Among the speakers in Parliament who brought up AWARE was Tampines GRC MP Sin Boon Ann. He spoke to the defence of a “group of concerned ladies” (aka The New Guard) arguing that their actions were a legitimate manoeuvre to effect a “new agenda.”
He also had words for the media singling out The Straits Times for a failure to report all sides of the story.
Extract:
The recent incident involving the takeover of AWARE by a group of concerned Singaporeans demonstrates how fragile our society is. For a brief period of time, our nation was on the boil. What turned out to be a relatively simple and lawful act of democracy suddenly turned into a deeply polarized and heated debate between the Christian Right and the homosexual and lesbian interest groups. The spotlight was quick to focus on a few key groups, rightly or wrongly; namely the Church, as seen to be represented by supposed usurpers, the old leadership who were seen to champion the rights of the homosexuals and the lesbians in Singapore, the Ministry of Education who denied all knowledge of the instructor’s manual for the Comprehensive Sexual Education (CSE) in schools run by AWARE, and of course the press.
Sir, I do not intend to go into the rights and wrongs of the way in which a group of concerned ladies decided take over the leadership of a voluntary welfare organization, save to say that I find it odd that democracy suddenly takes on a very different meaning when a group of new members decide to legitimately contest in an election to determine a new agenda. I also find it odd that many of the members who did not bother even to attend the most important meeting in the year to elect a new leadership should now decide to raise a howl of protest after the event. If they, meaning the older members, were that concerned in the first place, I believe they should have taken a more active role in the affairs of the organization. Perhaps, AWARE should have been more selective of its membership? The question of who should be given the right to vote has deep philosophical implications that would be applicable not only to AWARE, but for Singapore as well.
Role of the Media
Of the few protagonists involved in the saga, I would like to mention the role of the press in reporting this spat. One self evident condition of a free press in a democracy is the need to be responsible, impartial and to present the facts as neutrally and objectively to the readers. One wonders whether the press can be truly called upon to discharge that duty when some of its own members feel rather passionately about the issues in the public domain. The recent saga surrounding AWARE is one but one example. I will quote one email that I received from one Cheryl Ng. I must add that I do not know Ms Ng and I have not verified the substance of her email. However, I would say that I would not be surprised if it were true and would be very concerned if it is.
Her email reads:
“I’m also surprised and deeply troubled that the reporting in The Straits Times has not been honest in presenting the full picture to the public, especially concerned parents following the AWARE saga. There was a concerted effort by both the press and TV coverage not to mention the significant presence of the homosexual community. If I had not been there, I would never have known the truth.
a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story….hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.
b) Some members of the press and TV were candidly jubilant as they celebrated the passing of the ‘no confidence’ vote by punching their fists in the air and hugging the ‘old guard’ they were standing with.
c) In the sweep of fervent support, the constitutional amendments were also made to allow men and foreign women full voting rights (in a local women’s association that makes the CEDAW report on the state of women in Singapore). In the perspective that such an amendment was thrown out in the previous AGM, the motives may be called into question. The press made no mention of this important development.
I question the cover-up in the press. In review of newspaper coverage of AWARE developments, I’m also beginning to think that press focus on the sensitive issue of religious involvement was but a calculated red herring thrown out to manipulate public sentiments.
Sir, I am pleading for the authorities to look into this matter as I am becoming increasingly alarmed that minority groups with a political agenda may not have just reached its grasp into a vulnerable women’s group, and through it attempt to distort our children’s views on sexuality, but has actually infiltrated the press to block out news and prevent the public from accessing the truth. I actually feel frightened that the press in Singapore can attempt to shape my views as it wishes by misinformation or partial information”
The accusations brought up by Ms Ng have once again raised the question of whether there should ever be an unregulated press. In reporting the matter, the editors and journalists could have looked at the issue as one of the conservative group in our society taking on the liberals rather than be quick to frame this in the context of the Christian Right against the homosexuals and the lesbians. True, many of the ladies came from the same church. However, the same may be said of any group who comes from any organization. But that alone does not mean that they represent the organization. I do wonder if the press would have been so quick on the take if it were women from another faith who took up the cause instead. It is unfortunate that by framing this episode as one that carries a religions undertone, the whole debate deeply polarized our society very quickly.
