Schools should teach only biology of sex and leave morality of it to parents
I REFER to last Wednesday's letter by Mr Warren Mark Liew, 'Instilling values a complex task'.
He questioned this assumption: 'All parents and teachers are sufficiently willing and able to teach their children the best values concerning gender and sexuality.'
As a full-time mother and a part-time educator in a polytechnic, I have this to say.
Just as I cannot be the best parent, and can only do my best, there are also no best values concerning gender and sexuality. There are only values I believe in, and these are the values I want to inculcate in my child.
As a parent, I am definitely willing and able to teach my child this set of values. I chose to be a stay-at-home mum to do just that. And I believe teachers should concentrate on the biology of sex education.
I do not deny the power of external influences. I only hope that over time, the values I have imbued in my child will take root, hold strong, and guide her in making informed decisions and facing the consequences of her decisions.
Meanwhile, I am here to censor. My child is only three years old and, at this point, I am still uncertain when I will lift the censorship. Based on my experience of working with 16- and 17-year-olds, I believe my child will still need my guidance when she reaches young adulthood.
My guidance will be in telling her - yes, you can definitely think for yourself now, but have you considered why you are thinking what you are thinking?
We do not need to worry that Internet-savvy young people are denied alternative views. We have to worry how and why they choose to adopt that particular value.
And when I say 'we', I am referring to parents, not teachers.
Pearlyn Koh (Ms)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.161
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
DPM Wong is right, all should be mindful of Singapore's secularism
DPM Wong is right, all should be mindful of Singapore's secularism
I REFER to last Friday's article, 'Questionable takeover but crucial service'. In it, the Bishop of the Anglican Church in Singapore, Dr John Chew, argued that the women who took control of the secular group, Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), performed a 'crucial service' to Singapore by highlighting the 'revisionist sexuality norms' that were purportedly taught by Aware in schools.
Let me state unequivocally at the outset that I respect all religions and people with religious beliefs. However, the statement, by a leader of the Christian community, is somewhat misleading.
The themes that were advocated in the programmes conducted in schools focused mainly on the virtues of abstinence and the proper use of contraception to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers.
To claim that 'mainstream society at large would be grateful for the... vigilance of the Christian community' equates to saying that our secular society should adhere to the beliefs of a narrow segment of a vocal religious minority.
Much has been said about how the group of women seized power and was booted out at the recent extraordinary general meeting. I believe the lessons to be learnt have been well-articulated by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng - that we have to be tolerant of people with different opinions, and people with different religious beliefs, including those who are not bound to a particular religion.
After all, our society is made up of people from a multitude of religions as well as non-believers, people of different races, and people who are straight and those who are gay. As we continue in our quest to be an inclusive society, let us all be acutely mindful of our differences, but even more conscious of the glue that binds us together as Singaporeans.
Vincent Tan
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.397
I REFER to last Friday's article, 'Questionable takeover but crucial service'. In it, the Bishop of the Anglican Church in Singapore, Dr John Chew, argued that the women who took control of the secular group, Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), performed a 'crucial service' to Singapore by highlighting the 'revisionist sexuality norms' that were purportedly taught by Aware in schools.
Let me state unequivocally at the outset that I respect all religions and people with religious beliefs. However, the statement, by a leader of the Christian community, is somewhat misleading.
The themes that were advocated in the programmes conducted in schools focused mainly on the virtues of abstinence and the proper use of contraception to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers.
To claim that 'mainstream society at large would be grateful for the... vigilance of the Christian community' equates to saying that our secular society should adhere to the beliefs of a narrow segment of a vocal religious minority.
Much has been said about how the group of women seized power and was booted out at the recent extraordinary general meeting. I believe the lessons to be learnt have been well-articulated by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng - that we have to be tolerant of people with different opinions, and people with different religious beliefs, including those who are not bound to a particular religion.
After all, our society is made up of people from a multitude of religions as well as non-believers, people of different races, and people who are straight and those who are gay. As we continue in our quest to be an inclusive society, let us all be acutely mindful of our differences, but even more conscious of the glue that binds us together as Singaporeans.
Vincent Tan
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.397
Monday, May 18, 2009
Singapore’s times are finally changing
Singapore’s times are finally changing
May 18, 2009 12:00 am admin features
Singapore’s leaders are going to have to engage with its people if they want prosperity and stability to continue, says Roderick Clyne
SINGAPORE has been agog over a row in recent weeks that might be regarded as no more than a storm in a teacup in some other countries. A previously unremarkable feminist group called Aware (the Association of Women for Action and Research), which among its other activities advises on sex education in schools, was taken over in a surprise putsch at its annual general meeting. It emerged that the takeover had been organised by the Church of Our Saviour, a small group of born-again Christians virulently opposed to homosexuality – a subject on which Aware had supposedly been far too non-judgmental.
