Controversial Human Rights lawyer in NYU

[PainRack]

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/07/thi ... universitythe online, not the onion[/url]

Crazy times” was what Leigh Pasqual described Dr Thio Li Ann’s appointment as visiting professor at New York University (NYU) on a Facebook note.

Dr Thio, 41, an ex-Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) will be teaching ‘Human Rights Law in Asia’ during NYU’s Fall 09 Semester under the faculty’s Global Visiting Professor of Law programme.

Dr Thio’s biodata on the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law website lists one of her teaching subjects as ‘Human Rights Law in Asia’. She has a keen research interest in ‘Constitutionalism and Human Rights in Asia’ and ‘International Human Rights Law and The Rights of Peoples’, and has written extensively on the issues of human rights.

Ms Pasqual, a Singaporean living in New York put up the note on her Facebook page after receiving a forwarded email about Dr Thio’s appointment sent out by OUTlaw. OUTlaw is an organisation for LGBT students as well as for LGBT supporters and friends, and “actively promotes queer visibility on campus and acts as watchdog for LGBT issues arising within NYU and across the globe”.

OUTlaw issued a board statement to condemn Dr Thio’s parliamentary speeches over her support to keep 377A as “intolerant” and “reprehensible”. Her statements raise “serious questions about her fitness to teach a course on human rights”. Yet OUTlaw also notes Dr Thio’s contribution to the field of academia and to her being “a fierce defender of minority rights”.

At the same time, OUTlaw has urged the law faculty to issue a statement to condemn Dr Thio’s comments in parliament and reassert the faculty’s commitment to diversity. However, the Board hopes to engage in “respectful and productive dialogue about the boundaries of human rights” instead of fighting Dr Thio’s offensive views by silencing her.

Meanwhile Ms Pasqual has through her Facebook note urged “any self-respecting NYU student” to question the appointment of Dr Thio by writing in to the Vice Deans of the faculty.

“I hope you will question this appointment of someone who openly supports the criminalisation of gay people, who professes to be an expert in the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) but fails to practise what it preaches, and who uses her evangelical beliefs to colour her application of the law,” Ms Pasqual wrote.

Ms Pasqual also highlighted Dr Thio’s mother Dr Thio Su Mien’s as the “mastermind” of the failed “coup” at AWARE.

Calling Dr Thio’s appointment an oxymoron, Ms Pasqual said that one could not be a good human rights lawyer while espousing the opposite of what human rights are about.

“As I said she also professes to be an expert on CEDAW. And one of the key elements of CEDAW is to ensure that countries’ constitutions adequately reflect the rights of people, including women and gay people,” Ms Pasqual said.

A lively exchange ensued over Ms Pasqual’s Facebook note. Nick Lum was one who defended NYU’s move. He argued that Dr Thio’s appointment was made possible because institutions in the United States favour a variety of dissenting views, arguments and perspectives to allow students to have a “full flavour” and understanding of different perspectives.

Mr Lum wrote: “To be fair, Dr Thio is a rather known human rights lawyer. It is only the one point on homosexuality that she allows her religion to cloud her rationality.”

He later added that it would be better to challenge Dr Thio’s faith rather than her credentials during her lectures so that she would be “able to see the light and contradictions in her actions”.

Tris Xavier, 25, doing a law pupillage said: “Dr Thio might be the closest thing we have to a constitutional law advocate in Singapore. Her view on constitutionalism comes the closest to the US view on it.”

Mr Xavier told Ms Pasqual: “I’d advise you to alternatively not allow your view of her religion-imposing, wrong as she was, to colour your view of her teachings.”

When queried by The Online Citizen over Dr Thio’s appointment, Jason Casell, Public Affairs Officer, School of Law, said that Dr Thio had been selected for the appointment based on her published academic scholarship, and not on the basis of her parliamentary statements in her capacity as an NMP.

“We believe that she will make a valuable contribution to our Global classroom and to intellectual life of the law school when she is here this fall,” Mr Casell said.

Noting that the Law school has a long record of opposing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and for being supportive of the GLBT community, Ms Casell believes that there will be members of the faculty, staff and student body who will disagree with Dr Thio over the content of her speech.

“We expect a dynamic exchange on these issues. This is what makes institutions of higher learning so indispensable to our society — the ability to provide a forum for these kinds of exchanges,” he added.

Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, said that he would not advise NYU to rescind the invitation to Thio to teach there. But he said that it would be legitimate to raise questions about whether she should be teaching human rights.

“Academic freedom protects you from retaliation for your extramural remarks, but it does not protect you from being prohibited from teaching in an area where you are not professionally competent, and there are doubts on whether she has the competency in human rights,” Nelson said. He said that there is in fact an “international consensus, save a few countries like Iran” that gay people should not be treated as criminals

Click on the link to find out more:D

She wrote a freaking paper on human rights law in Asia.... How on god green earth does that make her competent to teach human rights? Its memorising legal codes and regurigating them on a piece of paper.

This is the same legal politician, who abused defamation laws during S337a, showed she has no grasp of how threats and assault is legally framed, has legally defamed others, has not been involved in any human rights minority group work, has not addressed the current minority issues in Singapore, has not voiced out on human rights abuses in Singapore, has denied freedom of speech ahd supports discrimination against a sexual minority.....

[Darth Wong]

You've gotta love that "OK, she's a bigoted fucktard, but only on one issue which happens to be currently prominent in American politics" argument.

[Samuel]

institutions in the United States favour a variety of dissenting views, arguments and perspectives to allow students to have a “full flavour” and understanding of different perspectives.

Apparently students are considered too stupid to be aware of what is going on in the society around them.

He later added that it would be better to challenge Dr Thio’s faith rather than her credentials during her lectures so that she would be “able to see the light and contradictions in her actions”.

Because no one has done this before. Ever. Even though as a politician she had to deal with the opposing view point.

Tris Xavier, 25, doing a law pupillage said: “Dr Thio might be the closest thing we have to a constitutional law advocate in Singapore. Her view on constitutionalism comes the closest to the US view on it.”

That isn't a good thing.

Mr Xavier told Ms Pasqual: “I’d advise you to alternatively not allow your view of her religion-imposing, wrong as she was, to colour your view of her teachings.”

Do not allow the fact she is a bigot to affect how you view everything else she says...

the ability to provide a forum for these kinds of exchanges

Which is why we have Creationists in the biology department.

Here is the link to the transcript of her speech...

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/377 ... io-li-ann/

The ‘liberal’ camp wants 377A repealed. They offer an ‘argument from consent’ –government should not police the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty or ‘privacy’. They ask, ‘Why criminalize something which does not “harm” anyone; if homosexuals are “born that way”, isn’t it unkind to ‘discriminate’ against their sexual practices?

... I thought I was totalitarian, but this takes the cake.

Also, the comments on the page you link spirial out of control really quickly.

Dammit, sometimes I wish the "Finish them!" icon could be used in real life.

[PainRack]

Just another reminder of how Thio abuses human rights.... I'm sure the Un declearation of human rights include free speech, and that includes the power of the press.

journalists must be RESPONSIBLE

Nominated MP Thio Li-Ann devoted a portion (about 15%) of her speech in Parliament to criticising The Straits Times – without naming the paper – for its coverage of the recent AWARE controversy. Ms Thio's mother, Thio Su-Mien, played a leading role in the unsuccessful takeover of AWARE.*

When it comes to moral disagreements and public policy, the press is powerfully positioned to promote informed debate. However the press may, by biased and selective reporting, misrepresent, distort or obscure an issue. We need to broaden our understanding of responsible journalism in Singapore, which, to borrow a canine metaphor, rejects the extremes of an adversarial American watchdog and a Pravda-like lapdog, or running-dog. The Singapore press is expected to promote nation-building, help forge consensus and facilitate consultative democracy.

Journalists are entitled, like all citizens, to have their own opinions; however, they do a disservice if they report contentious issues in a one-sided fashion. This misinforms rather than informs. The principle must always be to hear both sides, canvass all perspectives.

The feedback I received from friends and strangers on the reporting of the AWARE controversy, which was disquieting enough for the President to reference, was that much of the reporting, particularly in one paper, was biased; it largely lacked a diversity of views in singing the same chorus that religious groups should not get involved in secular organizations. Emails I received described how many perceived some reporting as being “slanted”, “personal and spiteful”, “too smug”, “self-righteous” and “irresponsible.” Some spoke of their new lists of “fair” and “unfair” journalists.

