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

[sanjaygusta]

Sign up for a DBS credit card today.
Gays. of course, need not apply.

This is being silly, does DBS give you commission?

 

[londontrader]

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

No evidence?
Then you must be living in a parallel universe

 

[londontrader]

Dear Kakowi

You seem inclined to the view that OLD AWARE had a "pro-gay stance". Am I correct in stating that?

If so, I'm interested in how you arrived at that position, given the evidence that is already available in the public domain (mostly from OLD AWARE). I point out that NEW AWARE hasn't been particularly forthcoming with any evidence of their own.

Looking forward to your reply

Cheers

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

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

 

[londontrader]

You refer to Focus on The Family?
It is quite obvious that FOTF is an evangelical parachurch organization and a component of the American Christian Right. Any homosexual would be justly concerned with an organization that views homosexuality as a mental disorder.

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

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

 

[londontrader]

"From what I hear, it has nothing to do with the Church. Its just Thio Su Mien, her nephew and few zealots that behind this"

Dear Scroobal,

The Church has not distanced itself from the activity of a few zealots
There is now an active lobbying campaign (through the network of churches) to support NEW AWARE against a homosexual tide.
So, this has everything to do with the Church

Cheers

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

"Dear Valued Members..."...darling Josie's 'credit card' salutation to Aware members in her email of the 28th :p

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up for a DBS credit card today.

Gays. of course, need not apply.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

COOS and that Pastor Hong of theirs is playing a very dangerous game here...and one of Josie's pussycats - new exco member, Maureen Ng, even appears to have the audacity and gall to talk about looking at Syriah Laws, according to TNP's report on the new exco's press conference...and now look at this...

45) cat's poop on TOC April 29th, 2009 12.56 pm “43) JL on April 29th, 2009 12.46 pm

i have just learnt that the new exco has the AWARE EGM venue moved to EXPO. incidentally, next to “Transformation Conference 2009″ co-organized by COOS and 40 other Churches.

it makes me really very very sad. so much for AWARE belongs to you.

there is a chinese saying - 贏了還慘過輸，meaning it’s worse off by winning.

if the new exco really wins in the coming EGM, i cannot imagine the damage to the Christian faith.”

no wonder someone said there’ll be bus transportation provided by COOS. 1 stone 2 birds!

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

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


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

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


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

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

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Let's cut to the chase...THE BIG issue here is that it appears on balance that COOS and Pastor Hong with Dr Thio and Josie and her pussycats are invoking their Christian Right values and beliefs on a secular NGO in a clandestine manner...this is a very dangerous slippery road precedent in multi-multi Singapore context and must be nipped in the bud...no ifs no buts here...

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

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

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

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

Why do I say that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This, to my current knowledge, is not done.

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

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Perhaps...but from what I have read on TOC it does look that clear...let me repeat what I said in an earlier post in another thread...if Harry was still PM none of these religious zealots would have the cunts or balls to even try and attempt such rouse...in fact I recall afew years back Harry even said publicly that homosexuality was more nature based...now why didn't this motley group openly challenge Harry with Pastor Hong and self proclaimed Feminist Mentor Dr Thio taking the lead? (now I stand corrected if they did, because i do recall one or two letters in ST' forum taking polite issue with harry on this one).

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

April 28, 2009
AWARE SAGA
Restore reason, civility to debate

IN A climate of debate that has seen fear mongering, character assassination, heads of sub-committees sacked, employees fired, police called, votes of no confidence, churches weighing in and threats of violence, it is necessary to remind ourselves what being part of a civil society means.
A civil society is one where every citizen has an option to make her own life in a safe public sphere and where no one should be discriminated against or excluded because of her religion, class, race, sexuality, lifestyle, ideology or gender.

Given the political dominance of one party and Singapore's multicultural and multi-religious nature, groups like the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) are important for providing the expression of alternative views and hence for good governance.