Over the next few days, there was a big fight-back. Aware’s hitherto tiny membership increased dramatically and the new executive, mostly members of the Church of Our Saviour, was itself ousted at a special general meeting.
Unsurprisingly, opinion polls suggested that most women across the island were not bothered about the issue at the heart of the dispute – lesbians and gays – and were far more concerned about bread-and-butter issues, particularly the collapse in the economy.
But what is very surprising about all this is what did not happen. The government of Singapore took no action. It let the opposing sides get on with their battle without intervening and without even expressing an opinion – although there is said to be a strong presence of born-again Christians at senior levels in the government.
For 50 years, the People’s Action Party has been in power and has ruled on almost everything in the public domain. If the government didn’t like something – chewing gum, say, or Muslim headscarves in schools – it was promptly banned. And the government’s policies tended to be enforced vigorously with draconian penalties for those in breach of the law. However, it now seems that Singapore’s leaders, including the PAP’s founding father, the 85-year-old Lee Kuan Yew, might be relaxing at last – at least to a small degree.
The PAP celebrates five decades in power on June 3, with Lee Kuan Yew having been prime minister for more than three of those decades. He remains in the cabinet, and is still respected and feared in equal measure.
The clash at Aware comes as the PAP is preparing for new parliamentary elections, even though the last ones were held as recently as May 2005. As the old joke goes: with American elections you know exactly when they will take place and only the outcome is uncertain, but in Singapore you don’t know the election date until two weeks before, although the outcome is never in doubt. Even so, it would be sensible for the island’s rulers to get these elections over with soon, in case the public sense of wellbeing evaporates.
Singapore’s export-led economy is not doing well. Unemployment is rising and the latest International Monetary Fund report on the economic outlook for Asia and the Pacific forecasts that Singapore will experience an overall contraction this year. However, so far, people do not appear to blame the government or wish to seek revenge.
At the 2005 election, the PAP gained 66.6 per cent of the vote across those constituencies that were contested. The opposition is fragmented and largely personality-based, but the various rival parties do usually manage to get together before an election to decide which of them stands where – meaning that there is never a three-way fight. Even so, there are only two opposition-held seats. Before 1981, there were none.
Out of Singapore’s 4.8 million population, which includes foreigners, there are 2.26 million adult citizens registered to vote. The population is largely of Chinese background, but there are sizeable Malay and Indian minorities. Despite their high public profile, the Christians number just 15 per cent of the population – about the same proportion as Muslims or people with no religious affiliation. More than 40 per cent are, at least nominally, Buddhist.
Singapore is a small island, with few genuinely local issues dividing the different areas. There are roughly similar income distributions in each constituency and there are no single-race ghettos, so the winning margin is broadly similar in most seats. But this strength is also a potential trap. Although winning two-thirds of the vote constitutes a huge endorsement by any reckoning, the PAP’s share of the vote has been declining in successive elections. Should it reach tipping point, the consequence would be very sudden and profound, with almost every parliamentary seat changing hands at one go.
The PAP was founded as a socialist party, but quit the Socialist International in 1976 after the Dutch Labour Party proposed to expel it for its authoritarian leanings. Even so, it has had successes of which any left-leaning political party would be proud. Singapore has a huge and well-maintained public housing system, a progressive tax policy, general prosperity and the world’s most successful planned economy. In contrast to Malaysia and Thailand, abortion is legal and available.
Government investment funds control most strategic local operations and they have large stakes in many other corporations, including banks around the world. This has led to large paper losses of late, but the investments are expected to come good in time.
All this has been organised from the base of a small political party that is organised on Leninist lines. Since the island’s newspapers have to seek a licence in order to publish, no one should expect to find criticism of the government in the press. The internet does not have to contend with such restrictions and plays host to much of what public debate there is.
Apart from voting from time to time, the population as a whole has little interest in politics. Some say that they were warned off such sensitive subjects when at school – “You’ll only get into trouble; it’s far safer to think about other things”. As one businessman put it to me: “We’ve got an unwritten agreement with the government. We don’t interfere with them and in return they let us make lots of money.”
Singapore’s government is only just waking up to the idea that this lack of engagement might be a problem. Politicians are now saying in public that, with so few people wanting to have anything to do with politics, they are concerned about where the next generation of leaders will come from. There is even no obvious candidate for prime minister in waiting.
In such a vacuum, without mass participation in public life, the power of small groups of fanatics could well increase. Following the Aware furore, it is clear that one potential source of such fanaticism is the membership of born-again Christian cliques.
It looks like Singaporeans are going to need to learn to take an interest in politics for a change.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29246.1
May 18, 2009 12:00 am admin features
Singapore’s leaders are going to have to engage with its people if they want prosperity and stability to continue, says Roderick Clyne
SINGAPORE has been agog over a row in recent weeks that might be regarded as no more than a storm in a teacup in some other countries. A previously unremarkable feminist group called Aware (the Association of Women for Action and Research), which among its other activities advises on sex education in schools, was taken over in a surprise putsch at its annual general meeting. It emerged that the takeover had been organised by the Church of Our Saviour, a small group of born-again Christians virulently opposed to homosexuality – a subject on which Aware had supposedly been far too non-judgmental.
