).

Thank you and appreciate!

A LESSON FROM THE FROG

2009-07-06T00:42:00.001+08:00

REACH BLOG:

03 Jun 09 , 11:57 AM

I have to copy this here from "Come, Let Us Reason". Very Good!

A Lesson from The Frog

If a frog were to be thrown into a pot of boiling water, it would propel itself out of the boiling water instantaneously, or it would have been killed in no time. If the same frog were to be put into a pot of water at room temperature, and the water slowly brought to boil. The frog would frolick in the water, and be boiled alive.

This analogy very aptly describes us in this very rapidly changing society of Singapore in the area of morality. At one time the issues of homosexuality and lesbianism are like hot water that the society shunned like the plaque. Today the plague is the sanctity of marriage and the practice of a wholesome family-oriented heterosexuality.

We pride ourselves as being educated people, rational, open and perfectly capable of doing what is best for us, and society. We believe that our nature has evolved to such a level that nothing can go wrong with us, and that we can determine our own destiny. This thought has become central in individuals and groups, be they government, civic or religious.

The frog has a characteristic that is completely in it’s nature. It is the characteristic of being cold-blooded. Its body can adapt to the external environment so much so that as the temperature of the water rises from 30 to 60, to 80, and to 100 degrees Celsius, it just accommodates, and accommodates, and accommodates till it is cooked. We are like the frog.

We have accommodated, and accommodated and have become “cooked” and no more sensitive to abominations to our fellows. We call our ability to accommodate tolerance, non-discrimination and inclusivity. We pride ourselves with having a ‘higher-order’ psyche, a sacrosanct openness and a conscience to boot. Alas, could it be that even our conscience is seared? To anyone or any group who dares say that we are wrong, we do not care to tackle the issues, we would just resort to name-calling and attack the person like ferocious dogs. In time, they will cower and we will have our ways.

We have become a very accommodating society, often to our detriment. We only have to look at the USA and how it had evolved in immorality. If there is anything we need not learn from the American infidels, it is to ‘progress’ in the way they had ‘progressed’.

2009-07-04T17:23:00.001+08:00

REACH BLOG:

Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 16:27 PM

Dear All,

It is precisely that this is an open public forum that one has to state a stand clearly and in support of one’s convictions. The notion of civilized debate is noble and applauded but then, this is where things go wrong. How do you define “civilized”? In whose context? It works both ways! One may also be construed as insulting or casting aspersions on the other by politely insinuating that the other party is not civilized in its verbal reply. It is surprising that the recent 7 pages of comments is considered as “uncivil” and not logically debated. Using the example of “Father do the son”, etc” is a powerful, direct and effective way to convey the message in no uncertain terms the implication and seriousness of the “Latter’s” comments in a public forum. Is that considered “uncivil” and illogical?
One does not recall any four letter words being bandied around in the commentaries.

Rightly, this is an open forum and it is polemics you should expect from time to time such as some heated and emotional responses as can be seen from some recent responses in this thread. On the other hand, one also has the right not to reply the other.

The Matter of “Intent”

Past experiences have shown that passivity awards oneself zero points. It only opens oneself to more ingenious and subtle messages and subconscious manipulation as is the case of AWARE where they tried to start their manipulation and subversion of our naïve young from an early age with their pro-LBGT views.

The “latter’s” recent replies to “LEE” questions was considered evasive and unsustainable and pandering to pro-LBGT views even from other forum contributors who were more harsh with their comments. Actually, mine should be considered “soft” compared to the others.

As the “latter” commented, our debate might not even move further than this thread. So what? As long as it’s a public forum and our comments are open for others to read.
Paranoia or suspicion will always abound as all contributors are anonymous but it doesn’t make one out as such because of his/her comments. It’s as the “latter” commented, “I am not from AWARE”. That is what you say now after our replies.
Are these above comments considered civil enough? No sarcasm intended.

A “rumbling” is expected from others if some comments are considered ridiculous from a mature adult. Therefore, it begets paranoia and suspicion from others? This is a serious thread with a serious public issue and when comments are played out like a carousel, it smells of pro-LBGT activism at play. One may be wrong but an opinion is an opinion and who is to say one is being civil or not civil. The pro-LBGT has a huge head start with lobbying and we parents are just starting to wake up from our passivity. But, it doesn’t mean we will act like the “Fish market” AWARE EGM where the pro-LBGT was so “loud”. In the end, we are all anonymous to each other. The others can agree to disagree. After all, we are talking about safeguarding our young and nothing is more important than ensuring that such issues as “anal sex” and pro-LBGT activism in our schools and civil society be vigorously challenged.
Thank you.
------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 13:29 PM

Dear All,

I have a suggestion, following a well-written post on accountability. In the event of a reply that you felt was unsatisfactory or insufficient, I would appeal to you to consider writing back a reply to request for greater clarification? This request can be written politely (If you only choose to do so). My opinion is no matter the argument; we must never take the down road of insulting one another. We must strive to be civil.

One part of the post focused on intent:

It is regardless of the intent (if there is any to begin with) of the forum participant. What is important is the discussion that is taking place. So long as both parties have no qualms in debating each other, let them be. What does anyone, including myself, honestly expect when debating here? Do we really believe that just by debating at the “REACH” forum, our views have greater say than other Singaporeans or that the Government would listen here and not elsewhere? The point of any forum is to have a debate. This is an online forum, thus anonymity exist. However, so long we can debate respectfully and logically, I think we need not worry who is on the other side of the screen. The paranoia or suspicion can never truly be put to rest unless all of us were gifted with clairvoyant powers.

Therefore, I hope we can encourage all to participate respectfully and not chastise each other during a debate. Thank you.
Regards,
CW
-------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 04:01 AM

Hi All

There is an accountability issue here.

When one debates, it is expected that issues such as found in this thread touches a raw nerve in most people.

That is why when a debate was carried out between 2 parties recently, regular contributors to this thread mostly stood aside and avidly followed the exchanges.

It is only when certain issues raised are answered with unsustainable replies which a mature adult is able to answer without much thought; that makes it more suspicious of the latter's intent.

In view of this, at that point of time it was not being ingracious or impolite barring rudeness if certain comments by the "latter" was answered as such. Emotive surely precisely due to the "Latter's" replies to "LEE's" comments which defies the mind.

If not for the challenges made point for point, forthcoming answers would not have been received. Of course it was only "mussing" but the "latter's" "mussings" was too much.

One has to take note that the “other” side had or are more boorish as compared to us in this thread. We are the sane ones here.

Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------

CW
04 Jul 09 , 00:43 AM

On Redemptive Love:

I am not sure what redemptive love exactly stands for but I have watched the video.

To me, the video did not at all offend me, and I think it is applaud-worthy that such an approach was taken to address the issue. To care for someone throughout, but to not judge was refreshing to me. I personally believe that some homosexuals may not actually be homosexual and may be misguided. I draw a possible example to where homosexuals overly love their idols or mentors, and that contorts their view.

On speaking your mind:
I resolutely respect your right to speak what you believe. Of course, we must be sensitive and not offend others, if the issue is regarding race or religion. On the matter of sexuality, I think homosexuals know full well the stand of many religions.

On Writing Letters to Govt:
I know it is your right to express your view to the administration. However, what scares me is the belief that other side is also “lobbying”. Once both sides share this belief, then a cycle will begin. Back and forth the arguments and accusations will be thrown resulting in nothing. I wish and hope that both sides will sit down and respectfully discuss their views. This should be the true principle and I believe it does not become less worthy even if it takes a longer time.

To clear the air:
1) I’m not from AWARE
2) I never supported the idea of incest (ever!)
3) I withdraw my opinion on the trainer manual. It does play a role.
4) Nobody is impartial, everyone here’s brings an opinion.
5) I was trying to be polite and respectful, not impartial.

Just to share a piece of advice, if you have someone (who often acts as a spokesperson) that chooses to blast off on others whenever he/she sees fit, then your watchdog grouping will be affected. People will not listen and most likely label you group as neurotic and unfriendly. If you wish to make an impact, I think it is logical to learn to communicate to others and debate in a respectful manner.

This post is emotive, because I honestly feel my discussion and my attempt to be polite as well as be respectful was violated. Therefore, my apologies for being emotional.

Thank you for reading.

-----------------------------------------------------

CW
03 Jul 09 , 22:22 PM

Dear LEE,

Thank you for being patient. I have reflected on your arguments and wish to share the following.

On Point 2:

My idea of refraining from hurtful words was meant for adults and older teenagers. I am concerned that they might be an at-risk suicide group and I don’t wish to aggravate the situation. When we say children, I am assuming them to be under 16 yrs old, and for this age group, I believe there is no requirement or education needed to mention anything on the homosexuality matter. If the issue arises, I feel parents must take the proactive role to guide their own young on the views of homosexuality. Regardless of the age group, the morality aspect should still be left to parents, and their respective faiths. Every parent should have their right to bring up their children in the manner they see fit.

I watched the Talking Point video (back then), and felt that anal sex should not be promulgated to young children, aged 12. So, I believe no contest on that issue.

On Point 4:
The smoking reference is well-explained, but lacks an important consideration in my view:

Smoking is easily and unanimously agreed by all including scientists and religious scholars to be harmful. The facts and evidence is extremely cut-throat clear that there is no ambiguity. Homosexuality, sadly to say, has not been clearly understood or researched enough. When there is ambiguity, especially on something that can be considered an identity issue, you will naturally have people on both sides who take offense once a premature decision has been made.

BTW, please note you have convinced me to be an individual who knows how to respect other people. Definitely.

Remarks by Education Minister on Sexuality Education Programme in Schools

2009-07-04T17:21:00.000+08:00

Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 03:10 AM

My reply to MOE’s email dated 03.07.09:

Dear Mr Yong

Thank you for your 3rd July, 2009 reply to my email.

I am heartened to hear of MOE's stand and I have seen the latest news that came out of MOE only recently.

These are my comments:

1) On the need of advising how a student should protect oneself in the event of heightened libido, I agree that it should be taught but, I hope that MOE will consider emphasizing the prevention aspect frequently and regularly in such a way as to drum it in the head of our young.

2) It is not without thought that I say this because, if we were to leave it to one chapter and that's it, it's as good as "preaching" to the wall.

3) I would like to state again as in my previous email that these days students tend to spend more time in school and they are not like students of yesteryear. Now, they are so exposed to a wide spectrum of the media daily and also do much school work on the computer such that it is hardly surprising that most parents are unable to influence them as before.

4) Schools being centres of learning, should be the primary source of moral learning and should be part of the yearly general curriculum from day one of school life of a child and there should be weightage applied for the course. Otherwise, the course subject will be considered redundant and a waste of time in the long run by the students. This is important in terms of nation building and maintenance of moral standards.

5) As the recent AWARE saga has shown us all, attempts were made to covertly disseminate and inculcate acceptance of a moral concept not compatible with the mainstream to our young through our educational system. From this incident, MOE should realize the effectiveness of regular moral & civic education. It is regrettable that we parents are now considered supplemental to the teachers in this respect.

6) Schools should be adequately funded so as to ensure this program achieves the required results at the end of a child's school going years.

7) It is hoped that sex education and other programs are properly scrutinized prior to offering to the students.

8) It is also hoped that school teachers and instructors of sex education and other programs are regularly scrutinized thoroughly and also in the way they teach the subjects. This is no nonsensical talk on my part but reflecting a known danger inherent as the 'educators' themselves may be the "wolfe in sheep's clothing" themselves.

9) As parents, seeing so many young ones displaying LBGT tendencies so openly in our schools is quite alarming and your comment and poxition on this aspect is NOT really assuring but rather quite disquieting to us. Therefore, I hope MOE will look further into this matter and provide more comprehensive support to the school counselors in lessening these tendencies and preferences.

10) Finally, I wish that MOE will prevent future "infiltration" of deviant views inconsistent with the mainstream by exhorting Principals and teachers to be vigilant when dispensing their lessons or advice to our young.

Thank you.

Remarks by Education Minister on Sexuality Education Programme in Schools

2009-07-04T17:18:00.001+08:00

REACH BLOG:

Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 03:09 AM

Reply from MOE dated 03.07.09 to my email:
We refer to our interim email reply to you dated 15 June 2009.
School Sexuality Education
Minister, in his briefing to the media on 21 May 2009, reiterated the importance of sexuality education. He emphasised that MOE’s sexuality education programme respects the primary role of parents, reflects social norms and reinforces family values which uphold the conventional family as the basic building block of our society. The Ministry of Education (MOE) will be taking steps to enhance and strengthen the delivery of sexuality education in schools.
For full details on Minister’s remarks on sexuality education programmes in schools, you can refer to our website at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/. Details on MOE’s sexuality education programme can be found at the following link:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2009/05/information-sheet-on-ministry.php.
School Counselling
Please allow us to share that teachers interact regularly with students and are able to identify and guide those students who require help in their studies. Teachers may refer to school counsellors those students who require support to overcome social and emotional problems that have hindered their progress in school. Parents who have concerns about their children's school performance or social and emotional well-being may want to discuss them with the relevant teachers or school counsellor. Teacher, counsellor and parent can then collaborate to support the student.

REACH - Diversity Of Views

2009-06-30T17:43:00.004+08:00

a good seed
28 Jun 09 , 11:37 AM

Act I (Scene 1) - THE DAY (LUCKILY) THE FENCE DID NOT COME DOWN

Time : The Past; some time in 2007

Place: "Baaliament"; the Main Shed by a riverside on a beautiful tropical island called "Sheepgapore" somewhere above the Equator (One Degree Long. Nineteen Degree Lat.)

The Participants: Baaliament gathering of Good Shepherds (guardians of sheepgapore's population of sheep); unfortunately with members of the Jackals And Wolves Society (JAWS) masquerating as shepherds.

HEAD SHEPHERD: "We are gathered here to formulate plans to keep improving the welfare of our herd in our care. It's sooooooo eeeeeasy controlling the herd as they are all sooooooo timid - always leaving us shepherds to make decisions all the time.

Sadly, we shepherds do make mistakes at times owing to some of our inexperience members asleep on the job or delegating some other shepherds (JAWS) in reality to take charge of the herd. Of course, we know that JAWS exists in our midst and also amongst the herd when they are actually wolves in sheep's clothing).

We must not admit to the herd nor apologise for our inaccurate policies and must not show humility as shepherds are considered soooooo ggggreat less we weaken our hold on the herd. (chorus; from the members present "hear, hear; hear, hear")

Also, we have problems looking for fresh pastures; for newwater for the herd as the current grazing areas are about barren and the search has got to be relentless.

Planning new fighting techniques for our guard dogs in the protection of the herd from dangers lurking amongst them; especially preventing JAWS infiltrating, capturing and taking over control of Baaliament.

"The infiltrated JAWS in Baaliament (disguised as shepherds) have even proposed that we good shepherds all agree to take the fence down so that the herd can roam easily across the wide expanse of the island in search of more clean water and greener pastures.

These JAWS members are like cunning serpents. We good shepherds must stay guarded at all times to prevent their taking over control of Baaliament.

Almost all of our wise and good shepherds in Baaliament are against the idea of taking the fence down as this can also let in the wolf pack waiting outside the fencing; patiently with salivating jaws; ever ready to pounce on each and every one of the innocent herd - the very young and old.

The good shepherds in Baaliament argued that if the fence is taken down; the wolf pack would then make short work of the whole herd as soon as the fence is taken down and a bloody massacre of the herd and even the good shepherds, is inevitable.

Therefore, we good shepherds have a sacred duty in protecting our herd and maintain a constant vigilance all through the years to rid JAWS of their evil intentions for the welfare of the whole herd on our beautiful island of Sheepgapore.

GOOD SHEPHERDS, REMEMBER ALWAYS:

"DON'T EVER TAKE A FENCE DOWN UNTIL YOU KNOW THE REASON IT WAS PUT UP".

Good Shepherds (all in unison "hear hear; hear hear") and thus, the meeting ended.

-------------------------------
ACT I (SCENE 2) - THE MEETING - IT'S CALLED MUTATION

The Time : The Present

The Place: A deep underground secret lair on a famous island resort, just above the Equator (One Degree Ninety)

The Participants: Gathering of the Jackals and Wolves Society (JAWS)
(Above the din of howling, pawing, jumping up and down and banging on the walls of the lair):

JAWS' Secretary: "Order, order. Stop howling, jumping and banging. This is our JAWS' meeting, not the AWARE's EGM (met with more howling, jumping and banging on the lair' walls, this time even more deafening).