The proper limits of religious activism is certainly a valid issue that arose, but there were other issues, such as whether a religious group was involved, as opposed to individuals with a religious faith. Another interesting enquiry would be whether it was really a debate about values rather than religious overstepping. Any attention given to this issue was strangely subdued.

It was hard to shake the impression that certain journalists were playing the ‘I don’t like your views so I will play the religionists are imposing their values card.’ This was very disappointing. When is a reporter reporting, and when playing an advocate? We do not want to arrive at the place where, as Mark Twain put it: If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.

Today published an insightful online letter on May 5 which fairly commented that the biased reporting not only distorted the issue but may have lent fuel to fire in inciting hatred and ill-will against a religious minority. The author wondered whether the “highly inappropriate” linking of personalities to their “personal religious beliefs” exacerbated “the tension that led to death threats and call for boycott.” He called for the censure of “such lines of reporting that incite religious intolerance, by speculating one’s motive based on personal faith” Irresponsible reporting can threaten social harmony and undermine social cohesion. How is journalistic autonomy, integrity and accountability to be secured?

Responsible journalism should extend to covering a diversity of views, not a journalist’s preferred view. It should include the accurate and most effective representation of differing viewpoints, and not paint the fringe as mainstream or the pathological as normal. Readers may then see all sides of an issue and decide what is true, accurate and sound, in the spirit of participatory democracy.

This is important given the near monopolistic position of Singapore broadsheets. A lawyer recently returned from London wrote to me expressing horror in finding local papers apparently had nothing better to report than the AWARE saga, as opposed to the more interesting British papers which offered a lot more variety.

This made me somewhat nostalgic for my student days in Cambridge, where I could, with chocolate croissant and Nescafe coffee in hand, survey a range of perspectives from the Times, Guardian, Independent or Telegraph.

Because Today, Straits Times, the internet blogs, the government portal/forum all somehow censored Christian speech. The press are obviously biased, because Josie and Dana lam didn't bother releasing ANY press release, a conference or whatever to address their stance or clarifying what happened at AWARE. They deliberately enacted a policy of silence, including the parent church which went quite after the remarks by the pastor became public....... obviously, the press mafia silenced them.

Oh wait, that was the prepared speech. Here's the live one in Parliament.

http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/28/r ... lar-state/
IN A recent interview, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng reiterated that religion and politics must not be mixed. This is sound, though there are difficulties of definition as no bright line demarcates ‘religion’ from ‘politics’. We need to understand what ’secularism’ entails in Singapore for more specific guidance.

A state’s attitude towards religion turns upon its model of constitutional secularism. ‘Secularism’ is a protean, chameleon-like term: what it means depends on the context and who is using it; it can be a virtue or a vice. It is timely to eschew glibness and examine the Singapore model of secularism with precision.

There are in fact many secularisms or degrees of secularity. This complex term needs to be unpacked.

Historically, ’secularism’ originates from the Latin ’saeculum’, meaning ‘temporal’, worldly affairs, rather than ’spiritual’, other-worldly matters. The word ’secular’ is an emblem of intense historical conflict.

Today, in some circles, ’secularism’ connotes systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction. The atheistic word was made flesh in the atheistic state produced by the Russian Revolution of 1917, devoted to Marx’s assumption that religion stupefies the masses and must be eradicated to bring forth the new Communist Man.

The principle of secularity dates back to the Roman Empire. It derived from the teaching of Jesus to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’. This principle of limited government opposed state absolutism in suggesting Caesar did not wield absolute authority: While a citizen was to obey civil authority, he was to enjoy freedom from state interference in matters pertaining to the worship of God. Religious liberty thus limits state power. America first experimented constitutionally with dividing sacred from secular authority, rejecting the European conflation of civil and religious power.

Senior Minister of State Zainul Abidin Rasheed described Singapore secularism as ’secularism with a soul’. This deft juxtaposing of the material and the metaphysical speaks to the cooperative relation between state and religion.

The Constitution does not forbid the state to lend financial or other support to a religion; thus we have the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore as a statutory government body serving the Muslim community.

In 1989, Foreign Minister George Yeo observed the Government was ’secular but it is certainly not atheistic’. This evinces a rejection of a thick, atheistic version of secularism.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view. Some courts recognise it as a religion. It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence. We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.