Over the next few days, there was a big fight-back. Aware’s hitherto tiny membership increased dramatically and the new executive, mostly members of the Church of Our Saviour, was itself ousted at a special general meeting.
Unsurprisingly, opinion polls suggested that most women across the island were not bothered about the issue at the heart of the dispute – lesbians and gays – and were far more concerned about bread-and-butter issues, particularly the collapse in the economy.
But what is very surprising about all this is what did not happen. The government of Singapore took no action. It let the opposing sides get on with their battle without intervening and without even expressing an opinion – although there is said to be a strong presence of born-again Christians at senior levels in the government.
For 50 years, the People’s Action Party has been in power and has ruled on almost everything in the public domain. If the government didn’t like something – chewing gum, say, or Muslim headscarves in schools – it was promptly banned. And the government’s policies tended to be enforced vigorously with draconian penalties for those in breach of the law. However, it now seems that Singapore’s leaders, including the PAP’s founding father, the 85-year-old Lee Kuan Yew, might be relaxing at last – at least to a small degree.
The PAP celebrates five decades in power on June 3, with Lee Kuan Yew having been prime minister for more than three of those decades. He remains in the cabinet, and is still respected and feared in equal measure.
The clash at Aware comes as the PAP is preparing for new parliamentary elections, even though the last ones were held as recently as May 2005. As the old joke goes: with American elections you know exactly when they will take place and only the outcome is uncertain, but in Singapore you don’t know the election date until two weeks before, although the outcome is never in doubt. Even so, it would be sensible for the island’s rulers to get these elections over with soon, in case the public sense of wellbeing evaporates.
Singapore’s export-led economy is not doing well. Unemployment is rising and the latest International Monetary Fund report on the economic outlook for Asia and the Pacific forecasts that Singapore will experience an overall contraction this year. However, so far, people do not appear to blame the government or wish to seek revenge.
At the 2005 election, the PAP gained 66.6 per cent of the vote across those constituencies that were contested. The opposition is fragmented and largely personality-based, but the various rival parties do usually manage to get together before an election to decide which of them stands where – meaning that there is never a three-way fight. Even so, there are only two opposition-held seats. Before 1981, there were none.
Out of Singapore’s 4.8 million population, which includes foreigners, there are 2.26 million adult citizens registered to vote. The population is largely of Chinese background, but there are sizeable Malay and Indian minorities. Despite their high public profile, the Christians number just 15 per cent of the population – about the same proportion as Muslims or people with no religious affiliation. More than 40 per cent are, at least nominally, Buddhist.
Singapore is a small island, with few genuinely local issues dividing the different areas. There are roughly similar income distributions in each constituency and there are no single-race ghettos, so the winning margin is broadly similar in most seats. But this strength is also a potential trap. Although winning two-thirds of the vote constitutes a huge endorsement by any reckoning, the PAP’s share of the vote has been declining in successive elections. Should it reach tipping point, the consequence would be very sudden and profound, with almost every parliamentary seat changing hands at one go.
The PAP was founded as a socialist party, but quit the Socialist International in 1976 after the Dutch Labour Party proposed to expel it for its authoritarian leanings. Even so, it has had successes of which any left-leaning political party would be proud. Singapore has a huge and well-maintained public housing system, a progressive tax policy, general prosperity and the world’s most successful planned economy. In contrast to Malaysia and Thailand, abortion is legal and available.
Government investment funds control most strategic local operations and they have large stakes in many other corporations, including banks around the world. This has led to large paper losses of late, but the investments are expected to come good in time.
All this has been organised from the base of a small political party that is organised on Leninist lines. Since the island’s newspapers have to seek a licence in order to publish, no one should expect to find criticism of the government in the press. The internet does not have to contend with such restrictions and plays host to much of what public debate there is.
Apart from voting from time to time, the population as a whole has little interest in politics. Some say that they were warned off such sensitive subjects when at school – “You’ll only get into trouble; it’s far safer to think about other things”. As one businessman put it to me: “We’ve got an unwritten agreement with the government. We don’t interfere with them and in return they let us make lots of money.”
Singapore’s government is only just waking up to the idea that this lack of engagement might be a problem. Politicians are now saying in public that, with so few people wanting to have anything to do with politics, they are concerned about where the next generation of leaders will come from. There is even no obvious candidate for prime minister in waiting.
In such a vacuum, without mass participation in public life, the power of small groups of fanatics could well increase. Following the Aware furore, it is clear that one potential source of such fanaticism is the membership of born-again Christian cliques.