Meeting has now started to report our pack's progress since JAWS got clobbered in the 2007 Baaliament; cancellation of JAWS' subsequent beach party when we were exposed by some very smart sheep who complained to their good shepherds of our evil intentions and the now infamous AWARE saga.

The good news is we, JAWS at our recent clandestine meeting, decided to change tactic (yes, IT'S CALLED MUTATION)immediately and fooled everyone, yes, even fooling the good shepherds and their guard dogs by holding a so-called family fun party gathering on the island resort, oooooops I mean our lair (more howling, pawing and banging on walls..) with free entrance, plenty of fresh green grass with lots and lots of clean water.

Fortunately these sheep (young and old), the good shepherds and their guard dogs never stop to think for an instant that all these free facilities are big moneys paid and solely funded by members of JAWS. It was worth every $ spent by our JAWS society; just to smell and lick the nice clean coats of the young sheep and devouring some of them when they were too intoxicated to resist (with our hoard of booze) after the good shepherds and their guard dogs left the party early.

We JAWS believe if the means justify the ends, every $ spent was worth it (more howling and banging on walls..)The whole sheep on the resort had forgotton what their MM Good Shepherd had repeatedly advised:

"NOTHING IS FOR FREE IN THE WORLD".

Topic - Media Objectivity

2009-06-30T17:29:00.004+08:00

Hi All,

This is was a posting from LIFE Correspondent John Lui "Get Your Values Out of my face". Although Lui's article was not printed on the paper, it was posted on the ST Online Blog under ST LIFE CORRESPONDENT.
-------------------------------------
John Lui
Life! Correspondent
Get your values out of my face
May 08, 2009 Friday, 11:42 AM
John Lui shares his views on the Aware saga.
________________________________________
"GET your values out of my elite uncaring face"

If there is one lesson that the Aware saga has proven yet again, it is that parents have an inflated sense of their own worth in society.

I am not married and do not have children and it has irritated me for a long time that mothers and fathers like to excuse their incredibly selfish behaviour by saying "it's for the sake of the kids".

The group of pro-values parents who object to a factual and comprehensive sex eduation programme should be reminded that their little darlings belong to the same society that I do.

If these little angels as a result of ignorant fornication foist little bundles of joy on society and its taxpayers, I for one will be more than a little displeased.

In my eyes, having teenagers with fully functioning reproductive organs and not being able to control them is similar to owning a pit bull with big teeth and not putting it on a leash. Both creatures are hazards to other people.

If you tell me that your pit bull's fondness for sinking his fangs into people is "a private matter between a dog and his owner", I would tell you to grow a brain, you selfish, ignorant fool.

And if you campaign to keep leashes off dangerous dogs, then you are more than a fool, you are a menace to society.

Your right to keep your pet unrestrained ends where the skin of my leg begins.

Your rights to keep your child ignorant about sex ends where my tax dollars start to fund public medical programmes for STDs, juvenile delinquency schemes and prisons for people screwed up by being born to poor teenage mothers.

In the pages of The Straits Times over the last four weeks, we have seen upper-middle class professionals, driven by private religious impulses, strive to change public education policy.

People from well-off, educated families are the ones who are statistically the least likely to suffer from the problems of teen pregnancy and STDs. Yet they feel driven to restrict sex education for the people who need it most: Teens from lower-income families.

But it makes sense. After all, the harm that these well-meaning people could cause will never affect them directly. They get to feel holy but will never experience the misery born of their actions.

Singapore was born of pragmatism. Legalised prostitution protects women in the sex trade from pimps. No-one likes prostitution but greater misery comes from driving it underground.

Teenage sexual behaviour is a public health issue, like swine flu or dengue fever.
The next time someone tells me that sex education is a private matter between a parent and his child, I will tell him that in return, I will make open containers filled with stagnant water a private matter between myself and the stuff I keep on my property.

Topic - Media Objectivity

2009-06-30T17:05:00.003+08:00

AWARE’s CHARTER OF COMPASSION

LEE
16 Jun 09 , 09:57 AM

Hello everyone
Re: Founding fathers of Aware’s New Charter for Compassion mentioned in ST article on June 14.

This is a SUMMARY ALL 4 persons mentioned in ST article on Aware’s New Charter of Compassion. I have done more homework on Mr. Alvin Tan and Mr. Jolovan Wham, the other 2 persons (Karen Armstrong & Tan Chong Kee) .

I quote from the ST article:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_390091.html

""Ms Yap hopes to establish a Singapore chapter of the Charter, started by British author and religious scholar (1) Karen Armstrong.

Its other founding members include San Francisco-based (2) Dr Tan Chong Kee, who founded the now defunct online forum, Sintercom;
(3) Mr Alvin Tan, artistic director of theatre group The Necessary Stage; and(4) Mr Jolovan Wham, executive director of transient worker help group, Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (Home).
Ms Armstrong, who wrote seminal works like A History Of God and The Battle For God, launched the charter to promote a more harmonious world through compassion - a core principle in every religion."" UNQUOTE
------
1) My research on Karen Armstrong
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0345391691/ref=bxgy_cc_b_text_a/177-7447274-8908124

Quote: Former nun and A History of God iconoclast Armstrong delves deeply once again into the often violent histories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, this time exploring the rise of fundamentalist enclaves in all three religions. . Even Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism have developed fundamentalist factions. Reacting to a technologically driven world with liberal Western values, fundamentalists have not only increased in numbers…. Armstrong sensitively recognizes one of fundamentalism's great ironies: though they ostensibly seek to restore a displaced, mythical spiritual foundation, fundamentalists often re-establish that foundation using profoundly secular, pseudo-scientific means ("creation science" is a prime example)

Reacting to a technologically driven world with liberal Western values, fundamentalists have not only increased in numbers, they have become more desperate, claims Armstrong, who points to the Oklahoma City bombing, violent anti-abortion crusades, and the assassination of President Yitzak Rabin as evidence of dangerous extremes. "
Unquote.

2) About Tan Chong Kee
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2005/08/01/1464.tan-chong-kee
People
1 Aug 2005
tan chong kee
by Sylvia Tan

Fridae speaks to Dr Tan Chong Kee, Singapore's best-known figure in civil society activism, about his upcoming talk on Aug 2 which challenges the notion that same-sex love is contrary to Asian values. Currently the Chairman of non-profit theatre company, The Necessary Stage, the 42-year-old also holds a Ph.D. in Chinese Literature from Stanford University in the United States.

Tan Chong Kee…
'Same-Sex Love In Classical Chinese Literature' (in Mandarin) will be held on .. pm as part of IndigNation, Singapore's first Pride month. The series of events is held in "response to the unreasonable ban on parties for gays and lesbians and heavy censorship of publications serving this community."

3) About Mr. Alvin Tan of Necessary Stage:
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2003/07/02/839.spores-necessary-stage-to-present-mardi-gras

Article: Entertainment - 2 Jul 2003
Spore's necessary stage to present 'mardi gras' by News Editor
Singapore theatre company, The Necessary Stage, will stage “MARDI GRAS”, a play about A GROUP OF PEOPLE WANTING TO ORGANISE SINGAPORE’S FIRST PRIDE PARADE. Unquote. (note: Go to the link. look at the photo “we are here..we are queen…we’re..so in trouble)

4) About Mr. Jolovan Wham - he participated in a forum for human rights. However, it seems he spoke on issues of the homeless and migrant workers. But take a look at the other speakers in this forum.

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleAseanHRForum.html
SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Singaporeans come together to form group for human rights
24 Sep 07

At a forum held at the Allson Hotel yesterday, a group of Singaporeans came together to push for human rights in Singapore.

Moderator MR ALEX AU, WRITER AND GAY RIGHTS ACTIVIST, kicked off the session by explaining how ASEAN had agreed to include a segment in its charter that promised to respect the rights of its peoples. This came about after years of engagement with civil societies within and outside of ASEAN. UNQUOTE

Actually I was waiting and hoping for someone to do the “research” on Alvin Tan and Jolovan Wham since I already covered Armstrong and Tan Chong Kee. This has been very time consuming for me so I hope you will not let the efforts go to waste.

I am in the midst of writing my letter to the PM, Ministers, MPs, MUIS and MOE. Remember I AM BUT ONE VOICE. So everyone, PLEASE DO YOUR PART PEACEFULLY by writing, forwarding and informing the Ministries and the public.

My advice to everyone is to be more investigative and be pro active when you read something of concern. Find out more through the Net so there are facts and evidence that can be substantiated and share it with us. No need to get all panicky, just share what you have and the facts will speak for themselves. Besides waiting for someone to organize a society, I encourage you to investigate further on all articles mentioned in ST and post it here. That’s more fruitful than waiting for ST to “change”..

----
LEE
17 Jun 09 , 09:24 AM

……ST insists they have been impartial and professional. So, if ST were to print future articles on Aware’s charter of compassion, will they use their sensational headlines only to highlight what they wish the public to read and dismiss the other important facts the way they did with the CSE issue? Are they going to have breathless coverage and inform the public that these founding members are pluralists who think that any religious citizens speaking up against moral values are denounced as religious fundamentalists? Are they going to splash that poster on the “Mardi Gras” play that was put up Necessary stage? That poster with a practically naked gay with captions “We’re here, we’re Queen, We’re …soooo in trouble”? http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2003/07/02/839.spores-necessary-stage-to-present-mardi-gras
(Those who don’t know what I am talking about, please go to my posting on June 16 09.57am regarding the background of the 4 founding members of Aware’s charter of compassion.)

Will ST splash that gay mardi gras poster in the paper the way they splashed Dr. Thio’s photo? I have many friends who told me Dr THIO’S PHOTO IN THE ST WAS LARGER THAN MAS SELAMAT OR ANY PHOTO OF OUR PRIME MINISTER. Unfortunately I missed that.

True Objectivity means the public must have ALL the necessary knowledge about an issue before they can discern for themselves. The only way for adults to “filter” the information is when they are provided with all the facts.

….So don’t worry “CW”, if there is no hidden agenda or disguise behind Aware’s new charter of compassion, then individuals like yourself should have nothing to worry about all this information being shared to the public. If this charter isn’t another disguise by Aware for gay activists to push their agenda onto mainstream society, then you have nothing to be concerned about.. Just let the public have all the necessary facts about the 4 founding members of Aware’s charter of compassion so they can decide for themselves.

I stated in my earlier posting 16 June 10.02am that everyone is entitled to share their views in our secular state. Aware shares theirs and so should we. Fair and square. But we object when the so called All Inclusives say their views can be included in secular space but ours has to be excluded. We object to our national news media excluding the concerns of parents and citizens until we had to petition, write online letters, mass emails to get MOE to investigate Aware’s Controversial CSE Trainer’s Manual. If ST had really been impartial, all these “actions” would not have been necessary. We have now lost the confidence that ST will be impartial when reporting about activities that deal with moral issues.

Was there a need for Aware to be so secretive and adamant about their confidential manual if there was nothing wrong? So, if there is no hidden agenda or disguise behind Aware’s New Charter of Compassion, then there’s nothing wrong in SHARING this information on public space.

Now concerned parents and citizens have to do more investigative work. I save myself close to $320 on one year’s subscription of ST’s print edition. Better to give this to the more needy.

REACH BLOG - 29 Jun 09 , 22:40 PM

2009-06-29T22:52:00.008+08:00

Silent Majority

“CW”,

Although you posted your comments to LEE, I have some very strong views of my own and decided to comment on what you said. I hope others will follow suit since this is public space."

In your postings on 28 Jun 09 , 14:44 PM you were asked:

1) What are your PERSONAL views about constant acts of anal sex in homosexuality?
You replied: “I don’t have a personal view or stand on it as I have not been a participant in anal sex. However, I think the decision is private to the individuals. Mind you, anal sex is not restrictive to homosexuality. Heterosexuals can choose to do so. So long as both are consenting adults, and both register the risks and are willing to be responsible for their actions, I think it is ok.

Answer:
For a person who showed so much conviction about LBGT, it is unlike you to have no personal view or stand. It’s like telling another adult, I will have to participate in killing a person before I make a stand on my personal views.

You either agree it is “okay” or “not okay” to have “anal sex”. You are conveniently sitting on the fence with your reply.

Since you brought up about “Consenting”, Homosexuality has always been around Asian culture. Nobody in this thread denies that. NO issue here.

You also said “Anal sex, is a private act, thus everybody will come to their own decision on it. I will not put it to the subject of morality, as everybody will have different degrees of belief and will make their own decisions on the matter.”

Answer:
Ha! CW! I completely agree with you that it is private, as Asian society in general has always seen it that way for hundreds of years. Good that you agree it is a PRIVATE ACT. Also, NO issue here.

The core issue is whether society in general agrees with it and they do NOT. Society in general frowns upon it. But, unfortunately, most in society are passive on-lookers. As long as LBGT do not cross the line. That is fine with society. No argument from you can support it.

Even in USA, there is a swelling of public opinion against it. The Europeans, they are the root of many ills in this world. Mostly, faults of old world politics and still playing the same game.

INDEED, it IS All About MORALITY. No society can survive without upholding their morality. That is why when young, your parents teach you not to kill etc. Didn’t you learnt of ancient Roman society where Morality degenerated into permissive actions like debauchery, anal sex, etc, Society will fail in the long run.

Imagine, with your meaning of freedom of choice, and independence of action, next you’ll see the father “do” the son, mother “do” the son, father “do” the daughter.

This is individual independence you are proscribing as your comments goes. That is what will happen when society is bereft of a set of Moral values/ Core values to uphold. As in Holland, you can’t stop your daughter from becoming a prostitute.

Truly, do you think that “daughter” being an individual, wants to be a prostitute? And if you try me with “Freedom of choice” that means you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. A typical mantra of those who supports LBGT. I have worked with them and I tell you this, none wants to be one but only due to economic necessities.

You are clearly either a consenting partner or a pro-LBGT. This is all wayang kulit from you.

2) When asked whether you thought anal sex is unhealthy. You said “On whether it is unhealthy? I know from fact that it carries a larger risk of contracting HIV. However, that is applicable to those who have multiple sexual partners or those come in contact with HIV positive partners. If the act is between a monogamous and committed couple, the risks can be mitigated.”

Answer:
Good that you agree it carries a larger risk of contracting HIV. But, that’s the point. It boils down to Morality.

If it is to be based on the individual rights of a person/ couple as is your stand in all your comments, to do it freely and without fear or favour, where is the “Accountability” to the majority. Individual rights in Asian society entails some responsibility towards the majority. What you are constantly espousing in your “musings” is western concepts which are now undeniably slowly being overturned by a more vocal majority in their midst.

It’s a fallacy on your part if you deny that the minority in the West has been using all sorts of leverages and lobbying and discreet actions to get the recognition that they wanted, but, at what cost. Promiscuity, loose morals? Is that the way you want Singapore to go? Whatever your arguments you proffer will not hold water but only a “wayang kulit” because to you, as long as at the end of the day, your actions meets your aims.

3) When asked whether you felt anal sex is natural. You said “On whether it is natural? The word natural would, for me, draw a relation to reproduction. In this case, anal sex is not reproductive hence unnatural. However, I would not use “unnatural” to slant the term “anal sex” as the act is practiced in private. It serves no purpose unless the discussion was about reproduction.”

Answer:
Hello, if “CW” you still can’t see from the forest to the trees that “anal sex” is unnatural, you are either unnatural or just want to win the argument regardless of the natural order. There is no other interpretation or to put it in local jargon, “play backside”. Then, again, what is stopping the Father “do” the son, mother “do” the son, father “do” the daughter. That’s natural? No need to “slant” the term.

Let’s not continue playing with words here. You are evading a direct answer and the issue. Your anus was not meant for sex but for relieving yourself. Again you are playing with words, evading all the core issues and divert from answering directly.

My question to you : Is having “anal sex” natural? Do you think having your anus penetrated on a regular basis is natural? Don’t use the excuse that you don’t indulge in anal sex so you can comment. I don’t need to eat excrement to tell you it tastes bad.

4) “CW”, On being asked if you have watched the testimony of Christopher and Victor on http://christopheryuanvideo.blogspot.com/
You said : ”Not yet, but will do. Need Time. “

Answer:
If you are as impartial as what you try to portray, you would have seen it long time ago. Surprised you haven’t even watched it. If that’s the case, you really, really have lost the moral ground as your arguments are not impartial but evasive and suggestive towards pro-LBGT activism. Or perhaps you come from a background where no one taught you about morals and so this word is alien to you.

5) “CW”, you were asked if “Do you agree that Aware's CSE programme should have been suspended?”