Apart from the press, the education ministry in the early days of the AWARE leadership struggle has maintained consistently that they did not look into this matter as no complaint was made by any parent. Not surprisingly, what followed was a deluge of complaints from parents which then prompted an investigation by the ministry. The outcome was an implicit acceptance of the serious nature of the allegations against the CSE programmes run by AWARE. I am grateful to note the ministry has now tightened the procedures on the appointment of course providers in the area of sexuality education.
The AWARE saga is as much about the kind of values we want to promote in our society as it is about leadership struggle. To build a socially cohesive society, all interest groups must recognize and accept the fundamental building blocks of our society that have come to represent our values on families and relationships. Our values change if at all by evolution than by revolution. Aggressive proselytisation by fringe groups, whether carried out by insidious means or otherwise, will only invite a backlash from mainstream society. This is not how our society should be run. Social cohesion requires the active participation of all. In this particular episode, one wonders if the education ministry had taken a more proactive stand in the first place by being more vigilant, the leadership struggle and the ensuing polarization of our community would not have taken place in the manner that it did. The question that some have asked is whether a formal complaint must be made from someone before the ministry will act on a matter which it has heard about and which comes under its purview. Displaying annoyance at being dragged into the sorry saga does not help with the confidence recovery process in the aftermath.
Follow Up: An Apology
During Thursday’s parliamentary session (May 27th), Mr. Sin apologized for not verifying the substance of the contents of the letter quoted above.
Rising to speak when Parliament resumed its session after a short break on Thursday afternoon, Mr Sin Boon Ann said: ‘On reflection I thought I should have sought some confirmation from the writer of the e-mail, or separately verify the contents of the e-mail since I believe the privilege of free speech in this House imposes the higher standards of diligence on the part of its members.
‘But to that extent I have fallen short of these standards. I proffer my unreserved apology to those involved.’
Source: Straits Times: MP apologises for slip - May 28, 2009
This is priceless. Sin Boon Ann questions whether the press can be “responsible, impartial and to present the facts as neutrally and objectively” and then presents into evidence an unsubstantiated e-mail for which he must subsequently apologize as he did not “verify the contents.”
Oh sweet irony.
The duty of a journalist is to find out the truth and inform it to the society.
If not for the fine investigative work of the Straits Times and online press like TheOnlineCitizen and Wayang Party (the “Press”), the truth may never have emerged.
The Press first established the connection between the ex New Exco and the Church of Our Saviour and the anti-gay agenda that they shared. The intense media pressure also helped to draw the Feminist Mentor TSM out from the shadows to protect her mentees .
This story became the Breaking News for many days in April and May because of the many revelations that were made as events unfolded.
But it was important news as well, as it brought to fore some very issues that are critical to the peace and harmony of Singapore, such as:
a) the existence of the Christian Right Wing
b) secularism and the role of religion in Singapore
c) the need for tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness
d) the gay issue
e) how interest groups with opposing values can disagree agreeably
f) the role of the press
g) the need for comprehensive sexuality education in schools
h) civil society in action.
Given all the above, I did not think the coverage was excessive. A lot was at stake. It is still being discussed today in Parliament and has been commented on by numerous political and religious leaders.
As for the charge that the Press was bias, I will say this. If you have something to hide or are doing something unfair, you will not be happy with the Press who a) is ferreting for the truth and outs your embarrassing secret; b) shows that you are doing something unfair. You will say that the Press is unfair but it is not, it is just being responsible. The act of the ex New Exco in sneakily taking over AWARE and lying is indefensible and there is not much to say in defence of these actions.
