This is from the forum page in the Straits Times, Monday, 18 May 2009. Dr Thio Su Mien (yes, THAT Dr Thio) wrote in regarding “Gay activists a key constituency of Aware”, and I found some points rather disagreeable. Then again, I’ve never agreed with her. Here’s her letter:

‘I refer to last Saturday’s letter, “Aware has never had a ‘gay agenda’ ” by Ms Dana Lam, president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Since I was specifically mentioned, a response is called for.

First, the fact that Aware has done sterling work for women in the 24 years of its existence is not disputed. The “ex-new exco”, in its press statement, acknowledged this contribution and declared its commitment to build on these foundations.

What was a matter of concern to the “ex-new exco” was that in recent years, Aware had veered towards promoting the homosexual political agenda. Aware sponsored the premiere of the movie Spider Lilies, which was about lesbian love. When asked about this, former Aware president Constance Singam said the film explores themes that Aware supports in its Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme.

Aware’s CSE has been taught in schools for more than two years. Its CSE instructions manual to schools expressly states that homosexuality is neutral and normal. This is a controversial proposition and parents should be concerned about the non-neutral content of the CSE programme. In fact, many are.

Additionally, the CSE manual goes further in stating that anal sex can be healthy or neutral with consent and a condom. Not only is this against the law, this kind of “education” is designed to condition the minds of teenage students, from ages 12 to 18, towards the acceptability of homosexuality, purposefully equating homosexuality with the norm of heterosexuality. The Ministry of Education has stated categorically that there are aspects of the CSE instructor guide which are “explicit and inappropriate and convey messages which could promote homosexuality”. These are hard facts and hardly figments of one’s imagination.

On the day of the Aware extraordinary general meeting (EGM), the activists homosexual groups were out in full force, supporting the old guard. Many old guard supporters — those in the meeting hall and volunteers outside — were members of the activist homosexual group and spoke openly of their lifestyle. Many sexually challenged women were among the most vocal and vociferous supporters of the old guard.

If Singaporeans were generally unaware of Aware’s “gay agenda”, it however, seems that the homosexual and lesbian supporters of the old guard attending the EGM were in the know. It appears that homosexual activists seeking to impose their values by mainstreaming homosexuality have become a significant chief constituency of Aware. Anyone present at the EGM would have seen abundant evidence of this. Discerning Singaporeans can examine the evidence, in print and from online eyewitness accounts, to make up their own minds.’

There you have it, verbatim. I don’t like her. Never did.

I mean, what is wrong with homosexuality? Let them be! Unless they’re hitting on you, of course, which can be rather um, scary (right Nicholas? What’s your take on homosexuality, by the way?)

Hard facts? Give me some. Give all the atheists, the agnostics, the infidels and the skeptics some hard facts, to prove that it’s not just part of human imagination.

I find the way she implies that the old guard won only because they had the support of the homosexuals rather disdainful. That sounded kind of sore loser-ish. And also the way she calls them “sexually challenged women”. So homosexuals are seen as being incapacitated because of their sexual orientation? She doesn’t really like homosexuals, I guess. Thank goodness the “ex-new exco” lost the vote of no-confidence! I wouldn’t have liked it if they had won and started to promote religious agenda! I’ve always thought that the whole homosexual fuss was a cover up for something more menacing. Hatred stems from fear, I wonder…

Pro-women, hmm. Should lesbians be considered as “women” as well? If that’s what is reflected on their birth certificates, I don’t see the reason not to. I mean, that’s “hard facts” as well! So if they had taken over, it would be pro-women, but anti-lesbians? Therefore lesbians, who are females, should be denied of equality? So much for being an inclusive organization.

I find it ironical that she should criticize the homosexual supporters because, if I do recall correctly, the Church of our Saviour (COOS) encouraged church members to join Aware (that’s how the old guards got kicked out, and that’s so sinful and immoral of them) and to take part in the EGM. And, if I’m not wrong, COOS actually provided buses (hmm, vote buying?) to transport the ex-new excos. The pot calling the kettle black huh?

Discerning Singaporeans will also realize that this is much more than homosexuality issue. There’s this religious undertone which I do not trust. Otherwise, why galvanise the church? From what I’ve read in the forums, Singaporeans are more worried about them imposing their religious beliefs on others than homosexuals imposing their lifestyles on them. Please, Aware is a secular organization, if one wants to promote anti-homosexuality, she should set up her own organization. Religious sentiments should never be brought into secular organizations. Aware is for all women regardless of race and religion, for equal rights, not for women of a particular group only.

Yesterday, during GP, we talked about censorship in Singapore. It is of no surprise that Singapore employs censorship to such a large extent. We were told that the more mature the country is, the less the extent of censorship. Tells us a lot, huh?

I feel that to be less censored, we should accept the differences in our society, instead of being so damn afraid. Discussing politics does not make one a politician; talking about homosexuality does not make one a homosexual.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will be out in mid-July! Anyone game to watch? Oh, wait, Professor Dumbledore is gay (gasps!), no, no, let’s not watch! I don’t want to be “promoting the homosexual political agenda”, you know? Tsktsk, naughty naughty J.K. Rowling, to create a worldwide hit based on something so taboo!

Still, the old guards won! They must have done something right! Or the ex-new excos did something wrong. Or both!