In Alex Au's latest post on the Yawning Bread, he has decided to up the ante by doing an expose on the identity of the sender of the hate email to Thio Li-Ann as the playwright and erstwhile relief teacher Alfian Sa'at.
I will leave readers to make their own conclusion about Alfian's actions. I want to focus on Alex Au's defence of Alfian in 2 of his posts ([1] and [2]) regarding MOE's "unfair" termination of his relief teaching position. First, let me re-post an article in CNA on the issue and Alfian's comments on his blog:
SINGAPORE : The Education Ministry receives some 3,000 applications for first time registration as relief teacher each year - and some 100, or 3 per cent, of these are rejected.
Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew gave these figures in Parliament on Monday when he replied to questions brought up by Nominated MPs Eunice Olsen and Siew Kum Hong on the recruitment criteria for relief teachers.
In particular, Mr Siew asked why playwright Alfian Sa'at' was rejected in his application for relief teaching.
Rear Admiral Lui said it was inappropriate to discuss individual cases of teachers or relief teachers in the House.
However, he said applicants could be rejected because they do not have the requisite educational qualities, do not have a passion for teaching, or perhaps they have unsuitable records or disciplinary history.
He explained : "Teachers are in a unique position of authority and have great influence over the children they teach, engaging hearts and minds and shaping their attitudes and perspectives.
"Whether permanent or relief, teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which befits this role and to uphold the integrity of the profession, both in a personal and professional capacity. The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." - CNA/ch
***************
1) "The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." Does this mean PAP ministers cannot become relief teachers also because they espouse rampant materialism via their rigorous defence of their inflated salaries?
2) Freedom of Information Act, here I come.
I had thought that MOE's termination of Alfian's relief teaching position was due to his views and support for gays. Then I thought about Otto Fong and realised that Otto is still a teacher of RI. Now we can appreciate the wisdom of MOE's decision to reject Alfian's services from the email that he had sent to Thio Li-Ann. I shudder to think about the impact that Alfian would have made on the students with his values, beliefs and actions if he had been allowed to continue teaching in our schools.
Alfian made the following concluding statement in his blog*:
I am posting the 'hate mail' here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologise to those who think that my 'uncivil' four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman's pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.
Alfian's actions were warmly supported by Alex Au who concluded:
When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more.
*Alfian's post referred to by Alex Au is no longer at Alfian's blog. You can still read excerpts of it at Yawning Bread for now.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Irony of It All
Recently, the Repeal377A.com community came face-to-face with their silent majority counterpart in the form of Keep377A.com and Support377A.com. While the silent majority respected the rights of the LGBT community to their online petition efforts, this was not apparent reciprocated by the LGBT netizens as evident in the various smear postings seen on the two sites. Even the well-known, middle-of-the-ground, gay activist, Alex Au could not resist taking a swipe at the Straits Times for publishing "poor quality work" from people who opposed the repeal of section 377A.
The people at Repeal377A.com have decided to extend the deadline for the petition by 3 days from 19 Oct to 21 Oct 07 when the numbers were hovering around 6000+. If as Alex Au has articulated that this is not a number game, why the need to extend the deadline? In the latest few posts by Alex Au, instead of launching into his own diatribe, he has decided to refer readers to several blog sites (see here and here) to let them do it for him. Also, rather than admonishing the militant elements in the LGBT for vandalising the Support377A.com site, he decided to draw readers attention to one such post that signed off as "Jesus" with the comments "You christians are mad and crazy.". Finally, he topped it off with a picture of the Ku-Klux Clan to show what "extremist" Christians will do to deny LGBT their rights.
I decided to send a letter to him and till date he has yet to reply.
Good evening Alex.
I have been following the recent discussions on the repealing of Section 377A of the Penal Code. I have always seen you as one of the more mature and reasonable supporter of the LGBT community and, to be honest, I have enjoyed reading your postings although I do not agree with your world view.
However, your recent 2 postings are not what I expect of a person of your standing in the community. I can sense your frustrations at some of the more aggressive elements amongst those who support the retaining of section 377A but I don't think you should react to them or resort to posting a picture of the Ku-Klux Klan to label these people.
Unlike the Repeal377A.com, the Keep377A.com and Support377A.com sites have been subjected to smear postings from what I suspect are the more aggressive elements in the LGBT community. Instead of admonishing these people, you have decided to focus on the fraud element (by posting the comment from Caleb of Young Republic) and highlight the lack of credibility of the signatories. Perhaps you should pause to look at the "Jesus" signatory that wrote "You christians are mad and crazy". Perhaps it's from someone who wants to vilify the LGBT community but then perhaps the LGBT community should pause and reflect whether indeed it could have come from within.