It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine. As Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol wrote: ‘It is the atheist’s opium to regard that unsubstantiated faith as established fact.’ Thick secularism is thus an anti-religion religion.

Secular democracies should be neutral not only between traditional religions but also regarding modern religions with atheistic foundations.

What is the situation in Singapore? DPM Wong emphasised the secular nature of the political arena and how keeping ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ separate was a key rule of political engagement.

What this means specifically is that laws and policies derive their legitimacy not from divine sanction but from a democratically elected government. Law generally applies to and equally protects all citizens, regardless of race, religion or social status. Clearly, the Singapore model of secularism is anti-theocratic in that religious tenets and secular law are separated, not conflated.

While anti-theocratic, the Singapore secularism is not anti-religious. This is a vital distinction.

DPM Wong welcomed the public service of individuals inspired by their religious convictions; they also ’set’ society’s ‘moral tone’. He affirmed that religious individuals had the same right as other citizens to ‘express their views on issues in the public space’ guided by their beliefs.

Religion is thus separated from politics, but, religion is not separated from public life and culture. Everyone has values, whether shaped by religious or secular ideologies; all may participate in public discourse to forge an ethical social consensus. While religion is personal, it is not exclusively private and has a social dimension which is not to be trivialised.

Thus, Singapore secularism is ‘agnostic’ and ‘thin’. The Government does not favour or disfavour any particular religion. We practise ‘accommodative secularism’ described by the Court of Appeal as removing restrictions to one’s choice of religious belief. Religious values do have a role in public debate.

Agnostic secularism of this sort is a virtue; it is a ‘framework’ which facilitates the peaceful co-existence of religions.

Conversely, militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states.

Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious.

Militant exclusionist secularism is thus a recipe for social disharmony; it feeds the ‘culture wars’ in the US and provokes those it seeks to exclude. It will not promote unity in diversity.

When it comes to moral disagreements and public policy, the press is powerfully positioned to promote informed debate. However the press may, by biased and selective reporting, misrepresent, distort or obscure an issue. We need to broaden our understanding of responsible journalism in Singapore, which rejects the extremes of an adversarial American watchdog and a Pravda-like lapdog, or running dog.

The feedback I received from friends and strangers on the reporting of the Aware controversy was that much of the reporting, particularly in one paper, was biased. It largely lacked a diversity of views in singing the same chorus that religious groups should not get involved in secular organisations. Some spoke of their new lists of ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ journalists.

Responsible journalism should extend to covering a diversity of views, not a journalist’s preferred view. It should include the accurate representation of differing viewpoints, and not paint the fringe as mainstream or the pathological as normal. Readers may then see all sides of an issue and decide what is true.

This is important given the near monopolistic position of Singapore broadsheets. A lawyer recently returned from London wrote to me expressing horror in finding local papers apparently had nothing better to report than the Aware saga, as opposed to the more interesting British papers which offered a lot more variety.

This made me somewhat nostalgic for my student days in Cambridge, where I could, with chocolate croissant and Nescafe coffee in hand, survey a range of perspectives from The Times, Guardian, Independent or Telegraph

So now, its the fact that we radical liberals are attacking and preventing the freedom of speech of christian minorities.
Right, the fact that you sought to censor, defame and attack liberal speech during 377a is somehow proof that the liberal press sought to censor your Christian values.Nevermind that the press actually didn't bothering researching into your death threat statement back then, and your own legal colleagues gotcha you on the legal meaning of defamanation.

And of course, being more intelligent now, Dana and Josie, along with your mum has refused to conduct legal proceedings on said death threat issuers now. Geez, is it plausible that you learnt from the past, it actually served your nefarious views to not publicise the real statements? Afterall, the death threats you condemned 2 years ago was nothing more than just foul language directed at you, granted, not an exemplar conduct of well breeding, but how different is it from your attacks against the sexually immoral and perverse?

[PainRack]

oops. Wrong statement at the back. What I meant was the initation of legal proceedings...... without telling the press the identity of who did it this time, leaving it an annoymous tip.

Also, multiple statements, from a militant gay jihadist........ Right.

[Samuel]

Wow.

The Singapore press is expected to promote nation-building, help forge consensus and facilitate consultative democracy.

Translation- shut up and do as your told.

