Kenneth Jeyaretnam needs to reply to damaging Straits Times report
As expected, the state media has embarked on its smear campaign against Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam even before the next election.
The Reform Party founded by Kenneth’s father, the late Josua Jeyaretnam had a CEC meeting on 26 April 2009 during which Kenneth was appointed as its Secretary-General by a majority vote.
The Reform Party has issued a press release here which documents clearly the resolutions passed.
However, the Straits Times report ignore its content completely and chose instead to focus on an alleged rift between Kenneth and his father’s closest ally, the affable Mr Ng Teck Siong:
“A month after joining the fledgling Reform Party founded by his father, hedge fund manager Kenneth Jeyaretnam has taken over as its secretary-general. At the same time, a long-time ally of the late Mr J B Jeyaretnam and a co-founder of the party, quit after falling out with the younger Jeyaretnam.”
(read full article here)
To be fair to Jeremy, he did contact Kenneth who declined to comment on the matter. Nevertheless, I am still disappointed with the main thrust of his article which appeared more keen to play up on petty politicking within the party than the matter proper.
Regardless of its authenticity, this statement is damaging to Kenneth’s image as a budding politician and a response is warranted immediately.
Singapore is a conservative Asian society where the young are expected to show respect to seniors, teachers and mentors. Politicians who are perceived to lack these quintessential virtues will almost always be rejected by the electorate.
Mr Ng Teck Siong is a good friend and comrade of the late Jeyaretnam and was instrumental in setting up the Reform Party together with him.
After his passing last year, Teck Siong held the fort as the Chairman of Reform Party till the last CEC meeting after which he resigned from his position following a vote of no confidence against him.
Jeremy Au seemed to insinuate in his article that Kenneth had a personal dispute with Teck Siong which led eventually to his quitting from Reform Party while the reality may not be as such.
Some readers may be misled to perceive Kenneth as an arrogant and ungrateful upstart who has failed to show proper respect to his late friend’s close friend.
I propose that Kenneth and Teck Siong hold a press conference together to debunk any rumors of discord and ill-will between the two for the sake of the former’s political career.
Kenneth may like to take the opportunity to express his appreciation and gratitude to Teck Siong’s unwavering faith in JBJ in the past while Teck Siong should throw his full support behind Kenneth as the leader to bring Reform Party forward.
Politics is all about “wayang” and public opinion is of utmost importance. The mainstream media is an expert at manipulating public perceptions to cast aspersions on the character or capability of opposition politicians.
Once a politician is stuck with a “label” by the media, it will probably stay with him forever with no hope of redemption.
Dr Chee Soon Juan, James Gomez and Tan Lead Shake are examples of opposition politicians who have been “fixed” by the state media and never quite salvaged their embattled reputation in the eyes of the Singaporeans.
Even till today, many Singaporeans believe that Dr Chee has plotted the ouster of his mentor, the respected Mr Chiam See Tong from the Singapore Democratic Party.
I hope Kenneth can get a good start in his fledging political career and get acknowledged in due course as a credible and respected opposition leader in the mould of Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Kiang.
With Mr Chiam entering into the twilight of his political career, Singaporeans desperately need to get another opposition MP into Parliament and Kenneth represents our best hope.
Kenneth’s undisputed pedigree as the son of JBJ, academic qualifications and professional background as an economist will pose a formidable threat to the PAP which may already be hatching a plan to throw him off course.
Let us stay vigilant always and be alerted to any reports in the state media which may tarnish the image of Kenneth.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26489.12
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Borrowing from loansharks - criminalising without providing real choice
Borrowing from loansharks - criminalising without providing real choice
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Ravi Philemon
“Yes, I have borrowed from Ah Long”, admits Rezal (not his real name). “But I had no other choice! My wife lost her job in the factory and now earns about $400 as a part-time dish-washer; and we cannot survive just on my pay of $800.” Rezal, who has three school-going children and works as a Lashing Specialist, says. “There are really no containers coming in for me to have work everyday”.