There are a vast majority in the middle that wants to conduct this debate in an open and rationale way. By doing what you have done and influencing those who look to you for leadership and guidance, I can almost see a future where there will be greater polarisation between the 2 camps in Singapore. I don't think that this is something you, I or any of the moderate majority want to see happen in Singapore.
Let us debate this issue frankly and responsibly without malice and venom, whatever the provocation from extremist from both ends.
Alex Tan
The people at Repeal377A.com have decided to extend the deadline for the petition by 3 days from 19 Oct to 21 Oct 07 when the numbers were hovering around 6000+. If as Alex Au has articulated that this is not a number game, why the need to extend the deadline? In the latest few posts by Alex Au, instead of launching into his own diatribe, he has decided to refer readers to several blog sites (see here and here) to let them do it for him. Also, rather than admonishing the militant elements in the LGBT for vandalising the Support377A.com site, he decided to draw readers attention to one such post that signed off as "Jesus" with the comments "You christians are mad and crazy.". Finally, he topped it off with a picture of the Ku-Klux Clan to show what "extremist" Christians will do to deny LGBT their rights.
I decided to send a letter to him and till date he has yet to reply.
Good evening Alex.
I have been following the recent discussions on the repealing of Section 377A of the Penal Code. I have always seen you as one of the more mature and reasonable supporter of the LGBT community and, to be honest, I have enjoyed reading your postings although I do not agree with your world view.
However, your recent 2 postings are not what I expect of a person of your standing in the community. I can sense your frustrations at some of the more aggressive elements amongst those who support the retaining of section 377A but I don't think you should react to them or resort to posting a picture of the Ku-Klux Klan to label these people.
Unlike the Repeal377A.com, the Keep377A.com and Support377A.com sites have been subjected to smear postings from what I suspect are the more aggressive elements in the LGBT community. Instead of admonishing these people, you have decided to focus on the fraud element (by posting the comment from Caleb of Young Republic) and highlight the lack of credibility of the signatories. Perhaps you should pause to look at the "Jesus" signatory that wrote "You christians are mad and crazy". Perhaps it's from someone who wants to vilify the LGBT community but then perhaps the LGBT community should pause and reflect whether indeed it could have come from within.
There are a vast majority in the middle that wants to conduct this debate in an open and rationale way. By doing what you have done and influencing those who look to you for leadership and guidance, I can almost see a future where there will be greater polarisation between the 2 camps in Singapore. I don't think that this is something you, I or any of the moderate majority want to see happen in Singapore.
Let us debate this issue frankly and responsibly without malice and venom, whatever the provocation from extremist from both ends.
Alex Tan
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Desired End-State of Repealing 377A
I sent this letter to the Straits Times Forum just before the parliamentary debate on the Penal Code review but it was not published.
I refer to South Africa’s journey towards removing all forms of discriminations especially for their lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and trans-gendered (LGBT) community (ST, 19 Oct), and the recent petition attempts in Singapore to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.
It took the South Africans ten short years from the repeal of their sodomy laws to the official sanction of the LGBT’s rights to civil union and adoption. Should the Singapore government accedes to the present repeal petitions or similar initiatives in the future, there is a need to comprehensively lay out the roadmap for the full integration of LGBT within the societal and legal frameworks. While the LGBT community has tried to assure Singaporeans that they will push for further LGBT rights only when society becomes more receptive, it did not stop the community from aggressively seeking the repeal of section 377A despite the current lack of societal receptiveness. The experience of countries like South Africa has also shown that the championing of additional rights for the LGBT community is not that far out in the time horizon. Hence it is important for these rights issues to be debated openly and critically now as part of the repeal initiative. Some of these issues include the minimum legal age for men having sex with men (MSM), the assimilation of LGBT world view into our education system and the media, the structure of possible future civil unions between members of the same sex and adoption procedures for such couples, to list a few.
While it is true that the non-criminalisation of lesbianism did not open these “flood-gates”, I half suspect it was for a lack of vocalisation by the lesbian community and solidarity considerations with their gay counterparts that these issues have yet to be championed. It will be naïve to think that the repeal of section 377A will be an end in itself purely for equality and acceptance. Let us bring to the table all the necessary implications for such repeal and avoid a “slow-boil” outcome if we are serious about according equal rights to the LGBT community in Singapore.
I refer to South Africa’s journey towards removing all forms of discriminations especially for their lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and trans-gendered (LGBT) community (ST, 19 Oct), and the recent petition attempts in Singapore to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.