Today published an insightful online letter on May 5 which fairly commented that the biased reporting not only distorted the issue but may have lent fuel to fire in inciting hatred and ill-will against a religious minority.

The irony is painful. I guess only when you are the minority do you care about discrimination- otherwise it is fun to be the oppressor.

Today, in some circles, ’secularism’ connotes systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction.

That is known as antitheism, but dictionaries are probably considered tools of the evil atheists.

The atheistic word was made flesh in the atheistic state produced by the Russian Revolution of 1917, devoted to Marx’s assumption that religion stupefies the masses and must be eradicated to bring forth the new Communist Man.

Which is why the USSR never eradicated religion. Only Albania and North Korea went down that path- the first getting rid of all faiths, the second creating its own and making it mandatory.

The principle of secularity dates back to the Roman Empire. It derived from the teaching of Jesus to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’.

False. The Church routinely was intertwined with the state long afterwards. We only had secular government... maybe the Netherlands was the first in Western history? Thanas probably has the answer although it is probably alot more complicated.

This principle of limited government opposed state absolutism in suggesting Caesar did not wield absolute authority: While a citizen was to obey civil authority, he was to enjoy freedom from state interference in matters pertaining to the worship of God.

Nope. That isn't what it says. It was a responce to a persons question about taxes, not a declaration aimed at government.

Religious liberty thus limits state power.

This statement is disengious. Sure it does... as does having independent nobles, a weak central government, a free press or a host of other things. There is nothing particularly unique about having an institution with special priviledges.

The Constitution does not forbid the state to lend financial or other support to a religion; thus we have the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore as a statutory government body serving the Muslim community.

So Singapore is okay with funding and backing religions. Isn't that... bad? You are taking money from the non-religious and giving it to the faithful. It mean it directly ties religion to politics AND fighting over what is a religion and what isn't.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view.

Technically the last part is false.

It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence. We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.

Copy/Paste

Lack of evidence is a valid reason to reject a claim. It IS possible to prove a universal negative when, if the proposition was true, we would have evidence of it. Additionally, there is no reason to hold onto beliefs that are unfalsible- the individual is merely claiming that they don't have to show why they are holding their belief in the first place, which is a violation of the burden of proof.

It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine.

Butchering the meaning of the word faith...

Conversely, militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states.

Yeah, telling people they are full of shit is the very essential core of RED COMMUNISM!

Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious.

Translation- telling people that they have no reason to hold a view and that such views hurt innocent people is less important than making me feel good. Which is ironic since we oppose drugs because making people feel good is not a valid reason.

Militant exclusionist secularism is thus a recipe for social disharmony; it feeds the ‘culture wars’ in the US

Atheists- responsible for the American culture wars.

How did this women get this post? How was she considered vaguely competant to teach?

[PainRack]

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/dr_li-an ... nyu_la.php

And so it ends........ amidst hilarity as usual.

Any new updates on the "gay agenda"? The taking over of the world and corruption of marriage, societies and moral values is still scheduled before Ugly Betty, right?

Frankly.... I would find her depiction of the context of Singapore society laughable, if it wasn't for the fact that this IS what many would like it to be.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is this supposed to be a big surprise with regards to this woman? Her daughter, or was it her herself (personally I don't give a shit since both are fucktards) tried to engineer a coup in one of the more liberal minded organisations in Singapore, and she gave that fucking fire and brimstone speech in parliament. If anything, there is some degree of support for her views within the government, and within the PAP even if it is not publicly disclosed or showed.

And the Straits Times? Hah! I have stopped reading it for years, beyond just glancing the headlines. Filthy piece of trash if you ask me.

[PainRack]

Is this supposed to be a big surprise with regards to this woman? Her daughter, or was it her herself (personally I don't give a shit since both are fucktards) tried to engineer a coup in one of the more liberal minded organisations in Singapore, and she gave that fucking fire and brimstone speech in parliament. If anything, there is some degree of support for her views within the government, and within the PAP even if it is not publicly disclosed or showed.

And the Straits Times? Hah! I have stopped reading it for years, beyond just glancing the headlines. Filthy piece of trash if you ask me.

Actually, its her mum.