Rezal, who lives in a three room HDB flat with his family, says that they managed to get by when he had a full days work; and the “$400 plus” his wife brought home every fortnight working as a factory worker, made sure that they had money for marketing, transportation, pocket-money for the children and themselves, etc. But now, he has to choose between paying his bills and putting food on the table for his children.
“My relatives helped out in the beginning, but they also have their own families. Finally last month I have to go to the Ah Long to borrow $200 to pay the bills”, says Rezal. “I have to pay the Ah Long $280 at the end of this month, but I think I can manage because I have started washing cars part-time now”, Rezal adds.
Should people like Rezal who are victims of circumstances and are already victims of sharks, loan-sharks that is, be further victimised by a new law that is under study to criminalise those that borrow from loan-sharks? Mr. Wong Kan Seng, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs, says that this new law being studied by the police is to “hold borrowers accountable” for “their reckless borrowing”. He says these “reckless borrowing” endanger the safety and security of the community; and justifies it further by saying that many borrowers end up working as syndicate runners to pay off their debts, extending the circle of crime even further.
What other recourse do people like Rezal have? There is no unemployment insurance to tide the retrenched over the downturn till they find another job in Singapore. If you suddenly fall on trying times, you cannot draw a “hardship loan” from your own Central Provident Fund (CPF). If you earn less than $20,000 annually, you cannot borrow from the banks. Information on loans provided by credit co-operatives is not easily available. Since life is not a constant, what other solutions do people like Rezal have, when they are suddenly faced with the struggle of daily life?
When reminded that under the law that is currently being studied, he may be criminalised if he borrows from the loan-shark, Rezal replies, “If I have to choose between putting food on the table for my children and committing an offence by borrowing from the Ah Long, I will choose to become a criminal.”
Lawyers like Luke Lee disagree with the intention of the possible law. He says, “They are already down and out, no further action should be taken against them. Even if these victims sue the borrowers and win the case, the borrowers may not have the money to pay, and the victims would still have pay for the law suit.”
And what is the real intention of the Ministry of Home Affairs studying the implementation of this law now? Has the current economic crisis caused more people to turn to loan sharks? Have the incidences of the loan-sharks pressing for payments increased dramatically that police are struggling to cope? A Straits Times Forum writer seems to suggest as much, when the writer said that the police did not seem to take any action against the harassers, despite numerous complaints being lodged.
Such a law if implemented will surely make the job easier for the police as well as for the loan-sharks, for those that borrow from the loan-sharks, will now not come forward to say that they are being harassed, for fear of being criminalised themselves. This in turn will create a thriving black market for personal loans.
Some debtors do indeed assist the unlicensed moneylenders by becoming their runners and by aiding them in their harassment activities. But what is the actual statistics for this? There are of course “reckless borrowers” who borrow to fuel their addiction to gambling, for example. But again what are the numbers for these? Without providing the appropriate numbers and statistics, what Mr. Wong Kan Seng has done is to paint those that borrow from loan-sharks as the bogeyman who borrow recklessly and endanger the safety and security of his neighbours and community.
Of course the police should not hesitate to take action against debtors who are found to be assisting unlicensed moneylenders in their illegal activities. But not all debtors must be considered as criminal elements. There are sufficient safeguards in the current law to deter those that assist illegal money-lending activities; for the current law specifies that those who harass or intimidate anyone in connection with loans by an unlicensed moneylender face a maximum fine of $40,000 or up to three years in jail, or both.
Enacting a law to criminalise without having effective safeguards against the hurdles that life throws at those that earn lower income is, to say the least, not thoughtful. The government should kick-start an initiative like “Match-Saving Scheme” to assist those that are least able to save before even considering a law which would criminalise those that borrow from the illegal money-lenders. The “Match-Saving Scheme” could be made available to those who earn $1500 or less and match 50 cents for every dollar saved. The “Match-Saving Scheme”, should also specify conditions as to when such savings could be drawn. Such a scheme will kick-start a saving habit among those who are often least likely and least able to save.