You said: “…Yes, I believe it should be suspended. However, once the programme is refined to better reflect the necessary tones of society, it can request for the suspension to be lifted (subject to vetting and approval). ….I am not interested in the trainers’ manual, I am more interested in what was taught.”

Answer:
AWARE has rightly lost it’s moral authority by still standing by its position and no manner of ‘cosmetic’ application is going to change people’s mindset.

You are kidding if you think that the “trainer’s manual” is not important. It guides the “instructor” in formulating answers to the ‘students”. There have been comments by parents that said that the “instructors” themselves were pushing the line.

You should know that, recently, at a blogsite, a video clearly showed one of your AWARE “overseas” instructors trying to push their LBGT interpretations down the throat of a parent who was not convinced at all. Again, don’t tell me that you did not watch it. Then, how are you going to debate if you don’t watch something that you do not agree with. Again “wayang kulit”

Let’s talk about now. It’s very fine and noble that MOE should instruct the school counselors to do more but this is where they HAVE done so by “Outsourcing” them. But, you and AWARE and cohorts made slight of and took advantage of the people’s sincerity, ignorance, passivity and trust.

You don’t teach our “Young” that “anal sex” is normal and natural. It should not even be in the CSE. Unfortunately, CSE was taken directly from SIECUS, an organization from the USA or other, which are pro-LBGT as is AWARE (whom have stated their stance on this very clearly)

This is where the pro-LBGT took advantage to inveigle their agenda into the CSE to promulgate their views by trying to influence our “Children” at a very young age.
It is due to militant, aggressive and discreet actions such as by AWARE and it’s cohorts that brought out the “awareness” of the gravity of the danger to our young on how much MINORITY activism has secreted and permeated itself into our society through the Arts, Media, so-called NGOs & in Govt.

YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!!! WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING!!!

REACH BLOG - 29 Jun 09 , 19:53 PM

2009-06-29T22:51:00.003+08:00

Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore!

You are welcome, "Red Panda",

"MOE and also parents need to ensure this program is carried out according the guideline. Make sure no more Wolves in sheep's clothing coming to our school anymore."

Yes, agreed. I spoke to a Primary school Teacher when I received the Opt-Out form from my child today. I asked if the CSE will be taught by external vendors or school teachers, and was told that it would be taught by its selected school teachers who have gone through about 2 days of training on this program.

I also asked if the teachers would be able to handle questions asked by their students and I had also asked to see the materials to be taught before I sign anything on the form.

The teacher has invited me to the school to vet the materials and I want to make sure that its contents is appropriate and its values are with the conservative mainstream majority.

And Dear "Beware Aware", I find your - "If "CW" thinks its natural and ok to keep sticking things inside the anus - something must be awfully mentally wrong with that kind of thinking! "CW", this kind of rubbish should be flushed down the WC." quite funny!

I think we should get the CSE materials from the school to read and vet first before we commit anything. We need to know what are being taught to our kids.

REACH BLOG-29 Jun 09 , 19:24 PM

2009-06-29T22:50:00.005+08:00

Beware Aware!

Is "CW" from Aware?? Aware wanting to refine & offer their CSE to the schools again in the future? We must be crazy to believe these pro LGBT people. All singing the same tune on the anal retentive contents. The wolves in sheep’s clothing are still waiting longingly for the day when the shepherds are caught napping.

The natural role of the anus is for exit of faeces and excrement. Its for the exit of all things unclean. If "CW" thinks its natural and ok to keep sticking things inside the anus - something must be awfully mentally wrong with that kind of thinking! "CW", this kind of rubbish should be flushed down the WC.

Our nostrils are for breathing - you mean if people stick things up their nostrils in private just because there's an opening, that's considered ok??? Offering deviant programmes to our kids based on tis kind of logic?

You mean we all have to indulge in anal sex before we can have proof that its unnatural or unhealthy? Its common sense! Think of what your anus has been doing all these years - what is its NATURAL NORMAL function everday?? To defecate. Anything beyond that esp anal sex - is NOT NORMAL or HEALTHY!!!Think of what the anus has been doing NORMALLY throughout your life. PLAIN COMMON SENSE THAT YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE STICKING ANYTHING INTO YOURS ANUS REGULARLY EXCEPT FOR MEDICAL CHECKUP.

Thank you MOE for introducing sexuality programmes based on responsibility. Ask Aware to concentrate on welfare of women and tell them to leave our children alone!!Suspend Aware for good from our schools.

REACH BLOG-29 Jun 09 , 17:00 PM

2009-06-29T22:49:00.005+08:00

Red Panda

Thanks to "Too Concrned to Remained Silent anymore!"

The MOE's New CSE Program is fine. MOE and also parents need to ensure this program is carried out according the guideline. Make sure no more Wolves in sheep's clothing coming to our school anymore.

I recalled an argument by the pro-GLBT and pro-liberal in rebuking the concerned parents and religious persons by saying "Who are you teaching morality to us". I would counter argue by saying "WHO ARE YOU TEACHING IMMORALITY TO MY KIDS IN SCHOOL".

REACH BLOG - 29 Jun 09 , 15:26 PM

2009-06-29T22:47:00.005+08:00

Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore!

Hi All,

MOE has already release some info on its NEW CSE programs, here goes:-

THE GROWING YEARS SERIES

Overview

MOE’s Growing Years (GY) series is the main co-curricular package for sexuality education. GY is premised on the importance of the family as the basic unit of society, and teaches abstinence as the best choice for adolescents. The topics in GY aim to
promote healthy relationships based on love and respect, and are categorised under four main themes: Human Development, Interpersonal

Relationships, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and Societal Influences.

GY is developmental in nature, spanning the upper primary to post-secondary (JC/CI) levels.
The series comprises of the following packages:

- Upper Primary package “Curious Minds”
- Lower Secondary package “The Teenage Years”
- Upper Secondary package “Sense and Sexuality”
- Post Secondary package “Love Matters”

All schools are required to conduct sexuality education lessons using the GY resources, with minimal hours of lessons required for different levels: 8 hours for Upper Primary, 6 hours for Lower Secondary, 8 hours for Upper Secondary and 4 hours for Post Secondary. Adoption of GY is optional for aided and independent schools who may replace GY with their own programme.

1. “Curious Minds” (Upper Primary) package
The upper primary years mark the onset of puberty. With better nutrition and improved health care, children are reaching puberty at a younger age and have to grapple with physical, emotional and psychological changes in themselves.

The implication is that our children are becoming biologically ready for sexual activity sooner without necessarily having the corresponding cognitive or emotional maturity to modulate their behaviours. Easy access to information via the internet also means that unless properly guided, our young may find it a challenge to make appropriate choices on matters of sexuality.

“Curious Minds” is a response to these challenges. It is designed to underscore the importance
of character development and health. It consists of a multi-media package with interactive games, role-plays to engage pupils in learning facts about sexuality.

The topics covered include the reproductive system and anatomy, the changes involved in puberty, building healthy relationships, the importance of family, attitudes and values towards physical intimacy, legal issues relating to sexual abuse and exhibitionism, and constructive ways to express affection guided by society’s norms and values.

2. “The Teenage Years” (Lower Secondary) package
The values and attitudes of our youth towards sexuality are increasingly being shaped by their peers, exposure to the media, popular culture and the internet.

Adolescence is a complex stage in life as the adolescent attempts to find his/her own identity and often struggles with new social relationships.

The focus of “The Teenage Years” for Lower Secondary students is to guide adolescents on issues relating to the building of self-esteem, and to help them understand and value the following:

a. the underlying value for healthy relationships is respect;
b. abstinence as the best option for teens;
c. the possible consequences of sex outside of marriage;
d. sexual reproduction in human beings;
e. the legal issues pertaining to sexual behaviour;
f. how certain public displays of affection can affect others;
g. the influence of the media and the internet; and
h. how they can seek help, including professional help, when necessary.

3. “Sense and Sexuality” (Upper Secondary) package
Middle adolescence (generally from 15 – 17 years old) can be a turbulent period for adolescents. The gap between physical and emotional/cognitive maturity may
result in a tendency to act on impulse, experiment with various activities (including sexual activities), sometimes without understanding the unpleasant consequences that may arise from such experimentation.

The need for peer acceptance can be overwhelmingly strong, and hinder one’s ability to act responsibly. Given the pressures faced by the middle adolescent
from within themselves and from peers, it is important to build a strong sense of self-worth, personal convictions and an understanding of the possible consequences of sexual behaviour.

Through “Sense & Sexuality”, upper secondary students will have opportunity to build character, expand their understanding and repertoire of skills to deal with various issues related to sexuality, which are of prime concern at this age. These include:

a. Gender differences between males and females;
b. A better understanding of relationships;
c. Setting boundaries;
d. Commitment in relationships;
e. Understanding the influence of the media on sexuality;
f. Communication and relationship building;
g. Decision-making and assertiveness skills to say no to sex;
h. Discernment skills; and
i. Help-seeking behaviour such as coping with break-ups and rejection.

4. “Love Matters” (Post Secondary) package
The focus for “Love Matters” is on issues in relationships. Relating with peers is a major component in the lives of JC/CI students, who spend an average of half to two-thirds of their waking hours with their peers.

The focus of the Post Secondary package is on Interpersonal Relationships, with themes of Human Development, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and Societal Influences woven into the main focus on relationships.

The main objectives are to challenge students to:

a. examine their beliefs about relationships, cast off self-defeating and irrational beliefs and embrace healthy ones;
b. examine their behaviours in relationships in the light of their choices and consequences, and replace negative behaviours with positive alternatives; and
c. develop personal qualities in themselves that they desire in their friends and partners.

The overall desired outcomes are that students would be optimistic about life and relationships, respect the rights and dignity of others, and consider abstinence as the best option for themselves as teenagers.

Testimony on Suzanne Chin

2009-06-28T15:05:00.006+08:00

Below is a testimony of God's grace and goodness in my sister Suzanne's life. Letter from Dr Alan Chin. Feel free to forward this to all your friends
---------------------
Dr Alan Chin
10-Jun-09

Testimony on Suzanne Chin

On the morning of Monday, 20 of April 2009, I received a call from my brother–in-law John that my sister Suzanne had suffered a cardiac arrest and was warded in ICU in hospital in Hong Kong. This came at the worst time possible as I was going through a time of tribulation and crisis in my own life. My wife Josie had just been appointed as the President of AWARE and when she most needed my support, I had to be away! (Remember the A.W.A.R.E. saga?)

My mother and I flew up that very afternoon to Hong Kong. We arrived that night and headed straight to Canossa Hospital where Suzanne was warded. We met John and my brother David who had flown in earlier. John recounted what had happened that morning.

As per her usual morning routine, after sending her kids to school, she went for her morning jog with her dog. However, after around ten minutes, she decided to turn back as she was feeling tired. She had a bath and went to bed. As John noticed that she looked unwell and was slow in her speech, he called for the ambulance. Within 10-15 minutes she was on her way to hospital, still conscious.

Unfortunately on arrival at 8:38am, she lapsed into unconsciousness with an unrecordable blood pressure. The doctors commenced resuscitation which lasted about 2 hours. ECG on admission showed narrow complex bradycardia. Intra venous adrenaline was administered and she developed a ventricular tachycardia. She was defibrillated which resulted in sinus rhythm. She was intubated and started on IV dopamine and adrenaline.

She was transferred to ICU after she had been stabilized.

MRI of Brain showed:
- Tiny T2W dark signal in Right cerebellar hemisphere, likely a nonspecific focus due to a tiny calcification or tiny focus of old No other intracranial abnormality.
- Trace fluid signal in posterior wall of NP.
- ECG immediate post resuscitation on 20.4.2009 – SR, ST depression in praecordial leads

CXR report:
- Interstitial lung markings, right lung pleural fluid, slightly more confluent shadowing RUZ, but may have some pneumonic changes.

In ICU, she developed diabetes insipidus – marked urine output (serum osmolarity 325 urine osmolarity 129) responded to DDAVP.

When I saw Suzanne in ICU, she did not look good. She was on a ventilator; her pupils were 4mm fixed and dilated. Her limbs were flaccid. The respiratory physician advised that the prognosis was very poor with evidence of brain stem death and pituitary gland failure. The room temperature in ICU was kept low to slow down the metabolic processes.

I spent the night in hospital praying and interceding. I proclaimed Psalm118:17 over Suzanne that she shall not die but live to declare the works of the Lord.

An echocardiogram done the next morning on Tue, 21 April 2009 by the cardiologist, Dr. David Ho showed:

- Moderate Aortic Regurgitation with global left ventricular dysfunction and moderate to severe global hypokinesia.
- Cardiac valves showed no abnormal thickening.
- Tri-leaflet aortic valve
- LVES 4.89cm LVED 5.35cm
- EF 19% by M mode
- LA 2.72cm

Dr Ho suggested a diagnosis of acute aortic valve prolapse leading to cardiac arrest.

That afternoon, her condition remained unchanged. The temperature in the ICU was now turned up in a not-too-subtle hint that the doctors had given up.

The respiratory physician again advised that there was no improvement and confirmed that Suzanne had brain stem death (BSD). It is a term equated with death to describe a person on life-support system when faced with a decision whether or not to switch off the ventilator or to harvest organs for organ transplant. She advised John to consider switching off the ventilator as Suzanne was now dead and there was no hope of recovery. She added in medical history there were no cases of anybody recovering from BSD.

I contacted my friends in Singapore to pray for Suzanne.

We requested for a second opinion from a neurologist who examined her that afternoon. Her pupils were fixed and dilated. Vestibulo-ocular reflex was negative. She had a negative gag and cough reflex. There was no pain reflex in response to deep pressure over sternum, fingers, and eyebrow. She was flaccid, a-reflexic and there was no plantar response. His diagnosis was also that of brain stem death.

That evening, Suzanne looked dead. She was cold and clammy; facial discoloration had set in, especially under her eyes. There was also a smell of death over her. That evening, her children, Kim and Ian saw her for the first time after her collapse. The whole family was distraught. Everyone was grieving for Suzanne.

Later that night, I called Josie to update her on Suzanne’s condition. She spoke to John and prayed with him. She received the word "resurrection" and told John that God is our Healer and that He would resurrect all her brain cells.

Even as I prayed that night, I asked Father God where was Suzanne ? He answered that she was with Him. I then asked whether she would be coming back. He said yes! I asked when but there was no answer. I then asked for a sign by Wednesday as I had scheduled to return to Singapore that afternoon. Comforted I went to sleep early that night.

Things started to turn around on Wednesday. Early that morning, the nurses noticed slight movement as they were sucking phlegm from her intubation tube. John excitedly called from hospital that early morning saying Suzanne had opened her eyes for the briefest moment several times!

We hurried down to the hospital. As we called her name there was response with twitching of her lips and movement of her eyebrows. She opened her eyes several times! We were all greatly encouraged.

Suzanne was then reassessed by the neurologist. When he called her name, there was no response. When he asked her to move her arm, again there was no response. However, when I called out her name, she opened her eyes. She also moved her fingers when I asked her to move her hand. Her pupils were still fixed and dilated with a negative doll’s eye reflex. There was grimacing of her face in response to deep pressure for pain over her fingers and sternum.

Strangely the neurologist still advised John that these signs were just autonomic responses. She also warned John not to raise false hopes of recovery as Suzanne had BSD!

At around noon, the respiratory physician noted there were further signs of recovery. Suzanne had started triggering the ventilator to breathe, about 5-10% of the breaths. By the time I left the hospital for the airport at about 1:30pm, she was initiating 100% of her breathing.

By that evening, there was movement of all her four limbs; with increasing episodes of eye movements. Her pupils were no longer fixed and dilated and she had regained her pupillary reflexes.

However she developed a fever. Her total white blood count was 34,500. Chest X-Ray showed lobar pneumonia, with bilateral infiltrates indicative of adult respiratory distress syndrome. Remarkably all these settled down within 24 hours.

On Thursday 23 April, while being reassessed by her neurologist, John asked Suzanne to nod her head if she understood him. She did so. He then asked her to nod her head twice as the doctor was skeptical. Again she did so.

By Friday 24 April, Suzanne was fully conscious and able to recognize all who visited her.

Echo of heart: Ejection Fraction had improved from 19% to 43%. (Her EF was back to normal by Monday 27 April).

Suzanne was ex-tubated on Saturday, 25 April. She was able to talk shortly after that. Neurological examination revealed full and total recovery with no neurological deficits.

I spoke to her that afternoon over the phone just before I testified in church of God’s power and amazing grace in bringing her back from the dead.

On Sunday 26 April morning, Suzanne was up and about and was able to shower herself. She even asked John to bring her facial wash and moisturizer.

She was discharged the following Tuesday.

