NYU students vs Professor Thio Li-Ann

I came across this news article, shared by a friend of mine on Twitter and Facebook, regarding some New York University's law students questioning, if not being opposed against, their school's decision to invite Professor Thio Li-Ann (who, fortunately perhaps, is no longer a NMP), as a visiting professor, to teach human rights law at the school.

The opposition against inviting Professor Thio evidently arises because of her avowed stance against homosexuality, specifically her support for the continued criminalisation of homosexual sexual acts in Singapore.

For those of you all interested, the link to the full article may be found below:

"Rights for Some People -- Should someone who teaches human rights back human rights for all people?"

"We Had Him" by Dr. Maya Angelou

"We Had Him"
-- Dr. Maya Angelou


Beloveds, now we know that we know nothing, now that our bright and shining star can slip away from our fingertips like a puff of summer wind.

Without notice, our dear love can escape our doting embrace. Sing our songs among the stars and walk our dances across the face of the moon.

In the instant (we learn) that Michael is gone, we know nothing. No clocks can tell time. No oceans can rush our tides with the abrupt absence of our treasure.

Though we are many, each of us is achingly alone, piercingly alone.

Only when we confess our confusion can we remember that he was a gift to us and we did have him.

He came to us from the Creator, trailing creativity in abundance.

Despite the anguish of life, he was sheathed in mother love, and family love, and survived and did more than that.

He thrived with passion and compassion, humour and style. We had him whether we know who he was or did not know, he was ours and we were his.

We had him, beautiful, delighting our eyes.

He raked his hat aslant over his brow, and took a pose on his toes for all of us.

And we laughed and stomped our feet for him.

We were enchanted with his passion because he held nothing. He gave us all he had been given.

Today in Tokyo, beneath the Eiffel Tower, in Ghana's Black Star Square.

In Johannesburg and Pittsburgh, in Birmingham, Alabama, and Birmingham, England.

We are missing Michael Jackson.

But we do know we had him, and we are the world.

Petition: Say No To (Marital) Rape

Petition to abolish marital rape immunity in Singapore


FAQ (Complete)

FAQ (Summarised)

In defence of secularism

In yesterday's edition of Lianhe Zaobao/《联合早报》, an opinion piece by Mr. 黄浩威, a local freelance writer, defending the principle of secularism was published.

Although the debate over the role of secularism and religion-informed opinions in Singapore have perhaps quieted down and while Mr. 黄浩威's opinion piece perhaps does not provide any new arguments (in that his arguments have already been espoused in other forms by others), it would seem to me that he has been able to weave together these arguments in a concise and cogent form. Hence, I decided that it would be worthwhile for me to translate his opinion piece and share it with you all (note: I would be making some edits to the original paragraphing so as to make it appear less clunky and easier to digest).

"Secular humanism is more practical"

In a speech made in Parliament on May 26th, Nominated MP Professor Thio Li-Ann expressed her opinions about the saga involving AWARE and secularism; her opinions are worth noting. She states that "Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious in attempting to make religious faith a cause for embarrassment or to distract citizens from the merits of an argument by discounting a speaker whose values are shaped by a religious rather than a secular faith".

Professor Thio seems to be concerned about having one's freedom of religion and expression being infringed in a secular order. Ironically, the fact that Professor Thio is able to speak freely in Parliament about her strong belief that religious values should shape the legislative process and that the local media reported her speech makes her allegations against secularism appear most fallacious. Indeed, it is Singapore's secular order that protects Professor Thio's freedom of expression and religion.

Professor Thio's arguments also attempt to conceptualise the relationship between those with a religious faith and those whom believe in secularism as being adversarial, if not diametrically opposed, to one another. The problem is that such a "us-versus-them" binary worldview is a very dangerous worldview.

In this diverse world which is being globalised rapidly, constantly changing and composed of various religions, ethnicities and groups of different sexualities, secularism is not equivalent with atheism. In reality, there are many proponents of secularism who would factor in the influence of religion into legislation and policy-making. The crucial point is, however, that more than one religion's opinions are being factored in; and beyond religion, it is also necessary to factor in the opinions of different disciplines and fields of knowledge e.g. economics, sociology, biology, sexual studies, cultural traditions, world history and humanism.

How can we conceptualise the world as being simply consisting of black and white when a myriad of religious sects and denominations, differing over how their religious texts should be interpreted, are in existence?