Also, the ex New Exco’s favourite quote before the EGM was “no comment” so there was not that much to report there either. And, when they did comment, they contradicted themselves and reporting this as a contradiction would also seem like the Press was supporting the Old Guard.
In light of the above, the comments by Thio Li-Ann and Sim Boon Ann against the press are unfair.
sin boon ann is a xtian as well.
http://www.parliament.gov.sg/AboutUs/Org-MP-CV-SinBoonAnn.htm
Corinna Lim Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Just to clarify, I have nothing against Christians, being a Catholic myself. I think religion is generally a good thing, so long as its adherents do not impose their view on others and adopt an attitude which does not create distrust, respects others and allows choice for all.
I was not impressed with Mr Sin’s reference to Cheryl Ng’s (which contained quite a few defamatory and irresponsible allegations against the Press) but am glad that he has since apologised for this.
Hopefully, he would have learnt from this lesson and if he is truly interested in this topic, will take it on himself to find out all sides of the story before commenting on this.
I know Mr Sin personally and would be happy to share with him my perspective and observations.
SEPARATION OF RAUNCH AND STATE
(It’s still legal – and always God-honoring – to air messages like the following. See Ezekiel 3:18-19. In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the “separation of raunch and state”!)
In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big “signs” that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide “sign” (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven’t accomplished! Gays couldn’t have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture – you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint – San Andreas – may soon get a big jolt out of what’s going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!
[If you would care to learn about the depraved human "pigpen" that regularly occurs in Nancy Pelosi's district in California, Google "Zombietime" and click on "Up Your Alley Fair" in the left column. And to think - horrors - that she is only two levels away from being President!]
I guess Mr Sin Boon Ann is a PAP man & naturally he had to apologise! I am glad that he spoke openly & honestly but I feel he is blinded by his own mind-set! In parliament, it is well undrstood that we need logic & full of data facts to talk discuss dialogue or debate otherwise one will show one’s tail at the end of the day! I wonder what had been driven him to speak & defend that he thinks it should be defended? Unless we unearth the ‘root cause’ or ’seed’, it will still grow as time/condition arising!
Secondly about the unfairness or unbalance of local papers’ coverage, I wonder what is wrong with local media when a group of strange/new people (Josie Lau & her team) kept quiet or no comment whenever reporters try to approach them for interview or getting full details or data since the grap of leadership in AWARE for the public at large? I think the local papers are fair just proper & tranparent enough for the public at large though they are not perfect at time.
Shocked Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 3:08 am
If the reporters have previously put you in bad light…I would tend to be slightly weary. Not sure about you.=)
DavidLeong Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Perhaps that’s why you call yourself as SHOCKED in the first place! The TRUTH is neither right nor wrong. And it is what it is, no more no less! Such like a flower is just a flower & a smile is just a smile to all humankind. Plse don’t shift the subject to you or me, will you?
So far did the straits times made any wrong or grave mistake by reporting what need to be reported whether good or bad for the public judgement? Any action being taken? Personally if I am being biased & wrong in a social majority such like reported by the historic local paper as media (though they are not perfect because they are stil humans), what I really need personally is instant self-reflection or soul searching before speaking/fighting out in NATIONAL PARLIANMENT as social representative. To drag in an unknown e-mail as scapgoat is just an excuse!
To me I feel both Mr Sin & Junior Thio have are biased with their narrow mind-sets right from the beginning. Mind you I am not against their openly speaking or fighting. It is good & it is their right but I think it is silly enough because they miss the essence points of whole AWARE MAIN MISSION. As for senior & junior Thio they could have very well done within AWARE as pro-family basis with Chistianity of brotherhood & or sisterhood filled with LOVES & CARE to each other! WHY FOUGHT with ’still water running deep style’? OH MY DEAR, IT IS REAL SINFUL TO HUMANIND IN THE SENSE OF HUMANITY! I am so sorry I have nothing against Christian because some of my family members are ChristianS too but I feel in this particular case or issue it had been gravely & intelligently abused. It is good evErything came out at the right time & we ALL can look into it & be AWARE from now onward… Yes, someone mentioned that the AWARE saga seemed not over yet… ACTUALLY IT IS ALL OVER But THE REAL ISSUE JUST BEGAN. I can obviously see many BIBLE’s quotes & requotes here & there! I am NOT an expert on this though I do know a thing or two. However, it is too sensitive anyway!