As I shared her amazing testimony in Church Of Our Savior again, on Sunday 26 April morning, a reporter from ‘The Newpaper’ was also present. Intending to hear Pastor Derek's sermon, she had no choice but to sit through my sharing of this miracle. It was then reported on Monday 27 April The Newpaper’s Front page!

Up till today doctors are not able to ascertain what happened to Suzanne as all the tests have been negative. She is fully recovered and coming back to Singapore permanently this end June 2009 after spending 15 years in Hong Kong.

Suzanne remembers that while she was in coma, she dreamt that she was pinned down on the floor of an apartment she had earlier visited in Pandan Valley Singapore. She tried to get up but someone (she described it as an evil presence) prevented her from doing so.

She has been touched and changed by her experience and walking closer to God.

I hope that Suzanne’s miraculous resurrection will be a source of comfort, strength and encouragement of the reality of God’s amazing grace, mercy and goodness.

Revelation 19:10b states: For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Let him or her who needs a miracle from God, claim one.

Dr Alan Chin

REACH Blog

2009-06-26T13:25:00.006+08:00

31/05/2009
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER
By SuperAdamantium @ 4:08 AM :: 54 Views :: 0 Comments :: General

HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER. Not convinced? Then read this factual account of what happened in the 1970s that forced the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders. Homosexual activists threatened and bullied the APA into submission. The APA did not come to this decision by scientific recourse. READ ALL ABOUT IT
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/#more-20

REACH Blog

2009-06-26T13:18:00.004+08:00

29/05/2009
In Defence of Society's Standards
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/BlogUs/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/576/In-Defence-of-Societys-Standards.aspx
By SuperAdamantium @ 9:38 PM :: 46 Views :: 0 Comments :: Aspirations for REACH

The last time I checked, the MOE had fired AWARE as a sex education programme provider because of the latter’s promotion of gay propaganda. If calling a spade a spade is deemed moral bashing, I wonder what would one call MOE’s action? Moral execution? Yet MOE’s action was widely applauded by mainstream society.

Most of the moral decline in Western societies and now in Singaporean society that allowed for the rise of homosexual militancy almost unchecked stemmed firstly from a misplaced sense of societal harmony ------ that moral indignations are called moral bashings, that groups with aberrant norms or morals must be included to reach a consensus for the sake of harmony, that an amoral, laissez faire attitude is best.

The issue now is a fight over standards, moral standards for society. Not a fight over whether homosexuals have the right to live.

Standards cannot entertain exceptions, just like 1 metre must equal 100 centimetres ------ there are no exceptions to this measure. Or that the passing mark for an examination is 50.

You may fail to live up to the standard; but the standard stays. You don’t change the passing mark just so that you can pass. That’s subversion.

So the moral standard for sexuality in our society is heterosexuality. That which doesn’t make the grade then is deemed immoral. What’s immoral ------ homosexuality, bisexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, sadomasochism, etc, whatever.

Homosexuals are now trying, through AWARE, through sex education programme in schools, through the media, the arts and politics to change society’s moral benchmark to include homosexuality as a pass.

Like I said, society’s moral standards should not change. You can fail to make the grade. You live to try another day. Nobody’s denying you the right to live. But mainstream society would and should deny homsosexual activists' efforts at corrupting and subverting our moral standards.

REACH Blog

2009-06-26T13:13:00.002+08:00

9/5/2009
OVERSIGHT ON MOE REGARDIN AWARE SEX GUIDE
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/BlogUs/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/564/OVERSIGHT-ON-MOE-REGARDIN-AWARE-SEX-GUIDE.aspx
By Raymond Lo Wan Mou @ 5:52 PM :: 110 Views :: 0 Comments :: The Young Ones

Dear Reach Executive,

Ministry of Education (MOE) has announced the suspension of The Aware sexuality educational programme for all main stream schools.

I am thoroughly disappointed with MOE on why it takes so long to do this.

They are supposed to be professional educators moulding the future of this nation. Their fundamental responsibility is to nurture our children into good citizens, conscious of their responsibilities to their families, society and country.

Being a cabby and had picked up countless number of times students and youth, I know for a fact that our young ones of both sexes are very aggressive, covetous, disrespectful, destructive and full of expletives and vulgarity whenever they speak- every expression contains the 4 letter word. From some of their conversation, they have given me the impression that they had already engaged in all forms of sex at young age. Is it surprise that there are many teenagers’ abortion nowadays?

Allowing AWARE's sex guide in our mainstream schools for so long wittingly or unwitting by MOE has made the matter worse on our impassionate youth. And please MOE do not tell me that there is an oversight on your part on this important educational programme.

Of course, bad role model and indulgent parents also plays a crucial part on bad development of our young ones.

And why is it that MOE must wait for parents to complain of this unhealthy sex programme - only then they will review the guideline? Is it not their primary duty as professional educators to do this in the first place?

It is in this aspect that MOE has let down our parents and children in particular, and our society and nation in general.

Warmest Regards

REACH Blog

2009-06-26T12:52:00.004+08:00

6/5/2009
My Humble Thoughts on AWARE
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/BlogUs/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/561/My-Humble-Thoughts-on-AWARE.aspx
By Charisso @ 6:47 PM :: 85 Views :: 0 Comments :: Women, General

I am among those who attended the EGM on Saturday. I must say I have witnessed a demonstration of 'whoever is louder wins', because by sheer volume, one side has many times deprived the other of its right to deliver statements and even to reply to questions posed to them. While I am impressed by the pro-Old Guards party for their passion and firm belief in inclusiveness, I cannot say the same for the behaviour. I think it is basic courtesy not to interrupt when another person is talking, what's more, answering a question that was posed by themselves. Don't they want to hear the answer to their question? Or were they are only interested in shouting out their displeasure and fanning the emotions of the crowd? Throughout the meeting, there were cutting-in, booing and jeering while the Ex-Co was trying to reply. Josie did not even get a chance to deliver her President's Message in peace. I am appalled. I wonder what is the indication of this for the civic space in Singapore. I really have to applaud Josie's team for their courageous effort, standing up to the thousand plus people, railing and yelling at them for a full 7 hours. I for one, would not have been able to withstand it.

One other issue that bothered me was besides the 3000 who turned up, I wonder how informed the rest of the Singaporeans are about this matter. I recalled a survey done by the papers during the month-long report of this entire saga, majority were either not aware or not bothered. I think this is a cause for concern because everyone has to realise that their stand matters. We cannot rely on another person to make a choice for ourselves because logically, the other person may not make the choice that we want. If we have a choice, we should make it. If not, we have robbed ourselves of that right. And if the final result is not what we wanted, then we only have ourselves to blame because we did not voice out what we want. It is a consequence that the entire society has to bear because of apathy.

Thirdly, I have great reservations on the impartiality of the reports we have seen so far on the papers. One would have noticed a severely unbalanced 'air time' given to the Old Guards compared to the New Guards. Day after day, reports of perturbed, upset and disappointed Old Guards were splashed across the prime pages. May I ask, is this stirring up for sympathy votes? Is this stirring up of anti-New Ex-Co feelings? In my humble opinion, it really looks like it. Why do I not see the same treatment for the new Ex-Co members who received threats to their life and careers just because they stood up to fight for the good of our next generation! What is this! For as far as I can remember, when the first report came out on Good Friday papers, the New Guards were portrayed as power-grabbers who overthrew the overly-trusting Old Guards, the report likening it to a merciless coup. May I ask, which is merciless – a civilised and legitimate voting in of new people into the Ex-Co on the 28 March AGM or that unruly and unreasonable yelling and jeering for full 7 hours at the 2 May EGM? By the way, does the Constitution say that they can vote in a replacement Ex-Co right on the spot? Perhaps someone can clarify this.

Finally, as a parent to-be, I am most concerned what will be taught to my son in school. The unearthing of the contents of the CSE programme is the most harrowing yet consoling thing that has come out of the entire issue. Harrowing because of the questionable values that the programme imparts to unsuspecting young minds. I remember the astonishment I felt when I read that anal sex can be healthy so long as it is practised with a condom and with consent. The statement that pre-marital sex is actually neutral also sent a chill to my heart. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but for me, even to see such statements in adult magazines would have been mind-boggling, what more for 12 to 18-year olds? What is the point of telling them that? Nevertheless, it is a consolation that the programme is being investigated now, and I think this episode has awakened many parents to take more interest in their children's lives. They are after all our precious ones, do we not want the best for them?

Objectivity In Media Reporting

2009-06-23T19:06:00.007+08:00

Even Straits Times with huge resources and many years of experienced reporters has kept quiet
23 Jun 09 , 17:30 PM

ha ha, more likely that gay activists cannot rebut against "handful" of upset parents. Even Straits Times with huge resources and many years of experienced reporters has kept quiet against "handful" angry parents here. At least now people know that capable people are not only in Straits Times only.
-------------------------------
One-sided story
22 Jun 09 , 22:27 PM

We are surrounded by Muslim Neighbours (Countries). Our very own National Anthem is in Malay. Isn't it insulting to the Muslim Community if we were to open up to liberalism, promoting homosexual activities? Our PM is definitely right to stand firm on this issue to remain a conservative society, unless we be a laughing stock by our very own neighbours.

Ensuring A Diversity Of Views In Parliament

2009-06-23T19:00:00.008+08:00

Silent Majority
23 Jun 09 , 17:42 PM

Silent Majority
23 Jun 09 , 10:52 AM

Hi, "Too concerned......"

Heard you! Trouble now is Beatrice is out of the picture for now as the Arts scene of about 150 people have already voted in 2 of their cohorts, namely, Audrey Wong(Substation) and Loretta Chen(confirmed L***) as their representatives.

Regards,
-------------------------------------------

23 Jun 09 , 09:58 AM

Dear Silent Majority,

Besides the 2 Arts NMP, please do not forget Beatrice Chia! She is no better than Loretta Chen or Siew Kum Hong. All are Pro-LGBTs and LGBT. You should check out all her many films. Themes on Homosexuality, sexually explicit and erotic, sado-masochistic and the list goes on...

She is highly Controversial, vocal and daring. Isn't it obvious WHY she applied to be in parliament? Voice for Alternative, Liberal, Unnatural, Unhealthy, Lifestyles and another Pro-LGBT Activist!

We do NOT want or need people like that in our parliament! One is already too many!

Please all when you write, don't forget Beatrice Chia too.

Another Concern Citizen 13 Jun 09 , 10:20 AM

2009-06-23T18:43:00.002+08:00

REACH Thread - Objectivity In Media Reporting

Hi All, I strongly recommend this blog site, just in case there are still some people that have yet to fully understand or seeks more information regarding Aware devious CSE program, which you do not hear or hardly hear from the media. In fact it was thru this blog that I am able to get a copy of the CSE trainer manual and also came to know REACH web site.

Go to this site: http://tampinescourt.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to read more on past articles/comments concerning Aware & CSE for more understanding.

By the way, just thinking...if only we can let the 7200 over concern people that petition to MOE to remove the CSE program to be aware of REACH web site,to know that finally their opinions can be heard in REACH and not shut out by the media. REACH is a great web site unlike the media with its censorship and bias reporting, as it allows your voice to be heard. Fortunately, we still have REACH and some public spirit blog sites that enables us to access informations that are kept out from the media,so that we can be more discerning and able to make better judgements on our own with more balance informations available.

Video Interview By CNA With AWARE ON CSE

2009-06-22T17:50:00.006+08:00

Dear All

Good if all of you get some ideas on what AWARE said of their CSE and what it's about on CNA.

Scroll to the 2 videos you need to watch on the Talking Point programme below are:

SEXUALITY EDUCATION AND
TEEN PREGNANCY AND ABORTION

Click on the article titled above: "Video Interview By CNA With AWARE ON CSE" and watch the videos between CNA & AWARE" to view. Or you may go to below-mentioned site:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tp/archive.htm#4

Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders

2009-06-22T14:54:00.006+08:00

1
Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into
Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders

from: http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexualactivists-
intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removinghomosexuality-
from-list-of-disorders/#more-20

Posted by foospro86 on October 1, 2007
BY RYAN SORBA

“It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”

“That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”
-Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric
Association (APA).

Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered.

Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder.

Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex.

Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public
attitude.

Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists.

Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes.

‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’
shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked
psychiatrists looked on in disbelief.

‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the
Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions.

In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an ncreasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of
psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.”
(The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A samegender
sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40)

As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same gender
sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p.107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists.

Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p.97)

After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some
members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the
APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104)
On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905
APA members had voted in the election.

The results were as follows:

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a
mental disorder: 3,810
Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a
mental disorder: 5,854

It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of
the total membership of the APA.

Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s
membership approved the change.

It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM.

Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106)

Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation.

In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in hisbig black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)
Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as
well.

Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries.

At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex.

Gittings tells about her activism against the APA. “Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. “Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)

Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am
not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting
and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216).

The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli.

By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’” (The Gay Militants,
by Donn Teal, p.272-273)

Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275)

Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender
sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)

Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the
book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.

Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.
Barbara: It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came
so fast.
After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of
Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental
disorders. It was a political move.” (Making History, p.224)
The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”

(Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was
taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex,
remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.”

Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda.

Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual
member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time.

Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one
of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk.

A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her
book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality.

One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69)

On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control
estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis
cases in the U.S.”

Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the
book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January…The American
Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)

Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy.

Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a
small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of
international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)

If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic
requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all?

If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political
reasons.

Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.”

Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk
their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political
movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science
suffers and leads society astray.

One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats
the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.

Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their
deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from
the public.

Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.

Here is a link to a video about same-gender sex activist, Frank Kameny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_4S_iQ3fEo

THINK AGAIN - 21 Jun 09 , 15:21 PM

2009-06-21T16:36:00.005+08:00

Those who read ST article “COMING OUT IN CHINA”. Do you realize how the media sensationalized the issue as if there’s such a large majority that’s beginning to accept homosexual acts?

Quote from ST: “”In a survey of 400 people across Chinese cities last year, sociologist Li Yinhe, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, found what she termed a 'quite high' level of tolerance of gays - 'possibly because China has no widely held religion and hence no religion-based opposition to homosexuality like in the West', she wrote on her blog””Unquote.

MY VIEW: China has over 1.3 BILLION people. The survey is from only 400 people across the Chinese cities. Yet they actually quote this sociologist as saying that this is a “quite high” level of tolerance? 400 surveyed out of 1.30 BILLION PEOPLE is “quite high”?
----------
http://www.straitstimes.com/Asia/China/Story/STIStory_392792.html?sunwMethod=GET
June 20, 2009
MEMO FROM BEIJING
'Coming out' in China By Sim Chi Yin, China Correspondent
While homosexuality is still largely a social taboo, Chinese society is slowly opening up .

A crowd of 200 gay, straight, Chinese and expatriate guests gathered ..at the Songzhuang Art District on the city's outskirts for what organisers quietly hailed as a breakthrough for gays in China, where homosexuality was delisted as a 'mental illness' only in 2001.. Unquote

MY VIEW: The media loves to say homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder. But they fail to report another side of it: Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders.
Read it on:
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/#more-20
-----------------------------------------------

MY VIEW: The media loves to say homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder. But they fail to report another side of it: Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders.

Read it on:
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/#more-20

LEE - 21 Jun 09 , 14:33 PM

2009-06-21T16:35:00.002+08:00

For "yeah right" who obviously has no idea about what I spoke about on the site Journalism.sg. You said "boy another anonymous person in the journalism.sg article."

Here is some background about the people on their journalism site. Its good that there are still a remnant out there who share the same views as those on this thread regarding media coverage of Aware saga.

http://journalism.sg/perspectives/

Editor Cherian George (cherian@journalism.sg) Cherian is an assistant professor, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

The research and writing team comprises journalism students at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore:

This site was launched in June 2007 to serve anyone interested in the news media in Singapore, whether a practising journalist, researcher, teacher, student, concerned citizen, media activist or policy maker. To facilitate dialogue among these various constituencies, the articles and links published here are deliberately diverse in their orientations. They range from activists' critiques, academic analyses and professionals' perspectives to government officials' points of view.
-------------------------
Seems the anonymous one hiding is the writer posting under "Yeah right" and not the ones on journalissm.sg
-------------------------

LEE - 21 Jun 09 , 14:19 PM

2009-06-21T16:34:00.002+08:00

Thank you "good seed", that was very assuring.

To those who may be discouraged or wonder why MICA or the Govt doesnt seem to be doing anything about the pro gay activists stand by our media.