It looks like Singaporeans are going to need to learn to take an interest in politics for a change.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29246.1
Temasek’s divestment of BoA stake - A clear admission of an investment error
Temasek’s divestment of BoA stake - A clear admission of an investment error
“Yes, they were good long term investments with risks thoroughly assessed”
- Minister Tharman, Jan 2008 on Singapore investments in banks.
These were the words of Singapore’s Minister of Finance, slightly more than a year ago when Singapore’s SWFs made major investments in a few global financial institutions. Take note, in particular, that Minister Tharman was defending the individual investments made by the SWFs in the banks - not the portfolio performance.
A year later, everything had changed. The stock markets had declined significantly and the global financial system was in major turmoil. The stock prices of the big banks had sunk to record lows after having their balance sheets destroyed by the dislocation in credit markets. Seeing that his original argument was no longer tenable, Tharman changed his tack as the investments in the banks sunk deeper and deeper into the red. Now, instead of taking the line that the investments in the banks were good long term investments, he instead argued that Singapore’s portfolios were well diversified, and hence Singapore’s investments were fine.
‘We would be worried if global banks comprise a large proportion of the portfolios of GIC and Temasek, or for that matter, any other highly vulnerable industry globally,’ he said. ‘But these are diversified portfolios, with not a large degree of concentration risk.’
- Minister Tharman, Jan 2009, on Singapore investments in banks.
But nevermind that the markets sunk and the stock prices of financial institutions crashed. The SWFs were protected by the fact that the global banks comprised a relatively small portion of the overall portfolio. This was the official political line that was to be held by the government - and the minister’s roles were no longer to comment on individual investments, but instead just to talk about the overall portfolio performance.
MM Lee & Co. went along with it. His job, after all, is to keep the PAP afloat during times of duress. The government could no longer defend the individual investments of the SWFs, but it could defend the overall performance of their portfolios:-
“GIC and Temasek have the ability and resources to weather the ups and downs, over multiple economic and market cycles,” Lim said. “The government is confident that they will continue to deliver good long-term returns within the risk limits set.”
- Minister Lim Hwee Hua, in parliament, Feb 2009
“When we invest, we are investing for 10, 15, 20 years. You may look as if you are making a big loss today, but you have not borrowed money to invest. You will ride the storm, the company recovers, your shares go up.”
- MM Lee, Feb 2009
And while the official political line was not to comment on the individual investments, there was one man - and one man alone, who could. That would be MM Lee himself, who double hats as both Minister Mentor AND Chairman of GIC. This was the first and only admission of fault, by the only man who had the political capital to do so, by the only man with the political power to do so and yet not fear reprise.
Lee said GIC bought “too early” into global banks such as Citigroup (C.N) and UBS (UBSN.VX), which were both hammered by the financial meltdown that quickened in the second half of 2008.
“How could we have known this was the extent of the damage? You look at all the big-name banks that have gone down, misjudged the situation, ruined their careers,” he said.
“When the market fell, we went into UBS and Citi. But we went in too early. That is part of the ride.”
- MM Lee in a Reuters Interview, Mar 2009
With GIC admitting that it had made a mistake in its investments, there was only Temasek left to do the same. But it never did, choosing instead to try to wriggle out the slick and slimy way. Temasek did not release any statement to admit that its Merrill investment had been an error, unlike, for example, Warren Buffett, who admitted that his investment in Conoco Phillips was a major error. Temasek’s CEO didn’t admit that the Merrill investment had been a mistake.
Instead, they just quietly divested their BoA stake in the open market, only making a press statement thereafter. And then, Ho Ching proceed to throw smokescreens by talking about a ‘rebalancing’ of the portfolio and a ‘10-20-30-40′ strategy.
The rebalancing is a ‘re-weighing of the growth trends and the changing risks over the next decade or two, particularly for Asia’, said Ms Ho.
Ms Ho said: ‘In short, we will continue to invest like a 35-year-old with a dynamic balance for the long term. Half a century ago, one 35-year-old became the first prime minister of Singapore.
‘We invest with the appetite of a young 35-year-old for growth and risk-taking.
‘At the same time, we also share his thoughtful conservatism to plan and provide for his children’s needs for another 10 to 20 years, while he invests to build his rainy day and retirement kitty with a 30- to 50-year horizon.’
-Ms. Ho Ching in an address to Junior Pyramid, May 2009
Absolutely irrelevant, Ms Ho. Singaporeans don’t give a shit about your grand portfolio rebalancing plans. We want transparency, accountability, and an admission of fault where there has been one. And clearly, what had started as a ‘long-term’ investment is now out of the Temasek portfolio only but a year later - this is clearly an admission that your investment was a mistake.
As for the govt, notice how significantly its tack has changed. A year ago, Tharman dared to speak up for the SWFs’ individual investment decisions. Now, he only meekly says:
‘What matters to the Government is the overall performance,’ …
“it is for Temasek, not the Government, to comment on its investment moves.”