Another proponent of such a binary worldview would be the self-styled "Feminist Mentor" Dr. Thio Su Mien. Dr. Thio asserts that to have a "neutral" stance towards homosexuality is equivalent to promoting and supporting homosexuality. The issue, however, is not that simple: "neutral" means that one neither supports nor objects; that after considering the arguments of different sides, one choose to not support either side. Do we really have to force those with a neutral stance to choose a side or to even define them as being the enemy?

If we are to adopt a binary, if not adversarial, approach to religious, moral issues and issues pertaining to sex, we will easily fall into the linguistic trap set by former US President George W. Bush: "You're either with us or against us". An important reason why this hawish war-mongering former US President, who initiated wars against Afghanistan and Iraq and sidelined Muslim & developing countries in his foreign policy, was able to win two presidential terms would be the support he received from the American religious right-wing.

of course, those who are religiously fervent can forthrightly claim a right to involve themselves in the public secular space. However, if they are trying to covertly propagate their religious doctrines through disguising themselves with the sheep's skin of secularism, their intentions will nonetheless be treated with suspicion even though they may claim to be acting out of a genuine concern for the well-being of the country and society.

Simply put, secularism refers to how, in a society, people's actions and decisions (especially those of a constitutional or governmental nature) are not based on religiously-informed opinions but on scientifically-informed opinions. Of course, in a multi-religious society in which a majority have a form of religious faith, it is not possible to entirely exclude the role or influence of religion in society. Many may have moral/ethical standards which are based on their religious beliefs but moral/ethical standards vary from person to person.

But if and when all those living in Singapore (including those not from Singapore) are made to abide by the moral/ethical standards of a particular doctrine, for example: forbidding the consumption of pork, fining those who are non-vegetarians, prescribing that people need to pray/give thanks before the consumption of meals, this would not only create sectarian or ethnic conflicts in society but Singapore would perhaps also not be the dynamic and diverse cosmopolitian city it is now.

Hence, the middle path of secular humanism would perhaps do better in ensuring religious harmony, ethnic co-existence and to preserve the rights & welfare of different groups. More importantly, this enlightened approach would not only protect and preserve religious freedom but also not deny the existence of divine beings; the opinions of different religious faiths regarding the supernatural, life and death would also be tolerated. With such an approach in place, people would be able to pursue their religious beliefs and practices in private and still be able to be a secular humanist in the public space.

In the end, secular humanists need to constantly remind themselves to respect those whose views and opinions may differ from theirs. Even if they do not concur with the opinions of others, they should attempt to understand and tolerate them and to foster dialogue between different groups; they should not try to covertly put in place their belief and worship of the supernatural as the ideological basis for civil society or parliamentary debates. They should also not insist that they are in possession of the universal absolute truth and proclaim themselves to be the majority in society and hence have unquestionable authority. Only in this way, can genuine and honest exchanges, tolerance, respect and harmonious co-existence be actualised.

A Malay-Muslim BG does not a policy change make

I suppose that by now, most of you all would be aware that Singapore has appointed its first post-independence Malay-Muslim general (Brigadier-General or BG, to be precise) in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

And the local media and some of the local Malay-Muslim PAP MPs/ministers have been portraying/claiming this appointment as being a milestone achievement for not only the SAF officer in question (i.e. Colonel Ishak bin Ismail who is soon to be BG Ishak bin Ismail) but also for the local Malay-Muslim community in general.

However, reading the relevant media reports, I cannot help but ask two questions. One, does the local Malay-Muslim community really perceive this as a milestone achievement for their community? In other words, does the local Malay-Muslim community really see this as being a boost to their societal status or well-being? And secondly, does this appointment of a Malay-Muslim BG signal a possible change in the government's established policy towards Malay-Muslims in the SAF?

But before I move on to examine the questions above in greater detail, allow me to first say that while I was surprised at the appointment of a Malay-Muslim BG by the SAF (in light of Singapore's policy towards Malay-Muslims in the SAF as mentioned above), I was half-expecting Colonel Ishak to be promoted to a BG sooner or later. This is because last August, he was appointed to be the Commander for the 6th Division and this position is, if I am not wrong, usually held by a BG so I guess it was a matter of time before he would be promoted to become a BG. It would be odd if he is made to do a BG's job but not hold the corresponding rank, wouldn't it?