“Of course if given a choice, I don’t want to pay so much interest”, says Rezal. “But what choice do I have?” he asks.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28041.1
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Ravi Philemon
“Yes, I have borrowed from Ah Long”, admits Rezal (not his real name). “But I had no other choice! My wife lost her job in the factory and now earns about $400 as a part-time dish-washer; and we cannot survive just on my pay of $800.” Rezal, who has three school-going children and works as a Lashing Specialist, says. “There are really no containers coming in for me to have work everyday”.
Rezal, who lives in a three room HDB flat with his family, says that they managed to get by when he had a full days work; and the “$400 plus” his wife brought home every fortnight working as a factory worker, made sure that they had money for marketing, transportation, pocket-money for the children and themselves, etc. But now, he has to choose between paying his bills and putting food on the table for his children.
“My relatives helped out in the beginning, but they also have their own families. Finally last month I have to go to the Ah Long to borrow $200 to pay the bills”, says Rezal. “I have to pay the Ah Long $280 at the end of this month, but I think I can manage because I have started washing cars part-time now”, Rezal adds.
Should people like Rezal who are victims of circumstances and are already victims of sharks, loan-sharks that is, be further victimised by a new law that is under study to criminalise those that borrow from loan-sharks? Mr. Wong Kan Seng, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs, says that this new law being studied by the police is to “hold borrowers accountable” for “their reckless borrowing”. He says these “reckless borrowing” endanger the safety and security of the community; and justifies it further by saying that many borrowers end up working as syndicate runners to pay off their debts, extending the circle of crime even further.
What other recourse do people like Rezal have? There is no unemployment insurance to tide the retrenched over the downturn till they find another job in Singapore. If you suddenly fall on trying times, you cannot draw a “hardship loan” from your own Central Provident Fund (CPF). If you earn less than $20,000 annually, you cannot borrow from the banks. Information on loans provided by credit co-operatives is not easily available. Since life is not a constant, what other solutions do people like Rezal have, when they are suddenly faced with the struggle of daily life?
When reminded that under the law that is currently being studied, he may be criminalised if he borrows from the loan-shark, Rezal replies, “If I have to choose between putting food on the table for my children and committing an offence by borrowing from the Ah Long, I will choose to become a criminal.”
Lawyers like Luke Lee disagree with the intention of the possible law. He says, “They are already down and out, no further action should be taken against them. Even if these victims sue the borrowers and win the case, the borrowers may not have the money to pay, and the victims would still have pay for the law suit.”
And what is the real intention of the Ministry of Home Affairs studying the implementation of this law now? Has the current economic crisis caused more people to turn to loan sharks? Have the incidences of the loan-sharks pressing for payments increased dramatically that police are struggling to cope? A Straits Times Forum writer seems to suggest as much, when the writer said that the police did not seem to take any action against the harassers, despite numerous complaints being lodged.
Such a law if implemented will surely make the job easier for the police as well as for the loan-sharks, for those that borrow from the loan-sharks, will now not come forward to say that they are being harassed, for fear of being criminalised themselves. This in turn will create a thriving black market for personal loans.
Some debtors do indeed assist the unlicensed moneylenders by becoming their runners and by aiding them in their harassment activities. But what is the actual statistics for this? There are of course “reckless borrowers” who borrow to fuel their addiction to gambling, for example. But again what are the numbers for these? Without providing the appropriate numbers and statistics, what Mr. Wong Kan Seng has done is to paint those that borrow from loan-sharks as the bogeyman who borrow recklessly and endanger the safety and security of his neighbours and community.
Of course the police should not hesitate to take action against debtors who are found to be assisting unlicensed moneylenders in their illegal activities. But not all debtors must be considered as criminal elements. There are sufficient safeguards in the current law to deter those that assist illegal money-lending activities; for the current law specifies that those who harass or intimidate anyone in connection with loans by an unlicensed moneylender face a maximum fine of $40,000 or up to three years in jail, or both.
Enacting a law to criminalise without having effective safeguards against the hurdles that life throws at those that earn lower income is, to say the least, not thoughtful. The government should kick-start an initiative like “Match-Saving Scheme” to assist those that are least able to save before even considering a law which would criminalise those that borrow from the illegal money-lenders. The “Match-Saving Scheme” could be made available to those who earn $1500 or less and match 50 cents for every dollar saved. The “Match-Saving Scheme”, should also specify conditions as to when such savings could be drawn. Such a scheme will kick-start a saving habit among those who are often least likely and least able to save.