“it is the responsibility of the board and management to make individual investment decisions, whether large or small.”
- Minister Tharman, May 2009, on SWF performance
Well, Mr Shanmugaratnam, let’s just see how the long-term performance of the portfolios fare. You can be sure I’ll be revisiting this issue in 5, 10, 20 and 30yrs time. And make sure you don’t ever, ever, comment on any of the SWFs’ individual investments, ever again.
You can be sure Singaporeans will be watching.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29004.25
New university, institute to be set up to boost higher education
New university, institute to be set up to boost higher education
Posted: 18 May 2009 2217 hrs
 | |||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: Singapore will set up a new institute to offer a more direct route for polytechnic graduates to get degrees. The institute will partner foreign universities that offer degree courses.
President S R Nathan said this in his opening address to the new session of Parliament on Monday.
Singapore will also set up a new university, in close partnership with one leading university each from the US and China.
"These two new institutions will open up more opportunities for students to upgrade themselves," said Mr Nathan when he touched on the need to strengthen Singapore's higher education to meet growing aspirations and to train the skilled professional and creative manpower the country will need.
He said: "Our aim is to have 30% of our students admitted to state-supported universities."
"Whether it is to promote economic growth, narrow the income gap or bond the next generation, education is key. Education is our best investment in Singapore's future.
"Our education system is designed to give each and every child the best opportunity to stretch his abilities. All our schools maintain high standards, and prepare our young to seize their own opportunities in a complex, dynamic and uncertain world.
"We will do better, by building more peaks of excellence, and establishing new pathways and programmes to cater to students with different aptitudes, interests and learning styles."
Meanwhile, Senior Minister of State for National Development & Education, Grace Fu, said: "It will be a very unique proposition for our students. I think it will be a great opportunity because in the future, I think it will be a combination of technology from the US plus the exposure to China that will be a very attractive proposition for students who are thinking of being exposed to the world."
Other Members of Parliament added that President Nathan's speech raised concerns that were timely with the current economic and social climate in Singapore.
They agree with Mr Nathan on issues such as education enhancements, economic restructuring and leadership renewal.
MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Inderjit Singh, said: "This does signal that we may change some of the things that we do. In my mind, one of the things that can change is the size of GRCs. Perhaps it's time we reduce the GRCs. This is what the public like to see done."
MP for Hong Kah GRC, Zaqy Mohamad, said: "This downturn has also showed how we are dependent on the US economy. So going forward do we still go ahead with the same strategy? I think it's a good call for us to relook the way we develop our economy and in our policies in that sense."
You can view the transcript of the President's speech
- CNA/ir
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29224.3
NMP Siew Kum Hong makes police report against netizens
NMP Siew Kum Hong makes police report against netizens
By 938LIVE/TODAY | Posted: 18 May 2009 1834 hrs
 | ||||||
| ||||||
SINGAPORE: Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong has made a police report against netizens posting defamatory comments about him. He revealed this in his blog. He has also requested forums which hosted such remarks to take them down.
When contacted, Mr Siew refused further comment, saying the matter is now with the police.
The latest attacks have alleged or insinuated that he had asked for and is receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well.
They have also alleged that he is involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or "mole" in Parliament.
Mr Siew has issued a strong rebuttal to these allegations on his blog. He said both of these allegations are untrue and false.
He considered them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature and goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech.
Mr Siew stressed that he did not at any time ask for and have not at any time been offered or accepted any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity.
He said the only sources of income or funding that he has are from his employer and the government in the form of his monthly NMP allowance.
He also said he is not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and certainly not their representative or "mole" in Parliament.
The attacks on Mr Siew first started in the aftermath of the extraordinary general meeting of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). They have culminated in a campaign to sabotage his re-application for a second term of NMP.
A week ago, netizens flooded the REACH portal with comments about why he should not be given a second NMP term.
REACH chairman Amy Khor confirmed that the feedback unit has received Mr Siew's request to take down defamatory comments about him.
As a general policy, while "always mindful that over-regulation could stifle participation and engagement of contributors", Dr Khor said that like other online platforms, REACH would not hesitate to remove postings "deemed sensitive or offensive".
As at 8pm on Monday, the discussion thread involving Mr Siew had almost 13,900 page views and more than 900 postings since it was initiated on May 1.
On one occasion last week, REACH administrators urged Netizens to refrain from personal attacks and offensive postings. After growing feedback from users and as the discussion "became heated", said Dr Khor, REACH had removed some of these postings.
Meanwhile, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has referred to the Law Society the issue of Mr Siew's role in the AWARE saga.
Earlier this month, corporate counsel Tongel Yeo had emailed the AGC and three other legal bodies, including the Law Society, to ask if Mr Siew had breached the Legal Profession Act by advising the AWARE "Old Guard".