A Malay-Muslim BG does not a policy change make

Moving on, I would first examine the question of whether this appointment of Colonel Ishak as Singapore's first Malay-Muslim BG reflects a possible change in the Singapore's policy towards Malay-Muslims in the SAF.

For those of you all who are not aware yet, it is Singapore's established policy, revealed to the public in 1987, to be cautious about, if not exclude, having Malay-Muslims in "sensitive key positions in the SAF like the air force or armoured units" (I am quoting from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's second volume of memoirs). And this policy was based on the premise of that in the event of an armed conflict, the SAF did not want to place any of its soldiers in a difficult position in which they may face a conflict between loyalty to nation and loyalty to religion.

And as I have stated in an earlier blog post:

"This policy of excluding local Malay-Muslims from sensitive key positions in the SAF has, for obvious reasons, drawn quite a bit of flak, not only from neighbouring countries which perceive it as an implicit suggestion that they, being of a Malay-Muslim majority, would be the enemies of Singapore but also from members of the local Malay-Muslim community who perceive it as an act of implicit discrimination and suggestion that they may be disloyal to Singapore".

Hence, in light of the above, does the promoting of Colonel Ishak to the rank of BG imply a change being made to this policy towards Malay-Muslims in the SAF?

Well, I suppose the more optimistic amongst us would be see the promotion of Colonel Ishak as being a possible first step towards the policy in question being changed, if not scrapped. It is, after all, never stated by the Ministry of Defence (Mindef), SAF or anyone that such a policy will remain in place forever. Of course, at the same time, it was stated by Mindef/SAF, responding to criticism about this policy, that any changes to this policy would have to “proceed in tandem with nation-building”.

However, while I concede that the promotion of Colonel Ishak can indeed be a possible first step towards the changing of this policy, I am of the pessimistic opinion that Colonel Ishak's promotion is perhaps just an exception that proves the rule; that his promotion happened despite there being a policy to be cautious with regards to having Malay-Muslims in sensitive positions in the SAF.

In the end, as remarkable as Colonel Ishak's promotion may be, he is, as he readily admits, just one man. And just as how one swallow does not a summer make, I suppose one Malay-Muslim BG does not a policy change make.

Perhaps if and when the Armour camp I was from start having a separate section in the cookhouse/canteen to serve halal food to Malay-Muslim personnel, I would start to think that a policy change is indeed afoot.

One man's achievement = a community's achievement?

Of course, even though Colonel Ishak's promotion need not necessarily signal a change in the policy towards Malay-Muslims in the SAF, perhaps it can still be perceived as a milestone achievement for the local Malay-Muslim community, as the local media and some of the Malay-Muslim PAP MPs/ministers have been claiming?

Well, I suppose that one way to answer such a question would be to ask members of the local Malay-Muslim community and/or their representatives. And since I already know what Malay-Muslim PAP MPs/ministers think about Colonel Ishak's promotion, I asked a Malay-Muslim acquaintance of mine over MSN what she thinks about Colonel Ishak's promotion, specifically about whether she agrees that his promotion is a milestone achievement for the local Malay-Muslim community.

My acquaintance's answer, in essence, was that Colonel Ishak is just one man and that she does not really feel that his promotion impacted her as a member of the local Malay-Muslim community.

Perhaps my aquaintance's opinion cannot be taken as being entirely representative of what the local Malay-Muslim community thinks about Colonel Ishak's promotion, I would think that Malay-Muslim PAP MPs/ministers' opinions also cannot be taken as being entirely representative of the Malay-Muslim community.

Indeed, just as how US President Barack Obama's becoming of the first African-American US President does not imply that entrenched discrimination against African-Americans in the US has suddenly disappear, I would think that Colonel Ishak's promotion, as remarkable as it may be, does not mean that the problems and challenges facing the local Malay-Muslim community have been suddenly resolved. A magic wand, Colonel Ishak's promotion is not.

Conclusion

While I may be sceptical with regards to the impact of Colonel Ishak's promotion, I will still extend my congratulations and well-wishes to him for becoming Singapore's first Malay-Muslim BG.

Hopefully, seeing how it took 44 years since Singapore acquired independence and 42 years since the establishment of the SAF before it appointed its first Malay-Muslim BG, it will not take another 40 plus years before another Malay-Muslim is promoted to the rank of BG.

Twittering MPs in Parliament?