I thought the Saga will die off as soon as the EOGM results is over.
Now it is taking a life of its own independent of AWARE.
I don’t like the Christian Right but I also want to see an end to this bickering.
I wonder if what Mr Sin did in Parliament amounts to bearing false witness?
Dear June
The sin in Sodom was inhospitality not homosexuality.
Ezekiel 16:49-49: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
See also: . Also see Isaiah 1:10-17, Jeremiah 23:14, in reference to Sodom.
See also Jesus stance on Sodom:
Matt 10:11-15: “Now whatever city/town you enter, inquire who is in it is worthy & stay there till you go out & whoever will not receive your words, when you depart that house/city shake off the dust from your feet….Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the Land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!” (Jesus’ words of inhospitality but not homosexuality, see also Mark:6-11, Luke 10:10-12, Luke 17: 26-29, Lamentations 4:3-6,Isiah 13: 11-19 etc)
Please get your bible correct before sprouting rubbish on the net.
mr sin boon ann said :
quote
Sir, I do not intend to go into the rights and wrongs of the way in which a group of concerned ladies decided take over the leadership of a voluntary welfare organization, save to say that I find it odd that (democracy suddenly takes on a very different meaning) when a group of new members decide to legitimately contest in an election to determine a new agenda. I also find it odd that many of the members who did not bother even to attend the most important meeting in the year to elect a new leadership should now decide to raise a howl of protest after the event. If they, meaning the older members, were that concerned in the first place, I believe they should have taken a more active role in the affairs of the organization. Perhaps, AWARE should have been more selective of its membership? The question of who should be given the right to vote has deep philosophical implications that would be applicable not only to AWARE, but for Singapore as well.
unquote
being a parliamentarian, has it not occured to him that a motion to hold a no-confidence vote is also part of the democracy process he so professes to represent. if mr sin were to stand up for election in an smc, when he is voted out, it is also democracy at work. the lay people have eyes and ears and know what is going on, perhaps the sad part is not as many are as articulated as he is to bring up issues like this, though he should rightly, as a public representative, verify his source of information before reading the email so ‘convincingly’ in the ‘august chamber’ of parliament. this little action of his actually showed he is ill-prepared, ill-informed and had indeed taken a very biased view on his own.
such is our mp.
All these comments really leave me to wonder, whether people actually realise the essence of the issue in Mr Sin’s speech. It really seems like we are all picking on the frivolous and trivial. There were mainly 2 points intended to be brought across, 1) The fact that MOE was not entirely aware of such materials being taught in schools 2) The way in which the whole fracas was reported could have used a little less of a religious undertone. No more, than that.
It would therefore be very reasonable for me to find this a tad bit hilarious. Are we just all distracted from the nub of the issue? Yes he failed to verify the email, and he has admitted that he has fallen short of the standards required. Even then he did make a point to add that ‘I must add that I do not know Ms Ng and I have not verified the substance of her email…….’
Does this make any difference though? Read through the lines, it really does not change any of his points in the speech.Yet we all sensationalize it and make it seem as though he has been shamed and deeply regretful for airing such views when he really is just APOLOGIZING FOR NOT VERIFYING AN EMAIL.
People, lets look at the big picture. Not the nitty gritty….peace out.
to add on to ‘2) The way in which the whole fracas was reported could have used a little less of a religious undertone. No more, than that.’
He also includes the main point that Perhaps the way it was reported seemed to be slanted towards one side rather than from a neutral point of view and things could have been taken from a more neutral perspective.