When contacted, a Law Society spokesperson said that under the Act, it "cannot comment on any complaint or disciplinary matter".
- 938LIVE/TODAY
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28866.55
LHZB interview special with Dr. Thio Su Mien
LHZB interview special with Dr. Thio Su Mien
“Feminist Mentor” Dr. Thio Su Mien: The “coup” was accidental
The “coup” that occurred at AWARE’s AGM several weeks ago was actually an accident.
At least this was how Dr. Thio Su Mien perceived it.
At the AWARE AGM on March 28th, a twelve-member executive committee (exco) was voted in but the majority of the exco members, including Ms Josie Lau who later took over as president, were new and relatively unknown members. This provoked unease and dissatisfaction amongst the veteran members of AWARE; later, this also sparked a series of tussles between the old guard and new guard of AWARE.
However, Dr. Thio, widely perceived as the one who orchestrated this “coup”, in an interview with this newspaper, claimed that she did not expect the outcome of the AGM elections to result in a new guard taking over as the exco. She also claims that her encouraging of young women to join AWARE was aimed only at injecting new vitality into the organisation and to preserve the core family values of Singaporean society.
According to reports, AWARE’s membership numbers have, in recent years, been declining, reaching a low of 200 members at the end of last year. However, amongst those attending AWARE’s AGM on March 28th, only a minority was long-standing members of AWARE while the majority were new members who joined only shortly before the AGM.
According to Dr. Thio, if the long-standing members of AWARE had all attended the AGM, the new members “may not even have a single chance of winning a position, hence who can we blame for the outcome of the exco elections; even I was not expecting such an outcome”.
In a media report in April, it was revealed that Ms Josie Lau, the new AWARE president, along with another 5 new exco members are from the same church of Church of Our Saviour (COOS) while Dr. Thio is also a member of COOS and a mentor to Ms Lau and company. It was later revealed that Ms Lau is married to Dr. Thio’s nephew. All this were cited as proof of a well-orchestrated “coup” by Dr. Thio.
When reminded of this during the interview, Dr. Thio laughed and said: “If you say that I planned all this, I indeed was the one going around encouraging people I know to join AWARE. But all these people were mobilised at the last moment. Some amongst them did not know one another but only know me; some in fact are not that familiar with me. My purpose was: if you are able to, you should join this organisation and contribute to society”.
She added that if she was indeed the mastermind behind the whole thing, she would not be “as stupid as to find people from the same church”.
“If I really premeditated this, then I would be a real strategist; if so, I should organise a rainbow coalition like them (the old guard of AWARE). However, my thinking was very simple. But now thinking back, I was in fact rather foolish and naïve in my thinking. I never thought that the outcome will be this and that things will get so out of hand”.
On the April 23rd press conference held by the exco headed by Ms Lau, Dr. Thio was present to answer questions on behalf of the exco. At that press conference, Dr. Thio made statements about AWARE’s declining membership numbers, the proposed changes to its constitution to allow for male members to be eligible to vote. Her accusations about AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme and about it promoting a homosexual lifestyle were also made at that press conference.
The AWARE saga later attracted more attention from outsiders and supporters of the old guard and this was because of Dr. Thio’s confession that she has been the mentor of the exco for several years and was the one who encouraged them to join AWARE. Also, it was revealed through online sources that Dr. Thio had, before the AGM, sent out mass emails criticising the CSE and encouraging people to vote for “reformers who want to be in charge”.
The question is: why didn’t this retired veteran lawyer personally run for a position on the AWARE exco if she was so concerned about the supposed direction the organisation was heading in?
Dr. Thio, who is already 71 years of age, explained that besides her age, another more important reason why she didn’t personally run for an exco position was that she felt that being a mentor, her responsibility was to nurture people who can make contributions to society and not try to glorify herself.
Similarly, it was because of her role as a mentor that Dr. Thio decided that it was necessary for her to present at the April 23rd press conference to defend Ms Lau and company.
Surprised at the anger and emotions at the EOGM
“I originally only planned to speak at the EOGM but when I saw the exco being lambasted, I felt that I have the responsibility, since I was the one who encouraged them to join AWARE and serve the interests of womenfolk and the nation, to be present at the press conference. I did not expect that they will be attacked and, even worse, that their lives, livelihood and businesses will also come under threat.”
The exco originally has no plans to hold a press conference and had wanted to wait till the EOGM to express their views.
“But”, said Dr. Thio, “the media was having a field day with the AWARE saga so we had to hold a press conference to clarify matters”.
Besides being surprised at the “coup”-like outcome of the AGM, Dr. Thio also expressed great surprise at the sudden increase in membership numbers for AWARE and the intensity of the emotions displayed at the EOGM on May 2nd.