If you all have read today's Straits Times (or Lianhe Zaobao, since there is a similar, albeit lengthier, article there), you all would most likely notice the article ("To get feedback, why not Twitter in the House?", ST, 22/6/2009) reporting about Mr. Teo Ser Luck (a wearer of many hats, this man is, in light of how he is concurrently a MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, the mayor for North East CDC, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for MCYS & MOT and the chairman of Young PAP) suggesting that local MPs should perhaps utilise Twitter to garner and provide real-time feedback about parliamentary proceedings.

For those of you all who have not read the article and/or do not subscribe to the Straits Times/Lianhe Zaobao, Mr. Teo, speaking at a Young PAP forum on new media and politics, basically suggested that since "MPs already send text messages to one another in Parliament, it would not be too far a stretch for them" to use Twitter as a medium to provide and garner real-time feedback about parliamentary proceedings.

Hmm... It appears to me that Mr. Teo's suggestion was perhaps inspired by a recent news report about how Malaysian MPs have been using Twitter to provide real-time coverage of proceedings within the Malaysian Parliament.

While Mr. Teo may just be thinking aloud when he made the above suggestion (thus implying that we will not actually witness local MPs using Twitter in Parliament anytime soon), I think it is important for us to think about this question: do we need or want Twittering MPs?

Well, for me, the answer to the above question would be "No" as I do not think it will be a good idea for MPs to be using Twitter while a parliamentary sitting is in session; it may be alright for them to use Twitter outside of Parliament House but I do not think they should be doing so in Parliament.

Twittering MPs = Distracted MPs?

Why do I think that MPs should not be "twittering" in Parliament?

Firstly, I suppose that Twittering MPs will most likely become distracted MPs. I mean, is it not the duty and responsibility of MPs to be focused and paying attention when they are attending a parliamentary sitting? In light of this, do we really want MPs to be using or checking their Twitter accounts (or emails, RSS news feeds, SMSes, Facebook updates and etc) on their 3G/3.5G mobile phones when they are attending a parliamentary sitting?

While some may perhaps argue that Twittering MPs need not necessarily be distracted MPs or that they will only be distracted long enough to compose 140 characters long "tweets" even if they are distracted, I would think any form of possible distraction that may distract MPs from fulfilling their duties in Parliament should not be encouraged.

Seeing how we already have MPs who doze off during parliamentary sessions, do we really also want MPs who may be distracted by their Twitter accounts?

"Brevity is the soul of wit" or "sound bite politics"?

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, it would seem to me that if we start having Twittering MPs in Parliament, we may find ourselves in the situation in which "sound bite politics" could take dominance locally.

By "sound bite politics", I refer to politicians and the public being caught up in slogans, quotable quotes and one-liners, thereby perhaps reducing, if not trivialising, serious and complex issues into mere sound bites.

Also, in light of how Twitter perhaps thrive on its ability to provide real-time, if not instant, updates, I am concerned that we may start to unrealistically, if not unfairly, demand continuous real-time/instant updates and responses from politicians on issues that may require long and serious consideration.

Of course, there may be those of you all who may argue that "sound bite politics" is already in place in Singapore. But if so, I suppose Twitter, with its 140 characters limit, would perhaps exacerbate people's fixation with sound bites.

And, of course, some of you all may argue that "brevity is the soul of wit" and Twitter would force politicians to stop giving long-winded speeches and answers (or non-answers) but to start giving more precise and concise statements; we have enough of politicians who indulge in circumlocution, haven't we?

However, while I also am no fan of overly-verbose politicians, I, at the same time, am in agreement with this statement of Albert Einstein: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler". And thus, I am concerned that Twitter would perhaps not only make issues as simple as possible to understand but also over-simplify complicated issues.

Likewise, I am of the opinion that while it is fair for the public to demand the authorities to provide swifter action on certain issues, it should also be recognised that certain issues require enough space and time before proper action or decisions can be taken on them.

Hence, just as how Professor Kishore Mahbubani (quoting Infosys founder, Mr.Narayana Murthy) pointed out, in a recent interview with Channel NewsAsia, that people tend to "mistake articulation for achievements", we should be wary to not mistake brevity for wit and/or mistake swift action for proper action.

Do we need or want Twittering MPs?

In conclusion, do we need or want Twittering MPs in Singapore? No but I guess we do need and want MPs who fulfil their duties and responsibilities.