“Of course if given a choice, I don’t want to pay so much interest”, says Rezal. “But what choice do I have?” he asks.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28041.1
“The door is always open to him,” says Reform Party of chairman
“The door is always open to him,” says Reform Party of chairman
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
The following is the Reform Party’s latest press release on the resignation of its chairman, Mr Ng Teck Siong.
Press Release
The Reform Party can confirm that Mr. Ng Teck Siong, former Chairman of the Reform Party, submitted his resignation to the party’s Secretary General on Monday 26th April.
The senior officers and council of the CEC were saddened by the news but are fully supportive of Mr Ng’s decision that, “in the interest of party renewal, this is an appropriate juncture to step aside,”
Mr Ng is a veteran of opposition politics having being involved with different opposition parties for almost thirty years. His political career first began in 1980 when he joined the Singapore Democratic Party under the then SG Mr Chiam See Tong. In the last few years he has become well known as a trusted assistant to the late J.B. Jeyaretnam. Mr Ng Teck Siong was invited onto the Pro-Tem committee by JBJ during the early stages of The Reform Party’s inauguration and took over the helm of leadership following the death of JBJ in October 2008.
Mr Edmund Ng Chair of the reform Party denied rumours of any personal rift quoting an interview from MediaCorp’s ‘938 live’ yesterday where Mr K Jeyaretnam said, “Teck Siong has given many years of loyal service to my father and has done a good job of steering the party. It shouldn’t be taken as a reflection of anything bad on him. Just that the majority of the CEC felt it’s time for new blood.” The Chair went on to stress that the party is governed by CEC decisions not by any one individual.
Mr Jeyaretnam paid tribute to Mr Ng Teck Siong, praising him for stepping up and taking over at the helm at a very difficult time. “The door is always open to him”, he added.
The CEC, and the whole of the Reform Party, wishes Mr Ng continued good health and happiness and wishes him all the best in his future endeavours.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27986.3
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
The following is the Reform Party’s latest press release on the resignation of its chairman, Mr Ng Teck Siong.
Press Release
The Reform Party can confirm that Mr. Ng Teck Siong, former Chairman of the Reform Party, submitted his resignation to the party’s Secretary General on Monday 26th April.
The senior officers and council of the CEC were saddened by the news but are fully supportive of Mr Ng’s decision that, “in the interest of party renewal, this is an appropriate juncture to step aside,”
Mr Ng is a veteran of opposition politics having being involved with different opposition parties for almost thirty years. His political career first began in 1980 when he joined the Singapore Democratic Party under the then SG Mr Chiam See Tong. In the last few years he has become well known as a trusted assistant to the late J.B. Jeyaretnam. Mr Ng Teck Siong was invited onto the Pro-Tem committee by JBJ during the early stages of The Reform Party’s inauguration and took over the helm of leadership following the death of JBJ in October 2008.
Mr Edmund Ng Chair of the reform Party denied rumours of any personal rift quoting an interview from MediaCorp’s ‘938 live’ yesterday where Mr K Jeyaretnam said, “Teck Siong has given many years of loyal service to my father and has done a good job of steering the party. It shouldn’t be taken as a reflection of anything bad on him. Just that the majority of the CEC felt it’s time for new blood.” The Chair went on to stress that the party is governed by CEC decisions not by any one individual.
Mr Jeyaretnam paid tribute to Mr Ng Teck Siong, praising him for stepping up and taking over at the helm at a very difficult time. “The door is always open to him”, he added.
The CEC, and the whole of the Reform Party, wishes Mr Ng continued good health and happiness and wishes him all the best in his future endeavours.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27986.3
Reform Party's sec-gen
April 28, 2009
Reform Party's sec-gen
| By Kor Kian Beng & Jeremy Au Yong | ||
 |  | Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam (above) now holds the same post that his father held before he died last September. -- AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE |
A MONTH after joining the fledgling Reform Party founded by his father, hedge fund manager Kenneth Jeyaretnam is now its secretary-general.