It took the South Africans ten short years from the repeal of their sodomy laws to the official sanction of the LGBT’s rights to civil union and adoption. Should the Singapore government accedes to the present repeal petitions or similar initiatives in the future, there is a need to comprehensively lay out the roadmap for the full integration of LGBT within the societal and legal frameworks. While the LGBT community has tried to assure Singaporeans that they will push for further LGBT rights only when society becomes more receptive, it did not stop the community from aggressively seeking the repeal of section 377A despite the current lack of societal receptiveness. The experience of countries like South Africa has also shown that the championing of additional rights for the LGBT community is not that far out in the time horizon. Hence it is important for these rights issues to be debated openly and critically now as part of the repeal initiative. Some of these issues include the minimum legal age for men having sex with men (MSM), the assimilation of LGBT world view into our education system and the media, the structure of possible future civil unions between members of the same sex and adoption procedures for such couples, to list a few.
While it is true that the non-criminalisation of lesbianism did not open these “flood-gates”, I half suspect it was for a lack of vocalisation by the lesbian community and solidarity considerations with their gay counterparts that these issues have yet to be championed. It will be naïve to think that the repeal of section 377A will be an end in itself purely for equality and acceptance. Let us bring to the table all the necessary implications for such repeal and avoid a “slow-boil” outcome if we are serious about according equal rights to the LGBT community in Singapore.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" - An Illogical Truism?
On 1 Oct 07, an article appeared in the Straits Times YouthInk section speaking about the hypocrisy of the principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin" when applied to a homosexual. I wrote a letter in response to the article which I re-produced here. The ST forum decided not to publish this in the Forum page and choose to re-direct the letter to YouthInk for their possible use. I am not sure whether there is a general LGBT fatigue on the part of the Forum editor but I guessed the fatigue is not wide-spread given that YouthInk had decided to discuss the NTU survey as a preamble to the article as well.
I observed a familiar strain in Miss Tessa Wong's article in YouthInk (ST, 1 Oct) with that of Mr Janadas Devan's attempt to mould societal attitude towards homosexuals (ST, 7 July). While Mr Devan reminded people to "judge not, that ye be not judged" and concluded that “clever people cannot abide intolerance”, Miss Wong advised people not to “love the sinner, hate the sin” and concluded that it would be “pure hypocrisy” if one attempted to live up to this truism.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" was a truly revolutionary ideal in the ancient of days. Unfortunately, precisely because of its idealism, Miss Wong, like many others, has decided that it is not humanly possible to meet this ideal, leading to her conclusion of hypocrisy.
Unlike Miss Wong, I do not have friends who are espoused homosexuals but I do have friends who have had pre-marital sex, underwent abortions and committed adultery. The friendships that I have are no less genuine or sincere just because I do not condone their actions. I am not sure which part of her friend's homosexual lifestyle has so permeated the friendship that she felt the need to renounce the sin before she can love the sinner.
The leaders of the many religious groups in Singapore have put aside their irreconcilable differences to forge understanding to engender religious harmony for the society's greater good. Despite the fruits of their labours, the doctrinal differences amongst them are insurmountable. Are these people similarly hypocritical going by Miss Wong's argument?
If Miss Wong cannot accept all the moral principles of the Christian faith, she can certainly choose to embrace another faith which agrees with her values system. Cherry picking which principles are do-able and which principles are “illogically flawed” will ultimately cause her to assume the very same character she spoke against in her article.
I observed a familiar strain in Miss Tessa Wong's article in YouthInk (ST, 1 Oct) with that of Mr Janadas Devan's attempt to mould societal attitude towards homosexuals (ST, 7 July). While Mr Devan reminded people to "judge not, that ye be not judged" and concluded that “clever people cannot abide intolerance”, Miss Wong advised people not to “love the sinner, hate the sin” and concluded that it would be “pure hypocrisy” if one attempted to live up to this truism.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" was a truly revolutionary ideal in the ancient of days. Unfortunately, precisely because of its idealism, Miss Wong, like many others, has decided that it is not humanly possible to meet this ideal, leading to her conclusion of hypocrisy.
Unlike Miss Wong, I do not have friends who are espoused homosexuals but I do have friends who have had pre-marital sex, underwent abortions and committed adultery. The friendships that I have are no less genuine or sincere just because I do not condone their actions. I am not sure which part of her friend's homosexual lifestyle has so permeated the friendship that she felt the need to renounce the sin before she can love the sinner.
The leaders of the many religious groups in Singapore have put aside their irreconcilable differences to forge understanding to engender religious harmony for the society's greater good. Despite the fruits of their labours, the doctrinal differences amongst them are insurmountable. Are these people similarly hypocritical going by Miss Wong's argument?
If Miss Wong cannot accept all the moral principles of the Christian faith, she can certainly choose to embrace another faith which agrees with her values system. Cherry picking which principles are do-able and which principles are “illogically flawed” will ultimately cause her to assume the very same character she spoke against in her article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)