What you said is exactly what the newspaper and government
officials say, but I think it's too theoretical and is actually not
the real case.
They dont go into Aware to turn it into a Christian
organization, they dont promote to people to accept Jesus Christ as
Son and Saviour, and they dont change the logo into a cross logo,
they dont do anything like this.
All they do is to reverse the worrying pro-lesbianism campaign
of the old Aware committee.
Do you remember after this exposure, many parents noticed and
became concerned with the AWARE teaching in schools and protested
and then subsequently the MOE suspended and cancelled it.
So we can see that they represent the majority of conservative
Singaporeans, they represent parents, they represent MOE. There is
no difference. In fact we should thank them because they opened the
public eyes. Otherwise who pay attention? Everybody is sleeping on
the wheel, nobody pay attention that some deviant group have
infiltrated an influential women's group and inserted a
brainwashing campaign to young impressionable students.
But instead of thanking them, the reverse thing happened
instead.
They were energetically hammered and pushed back.
All is because they went to the same church, so they got
labelized and stigmatised, and some over-prudent, over-cautious
people decided that it's too risky and suspicious.
I mean, come on.
I think what they tried to do is nothing wrong.
Today if you do a survey to Singapore women, I guarantee the
majority would not like to have a pro-lesbianism agenda or ideals
being promoted and especially being teached in schools to their
children.
Hmm?
And the section 377A debate was not too long ago anyways. And we
know how that went.
So I think we can say with relative certainty that they were
doing something which serves the public interest.
Other than this, they dont have any "religious agenda" , none at
all, I dont think so.
I read a couple interviews of that new leader, she says her
concern is how to promote work-family balance for modern women, and
some other things I cant remember.
This is very neutral, and in fact, very much needed by
Singaporean women who a lot of them have to work, and there is a
low birth rate problem in Singapore, which I suspect have got a
connection with the fact that many women have to work, delay
pregnancy, and / or work long hours.
This is very topical and relevant to Singapore.
And work-life balance is a favourite topic by many smart women
leaders in the world, in fact Mrs Obama had said it too that she
would like to learn and promote this issue as a First Lady.
So how is this very neutral, secular, representative, smart
women, being hammered and pushed back like that.
I think that is quite regrettable.
They have a religious motive but they dont persue religious
agenda. There is a difference.
For instance, if I become religious, I give money to beggar.
Giving money to beggar is a neutral act and will not make anyone
agry or offended, and is representative of the overall public view
of what is good.
If I become religious, then I print books to convert people and
hold rallies, then you can say what I do is dangerous and wrong and
will make some other people angry and offended.
Can you see the difference here?
Many religious people are more motivated, and want to do
something positive, their energy should be tapped, and they should
be welcomed to do good, to join NGOs, to join charities, to join
civil society.
They should not be turned away in suspiscion.
This is really quite regrettable.
One point, if you don't mind. It wasn't about, against lesbianism,
but about, against homosexualism.