At the same time, a long-time ally of the late Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam and a co-founder of the party has quit after falling out with the younger Jeyaretnam.
The party issued a statement on Monday announcing the appointment of Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam as secretary-general, Mr Edmund Ng as interim chairman and Mr James Teo Kian Chye as interim treasurer.
The statement also announced the resignation of Mr Ng Teck Siong as chairman following a vote of no-confidence against him.
Mr Ng Teck Siong, a long-time ally of the senior Jeyaretnam, told The Straits Times he had quit the party completely.
Opposition sources say he fell out of favour because he was slow in appointing a new secretary-general, the post held by the senior Jeyaretnam before he died of heart failure last September, two months after setting up the party.
Contacted by telephone, the younger Jeyaretnam declined to elaborate on Mr Ng Teck Siong's ouster.
'I think the CEC (central executive committee) just felt that they needed somebody of higher profile to take the party forward,' he said.
As for his plans for the party, he said: 'Obviously our plan is to take the party forward and to contest the next election, to build on what has been achieved before.'
Mr Jeyaretnam is married and has a 12-year-old son. He worked in London's financial sector for many years before returning with his family to Singapore last April.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26489.10
AWARE: Restore reason, civility to debate
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)
FORUM NOTE: The writer was president of Aware before the society's AGM last month. She quit as its adviser following the fallout between veterans of the society and the new executive committee, comprising largely new members led by Ms Josie Lau.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.2
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)
FORUM NOTE: The writer was president of Aware before the society's AGM last month. She quit as its adviser following the fallout between veterans of the society and the new executive committee, comprising largely new members led by Ms Josie Lau.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.2
Aware: What being inclusive means
What being inclusive means
I REFER to yesterday's article, 'Keep religion above 'petty politics', says Vivian'.
The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) fully supports Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan's advice that our internal disputes should be settled among members. We agree it is important to hear a diversity of views and to discuss these views in a civil manner.
Aware is a secular organisation and we welcome women of all races and religions to be members. Our members' beliefs and the recent high-profile disputes should not be exploited in the public arena to serve controversial agendas.
The extraordinary general meeting on May 2 is a forum for genuinely interested parties to address issues relating to Aware, its contribution to matters relating to all women and how this affects society in general.
Aware's principle of inclusiveness is framed by reference to the purposes and objectives of this women's organisation. For example, Aware is not directly concerned with the rights of consumers, investors or the environment.
What about the interests of lesbians or what some call 'sexual orientation' or 'sexuality' rights? It depends on what interest is at stake. For example, we do not think lesbians should be discriminated against in the workplace, either in terms of promotion or pay; like every woman, they deserve equality of opportunity. The only relevant consideration is merit.
There is a world of difference between fair employment rights and claims to 'same-sex marriage'.
As an advocacy group, Aware seeks to maintain its relevance by allocating its limited resources to tackling the most pressing issues of the day impacting our women across the spectrum of society.
It is not helpful to use slogans like 'inclusive' to force acceptance of controversial claims on all Aware members, as if that belief were a prerequisite for membership; it is not.
Aware would like to contribute to pluralistic Singapore by providing a forum to address issues specifically so we can understand exactly what issues are at stake in order for dialogue to be meaningful. Aware is tolerant and inclusive enough to allow its members to hold their views on matters of controversy.
Josie Lau (Ms)
President of Aware
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.1
I REFER to yesterday's article, 'Keep religion above 'petty politics', says Vivian'.
The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) fully supports Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan's advice that our internal disputes should be settled among members. We agree it is important to hear a diversity of views and to discuss these views in a civil manner.
Aware is a secular organisation and we welcome women of all races and religions to be members. Our members' beliefs and the recent high-profile disputes should not be exploited in the public arena to serve controversial agendas.
The extraordinary general meeting on May 2 is a forum for genuinely interested parties to address issues relating to Aware, its contribution to matters relating to all women and how this affects society in general.
Aware's principle of inclusiveness is framed by reference to the purposes and objectives of this women's organisation. For example, Aware is not directly concerned with the rights of consumers, investors or the environment.
