ST letter by Thio Su Mien
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 instruction 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 activist 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.
Dr Thio Su Mien