The totality of Aware's work and the make-up of every executive committee (exco) since its formation are representative of a 'rainbow coalition'. However, and somewhat unfortunately, the current exco does not represent Singapore's racial and religious diversity. In that sense, one wonders to what degree it best represents civil society.

The second question is what are the tones and sensibilities of civil society? This is a far harder question to answer. But we have had clear, if unspoken, codes of conduct at Aware for many years. These codes have been replaced by mistrust, betrayal, misinformation and silence.

In this regard, character assassination of individuals shows the extent to which people will descend to sell their point of view. Misinformation about me is being circulated by text messages and the Internet that I have a homosexual brother and am working to turn Aware into a gay/lesbian organisation.

My maiden name is D'Cruz and my full married name is Thurairasingam and so Clarence Singam cannot be my brother (see http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/society/1548/122336/3.htm ) .

I have emphasised that Aware will not be used as a platform for lesbian issues. I have stated categorically that Aware speaks for all women and we address issues of discrimination against all women. These are facts that can easily be verified. But facts are a casualty in this whole sad episode.

We must restore a sense of reason, civility and respect to a debate that is increasingly unproductive. This will surely be good, not just for Aware but for all women, families and Singaporeans.

In that sense, I am grateful for the statement by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, in yesterday's report, 'Keep religion above 'petty politics', says Vivian'.


Constance Singam (Mrs)

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

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

 

[kakowi]

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

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

Scroobal, please show me the post where i said they are a gay front.

 

[londontrader]

Scroobal, please show me the post where i said they are a gay front.

I don't recall you making that explicit accusation but I could be wrong (maybe Scroobal can confirm this).

I do get the feeling that you are less than sympathetic to OLD AWARE's position (am I right?)

You called for a "balanced" debate but seem to be a lot less critical in your assessment of NEW AWARE's actions.

 

[scroobal]

Please don't tell me that you are talking about climate change or saving the whale. Or what did you mean by all that.

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



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

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

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

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

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

Gays. of course, need not apply.

.

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


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

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

Scroobal, please show me the post where i said they are a gay front.

 

[SIFU]

scroobal..

why u siam that kgc question??

so u no need to substantiate.. and yet keep press other ppl for answers?

i used to tot u know a lot of inside info.. until that kgc thing..

 

[kakowi]

Scroobal, I quote the entire post that was referred by you as evidence.

I highlight the context.

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

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

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

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

Now it is an attempt against an individual.

How low can a person get?

How low can they get?

……………..

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

We have no problems with gays fighting for their rights.

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

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

They claim that they did not.

The new Aware claim that they did.

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

……………..

Who is right and who is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

……….

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up for a DBS credit card today.

Gays. of course, need not apply.

Therefore I spoke about the conflicting points of views. One said yes and the other said no.

But who is right?

Did I say that the old Aware is a gay front?

I did not say that.

What I said was that there should be a gauge if there is a reasonable basis and if there is a reasonable basis, then....


There is only one thing that I am very definite about in this post and that is it is immoral and underhanded to attack people in their livelihood.

 

[kakowi]

Scroobal, I will now quote the other post which you said is evidence I said that there is a gay front.

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

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


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

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


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

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

Considering a possibility is not the same as making an assertion.

 

[kakowi]

Please don't tell me that you are talking about climate change or saving the whale. Or what did you mean by all that.

Finally to address your current point.

If you are not interested to listen, it is okay by me.

 

[kaipoh]

no wonder lky consults monk not priest for his overseas trip. problematic!!!

 

[scroobal]

Finally to address your current point.

If you are not interested to listen, it is okay by me.

You still cannot substantiate your claim. Its not a nice thing to smear people in this manner.

 

[denzuko1]

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

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


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

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


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

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

Oh! yes, the " if you are not with us, you are against us!" from Bush. So as long as one is not a member of the Church of Our Saviour, he or she is a gay. Now suddenly whole Singapore except for one place sanctioned by God at Margaret Drive are gay.