What about the interests of lesbians or what some call 'sexual orientation' or 'sexuality' rights? It depends on what interest is at stake. For example, we do not think lesbians should be discriminated against in the workplace, either in terms of promotion or pay; like every woman, they deserve equality of opportunity. The only relevant consideration is merit.
There is a world of difference between fair employment rights and claims to 'same-sex marriage'.
As an advocacy group, Aware seeks to maintain its relevance by allocating its limited resources to tackling the most pressing issues of the day impacting our women across the spectrum of society.
It is not helpful to use slogans like 'inclusive' to force acceptance of controversial claims on all Aware members, as if that belief were a prerequisite for membership; it is not.
Aware would like to contribute to pluralistic Singapore by providing a forum to address issues specifically so we can understand exactly what issues are at stake in order for dialogue to be meaningful. Aware is tolerant and inclusive enough to allow its members to hold their views on matters of controversy.
Josie Lau (Ms)
President of Aware
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.1
Hanging herself with her own rope?
Hanging herself with her own rope?
SINGAPORE - It was only last week when Dr Thio Su Mien made the following claims regarding AWARE’s comprehensive sexuality (CSE) program especially with regards to her focus on the neutral portrayal of homosexuality:
‘I talked to parents. I said: You better do something about this, otherwise your daughter will come back and say, ‘Mum, I want to marry my girlfriend.’
‘Or your son will say: ‘Dad, I want to marry my boyfriend.”
These parents were flabbergasted, she said, adding that such sexuality education was taking place in the United States and Europe and was not new.
‘What is happening in society is that we are redefining marriage, we are redefining families,’ she said.
‘So I’m a concerned citizen and if people are so ignorant, I think I want to teach them.’
Pointing out that Aware’s programme was already in 30 schools, she said: ‘The suggestion is that in this programme, young girls from 12 to 18 are taught that it’s okay to experiment with each other.
‘And this is something which should concern parents in Singapore. Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?’
I was anticipating a response from the Ministry of Education (MOE), and my prediction finally came true. Allow me to kick things off with an elaboration on how MOE-affiliated schools work based on my experience in running workshops in schools, though not in the area of sexuality education. From time to time, schools may decide to run workshops by external bodies or personnels not within the educational service. Such workshops are usually not part of the examinable content within the mandatory syllabus, but are organized to equip students with useful knowledge. Prior to such workshops, the lesson plans and teaching materials are reviewed by the teachers, department heads or their assistants. Thus, any objectionable material will be siphoned out. This review process is meant to ensure that the materials covered during the workshop adhered to set guidelines. MOE was spot on in its reply to queries on AWARE’s CSE, especially on the part in ensuring that the latter adheres to religious sensitivity guidelines. And, it is a norm for other guidelines to be enforced too, such as racial sensitivity.
If a typical man in the street were to read Dr Thio’s statements, he may interpret it in the following way 1) Schools that run AWARE’s CSE promote homosexuality and lesbianism. 2) It seems that MOE is also advocating the promotion of homosexuality and lesbianism in such schools since they are MOE-affiliated. 3) Or MOE isn’t in control of the curriculum and may not have a proper guideline on sexuality education.
Whilst seeking to demolish the old AWARE’s CSE program, what Dr Thio had done at the same time was to cast aspersions on our education service indirectly. She never said it directly, but the inferences can be made. This is a rope she has tried to use to “hang” the old AWARE. But this indirect attack on the education establishment will prompt a response from the latter.
Thus, it didn’t come as a surprise that MOE came out to issue its stand on sexuality education in schools that run AWARE’s workshops. It has also requested Dr Thio to come up with facts to substantiate her claims:
“Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.
AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.
The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.
In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.”
Thus, Dr Thio has gotten into some sort of a sticky situation with a government institution with the latter’s disavowal of her claims. Based on the information provided firstly by the old AWARE members and now corroborated by MOE, it is unlikely that Dr Thio is able to substantiate her claims. In other words, she may be hanging herself with the same rope she used to hang the old AWARE.