Have faith that if you are writing to our leaders, you are being heard. It could be that the Govt or MICA is "silent" because they dont want to give the LGBT bullies in the West the smugness of saying ST and company are puppets of the Govt. If the Govt comes out to publicly shame the Press and Media, it may backfire.

My advice is continue doing what we have been doing, let our voices be heard loud and clear and dont fret about ST and their arrogance. Let the public and leaders know the truth and inform them about what the media will not write about. That's important than waiting for apologies that wont come.

a good seed 21 Jun 09 , 13:34 PM

2009-06-21T16:33:00.002+08:00

"to their US counterpart the Aware saga."

Credit must be given to our PM when he purported to have replied ".. what Josie and her party did (winning the Aware election) was perfectly legal or something to that effect)..".

We are happy to have our PM to stand up to those LGBTs bully boys from the States.

Let us all use the internet with sound intelligence to ferret out the pro-gay activists who are trying their best to rail-road their LGBTs group into Parliament: deny them all; people like MPs Charles Chong, Hri Kumar Nair and more. Vote them OUT OF PARLIAMENT BEFORE THEIR KIND TURN SINGAPORE INTO THEIR LITTLE AMERICA - DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY OF THEM. SHOW THEM THE EXIT AT GE2010/2011.

EVERY CONCERNERD PARENTS MUST STAY PRO-ACTIVE ON ALL WAVELENGTHS ALL THE TIME - English, Chinese, Malay, Indian and others; RISE UP TOGETHER WITH THE GOOD SALTS IN PARLIAMENT AND DENY THESE SOULESS INDIVIDUALS (reminds me of that character 'Cracken' in the 'pirate movie' the creature with waiving tentacles; waiting to pull evertbody it accosted into the watery depths of its souless world) FROM TURNING SINGAPORE INTO A LGBTs SOULESS SOCIETY.

YOUR FAITH WILL SAVE THE CHILDREN, OUR FUTURE LEADERS OF SINGAPORE.

a good seed - 21 Jun 09 , 13:08 PM

2009-06-21T16:29:00.001+08:00

limited its present abilities by the
limitations of its past.

Like the elephants, how many of us go through life
holding onto a belief that we cannot do something
simply because we failed at it once before? How
many of us refuse to attempt something new and
challenging because of our so called MINDSET?

Your attempt may fail, but never fail to make
attempt............................

And CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THE FALSE BOUNDARIES
LIMITATIONS CREATED BY THE PAST.............."

ST and CNA are now tools of the LGBTs and their activists/lobbyists. They blame Josie and her group of good Christians and played the religious issue (when none exists).

On CNA's primetime news a fortnight ago (to be exact on Tuesday, 2 June 2009), the pair of newsreaders when exchanging small talk on US President Obama's pending vivit later that day to the Saudi kingdom showed an interview with a Saudi gentleman who said ".. it is not what he (Obama) says but what he does (that matters).." Immediately, a picture of 'Obama' in the form of an Indonesian orang utan was shown to viewers swinging across a tree-top. Are these newsmen trying to embrass our PM and his good people by insulting the US President and the American people?

Like ST, CNA saw it fit not to apologise to the US President and the American people for their backers and the very same group now in control of many of the states in US.

How many of us were aware (more likely unaware) that when our PM H S Lee visited US recently, during a meeting of US businessmen, sourcing for new enterprise and business opportunities for these would be businessmen in Singapore, the LGBTs and their activists during question and answer, quizzed our PM on why his government allowed the "hijacking" (same lingo being used here by ST and CNA) by Josie and her group of Aware then. This clearly shows the immense power of the LGBTs in the States.

Their Singapore's side must have relayed to the US counterpart of the Aware

a good seed - 21 Jun 09 , 12:40 PM

2009-06-21T16:25:00.003+08:00

Bouquets for you u guys "Lee"; "Think Again" "Too Concerned to Remain Silent Anymore"; "Truth"; and many many other concerned parents and bloggers out there.

I am so heartened to know we have a big and strong voice to support our PM and his good men and women in Parliament in all things good that they do for the welfare of all Singaporeans. At times the things they do and say must seemed hurtful to us 'mere mortals' so said one of the current MP and what he said was prominently carried out in the Straits Times(ST) and ChannelNewsAsia (CNA).

This particular MP (an active lobbyists for the LGBTs) is trying to create a wedge between the Government and us citizens, hoping to divide our Government and its citizens.

The following article aptly entitled IT'S CALLED MINDSET is dedicated to each and every concerned parents who cares too much for their loved ones and the nation to allow such pro-gay activist/lobbyist to gain a foothold into Parliament:

IT'S CALLED MINDSET

"As my friend was passing the elephants, he suddenly
stopped, confused by the fact that these huge
creatures were being held by only a rope tied
to their legs. It was obvious that the elephants
could, at anytime, break away from the ropes they
were tied to but for some reason, they did not.

My friend saw a trainer nearby and asked why these
beautiful, magnificent animals just stood there and
made no attempt to get away.

"Well", the trainer said, "when they were young
and much smaller we used the same rope to tie
them and at that age, it's enough to hold them.
As they grow up, they are conditioned to believe
they cannot break away. They believe the rope
can still hold them, so they never try to break
free."

My friend was amazed. These animals could at
any time break free from their bondage but
because they believed they couldn't, they
were stuck right there they were.

The powerful and gigantic creature has

LEE - 21 Jun 09 , 11:08 AM

2009-06-21T16:24:00.002+08:00

Dear "Too Concerned to remain silent"

You have done a lot of work by extracting certain portions of Mike Haley's book. Thank you very much for the effort. I am sure many have found it helpful.

May I offer some suggestions?

1) You can transport all your posts on this book to REMARKS BY EDUCATION MINISTER ON SEXUALITY PROGRAMME. Then whatever NEW extracts you wish to type can be continued from there.

2) The information you have is good for MOE and the Education Ministry so having it on their thread is good. Best to do it asap so Reach can feedback to them.

3) You have covered quite extensively from your current pages on this thread on Mike Haley. The information was useful. Perhaps you can just put a latest comment for others to read the rest of it on the REMARKS BY EDUCATION MINISTER thread.

4) I hope others out there will take the initiative to check with the bookstores and ask them to order the book if it's not available. Please share if any of you managed to find it from any bookstores here. They will order it for you if you request esp Borders.
You can also can be order direct through the Net via Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Homosexuality/dp/0736914706

I found out that a friend has it and will be borrowing it to read.

5) Each one of us must continue to be pro-active, take the initiative and steps to do what is needed if you are interested in the contents of the book. That way, "Too Concerned to remain silent" doesnt have to do so much work. I understand what you mean about being tired. This is time consuming but its to stem the tide of moral decay.

6) Do take note of copyright laws when extracting as it should only be a small portion of the book.
Regards
censorship rules

??? - 21 Jun 09 , 10:00 AM

2009-06-21T16:23:00.002+08:00

Dear "You guys go ahead to new "site" on 21 Jun 09 , 08:39 AM

Reach only censors if you have posted comments that have been inflammatory, crude. If you have been following others in that style, then it may be removed. If you post what is relevant, there should be no reason for Reach to censor it. I am also a little puzzled with your comments.

Noor's Comment To REACH - FYI

2009-06-21T16:17:00.002+08:00

21 Jun 09 , 09:53 AM

Until we hear what MICA has to say about comments on this thread, surely this thread should not be archived?
--------
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/YourDiscussionCorner/tabid/117/ptid/414/page/4/totrecs/31/threadid/1802/forumtype/posts/Default.aspx

Noor ""said :

I am new to REACH having started only in May 2009. It is disconcerting for users to give feedback without direct replies from the relevant goverment agencies. I see not much progress on this matter since Feb 2009

To raise the level of discourse and the volume of viewership of REACH portal, govt must go online and reply say by 3 days. Otherwise netizens are no different from people who gather at coffeshop - ie REACH will be like an online coffeshop if there is no participation from govt""
--------
Reply from Reach:

Dear Noor (I am Guest),

Thank you for your comments. With regard to responses from government agencies, you may be pleased to know that various agencies have in fact, responded on our discussion forum. The links to some of these responses are as follows:

CPF – Li / HDB - Wet Market Bid/ PUB - PUB rates went up again ? /NEA – PUB rates went up again ? / MOE- How can MOE work with parents on sex education?
NPARKS - Islandwide Park Connectors - to include bicycles ?

We agree with your observation that communication needs to be two-way. In this regard, please be assured that the Government is committed to two-way e-engagement, and REACH will, together with MICA, continue to work with Government ministries and agencies on e-engagement. Over time, we are confident we will see more Ministries and agencies e-engaging and responding on the REACH website.

We will nevertheless, bear your concerns and comments in mind as we seek to continue to improve on our e-engagement efforts. Thank you once again for your comments and we look forward to your continued participation on the REACH forums."

Regards, Ling (REACH Admin)
-------------
So please keep this thread active until there is truly objectivity in media coverage.
No response?

Which site? 21 Jun 09 , 08:58 AM

2009-06-21T16:15:00.001+08:00

Which site?
21 Jun 09 , 08:58 AM

What new "site" are you talking about?? You mean the Reach Discussion thread on 'JOURNALIST MUST BE IMPARTIAL"?

There is nothing wrong with sharing certain truths if it is relevant. Just because they happen to be "christian" doesnt mean it cannot be shared. As long as its not causing religious hatred. Your comment is like saying only so called liberals can state their views because its "secular".

Not sure where you are coming from because your comments are rather confusing and contradictory.
--------------------------------------------------------
You guys go ahead to new "site", I not that capable.
21 Jun 09 , 08:39 AM

You guys go ahead to new "site", I not that capable. I tried to follow some of the postings and post some of my view points along that style, but Reach admin censored and removed them, guess they weren't good enough. It is ok, not that I am unhappy about the censorship, guess following the style of others is a repetition of sorts, that's why such comments have been removed. Best to leave it to more capable people to band together and protect our values for our future. Will support in spirit. By the way, just feel that some of those christian testimonies are more appropriate on your own christian website, which has been mentioned below, wouldn't repeat the url as it may be misunderstood as promoting that url. Thought best to write in secular way to convince people of the world then using religion to talk down to people. Oh yes, forgot to mention, very unhappy with Straits Times way of reporting recently, seems that the views and articles of one side is not reflected in equal proportions to other side.

NARROW AND WIDE - 21 Jun 09 , 08:06 AM

2009-06-21T16:13:00.001+08:00

Dear "Terminator",

Exactly!! Send your posting directly to Reach because its a good reason why this thread should not be archived.

Agree with what you said:
"I wonder why the liberals in our media can mock the conservatives so openly and yet when the conservatives try to voice their concerns and opinions the government says that we need to be more tolerant. Haven't the conservatives been very tolerant? Why are the liberals getting away with all these free for all statements in the press. T

The press always features articles that are pro-liberals and hardly articles that promote the conservatives. "

NARROW AND WIDE - 20 Jun 09 , 19:20 PM

2009-06-21T16:11:00.006+08:00

Okay Terminator, I found it. Yup, the 3rd page is probably what you were getting at.

http://www.todayonline.com/Columns/Maladjusted/EDC090619-0000025/Just-an-old-fashioned-family-guy

Just an old-fashioned family guy

But how can I share your family values when we’re not, like, related?
by Phin Wong
Updated 08:52 AM Jun 19, 2009

From page 3...It may just be a film or teachers’ guide today, but what happens if a vocal segment of society insists that evolution be dropped in school curriculum in favour of creationism? Or that Shakespeare be removed from classrooms because of the Bard’s penchant for cross-dressing? Surely politicking science and literature goes against some parents’ family values, too? So, who has the right of way and who has to filter out?

Back to “liberal” parents and would-be parents like Sham. Perhaps it is simply a matter of semantics. The dictionary definition of “liberal” commonly includes phrases like “free from prejudice or bigotry” and “open-minded or tolerant”. Only someone in favour of bigotry and intolerance would be opposed to that.

But, in this silly worldwide fight between “liberals” and “conservatives”, the word has taken on extra connotations of being radical or immoral (once again - immoral to whom?).

--------------------
Like "LEE"s answer to "CW" about the use of the word immoral.

LEE
19 Jun 09 , 05:20 AM

On the issue of IMMORALITY
As much as I wish we didnt have to use that term, I am afraid this is where we will have to disagree. Homosexuality involves constant acts of anal sex. This is something that is not natural nor healthy. As such I am sorry that these acts will continue to be an issue of immorality for many of us. But remember my earlier post that we are not into gay bashing. As mentioned in my earlier reply to you, many of us interact and get along with our gay friends even though we disagree on certain acts. Asking us to say its not immoral is like asking us to say smoking is healthy. If sm

Terminator - 20 Jun 09 , 23:27 PM

2009-06-21T16:11:00.004+08:00

Dear all

The article is found in Fri edition not sat. Title: Just an old-fashioned family guy. Can find this online too on Today website.

I wonder why the liberals in our media can mock the conservatives so openly and yet when the conservatives try to voice their concerns and opinions the government says that we need to be more tolerant. Haven't the conservatives been very tolerant? Why are the liberals getting away with all these free for all statements in the press.

The press always features articles that are pro-liberals and hardly articles that promote the conservatives. They always say such a such a country or countries are already doing it. There are also countries that aren't doing it and yet they never write about it. For e.g they will say homosexuality is allowed or practised in such countries. However, there are many countries that do not allow the practice of homosexuality especially in Muslim countries.

NARROW AND WIDE - 20 Jun 09 , 19:08 PM

2009-06-21T16:08:00.001+08:00

Hi "Terminator",

Could you post the online link and title of article by Phin that you mentioned?

These days the reporters are from that generation when its cool to be neutral and "broad". Thats the direction the world is taking. Remember we can choose. Glad to know majority here are taking the one that leads to life.

The Narrow and Wide Gates
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore! 20 Jun 09 , 16:57 PM

2009-06-21T16:06:00.001+08:00

Dear "Concerned"

You are welcome!

Although homosexuals do not chose to be gay, they are also NOT born gay. There are NO respected geneticist in the world to have claimed that they have found a "gay gene".

There is really NO such a thing as a homosexual. As strange as that may sound, it's true. We are all biological heterosexuals.

Give me some more time, I will be continuing writing more from the book and on this subject, and also on the prevention of homsexuality later and then posting it.

Thanks for all your patience!

"So let me say clearly again: NO one chooses to feel attracted to someone of the same sex. However, men and women DO choose how they will act on those feelings. When the pain of this struggle captivates the heart, some people believe their only option is a homosexual identity and lifestyle. That’s where CHOICE comes into play: actively participating in a homosexual act".

Terminator - 20 Jun 09 , 16:47 PM

2009-06-21T16:04:00.001+08:00

Dear all

Thanks for continuing to write and research into the issues that are close to our heart.
I am really glad that most of us conducted ourselves in a gracious manner.

We have to show the rest that we can discuss and debate about things in a mature and dignified way.

NO need to jeer, sneer, mock or issue threats and etc not like the other group.

Actually the words civic and pluralistic have been redefined by that newspaper into " must think like them if not you are not going to be treated civicilly and will not be tolerated.

I thought these people are masters of the words and yet can't understand the real meaning of the words. It is really time for an overhaul of that newspaper. Standards of english have dropped so low!

Please read the TOday paper sat edition. An article written by Phin is quite slanted towards that side. Please comment.

Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore! 20 Jun 09 , 16:33 PM

2009-06-21T16:03:00.001+08:00

Dear P,

I would like to thank you for your expertise, your time and your efforts in setting up the citizenwatch88 blog site, a "home" for all of us here to migrate to.

Thank you and appreciate!!!

concerned - 20 Jun 09 , 16:29 PM

2009-06-21T16:01:00.002+08:00

Dear CW, must say that I do appreciate your postings and wish that there are more like you...we can agree to disagree and in doing so, helping each other to increase our own understanding of perspectives and views.

Dear "Too concerned to remain silent anymore" - appreciate your postings concerning choice of being gay. Clarified my own misconception that they choose to be...lack of sensitivity on my part...need to do more homework.

To LEE, P and others - Wow! About blog, alternative email and all. Thankful for all of you. Still collating and forwarding your helpful inputs. It's not about just starting well, but continuing to act on our convictions and finishing well. Thanks for setting the example and pace.