As for the Straits Times.... I was actually pleasantly surprised to find out that it was the ST which first broke the story on the infiltration of AWARE, followed up rapidly by bloggers.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is this supposed to be a big surprise with regards to this woman? Her daughter, or was it her herself (personally I don't give a shit since both are fucktards) tried to engineer a coup in one of the more liberal minded organisations in Singapore, and she gave that fucking fire and brimstone speech in parliament. If anything, there is some degree of support for her views within the government, and within the PAP even if it is not publicly disclosed or showed.

And the Straits Times? Hah! I have stopped reading it for years, beyond just glancing the headlines. Filthy piece of trash if you ask me.

Actually, its her mum.

As for the Straits Times.... I was actually pleasantly surprised to find out that it was the ST which first broke the story on the infiltration of AWARE, followed up rapidly by bloggers.

That's because they crossed one of the "no no"s. Though the number of Christian fundies have risen over the years, and lots of MPs are from the Protestant bunch (which actually says a lot since a good number were drawn from the GLCs), getting too assertive via religion will raise alarm bells with say the senior levels of the PAP, and with the ISB.

[ray245]

Is this supposed to be a big surprise with regards to this woman? Her daughter, or was it her herself (personally I don't give a shit since both are fucktards) tried to engineer a coup in one of the more liberal minded organisations in Singapore, and she gave that fucking fire and brimstone speech in parliament. If anything, there is some degree of support for her views within the government, and within the PAP even if it is not publicly disclosed or showed.

I'm more surprised that there is actually some form of opposition against her within the PAP.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm more surprised that there is actually some form of opposition against her within the PAP.

She crossed one of the invisible boundaries the PAP set. One of those "markers". I doubt the "opposition" is universal.

[PainRack]

That's because they crossed one of the "no no"s. Though the number of Christian fundies have risen over the years, and lots of MPs are from the Protestant bunch (which actually says a lot since a good number were drawn from the GLCs), getting too assertive via religion will raise alarm bells with say the senior levels of the PAP, and with the ISB.

Errr..... No. If you have any inkling about the Straits Times editorial policy, you would have known that they're EXTREMELY tolerant of this right wing fundie bullshit. The very fact that their writer was one of the first to break the story and follow up on this successfully IS amazing.

Just look at George Lim now, and the edited responses to his bullshit Forum letter. Or alternatively, we can point to the old "death threat" letter Thio received back then, and how the ST essentially shat on the liberal viewpoint.

[ray245]

That's because they crossed one of the "no no"s. Though the number of Christian fundies have risen over the years, and lots of MPs are from the Protestant bunch (which actually says a lot since a good number were drawn from the GLCs), getting too assertive via religion will raise alarm bells with say the senior levels of the PAP, and with the ISB.

Errr..... No. If you have any inkling about the Straits Times editorial policy, you would have known that they're EXTREMELY tolerant of this right wing fundie bullshit. The very fact that their writer was one of the first to break the story and follow up on this successfully IS amazing.

Just look at George Lim now, and the edited responses to his bullshit Forum letter. Or alternatively, we can point to the old "death threat" letter Thio received back then, and how the ST essentially shat on the liberal viewpoint.

I wonder if this can be taken as an indication that the "liberal" wing within ST is slowly gaining influence.

However, I doubt this is the case.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That's because they crossed one of the "no no"s. Though the number of Christian fundies have risen over the years, and lots of MPs are from the Protestant bunch (which actually says a lot since a good number were drawn from the GLCs), getting too assertive via religion will raise alarm bells with say the senior levels of the PAP, and with the ISB.

Errr..... No. If you have any inkling about the Straits Times editorial policy, you would have known that they're EXTREMELY tolerant of this right wing fundie bullshit. The very fact that their writer was one of the first to break the story and follow up on this successfully IS amazing.

Just look at George Lim now, and the edited responses to his bullshit Forum letter. Or alternatively, we can point to the old "death threat" letter Thio received back then, and how the ST essentially shat on the liberal viewpoint.

I think you understating the Government's use of the Straits Times as a motivator, while also tolerating fundie views. The Straits Times was in some ways used as a motivator for opposition to the fundie infiltration for AWARE, where it went in and dug up lots of garbage. The Government is in some ways extremely tolerant and supportive of certain fundie views, but the idea that religion be used as a chief motivator to mount a hostile take over of an organisation set down a precedent which they could not abide, which is that religion is used as a vehicle to espouse views and take over organisations. The Government probably doesn't fancy AWARE's extremely liberal slant anyhow, and it was also some kind of house cleaning operation when it nipped some of AWARE's rather liberal programs.