Thus, in light of the above, it should be recognised that, as Mr. Christopher de Souza rightly pointed out at the YPAP forum, people expect their MPs to engage them, to reflect their viewpoints and to help them. Twitter, along with other social media platforms, is perhaps just a tool that may facilitate MPs to fulfil these expectations/responsibilities; we should not mistake the using of a tool for fulfilling responsibilities. I may use a power saw to saw wood but that does not make me a better carpenter than someone using a simple handsaw.

UNIFEM Singapore: "10 Quotes To Change The World"

A friend of mine shared this interesting and meaningful article by UNIFEM Singapore on Facebook. And I thought I will share it with you all.

10 Quotes To Change The World

Propelled by the belief that greater equality exists for all, social movements have been spearheaded by some of the world's most passionate and charismatic figureheads. Here's a look at a selection of quotes by some of the world's most memorable revolutionaries, activists and thinkers.

"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian political leader and famous proponent of non-violent resistance

"Washing one's hands off the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." - Paulo Freire (1921-1997), influential Brazilian educator and theorist

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead (1901-1978), American cultural anthropologist

"We have it in our power to begin the world again." - Thomas Paine (1737-1809), British revolutionary, intellectual and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955), groundbreaking German theoretical physicist

"It is not enough to be compassionate - you must act." - The Dalai Lama (1935- ), Tibetan spiritual leader

"If you are trying to transform a brutalised society into one where people can live in dignity and hope, you begin with the empowering of the most powerless. You build from the ground up." - Adrienne Cecile Rich (1929- ), leading American poet, essayist and feminist

"We must use time creatively, and forever realise that the time is always ripe to do right." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), American clergyman, activist and prominent leader in the African-American civil rights movement

"Men must be capable of imagining and executing and insisting on social change if they are to reform or even maintain civilisation, and capable too of furnishing the rebellion which is sometimes necessary if society is not to perish of immobility." - Rebecca West, (1892-1983), English author, journalist, literary critic and travel writer

"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope." - Reinhold Neibuhr (1892-1971), American theologian


And if I may, I would just like to add a meaningful quote which is a favourite of mine: "Great ambition and conquest, without contribution, is without significance" -- "The Emperor's Club"

"Would you accept zero days of annual leave?"

Yesterday, I received an email from the Day Off campaign team informing me about the following series of short videos aimed at propagating their cause.

Zero Annual Leave




15 hours, 7 days a week




Minimum Annual Leave

子曰：“己所不欲，勿施于人”
Confucius: "Do not to others what you do not want others to do to you"

"Do to others as you would have them do to you" -- Luke 6:31, NIV

"Thank You, Dr. Thio..."

Perhaps you all have already seen this before (quite possible since the original note was posted on the 3rd of May) but I only stumbled upon this Facebook note two days ago when a friend of mine shared it on his Facebook page. And I thought I will share it with you all. Note: any spelling or other types of errors are those of the original author.

"My words of thanks and sympathy to Dr Thio Su Mien, ex "Feminist Mentor" to AWARE"

by Micah Lim

Thank you

Dr Thio, I would like to thank you personally and on behalf of Singapore for taking brave steps to fight for your cause. We have learnt valuable lessons through you. You are indeed a remarkable "Feminist Mentor".

1. Thank you for reminding all Singaporeans that extremists and fundamentalists do exist in Singapore, and as a diverse country with multi-racial, multi-religion, we are constantly under this threat of being sabotaged.

2. Thank you for the coup at AWARE, hoping to impose your religious beliefs on others but ended up only to unite Singaporeans who believe in democracy and the equal rights for all.

3. Thank you for reminding christains and other religious group that everyone's choice of religion and belief must be respected. Everyone has freedom of choice, no one can impose on others. You have demonstrated that being religious fanatical can be so dangerous to a society.

4. Thank you for shedding light on the church of our saviour, so that the whole of Singapore now all knows the prejudice that some churches have over marginalised groups.

5. Thank you for choosing a team of women whoonly have a high opinion of themselves, never does their homework, have any passion on women's welfare or have leadership abilities so that they can be deafeated at the AGM. If your ladies were not defeated, there may be chaos.

6. Thank you for building up the Gay Pride spirit in Singapore. You think you have rallied your troops to carry out god's words to eradicate sins and keep Singaporeans within the line, but what you have effectively done is to unite the gay community and the bond has never been stronger than now. And who knows, you may be remembered as the woman who is the catalyst for the repeal of 377A.