During the 7 hours long EOGM, a scene which is perhaps most memorable to those present and those paying close attention to the happenings at the EOGM would be that of Dr. Thio proudly holding up a publication by AWARE to announce that she is on page 73 of the publication. This act was heavily criticised by the supporters of the old guard present at the EOGM. Dr. Thio’s attempts to rein in the noisy crowd by reminding them that they need to respect their elders also provoked a round of jeers.
Reminded about this during the interview, Dr. Thio expressed surprise: “I never thought that on the day of the EOGM, people’s emotions would be so intense, that the atmosphere will be so filled with anger”.
Nothing to be angry about
However, with regards to being unable to finish her speech due to the jeers, Dr. Thio said that there was nothing to be angry about.
“There is no need to be angry. Being angry will be like playing an old record non-stop”. Dr. Thio feels that if an individual is not able to let go, he or she will only cause him/herself to be trapped in the past and not be able to move on.
Hence, even though her remarks of “Please respect your elders” and “I am on page 73” was printed onto slogan t-shirts, Dr. Thio also laughed it off, saying: “This sort of design is quite interesting and can increase the income for the designer; I also want to buy one to take a look”.
As for what her future plans for herself and her “mentees” will be, Dr. Thio said: “Let’s talk about this after I return from a vacation! Perhaps taking a vacation will inspire me. And hopefully, the anger over this saga will dissipate and Josie will be able to continue using her strengths to contribute to society”.
Box story: “Homosexuality is a political movement”
Been keenly aware of the developments in homosexuality in Europe and North America, Dr. Thio firmly believes that there is a political movement promoting homosexuality. And the aims of this movement will include the de-criminalisation of anal sex. This may be witnessed in the attempts by individuals in Singapore to repeal Section 377A of the local Penal Code.
Dr. Thio said: “This is a significant point. Because if once the law is abolished or liberalised, homosexual activists will start to raise issues, such as marriage equality, education equality, and medical equality, to ask for funds from the government.”
In Finland, singles and lesbians are, with government subsidies, able to receive artificial insemination. This, according to Dr. Thio, will thus involve how taxpayers’ money should be used.
Dr. Thio also cited an example from Canada. According to her, there was a case in Canada in which a kindergarten teacher filed a lawsuit against the school management committee, accusing the committee for not including three books with contents about same-sex parents in the syllabus for kindergarten and primary one students. Although parents from different religious backgrounds, e.g. Hinduism, Sikhism, Catholicism and Christianity, supported the school management committee in the Canadian Supreme Court, the school management committee lose the case and had to put the three books into the school library.
She originally did not want this interview to be published
This interview with Dr. Thio almost did not get published.
Although she readily agreed to be interviewed one week ago, Dr. Thio later wanted to prevent this interview from being published.
As one of the central figures in the AWARE saga, Dr. Thio felt that Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng’s statement about the government stance on the AWARE saga and call for individual religious groups and secular organisations to be tolerant and exercise restraint already provided a very good conclusion to the AWARE saga. Thus, she did not want this interview to be published lest it stirs up emotions or polarise society.
Eventually, Dr. Thio was convinced to allow this interview to be published. This was because she knew that the focus of this interview will be the family values she espouses. As she said, one week ago, when she agreed to be interviewed: “If you all want to find out my views on family and values, then we may talk. But if you all want to talk about the AWARE saga, then forget about it”.
The interview was conducted at a restaurant in the Botanical Gardens. The day before the interview (6/5/2009), Dr. Thio attended the 150th anniversary dinner and dialogue session with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew organised by the Botanical Gardens; amazed by the beauty of the Botanical Gardens, Dr. Thio wanted us journalists to also experience it.
Dressed in a purple floral top and a long skirt, Dr. Thio looked markedly different and softer from how she looked like during the AWARE saga – serious and dressed in proper business attire. Without wasting any time, Dr. Thio proceeded to, through sharing one story after another, express her staunch belief in the core family values which she seeks to protect.
The first story was the “Chicken Egg” story, a story her daughter, Ms Thio Li-Ann, in conjunction with Mothers’ Day, wrote in The New Paper to express her gratitude towards Dr. Thio.
With regards to this story, Dr. Thio said: “I was in disrepute after the AWARE saga, thus I was very moved by Li-Ann’s use of this story to express her respect and support for me; it also shows that she still remembers the meaning behind the story”.
After the end of World War Two, Dr. Thio, who was then only 7 years of age, was visiting her grandmother’s hometown in Fujian along with her parents and siblings. Her relatives there, although they were very poor, will always present Dr. Thio and her family with a big bowl of noodles with an omelette placed on top. Seeing this, Dr. Thio’s father will remind her and her siblings to finish the noodles as although her relatives were poor, they offered them the best. This childhood lesson about respecting others that Dr. Thio’s father imparted to her was a memorable one to Dr. Thio which she later imparted to her own children.