LEE 20 Jun 09 , 16:00 PM

2009-06-21T15:59:00.001+08:00

Hi friends,

We are not alone in this issue on the lack of objectivity in media coverage. Read the articles posted on this website called "Journalism.sg"

http://journalism.sg/2009/05/17/straits-times-aware/

THINK AGAIN - 20 Jun 09 , 14:03 PM

2009-06-21T15:42:00.005+08:00

Anyone who thinks ST is going to stop being a platform for the LGBT’s, THINK AGAIN.
Read today’s article under ASIA. Look at what our national media is doing. No doubt just reporting “facts” but again, in a bid to push the pro gay agenda to public space.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Asia/China/Story/STIStory_392792.html

Home > Asia > China > Story
June 20, 2009
MEMO FROM BEIJING
'Coming out' in China
While homosexuality is still largely a social taboo, Chinese society is slowly opening up
By Sim Chi Yin, China Correspondent

Excerpts:
In a survey of 400 people across Chinese cities last year, sociologist Li Yinhe, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, found what she termed a 'quite high' level of tolerance of gays - 'possibly because China has no widely held religion and hence no religion-based opposition to homosexuality like in the West'.

A crowd of 200 gay, straight, Chinese and expatriate guests gathered over soft drinks and beer at the Songzhuang Art District on the city's outskirts for what organisers quietly hailed as a breakthrough for gays in China, where homosexuality was delisted as a 'mental illness' only in 2001.

In Shanghai, the country's first week-long Pride Festival reached its climax last Saturday with drag shows, a 'hot body' contest and a symbolic gay wedding ceremony.

Mardi Gras it was not, but after the police stopped three of the 10 planned events, the rest went off largely without a hitch, said Shanghai-based organiser Hannah Miller, a school teacher.

Slowly but surely, in a gradually liberalising social environment, ever more 'lalas' and 'comrades' are coming out.

Gays are also becoming more visible in the media here. Last week, the English-language China Daily ran a front-page story and an editorial touting the Pride Festival in Shanghai as a symbol of a progressive China. Even the usually staid Xinhua state news agency carried a lengthy feature story detailing Beijing's gay scene just before the Olympics Games.

And last week's issue of the widely read Southern Weekend newspaper splashed the story of a pair of Guangdong university students 'coming out' - complete with a photo of the men clasping hands.

Dr He Xiaopei, executive director of the independent Pink Space Sexuality Research Centre in Beijing, said: 'With more activities and media coverage, gays here can be seen more readily and people then realise 'Oh, they are just ordinary people'. All that helps with social acceptance.'

In a survey of 400 people across Chinese cities last year, sociologist Li Yinhe, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, found what she termed a 'quite high' level of tolerance of gays - 'possibly because China has no widely held religion and hence no religion-based opposition to homosexuality like in the West', she wrote on her blog.

That most of China's gay men dutifully marry also means a group of women, now known as tong qi (or wives of comrades), are unwittingly exposed to the risk of Aids - not to mention, emotionally and sexually neglected.

Gay women like 'Amanda', 26, an attractive media professional, simply lead a double life.

To her mother, aunts and colleagues, she is an eligible but picky woman who has been match-made, without success, about 50 times.

'It's the only way not to hurt everyone's feelings,' she said.

Likewise for divorced civil servant 'W', 39, who had been married for 11 years before falling for a woman five years ago.

She has not told her family she is gay but is hoping to have a child with her partner.
Since it is illegal for China's hospitals to artificially inseminate an unwed woman, 'W' will resort to a do-it-yourself procedure with donated sperm.

The most difficult part for her will come after she becomes pregnant.

'I will have to tell my family that I'm gay. And then I will have to marry some guy - just to get the right paperwork for my child to be registered and to go to school - and then divorce him.'

Tread wisely - 20 Jun 09 , 11:12 AM

2009-06-20T12:05:00.002+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

Dear "All",

If we are hoping for this thread to remain active, I think its important we minimise calls to lobby against other groups.

This space must continue to be open to everyone, all views for and against the issues concerned. This is a Government portal and we must respect that.

We can continue to post our "homework" and articles on this thread. All the information has been very helpful and we really appreciate the hard work put in by everybody. We can give information on how and where to write to the Government about what is close to our hearts.

However, calls for lobbying against activist with opposing views can be done on the new "home" set up by "P" rather than here. Tread wisely.

A new "home" has been set up through "P"
http://citizenswatch88.blogspot.com/
you can send emails to
Email : citizens_watch88@yahoo.com.sg

(see Silent Majority, "P" and other postings here on this new "home").

Silent Majority - 20 Jun 09 , 10:25 AM

2009-06-20T12:04:00.002+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

Too true, LEE,

Let me remind all concerned that the NMP issue is VERY relevant to our 'concerns on sexuality issues" & alternative lifestyles being imposed by the activists and their fundies.

ST and other media will not publish our comments.

You get a nominee Loretta Chen in, who has stated her stance, then, we are in trouble.

She even went so far as to join the PAP Youth wing to connect and lay the foundation, with those in power or our future leaders.

BE INFORMED! BE NOISY! STAY ON COURSE & UNITED!

Regards

LEE - 20 Jun 09 , 10:17 AM

2009-06-20T12:03:00.001+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

Many of our "participants" may be away because its the school holidays. Thats why I was concerned they may not return in time to catch the new postings. If only Reach would take this into consideration before archiving thread so soon.

There is still so much active contributions on this thread and I hope they will reconsider.
(See my appeal letter and follow suit)

LEE - 20 Jun 09 , 10:13 AM

2009-06-20T12:02:00.001+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

Dear "Too Concerned to Remain Silent"

Thank you for taking the time to share the important information from Mike Haley's book with us on this thread.

May I suggest :

1) Share your information on the Sexuality Programme thread as well

2) Is Mike Haley's book available in our local bookstores? It should be sent to MOE, MM, PM and The Cabinet. We should also buy a copy for reference.

Information on The Cabinet appointments are can be read on
http://www.cabinet.gov.sg/AboutTheCabinet/index.htm

3)Important to send your feedback here to "The Cabinet" through Reach and other ministers and MPs.

Also please read my appeal letter to Ms Khor to keep this thread and the one of Sexuality Programme alive. Hope you will write in as well.

Thanks

Silent Majority - 20 Jun 09 , 10:08 AM

2009-06-20T12:01:00.012+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

Dear All,

Before the thread is taken down, know 5 things:-

1) We have our own Blog at website by "P" at
http://citizenswatch88.blogspot.com/
You can put in your comments regarding each article.
You may want to scroll down this thread to:
“P” dated 19 Jun 09 , 11:42 AM
REVISED STEPS to put in your comments after anArticle in the blog.

2) You can send any material to "P" at email : citizens_watch88@yahoo.com.sg
for "P" to put up on the website for all to see. Try to use a new email to maintain security for now as we may have a wolf in sheep's clothing, as we do not know each other physically. You may want to scroll down this thread to retrieve “P” dated 19 Jun 09, 12:17 PM

3) Write to all the Ministers & MPs on :
a) the Arts NMP nominees (Very important so keep it a Priority)
b) the ST media coverage biasedness
c) the new CSE discoveries by "Concerned to be...." regarding SPPA

4) Can all of you spread the word and keep alive our new "Blog" by "P".
We need this space to stay together & united as we are in for the long haul as some of
you already mentioned earlier .

Only saw LEE & Josh Roy acknowledged the Blog, how about the rest of you?

5) We need to have a "lobby" group - but, we have to help ourselves by finding the people who can start one physically. To fight these activists we have to
be in the open to be heard by Govt & public to be "relevant"

Good example is ST, as long as our views are kept back, we are limited to only REACH and other websites.

So, spread the word & keep looking for people who have the time to lead us as resources can be contributed by others. Once we have a leader, others such as us will
follow in support.

Regards

Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore! 20 Jun 09 , 02:56 AM

2009-06-20T12:01:00.011+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

Hi [Details Removed],

Thanks for returning and opening up more cans of worms into this "Comprehensive Sexuality Education" + "anti-family" or "anti-life" and a lot more information surfaces.

Lifesitenews summarises: "Comprehensive sexuality education" is a term used by anti-family groups to denote programs that present a morally neutral, purely physical approach to sex education that instructs teens and even children in the use of artificial birth control and abortion, and presents unnatural sexual practices as normal and acceptable."

Diane Dew provides the background and vision of SIECUS
(http://www.dianedew.com/siecus.htm) and the founder of SIECUS also came out from Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Ah well, we know where the root of the problem is!"

Hmmmm... I have already written to REACH on our Concerned Parents and citizens's Objection to SPPA (Singapore Planned Parenthood Association) as external vendor for anymore CSE programmes. And REACH have sent my letter to MOE and I have already received a reply from MOE that they will send my letter and our concerns to the CSE Committee. I hope that they (MOE) will SERIOUSLY consider our concerns and objection to SPPA.

AWARE has taught CSE in schools for over 2 years, but SPPA has taught much longer than that! It's no wonder that our kids are getting from bad to worse in school and so are the moral values!

These people must be STOPPED!

Please ALL of you Parents, BE VIGILANT, WAKE-UP and BE PRO-ACIVE and FIGHT FOR YOUR CHILDREN'S HEALTH, SOUNDNESS, SAFETY AND LIFE!

[Details removed] - 20 Jun 09 , 02:21 AM

2009-06-20T12:00:00.002+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

How unfortunate REACH is going to shut down this thread. But before we go, Mr Han of ST responded and from what he wrote, ST is unlikely to make any further statements on this and would let the issue die a natural death.

Nonetheless, I have appealed again to Mr Han and Mr Alan Chan (SPH's CEO) asking them to reconsider their decision to stay silent because it will not benefit ST in the long-run and I directed them to this site. I have also copied Dr Amy Khor (REACH Chairman) in my letter, to ensure that she will not overlook our efforts here and will collate our views and feed them back to the Singapore Government.

Here is something else I discovered about CSE.

Do a google search on "Comprehensive Sexuality Education" and you will find that the CSE program is global and it is may be championed by SIECUS.

Do a search on "Comprehensive Sexuality Education" + "anti-family" or "anti-life" and a lot more information surfaces.

Lifesitenews summarises: "Comprehensive sexuality education" is a term used by anti-family groups to denote programs that present a morally neutral, purely physical approach to sex education that instructs teens and even children in the use of artificial birth control and abortion, and presents unnatural sexual practices as normal and acceptable."

Diane Dew provides the background and vision of SIECUS
http://www.dianedew.com/siecus.htm and the founder of SIECUS also came out from Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Ah well, we know where the root of
the problem is!

Given the 'global support' of CSE, we can now understand why AWARE is keen on bidding their time to reintroduce it later! AWARE fails to realize that what is "acceptable" to the USA culture (ie. if they are acceptable because many Americans are objecting to CSE programs as well) does not readily apply to the Singapore or Asian culture!

So [concerned] and [Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore!], there is a lot more vigilance needed on your part!

All the best everyone! We are in this for the long haul!!

Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore! 20 Jun 09 , 02:20 AM

2009-06-20T11:58:00.001+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

(Page 1)

1. WHAT IS HOMOSEXUALITY?

Most people assume homosexuality to be little more than a sexual act between two individuals of the same gender. This is far too simplistic a view of this multi-faceted topic. Anyone interested in this subject must take four areas into account: physiological psychic response, identity, behavior, and lifestyle options.

Learned Responses

God created each of us as a complex creature. We have needs that must be met in order for us to grow and mature. When these needs are not met, we establish immature coping mechanisms that often work directly against God’s original intent for us. Frank Worthen, the founder of Exodus International, explains this phenomenon this way:

Psychic response is a technical term for what many people refer to as a homosexual orientation”. Though many people claim that they have experienced visual or sexual attraction for the same sex “as long as they can remember, there is a progression in a person’s life that leads to a homosexual psychic response. A child may start out with a need to compare himself with others to see if he measures up to societal standards. When he feels he doesn’t compare favorably with others, he develops admiration for those traits and physical characteristics he feels he does not possess.

Admiration, which is normal, may turn to envy. Envy leads to the desire to possess others and finally, to consume others. This strong desire becomes eroticized somewhere along the way, eventually leading to homosexual psychic response (also known as sexual thought life or fantasy).

(Page 2)

Behavior

When these psychic responses take root, some people carry out these fantasies first through masturbation and later in actual sexual behavior with another male or female. But the physical act itself does not indicate a homosexual orientation. Many young boys who engage in homosexual behavior later end up with no vestiges of homosexuality.

Identity

The problem in today’s social climate is that more and more individuals are taking on a gay identity simply because they need to find their place. Many who would rarely have experienced a struggle with homosexuality find themselves comfortable in this identity because of society’s “anything goes” mentality.

Other people embrace a gay identity after years of physiological psychic response. Their behaviors create an identity in which they take comfort or even pride.

Lifestyle

Homosexuality includes varying lifestyles. Some gays only engage in anonymous and relatively rare sexual encounters and tend to live in constant fear of being found out. Others “come out” and become active, politically motivated members of the gay community and associate only with those favorable to like causes.

As you can see, homosexuality is multi-dimensional, and individuals can land anywhere on the spectrum of these four basic components. What does this information mean for you? Don’t just take a friend or loved one’s confession or proclamation of homosexuality as evidence that he or she is engaging in same sex sexual behavior. Talk to him or her to develop a deeper understanding of what the admission means.

2. DO HOMOSEXUALS CHOOSE TO BE GAY?

Let me answer this one directly: NO! And in case you didn’t hear me, let me speak up:
NO!

This continues to be one of the myths of homosexuality that uninformed people perpetuate. Christians or conservatives may say to a homosexual, “I have a heart for those in your community, and I love you.” And then as if to drive a splinter under the fingernail of the hand they’ve just reached out to hold, they add: “But you and your friends have to realize that homosexuality was your choice”.

Ouch.

I can tell you from personal experience that virtually NO one chooses homosexuality and the resulting pain and rejection that come with it. No child or adolescent approaches the smorgasbord of sexual orientation and says, “Hmm… I think I’ll take that one”. One the contrary, most homosexuals try to deny the existence of their same sex attractions, to pray it away, or to repress it until they become so discourage by their inability to master the desires that they “come out”. Attributing this struggle to the willing choice of any individual not only conveys a lack of understanding but also adds to the tremendous shame seared into many homosexuals’ hearts.

So let me say clearly again: NO one chooses to feel attracted to someone of the same sex. However, men and women DO choose how they will act on those feelings. When the pain of this struggle captivates the heart, some people believe their only option is a homosexual identity and lifestyle. That’s where CHOICE comes into play: actively participating in a homosexual act.

One last important note on this subject: As harmful as the “you choose to be gay” argument, is another oft-repeated phrase, all too frequently seen on the signs of conservative protesters at gay events “God didn’t create Adam and Steve, He create Adam and Eve”. Anyone who thinks this is cute or helpful couldn’t be more wrong. Flippant expressions like this make whoever’s saying them look foolish, and their underlying malice directly contradicts Scripture.

Agrees with LEE: "When I say that its a lie that homosexuals are incapable of changing, I am talking about those who want to change but are told that they cant and simply have to live with it. For those who do not wish to change, that is their choice.
I have used the word "lie" because no one has a right to stop another individual from wanting to change if that individual DESIRES to do so. The individual needs to know that help is there should he desire it.

On the issue of IMMORALITY

As much as I wish we didnt have to use that term, I am afraid this is where we will have to disagree. Homosexuality involves constant acts of anal sex. This is something that is not natural nor healthy. As such I am sorry that these acts will continue to be an issue of immorality for many of us. But remember my earlier post that we are not into gay bashing. As mentioned in my earlier reply to you, many of us interact and get along with our gay friends even though we disagree on certain acts. Asking us to say its not immoral is like asking us to say smoking is healthy. If smokers push for more space to smoke freely in public space, we would also say no and no amount of discussion would make us change our minds".

Thank you LEE for this.

Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore! 20 Jun 09 , 02:18 AM

2009-06-20T11:57:00.001+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

Hi CW,

Although LEE has managed to reply you extremely well, I would like to further add to LEE and Josh Roy on your post on Homosexuality: "However, the stand taken by many forum commentators here becomes grey during the course of discussion. For example, the pressing need to research and identify anyone who is homosexual or the suggestion it is a lie if a homosexual individual can’t change. It further impacted with suggestions that homosexuals arise from broken families. This tends to affect the sincerity of your initial support statements.

We have to be fair in acknowledging potentially different scenarios when debating the cause of homosexuality and whether it is immoral. There can be many reasons why. It could be nature, nurture, psychological reactions or disease. There needs to be more research (ones that are not tainted by either pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual groups) so as to give a better understanding on the matter."

I will be extracting the followings from MIKE HALEY’S book, "101 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY". Bear with me, as I am still typing more on Microsoft words so that I can copy and paste more from the book tomorrow before this thread is archived. This is a good book. I hope you would buy and read.