In light of the new developments, what does that mean for the EOGM? It appears that the anti-homosexuality and anti-lesbianism stance of the new exco and Dr Thio is now becoming some sort of baggage for them. A continual grip on that baggage might prove to be their undoing. And due to the situation with MOE that Dr Thio has gotten herself into, it would seem prudent that the new AWARE exco should start distancing themselves from her. But wouldn’t that mean they would be without a mentor? If they distance themselves from their mentor, would they end up like headless chickens? The build-up to the EOGM on 2nd May is getting interesting by the day.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.141
SINGAPORE - It was only last week when Dr Thio Su Mien made the following claims regarding AWARE’s comprehensive sexuality (CSE) program especially with regards to her focus on the neutral portrayal of homosexuality:
‘I talked to parents. I said: You better do something about this, otherwise your daughter will come back and say, ‘Mum, I want to marry my girlfriend.’
‘Or your son will say: ‘Dad, I want to marry my boyfriend.”
These parents were flabbergasted, she said, adding that such sexuality education was taking place in the United States and Europe and was not new.
‘What is happening in society is that we are redefining marriage, we are redefining families,’ she said.
‘So I’m a concerned citizen and if people are so ignorant, I think I want to teach them.’
Pointing out that Aware’s programme was already in 30 schools, she said: ‘The suggestion is that in this programme, young girls from 12 to 18 are taught that it’s okay to experiment with each other.
‘And this is something which should concern parents in Singapore. Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?’
I was anticipating a response from the Ministry of Education (MOE), and my prediction finally came true. Allow me to kick things off with an elaboration on how MOE-affiliated schools work based on my experience in running workshops in schools, though not in the area of sexuality education. From time to time, schools may decide to run workshops by external bodies or personnels not within the educational service. Such workshops are usually not part of the examinable content within the mandatory syllabus, but are organized to equip students with useful knowledge. Prior to such workshops, the lesson plans and teaching materials are reviewed by the teachers, department heads or their assistants. Thus, any objectionable material will be siphoned out. This review process is meant to ensure that the materials covered during the workshop adhered to set guidelines. MOE was spot on in its reply to queries on AWARE’s CSE, especially on the part in ensuring that the latter adheres to religious sensitivity guidelines. And, it is a norm for other guidelines to be enforced too, such as racial sensitivity.
If a typical man in the street were to read Dr Thio’s statements, he may interpret it in the following way 1) Schools that run AWARE’s CSE promote homosexuality and lesbianism. 2) It seems that MOE is also advocating the promotion of homosexuality and lesbianism in such schools since they are MOE-affiliated. 3) Or MOE isn’t in control of the curriculum and may not have a proper guideline on sexuality education.
Whilst seeking to demolish the old AWARE’s CSE program, what Dr Thio had done at the same time was to cast aspersions on our education service indirectly. She never said it directly, but the inferences can be made. This is a rope she has tried to use to “hang” the old AWARE. But this indirect attack on the education establishment will prompt a response from the latter.
Thus, it didn’t come as a surprise that MOE came out to issue its stand on sexuality education in schools that run AWARE’s workshops. It has also requested Dr Thio to come up with facts to substantiate her claims:
“Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.
AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.
The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.
In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.”
Thus, Dr Thio has gotten into some sort of a sticky situation with a government institution with the latter’s disavowal of her claims. Based on the information provided firstly by the old AWARE members and now corroborated by MOE, it is unlikely that Dr Thio is able to substantiate her claims. In other words, she may be hanging herself with the same rope she used to hang the old AWARE.
In light of the new developments, what does that mean for the EOGM? It appears that the anti-homosexuality and anti-lesbianism stance of the new exco and Dr Thio is now becoming some sort of baggage for them. A continual grip on that baggage might prove to be their undoing. And due to the situation with MOE that Dr Thio has gotten herself into, it would seem prudent that the new AWARE exco should start distancing themselves from her. But wouldn’t that mean they would be without a mentor? If they distance themselves from their mentor, would they end up like headless chickens? The build-up to the EOGM on 2nd May is getting interesting by the day.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.141
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)