Dr. Thio said: “My parents each had their own personalities and strengths and it was them who provided me with an environment that shaped my character and value system. Hence, I firmly believe that every child should be able to live and grow up in a family with full parental support. A family headed by a same-sex couple will find it difficult to provide children with a conducive environment to best grow up in”.
For the past 10 years and more, Dr. Thio has been involved in church counselling work and once, a father lamented to her that it is most unfortunate that a small golfing ball can alienate a father from his family. This lamentation by this father also illustrated to Dr. Thio the importance that parents have in their children’s lives and education.
“When my children were about 2 to 3 years old, my husband gave me a set of golfing equipment. I went to play a few rounds of golf but I realised that I was neglecting my children. Thus, I decided to throw the golfing equipment into the storeroom and brought my children out for swimming. In the years which I have been doing family counselling, I have also been encouraging parents to bring their children for swimming or cycling to strengthen the bonds between them and their children; don’t play golf. When it comes to discerning what is truly important, we often make mistakes”.
Witnessing the trends and changes in Europe and North America with regards to the family and gender relations, Dr. Thio was more convinced of the paramount importance of family education and that many societies, including Singapore, are facing challenges to their value systems.
Dr. Thio is especially worried about the erosion of values by a movement, originating in the West, that is challenging people’s belief in the family. And this movement, according to Dr. Thio, aims to “basically redefine the meaning of marriage, to redefine marriage as not only belonging to couples of different sexes but also to same-sex couples. This movement aims to legalise same-sex marriage and to redefine the traditional concept of the family”.
“This is a movement which constantly appeals to people to support it. You can recognise its existence but you cannot allow it to become part of the mainstream. Schools should have sex education but this should be done appropriately to preserve our core values about the family”.
And encouraging eligible women to serve and contribute to society is one way that Dr. Thio has been using to preserve the core values of Singaporean society. As the mentor of Ms Josie Lau and others, she often “nags” at them to be more concerned about society at large and “not to be only interested in fashion and handbags”.
This is basically why she encouraged them to join AWARE.
“We cannot depend on the schools and the government for everything. We all understand the need to seriously learn how to be good reporters and lawyers but this is not the case when it comes to learning how to be a good parent. If parents are only concerned their children’ academic grades and leave the rest to maids and society to handle, the family and society will collapse”.
In an interview that spanned 2 hours, two-thirds of the time was spent on discussing the importance of maintaining core values. As the interview came to an end, Dr. Thio said to us journalists: “If I had known you all earlier, I would perhaps also encouraged you all to join AWARE”.
“Why is it that everytime someone offers an opposing view to homosexuality, that person will receive death threats or have his/her livelihood threatened? Does this involve the use of politics of fear? Shouldn’t the media be concerned about this? Shouldn’t we be having a regulatory mechanism to ensure objective and fair reporting by the media?” – On the former exco of AWARE and herself receiving death threats during the AWARE saga
“I am very glad that now there are more people discussing about the issue of sex education and desiring a better vetting process to be put in place for sex education in schools. However, I am not sure how the Education Ministry will oversee the matter, as in how will they check on the teachers, who are crucial figures in sex education, who are teaching sex education? This point will need to be clarified.
Originally, the Education Ministry wanted me to produce evidence for my claims about there being parents complaining about sex education. However, the report in the April 24th edition of The Straits Times and my response letter to the Education Ministry have made it clear that I never said I received complaints from parents. Also, after investigations, the Education Ministry has publicly announced that some sex education programmes have contravened its guiding principles. This shows that my accusations were not inaccurate.
What is comforting is that the Education Ministry has decided to examine how it can enhance its vetting process for sex education. We should improve on the transparency and credibility of this process. A supervisory body should also be specially set up to communicate with and consult parents. Also, perhaps the vetting process should include placing relevant information online as a display of transparency?” – On the Education Ministry announcing on June 7th the suspension of sex education programmes provided by external organisations e.g. AWARE after its initial statement that it did not receive any complaints from parents
“The responsibility of a mentor is to nurture and groom them before allowing them to go out to contribute to society; to allow for the continued increase in the numbers of talented individuals. If you do not let young people to serve in leadership roles but do everything by yourself, this will be most inefficient.” – On why she did not personally run for a position on the AWARE exco
“50% of Singapore’s population consists of women; we actually have an abundance of talent. If we are able to have 10 Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office), 50 Professor Chan Heng Chee (Singapore’s Ambassador to the United States) or 100 Olivia Lum (CEO of Hyflux), that will be a great blessing. There are two levels to this: firstly, on the societal level, we will need to help those women at the bottom of the social ladder to improve themselves and for those women who are better off, we will have to let them possess more skills and to inspire them to contribute more to society.
We will have to nurture more women leaders in different fields because CEDAW’s target is to have women have 30-35% representation in different fields. I, with my life experiences, should be able to contribute towards this endeavour.” – On why she encouraged more eligible women to join AWARE
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.408
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)