For 12 years, the author, Mike Haley, lived as an active homosexual. He wrote: "I know the subculture. I've felt what homosexuals feel - the hurt, rejection, anger, broken relationships, and the intense desire to be loved for whom they are. I also know their friends and loved ones feel when someone close to them "comes out" about their homosexuality. I know how the church often seems like the last place to go for help. And I know how families suffer and pray through the pain - as my own dear family did."

Later I will reveal more in depth of Mike Haley's and how he became a homosexual, what saved and totally changed him, and he and his wife are proud parents of two sons.

Nominee Loretta Chen - 19 Jun 09 , 14:52 PM

2009-06-20T11:54:00.005+08:00

REACH -Ensuring a Diversity of Views in Parliament

LORETTA CHEN (Arts nominee for NMP put up by Arts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Chen

Loretta Chen is a bilingual theatre director, actor and host. Some of her directorial projects include 13 Shaolin, a Singapore-China collaboration, 24 Pieties for Toy Factory Theatre Ensemble, Ten Brothers (2005), The Vagina Monologues (2006), The Swimming Instructor (2006). In 2007, her controversial project 251, based on the story of Singaporean porn-star Annabel Chong was nominated for two Life! Theatre Awards. She also directed the Postcards from Rosa, a monologue starring veteran actor Neo Swee Lin. In 2008, she directed Magicbox (2008), a magical extravaganza in collaboration with the creators of Mindfreak and a re-staging of The Vagina Monologues which was nominated for two Life! Theatre Awards.

Loretta is openly lesbian.[1]
----
Article on V Power! By Ilsa Chan, channelnewsasia.com
Posted: 13 October 2008 2008 hrs

Touted as the year’s sexiest play to hit our shores, “The Vagina Monologues”, a powerful collection of anecdotes celebrating all things feminine, was given a fresh twist by director Loretta Chen.

Judy Ngo ranted about the injustices wrought against the vagina in “My Angry Vagina”; “The Coochie Snorcher That Could” illustrated the painful effects of sexual abuse as a child while Eleine Ng’s portrayal of the ‘moans’ women make during sex in “The Woman Who Made Vaginas Happy” was simply hilarious (my favourite was the Malay one!).

“Reclaiming Cunt” saw Asha Edmund proudly re-appropriating the derogatory term and zeroing in on audience members and getting them to yell the word “cunt”. The worried look on some of the audiences’ faces was priceless!

Rest of the article can be read online
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/reviews/view/382517/1/.html

JOSH ROY - 19 Jun 09 , 20:25 PM

2009-06-20T11:54:00.003+08:00

REACH - OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA REPORTING

Dear 'CW'

It's true that we are not to judge whether Homosexual individuals are immoral or not.

But from the contents of the massive SPAM that this thread receives, it's highly obvious from whom these spams were from. Either pro-ST and their pink agenda or from the groups who calls themselves PLU. They are so highly threatened by the truths revealed by many contributors here that they had to resort to splashing links to immoral sites and sexually suggestive links. Thus, IMO, these individuals drunk the cup of judgement upon themselves.

This alone is testament to what kind of morals majority of these individuals advocate and practise. You have written your thoughts very well. But at the end, the truth will prevail and lies will be exposed however one tries to sugarcoat their intentions. However harmless it might seem at first glance. That is why we need more civic minded people like 'LEE' & 'P' to do investigative work.

To 'P', thank you so much for your initiatives! We are truly grateful to your sacrifice of time and effort.

LEE's Contribution - 19.06.2009

2009-06-19T18:23:00.001+08:00

TIPS WHEN YOU WISH TO WRITE TO THE GOVERNMENT (from concern and others...)

12 Jun 09 , 11:05 AM

1. Do write to your MPs - they do value appropriate feedback. If we
remain silent, we lose out simply because our MPs do not hear our alternative views.

2. Do stay engaged and involved - Remaining silent even though we are
concerned about certain issues means giving up the grounds to others who are perhaps more vocal.

3. It is not about being more articulate - It is about voicing out what
is important to us...Singlish and all

4. Do not get emotional nor bring religion (Christian or otherwise)into
it - common sense, clear conscience and mainstream values are treasured by most.

5. Be REASONABLE, RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVE
The Leaders are very busy people. Make sure you know what is the point or points you want to make. Separate these points. The only way to get their attention is to be clear about what you are saying.

6. Be willing to agree to disagree (hopefully both sides will have equalspace to do so)

7. Recognise that one can make a difference....many "ones" make a multitude

8. Contribute to REACH. Appreciate comments by others

9. Write to REACH to offer feedback to the relevant government ministries. If you want, state the names of the Ministers you want to your feedback to be sent. Just putting "ministers or MPs" can be a little vague for Reach. They may end up sending it only to One Ministry.

10. Be part of a "Citizen Watch" now that we know that some of our mainstream media and newspapers are lacking in
balanced objective coverage.
We need to do our own homework and research and then make our own judgements - based on more complete information.

11. Always try to include all the relevant links to the articles you are referring to. Its good to use "quote" and "unquote"

"Great works are performed not by strength but by perseverance."

As "Details Removed" said - show yourselves to our elected officials. Only then will each "drop of rain" count in making the sea!
---------------------------------------------------------------
The emails of all Government leaders are found:
http://www.sgdi.gov.sg/

Important letters should be sent also to The Cabinet
http://www.cabinet.gov.sg/CabinetAppointments/index.htm

The whole list of current MPs are found in
http://www.parliament.gov.sg/cgi-bin/new-mpsearch.pl
http://www.parliament.gov.sg/AboutUs/Org-MP-currentMP.htm

LEE's Latest Article-Letter To The NMP Select Committee

2009-06-19T11:29:00.001+08:00

Hi All,

Praetorian has put LEE's complete letter on this blog. If possible, you may want to copy and do the same by sending this letter to the Select Committee through REACH:

--LEE's Letter----------

"FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
18 Jun 09 , 22:42 PM

SELECTION OF NMP’S –

“Dear Members of the Special Select Committee

-Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi (Chairman)
-Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport
-Mr Low Thia Khiang
-Mr Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development
-Mr Masagos Zulkifli BMM, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Home Affairs
-Mr Michael Palmer; -Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong; Mrs Josephine Teo"

On the selection of NMP's, those who come into Parliament must bring added value and not be those who will most likely start lobbying for their "own" groups. Singapore is a multi racial and multi religious nation and if people like Loretta Chan are likely to be very vocal about pushing the pro gay agenda onto public space in Parliament, it is going to cause alot of problems for our society and end up polarising our nation. She has proudly and openly announced her lesbian stand and has directed films with controversial themes (please see below). Leaders in Parliament should set good examples for our younger generation.

It is bad enough that Mr. Siew Kum Hong set a very bad example when he took sides at the Aware saga. Instead of bringing calm to an explosive situation, he only added to the problems by his behaviour at the EGM. I hope the committee will review his desire to stand for a 2nd term.

Ministers and MPs need to be people of integrity and I am thankful for the PAP Government. I appeal to the committe to select NMP's who can contribute to the good of Singaporeans instead of polarising our society should they be selected.
---contd pg 2----

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
18 Jun 09 , 22:43 PM

Contd Pg. 2 my letter on Selection of NMPs

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/BgSty_376609_1.html
ON MR SIEW KUM HONG

NMPs are like de facto politicians..not elected by the people but have the privilege to give their views in parliament. They should be responsible in their actions and speak. They should carry balanced and objective views as any issue is a double-edged sword. Rather than just shoot from-the-hip and give biased views through 'tinted lenses' like Mr Siew Kum Hong when he commented and sided on the AWARE saga. We need NMPs who come with objective positions and solutions…... So NMPs must bring added value and Not just lobby for some group. If one cannot contribute in this manner, they don't deserve to be selected to be an NMP. -- Kay Tee on Reach website

ON MS LORETTA CHEN

Loretta Chen is openly gay and has also directed films with mainly controversial themes. She's supposed to be a nominee from the arts community but is this again a back door for more pro LGBTs to represent voice in Parliament for education? I love the arts & the many artistic talents but I resent the double standards here... Christians were accused of entering "secular" space, why should gays and lesbians have free access to this so-called 'secular' space? -- isay on Reach website

http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2007/04/03/1817.annabel-chong-renegade-and-revolutionary-says-251-director-and-playwright?n=aut
Entertainment -3 Apr 2007 - Lesbian director Loretta Chen and gay playwright Ng Yi-Sheng want audiences to see one Singapore's most internationally known icons, porn actress Annabel Chong, in a different light. Their play 251 opens this Thursday.. Annabel Chong - who needs little introduction - became world famous in 1995 for appearing in a groundbreaking adult movie titled The World's Biggest Gangbang. The then-22-year-old, whose real name is Grace Quek, was filmed having sex 251 times with 70 men over a period of about 10 hours.
---contd pg 3----

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
18 Jun 09 , 22:43 PM

Contd Pg. 3 my letter on Selection of NMPs

There has been so much talk about not bringing religion into the debate by the Pluralists and All Inclusive people. So many articles printed by the Straits Times on this statement. However, I wonder why double standards are allowed to be made on the word "religion". This is an example from what Alex Au said in the forum for the repeal of the gay sex law in July 2007.

:http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2007/07/16/1899.mp-nmp-attend-forum-on-repeal-of-gay-sex-law?n=aut

Au, a founding member of gay advocacy group People Like Us and Fridae columnist said: "Taking the economic argument presents a danger, which is to buy into the whole ideology that ultimately humans are digits. I want to base an argument purely on the human rights. Gay identity is VERY FUNDAMENTAL; it is as fundamental as your ethnic identity, as your linguistic identity, AS YOUR RELIGIOUS IDENTITY. That being the case, therefore the state through its tools, law, should give equal recognition to that liberty to express your identity."
So members of the Special Select Committee, the word "religion" can mean many things to many people. It is not right nor fair for the Pluralists and LGBT's (lesbians, gays, bisexual, Transexuals) and reporters of ST to insist that those of the different faiths cannot bring their arguments based on religion when in fact, the gay identity is so fundamental - its practically a "religion" to them.
---contd on Pg. 4---

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
18 Jun 09 , 22:44 PM

Contd Pg. 4 my letter on Selection of NMPs

We have enjoyed much peace and harmony for so many years. If NMP's should comprise of people who will start lobbying for their own "groups" and polarise society, what the Government hopes to achieve for our nation will unravel very quickly. If these NMP's should start polarising our nation, much time and energy that should be channelled for more worthy causes will be taken up by these issues.

Thank you for your attention."

Silent Majority 18 Jun 09 , 13:40 PM

2009-06-19T10:56:00.001+08:00

Hi All,

FYI, views of both nominees. My take is that Nominees should weigh in on issues pertaining to the Arts. At one time they were disgruntled with Govt for not giving space to the Arts scene. Fine if it’s about the Arts. I’m all for it but not if it is used as a platform by gay activists. That’s not what Arts NMPs are there for.

Substation's Ms Wong on how she intends to bridge the different voices within the arts community.

"It is also important for this person to have her own position. She has to be able to speak about things that are important to her while also listening. I think it is important to listen to the different views from the arts community. And we need to find ways to filter out the different views, and if necessary to direct people's questions to the right person."

Theater director, Loretta Chen, on the other hand, hopes to develop platforms for more open dialogues and constructive feedback.

"I think in Singapore, we either slam something or choose to not take part. Even for a child, the minute you tell them "wow you did great but you could have done it better" That means a lot and speaks volumes. Perhaps we do mean well, but sometimes we are unable to give constructive feedback to artistes, and that is important when we are able to give constructive feedback and also to be more positive in our feedback to the artistes."

Regards

FROM Colourful NMP 18 Jun 09 , 17:15 PM

2009-06-19T10:55:00.001+08:00

Loretta Chen! Such a "colourful" character is allowed into our Parliament as a NMP!

For what good reason is there any need for such inclusion? "Diversity" of views? "Vibrancy" of delivery?

Such wonderful inclusions and beautiful descriptions are only fancy on the surface.

We sure dread the day when we go the way of one parliament in Europe when such colour was included "Cicciolina"

FROM Terminator 18 Jun 09 , 20:06 PM

2009-06-19T10:54:00.001+08:00

Dear Silent majority, lee, JOsh roy,P and etc

Really glad to see that all of you are still contributing to this thread. I hope that someone will set up a conservative values organisation dedicated to preserving the moral values of the society. We should speak to our friends, neighbours and families (regardless of race, language and religion) about the importrance of preserving our values before our society is assimilated by the so called values from the west. Don't know why younger generation thinks the world of them. What is so good about the west? Look at their societies! They also have a lot of social problems on their hands and why should we prescribe to their way of thinking.
Eastern moral values have been around for thousands of yrs too. China and Asia are the next superpowers and the west is going to be passe. We need to arise and make our voices heard. If not we are just going to be another silent majority.

Another Article From "Objectivity In Media Reporting"

2009-06-19T10:52:00.001+08:00

Double standards
18 Jun 09 , 21:47 PM

Look at the double standards. The LGBTs say dont bring religion into the debate. But read what Alex Au said during the forum on repeal of gay sex law in July 2007.
To them, being gay is as fundamental as your RELIGIOUS IDENTITY. To them, its a kind of "religion".

http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2007/07/16/1899.mp-nmp-attend-forum-on-repeal-of-gay-sex-law?n=aut

Au, a founding member of gay advocacy group People Like Us and Fridae columnist said: "Taking the economic argument presents a danger, which is to buy into the whole ideology that ultimately humans are digits. I want to base an argument purely on the human rights. Gay identity is very fundamental; it is AS FUNDAMENTAL AS your ethnic identity, as your linguistic identity, as your RELIGIOUS IDENTITY. That being the case, therefore the state through its tools, law, should give equal recognition to that liberty to express your identity."

Please be sure to read the WHOLE article through the link for yourself before you comment.

LEE's Latest Article

2009-06-19T10:48:00.001+08:00

LEE
18 Jun 09 , 22:50 PM

Dear Friends,

I have already sent my letter about the NMP nominations directly to the Select Committee through REACH

That letter is posted on the thread "ENSURING A DIVERSITY OF VIEWS" (under "For your consideration")

http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/TalkAbuzz/YourFeedbackOurResponse/tabid/181/ctl/Details/mid/926/ItemID/107/Default.aspx

Please read it on that thread. When writing directly to the committee, please be as rational as possible and avoid copying my letter. It must be a personal email from you so that it will carry more weight. Please avoid being too emotional or paranoid about the matter - try to be as factual as possible.

Hope my example will encourage everyone who feels the same concerns esp for Singapore and our young.

How To Comment On This Blog

2009-06-19T10:42:00.001+08:00

Hi All & Lee,

(A) COMMENTS

STEP-1
Type on website and enter:
http://citizenswatch88.blogspot.com/

STEP-2
Don’t bother about the “Create Blog / Sign In” found on the top right-hand of screen.

Just go to “0 comments” found below every article.

STEP-3
a) To post your comments, go to Below each article on the right, and click on
“comments”
b) Then, go to “Comment as:” and select “Name/URL”
c) Under Name, type your ID such as “Lee” and leave the “URL” blank, and hit
“continue”
d) Once you are on the main screen again, you may start typing your comments.
e) On completion, you hit “Post Comment”
f) To prevent spamming, I have allowed for a “WORD VERIFICATION” and then,
hit “Finish” to publish your comments.
g) To delete your comments, "click" on the "dustbin", delete as per instructions, and later, to go back to the main page, "click" once on the weblink in "blue"

Regards

Arts Nominees For NMPs

2009-06-19T10:13:00.001+08:00

Hi All,

Presently, I have only articles on Arts nominee Loretta Chen. This is to try to give our viewers as much of an informed view of whom our Arts nominees are and what they represent. You may want to go to the website links which I have attached to get a better understanding of the nominee and her beliefs.

Arts Nominee: Loretta Chen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Chen

Loretta Chen is a bilingual theatre director, actor and host. Some of her directorial projects include 13 Shaolin, a Singapore-China collaboration, 24 Pieties for Toy Factory Theatre Ensemble, Ten Brothers (2005), The Vagina Monologues (2006), The Swimming Instructor (2006).

In 2007, her controversial project 251, based on the story of Singaporean porn-star Annabel Chong was nominated for two Life! Theatre Awards. She also directed the Postcards from Rosa, a monologue starring veteran actor Neo Swee Lin. In 2008, she directed Magicbox (2008), a magical extravaganza in collaboration with the creators of Mindfreak and a re-staging of The Vagina Monologues which was nominated for two Life! Theatre Awards.