7. Thank you for having squandered money at AWARE without the members' permission, giving the old guards one more point to fire at your ladies. And yes, btw, how do you plan to pay back the S$90,000? Or are your going to feign ignorance?

8. Thank you for braving the front, take away so much limelight from Josie, so that she gets a breather and making the lives of millions of Singaporeans so much more colourful as Singaporeans are being introduced to you and terms like "Feminist Mentor". You know, we now have a new term - 'Thioliban versus Taliban' being inspired by you. And oh yes, page 73 cover girl and 'RESPECT YOUR ELDERS!'. You must be so proud of them.

9. Thank you for telling us how ignorant some fundamentalists can be, and how out of touch and misunderstood one can be. But I would like to tell you, and it is not important whether you agree or not, that gays are mostly borned, and it is not a diease. And gays or lesbians can led a meaningful and happy life, and not in pain like you choose to believe.

10. Thank you for casting such a bad light on christianity and christians in Singapore, dishonouring many christians, which in itself is not a good thing but at least, all christians can learn from your works. At least we also know that stumbling blocks to christianity like yourself can be removed if the right actions are taken. We also now know that the majority of christians in Singapore are peace loving, and beliebe in mutual respects towards other religions.

11. Thank you for making me so proud and appreciative of the Singapore government. Despite ocassional grouses I may have, I deeply appreciate our government for all the hard work through the years trying to maintain religious and racial harmonies. Without you, Dr Thio, I would never have understood why our government emphasize so much on harmony in our country. I am also deeply impressed by the stand and decisive steps our government ministers have taken to reinforce and maintain the current status quo of social equality and harmony. My utmost respects and appreciation towards the heads of the christians community and other religious groups for their respect towards relgious harmony.

12. Thank you for building so much awareness for AWARE, and for helping to increase the memberships more than tenfold. hopefully this will also help in AWARE's future fund raising efforts. You are indeed superb, Dr Thio. And oh yes, don't forget to pick up the tab for the S$90,000 spending spree that your girls have squandered without legal permission.

13. There are so many things I want thank you for, but personally, you have made me feel so glad to know that Singaporeans will still stand up for what they think is right. Singaporeans will fight for justice, equality and when something is not right, they will fight for their cause.

14. Last but not least, Dr Thio, your efforts has made me believe that although sometimes life may not be fair all the time, justice will always prevail in the end. True righteousness will always trimuph over the self-righteous.

I will have a good night's sleep tonight....yawn...



My Sympathy to you

1. My sympathy to you for having to mentor such a disorganised, incompetent and insincere group of mentees. It must be hard on you.

2. My sympathy to you that your last chance(well likely to be as you probably won't have many chances left at your age) to achieve some form greatness has collapsed into a huge shame. It is hard, really hard for you to ever redeem yourself.

3. I sympathise that your generations of family will have to live with the burden your actions and that generations of Singaporeans will come to remember you. Imagine someone who knows your grandson remember his granmother once orchestrated a coup?

4. My sympathy to you for being so ignorant of people around you. You do live in a world of your own. Do you really think you are more superior than the marginalised group?

5. My sympathy to you for overestimating your youself, thinking that you will surely have the support of your church, the media, the government and Singaporeans. You have lost touch, you don't know what others are thinking, again you live in your own world. You have underestimated the GAY PRIDE. I think you will never ever understand what it is all about but nevermind.

5. I sympathise with you for having to answer to MOE about your basless accusations and hopefully, you can cunningly get away with it.

6. I sympathise with you for dying for people to respect you and thristy for that glory of attention just to be snubbed that 'respect needs to be earned' in front of thousands of people and published in the newspapers.

7. I sympathise with you for walking onto the AWARE stage with an air of arrogance and style, just to walk down the same stage with shame, so much shame that you couldn't even bring youself to face the members to admit defeat, leaving it to your mentees to face everyone.

8. I sympathise with you for trying so hard to redeem your own life by starting this debacle, just to end in such dishonourable manner.

9. I sympathise you for being in pain, before the debacle and now. Especially now. I understand that often, the people who think that others are in pain are usually the one in pain themselves. You need help yourself.

Sigh........ I feel so sorry for you. Poor thing. But don't worry, time will heal.