I wonder if this can be taken as an indication that the "liberal" wing within ST is slowly gaining influence.

However, I doubt this is the case.

If the rumors are true, and I stress this, some of ST's chief editors are former ISB.

[PainRack]

I think you understating the Government's use of the Straits Times as a motivator, while also tolerating fundie views. The Straits Times was in some ways used as a motivator for opposition to the fundie infiltration for AWARE, where it went in and dug up lots of garbage. The Government is in some ways extremely tolerant and supportive of certain fundie views, but the idea that religion be used as a chief motivator to mount a hostile take over of an organisation set down a precedent which they could not abide, which is that religion is used as a vehicle to espouse views and take over organisations. The Government probably doesn't fancy AWARE's extremely liberal slant anyhow, and it was also some kind of house cleaning operation when it nipped some of AWARE's rather liberal programs.

You're also severely over-estimating the effective response of the ruling powers in this. If their goal WAS to shut down religious opportunism in favour of preserving the political elite powers, pray tell why the official response took over a month and was essentially nothing more than shutting the door after it has bolted?

And of course, had essentially caved in to said fundie demands while insisting that fundies should had no political powers whatsoever? A much more effective response would had been to ask that national church association to step in and block said pastor movement immediately, rather than waiting a month AFTER counter-measures had been taken to counteract AWARE take-over.

[PainRack]

Necro....

This is what politician/lawyer mum has said and done before.

Last February, a USSPN Washington Regional Coordinator was present during a report given by an international lawyer from Singapore, Thio Su Mien (Su), who is gifted in prophetic intercession and healing. She shared about some of the things going on in the area of Indonesia before the tsunami.

She explained how the SARS virus hit Singapore a year prior to the earthquake/tsunami. The Lord alerted the intercessors and told them that if they did not get on their faces and repent on behalf of their nation's involvement in abortion as the contraceptive of choice, that the land would suffer from His hand of judgment.
Because they saw how devastating the SARS virus had been, the intercessors immediately took action to seek His mercy and forgiveness. Singapore was not touched by the earthquake disaster. The Malaysian intercessors joined them in diligent prayer and also opened healing rooms in Kuala Lampur. The area on the Northern Coast of Malaysia was hit hard. There are amazing stories of God's grace and mercy in saving souls and lives there.

It was the prayers of the intercessors that had saved the disaster from affecting an even larger area. She emphasized that the intercessors crying out with repentance and asking for mercy, along with declarations of the Word of God over the land (both written and rhema), released the curse upon the land and the people were spared. It was a plea for intercessors to step up to the plate and continue to press into God for mercy from judgment coming.

http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display ... ml?ID=2997

All hail lawyer, activist and female mentor!
No wonder she says women should respect her. Why, if it wasn't for her and her stance against abortion, the WORLD would had been swamped with SARs and our small little port destroyed by the Tsunami.

[Samuel]

Wow. Truly a modern day Constantine. It is a wonder she doesn't insist in public that sodomy should be banned because everyone knows it calls down the wrath of the Almighty.

[ray245]

All hail lawyer, activist and female mentor!
No wonder she says women should respect her. Why, if it wasn't for her and her stance against abortion, the WORLD would had been swamped with SARs and our small little port destroyed by the Tsunami.

Arg, why are we allowing these kind of religious nut jobs to rise to a position of power? Hell, Chrisitans are a minority in our nation.

If only our courts would to slam her down with some sort of anti-religious equality laws.

[PainRack]

Arg, why are we allowing these kind of religious nut jobs to rise to a position of power? Hell, Chrisitans are a minority in our nation.

If only our courts would to slam her down with some sort of anti-religious equality laws.

NMPs aren't in positions of power. They're wayang sikat roles that allow the theatre of democracy:D

[ray245]

Arg, why are we allowing these kind of religious nut jobs to rise to a position of power? Hell, Chrisitans are a minority in our nation.

If only our courts would to slam her down with some sort of anti-religious equality laws.

NMPs aren't in positions of power. They're wayang sikat roles that allow the theatre of democracy:D

At the least show some standards in selecting the NMPs.