Loretta is currently Treasurer of the Association of Singapore Actors (ASA) and an Associate Director of Toy Factory and Action Theatre. In 2008, she was selected by the Mayor of the Northwest CDC to sit on the Arts and Culture Committee.
She is currently the Artistic Director of Zebra Crossing Productions.
Loretta is openly lesbian.[1]
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/BgSty_376609_1.html

ON MS LORETTA CHAN
Loretta Chen is no different... she's openly gay and has also directed films with mainly controversial themes. She's supposed to be a nominee from the arts community but is this again a back door for more pro LGBTs to represent voice in Parliament for education? I love the arts & the many artistic talents but I resent the double standards here... Christians were accused of entering "secular" space, why should gays and lesbians have free access to this so-called 'secular' space? -- isay on Reach website
--------------------------------------------------
April 23, 2009
Arts community seeks NMP

Theatre director Loretta Chen, 32, says she is willing to be a candidate By Zakir Hussain SINGAPORE'S arts community is gathering views on whom it should propose as a Nominated MP (NMP), and already a theatre director has stepped up to the plate.
She is Ms Loretta Chen, 32, who was once a member of the People's Action Party (PAP) youth wing.

She told The Straits Times yesterday: 'I've been receiving a barrage of e-mail messages and SMSes urging me to stand.

'I may not be the best person but I'm willing to learn and work hard.'

She said she left the PAP youth wing two years ago as she felt it was not the right platform for her to serve the wider community.

Other potential candidates are: artistic co-director of arts venue The Substation Audrey Wong, 40; theatre director Beatrice Chia-Richmond, 34; and jazz pianist and educator Jeremy Monteiro, 48.

Their names were suggested at a meeting of members of the arts community, held last Thursday at arts venue The White House in Emily Hill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.asiaone.com/Just+Woman/News/Women+In+The+News/Story/A1Story20080930-90867.html

7. What made you join the Young PAP?

If you want to make a change, you have to actively make it and that means working within the political avenues.

Some people get quite disheartened, cynical and feel powerless because they keep criticising from the outside.

I say: Jump in and fight for what you believe in. Theatre is a great platform for me to be politically aware and socially involved while still being creative.

Moderator's Note: S met up with MM and asked about gay censorship. She has now left the PAP Youth Wing. Looks like much inroad was made. Since Govt opened doors for gays into civil service, the activists have well-placed people all over in Govt now.

Praetorian will try to provide further information on other nominee Audrey Wong on her views.

Regards

Ensuring A Diversity Of Views In Parliament

2009-06-19T09:50:00.001+08:00

Hi All,

(1) Following lists of Ministers & MPs that you can contact to press your concerns about Arts nominees as NMPs who are known active activists with stated agendas which have nothing to do with the promotion of Arts in Singapore.

(2) Furthermore, I have attached the websites taken fro Lee's articles where you can write to them. Better if you write to them individually and also to the Select Group.

THE members of the Special Select Committee are:

-Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi (Chairman)
-Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for Finance
and Second Minister for Transport
-Mr Low Thia Khiang
-Mr Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development

-Mr Masagos Zulkifli BMM, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education and
Ministry of Home Affairs

-Mr Michael Palmer
-Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong
-Mrs Josephine Teo

(3) Write personal feedback to the Ministers or Ministry & MPs by addressing it to them directly and through Reach : reach@reach.gov.sg

(4) All govt emails can also be found on http://www.sgdi.gov.

(5) Continue posting our comments here and invite your friends to do so. This will show that there are many who share the same sentiments about Straits Times confusing the public with their biased coverage.

(6) Remember, dont rant and rave or get too "emotional" in your personal letter.

(7) To keep that letter from being overly lengthy, just pick out a point or two and provide or quote the articles, healdines etc and provide the links.

Unity Is Strength!!!

Regards

Insightful Comments Extracted From REACH

2009-06-17T23:07:00.001+08:00

Insightful comments extracted from REACH which aptly explains the position of all concerned parents & like-minded people:-

LEE
17 Jun 09 , 10:30 AM

Dear “CW”,

In addition to my earlier reply:
Many of my posts and many others here have come out repeatedly to say we are not marginalizing homosexuals who are happy to simply enjoy life Singapore and be happy with their personal space. I wont go deeper into this subject because it has been explained in this thread. Read through and you will understand that many of us have gay friends whom we get along with. These are different from those gay activists as you yourself mentioned.

My optician is gay. He has always been very professional with his work and has great taste in selecting the right frames. I have no problems interacting with him. Recently I also shared about an assignment I did with another gay colleague – a very talented person. It was nice to be able to have a pleasant day with him. He understands I do not endorse the gay alternative lifestyle nor do I approve of homosexual acts. Yet he knows that I accept him as a person worthy of care and love. These friends respect and understand that they should not push their agenda onto mainstream conservatives. In turn, the personal space we give to them shows that we are not marginalizing them in society.
IF you are one of those peaceloving gays who have been contented with having your private space, no desire to push aggressively the pro LGBT agenda, then perhaps people like yourselves should write to those forums which criticise the conservatives (eg. Wayang party, we-are-aware and many more etc.) when we talk about moral values. I wonder if they will be as “gentle” to you if you tell them you don’t agree with them.
So “CW”, it’s the gay activists and organizations like Aware whom we are talking about. Spend more time reading the comments and hopefully you will understand. Take care.

Comments Taken From REACH 2

2009-06-17T23:06:00.001+08:00

Below is continuation of comments from Lee to CW:

LEE
17 Jun 09 , 09:24 AM

(Contd pg. 3 of 3 pgs)

To “CW”

So don’t worry “CW”, if there is no hidden agenda or disguise behind Aware’s new charter of compassion, then individuals like yourself should have nothing to worry about all this information being shared to the public. If this charter isn’t another disguise by Aware for gay activists to push their agenda onto mainstream society, then you have nothing to be concerned about.. Just let the public have all the necessary facts about the 4 founding members of Aware’s charter of compassion so they can decide for themselves.

I stated in my earlier posting 16 June 10.02am that everyone is entitled to share their views in our secular state. Aware shares theirs and so should we. Fair and square. But we object when the so called All Inclusives say their views can be included in secular space but ours has to be excluded. We object to our national news media excluding the concerns of parents and citizens until we had to petition, write online letters, mass emails to get MOE to investigate Aware’s Controversial CSE Trainer’s Manual. If ST had really been impartial, all these “actions” would not have been necessary. We have now lost the confidence that ST will be impartial when reporting about activities that deal with moral issues.

Was there a need for Aware to be so secretive and adamant about their confidential manual if there was nothing wrong? So, if there is no hidden agenda or disguise behind Aware’s New Charter of Compassion, then there’s nothing wrong in SHARING this information on public space.

Now concerned parents and citizens have to do more investigative work. I save myself close to $320 on one year’s subscription of ST’s print edition. Better to give this to the more needy.

Once again, thank you “CW” for your sincere questions and comments.

Regards

Comments Taken From REACH

2009-06-17T23:03:00.001+08:00

Following is good reading:

LEE
17 Jun 09 , 09:23 AM

Hello “CW” (pg 1 of 3pgs)
Thank you for your comments.. You have expressed your sentiments very nicely and I know it wont be a waste of time clarifying my stand on this issue for you. Your post is certainly far more sensible than those others who come in only to criticize but have nothing intelligent to contribute.
When Straits Times reported MP Thio Li-Ann’s speech in Parliament, they asked Minister Mah Bow Tan whether she should have identified herself as Dr. Thio’s daughter. Well, Minister Mah said although it was not necessary of MP Li Ann to do so, it would be better if she mentioned it.
The ST reporter was very very keen that MP Thio revealed her background as evident from their reports. This “action” of mine is similar – that we reveal the background of the 4 founding members in Aware’s chapter of compassion and sharing it on public space.

I did not ask for any “action” to shut down the charter or to stop Aware from defining their goals relating to this chapter. I didn’t even accuse them of anything. I just wrote about what I read on the Net and shared it. If the information isn’t true, you should point that out to the people manning those links where I got the information.

Yes, the Charter is for adults. But before the adults can decide and judge for themselves whether there is any hidden agenda in Aware’s charter of compassion, all relevant information should be shared and that is what we are doing.
-------contd on pg 2.--------------------------
LEE
17 Jun 09 , 09:24 AM

(Contd page 2 of 3 pgs)… my reply to “CW”

You said ”While I recognize the recent sensitivities from the AWARE reporting slant…” Unquote. Thank you for that understanding about the Aware reporting SLANT.

ST insists they have been impartial and professional. So, if ST were to print future articles on Aware’s charter of compassion, will they use their sensational headlines only to highlight what they wish the public to read and dismiss the other important facts the way they did with the CSE issue? Are they going to have breathless coverage and inform the public that these founding members are pluralists who think that any religious citizens speaking up against moral values are denounced as religious fundamentalists? Are they going to splash that poster on the “Mardi Gras” play that was put up Necessary stage? That poster with a practically naked gay with captions “We’re here, we’re Queen, We’re …soooo in trouble”?
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2003/07/02/839.spores-necessary-stage-to-present-mardi-gras

(Those who don’t know what I am talking about, please go to my posting on June 16 09.57am regarding the background of the 4 founding members of Aware’s charter of compassion.)

Will ST splash that gay mardi gras poster in the paper the way they splashed Dr. Thio’s photo? I have many friends who told me Dr THIO’S PHOTO IN THE ST WAS LARGER THAN MAS SELAMAT OR ANY PHOTO OF OUR PRIME MINISTER. Unfortunately I missed that.

True Objectivity means the public must have ALL the necessary knowledge about an issue before they can discern for themselves. The only way for adults to “filter” the information is when they are provided with all the facts.

---contd on pg. 3----------------------------------

NO OBJECTIVITY IN MEDIA COVERAGE

2009-06-17T23:02:00.002+08:00

17 Jun 09 , 06:35 AM

Dear All,
As long as there is no objectivity in our national newspaper in their media coverage regarding Aware and the concerns of parents and citizens regarding moral issues, lets request Reach to keep this thread on its portal. Its not wrong for us to ask that we be given space to air our concerns as this issue will be around for a while. Aware and the Pluralists have ST so we can request Reach to give us space to air our views too.
If you feel the same way, please take time to give your request on:-
reach@reach.gov.sg

Objectivity In Media Reporting

2009-06-17T23:00:00.001+08:00

Dear All Concerned Citizens,

Following insightful comments from one of main contributors of comments on this thread in REACH at website: reach@reach.gov.sg

To All Parents & Concerned Citizens,

2009-06-17T22:59:00.001+08:00

If you care for your children’s future or remember about AWARE, please read on their attempt to come back in another form:-

The groupies & sympathizers are everywhere. So, AWARE is only their vehicle. Infiltrated and taken over. I was once very supportive of their cause when they were pushing to make the women’s lot better. But since then, they have taken up a different cause to fight for under the cloak of women’s rights. As AWARE has now been found out, they have started a new organization “Charter of Compassion”. Different name but same people behind the organization with a view to convert people’s mind to accept moral concepts that’s contrary to the majority view. They want to remake Singapore into A little California in US of A where from young you were taught that same sex marriages & anal s** is fine and normal.

These people are mostly well educated and even thought they are small in numbers, they have their people and sympathizers in many NGOs and social organizations and also in the Arts scene and media. "The pen is mightier than the sword" as the saying goes.

You really don’t need to have a big group if you have well placed people and I think unlimited resources to fall back on. Many of them uses the cloak of respectability to push their agendas. For example, this Prof. Tan from USA, who’s supposed to be an activist in Singapore and who’s now going to give a seminar to “basically” tell people that Asian society is pro-gay and we should be accommodating to them.

Yes, Asian society has ALWAYS been accommodating but that did not mean we agreed with their lifestyle. If a child turns out to be a gay, do we kick them out of the house? NO! Sad? Yes! But, the parents will still accept them.

It’s the western educated minority amongst them who are trying to force they views on us. Worst, they were doing it quietly to our young school-going children to mold their thinking at an age when our young are vulnerable. Do you want to teach your young that “anal sex is fine and ok”, right?

They are also using the Arty people, theatre groups, media, social groups to push their agenda in various disguises.

Hopefully, by being watchful, we concerned citizens will be able to voice our concerns loud enough for our Govt to hear. As you can see, ST, being our national media, has not been helpful in that respect and has been shown to be biased in their accounting of the AWARE issue. In my humble opinion, I felt their reporting made it into an issue of Religion v Homosexuals which was not the case. It was really a case of a group of brave people who were unfortunately, from the same religious background, being parents & concerned citizens, who found out about AWARE’s agenda in disseminating teachings such as “anal sex is fine and ok”. Do you want that?

Please email on this message to as many of your friends as possible to keep them informed. We as concerned parents & citizens have been sleeping for far too long, far too passive in our actions. We have to start taking the responsibility of watching over our young when moral issues are concerned. Write to the Govt too to voice out your concerns.

If you have friends amongst you who are willing to start an organization for concerned citizens/ to be a lobby group, let us know and you will find many willing to take up membership.

Educating Our Young In Singapore

2009-06-17T22:29:00.002+08:00

This letter was sent to MOE Via REACH

Saturday, 13 June, 2009 10:16 PM

To:

reach@reach.gov.sg

Dear Ministers, Members of Parliament

Being a parent I "find" it troubling that MOE lapsed in arresting the bad practices carried out by MOE approved external groups in running its numerous programs. It was not until the AWARE was caught out by parents that MOE came out and spoke out against AWARE and not before. This should not have happened to our young and I belief MOE's internal auditing process is not alert enough or mayhaps have been compromised by liberal minded auditors.

Another matter I would like to point out is that I find that the school counselors are not proactive enough in identifying and approaching individual students that are weak in their studies.These days, students spend more time in school than at home "awake" and it's not like parents can use the "stick" like our forefathers and what with much emphasis on using the internet for their school work, parents have not much opportunity to control their children;s computer access.

Lastly, I see my kids' schools from primary to secondary are already commonly associated/ blighted as schools with large gay populations. These schools seem to encourage it by doing nothing and this is also where I also feel the school counselors are "wanting" and in dereliction of their duties.

Please, being MOE, have a responsibility to the well-being of our young and uphold the family unit and not constantly sweep all problems into the parents' corner. That is a mantra too often used by MOE when unpleasant situations arise. "Now" is not like before and how a child grows and thinks is also much influenced by the MOE's education imperitus, school teachers attitude/ leanings and may I repeat myself, our children spend more time in school than at home "awake' these days.

MOE should take heed and ensure that our young are not compromised by individuals infiltrated into MOE and out to convert/subvert their minds and attitudes to the detriment of the majority in society.

Thank you.

Diversity Of Views, ST Biaseness & Nominated MPs

2009-06-17T22:22:00.001+08:00

This letter was emailed to our Ministers & MPs on 12.06.09

Diversity Of Views, ST Biaseness & Nominated MPs

Dear Ministers, Members of Parliament,

As a parent, all I want from my kids are that they grow up right and with the right values.

Therefore, it is important that when we talk about diversity, it should not be at the expense of our children being taught values that runs counter to our family values and especially when exposed at such a young age.

In the first place, this has nothing to do with religion and should not be construed as such.

If not for ST being the catalyst, the matter of "diversity of views" issue would not have been blown up such as is the case now and still ongoing. I belief the relevant Ministry/Minister/All concerned MPs such as Mr Sim, should look into ST and its auditing processes and to prevent such matters from repeating itself in the future.

My personal belief is that it is really inadmissible for the Editor, Mr Han, for replying in like manner and for telling off Mr Sim (for want of a better word). As an Editor, I am surprised that he would deny so lamely that his reporters did err in their reporting. Hopefully, our Home Ministry is able to put ST's house in order.

Admittedly, I have never before in my life offered feedbacks to Govt, but, when one sees where our society might be heading, as a concerned parent, I just had to make a stand.

Our society is such that we being asians, generally, do not voice out on any issues unless it affects all. But, in this time and age, I realize that one cannot afford to step aside completely and be silent onlookers. The AWARE issue woke me up from my stupor. If we are not alert, it might be an issue again as those extremely liberal-minded forces, I feel, are more organized, better educated, well-placed in society to force changes at the expense of the majority, if not, quietly, quietly.

This clash of different views (very much on the minds of us concerned parents) comes into the picture when we talk about NMPs. As the Arts are also allotted one or two NMP places, it beggars my mind to think that the Arts scene have put up names of 2 persons known to be extremely liberal-minded. I am hopeful that Govt will be ever vigilant and not again allow the NMP position to be used as a platform to promote negative views and lifestyles. As they say, an opportunity offerred is an opportunity to be taken, just to keep alive an "Agenda" in the eye of the public, the longer the better.

Thank you.