Quote 1:
"The rules are all clear and one assumes that they will act according to the law and to their own internal constitution. I think it's premature to comment on what we might or might not do. We don't really get involved in this. It is for the members to sort it out."
-Law Minister K Shanmugam |  |
Quote 2:
Speaking after a ministerial visit to Nee Soon South, Dr Balakrishnan prefaced his remarks by stressing that the Government would not be getting involved 'at this point in time'.
Saying the dispute is 'not a national problem', he added: 'This is a problem they (Aware) have to solve themselves. Let me state categorically that at this point in time, the Government has no intention of intervening.
'Let them settle this democratically, according to their own rules, abiding with their constitution.'
- Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports |  |
Quote 3:
"There will always be some issues where you cannot get everybody to agree. We need to be able to learn to live and let live, to agree to disagree, and to do so agreeably. But don't let these single issues polarise or divide us and become the be-all and end-all of your social activism or your organisation."
- Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports | |
Quote 4:
'I think our leaders have spoken. We should just leave it to the members to decide. They are going to have an EGM. That will be a time for them to decide what's the direction for the society.'
- Ms Grace Fu, Senior Minister of State for National Development and Education, on the Aware saga. |  |
Quote 5:
"Know that other people have other points of view, that if you push your argument too hard, there will always be others who push back. So if we want to avoid that situation, we should operate in Singapore in a way that is respectful and tolerant of others' views."
- Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean |  |
Quote 6
'Members have to and usually do resolve these differences themselves,' she said. 'This is not a national dispute and should not upset the balance and tenor of our open, tolerant and secular society. Neither should Aware members allow these disagreements to become a vehicle for views on contentious, divisive issues to be pushed aggressively. This would polarise our society and have a very adverse effect on our social fabric.'
- Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office |  |
If any leaders cannot differentiate themselves with their own belief system, they are not fit to be leaders. :D
2. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person
There are many bigots in any one society. Some bigots cause more harm then others.
An isolated bigot, one with no contact with others would normally do no harm.
A bigot who is a parent will normally pass on their bigotry to their children. So if he/she have more children, then more harm may result.
An idiot who is also a bigot normally would not do much harm. Because others will recognise their idiocy as such and ignore most of what they say.
An educated bigot probably does more harm. He/She would hold a job in an organization but still she will hide her bigotry because she would worry how others view her, .....
no matter what the view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance. Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue.
As fellow Singaporeans, and residents of Singapore, we have the responsibility to live peaceably with one another. We also have the responsibility to present our views and defend them strongly for the sake of our nation. Tolerance cannot be used by the minority to hold the majority ransom. The love for, and the acceptance of, the person is not in question.
âMost of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult--"you intolerant bigot"--than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. "Tolerance" has become intolerance.â
In relating with people and points of view, Peter Kreeft of Boston College wrote,
âBe egalitarian regarding persons.
Be elitist regarding ideas.â
Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false. True tolerance requires that every person be treated courteously with the freedom to express his ideas without fear of reprisal no matter what .....
The AWARE saga has opened the door to a discussion on tolerance in issues, ideas and morals in a pluralistic society like ours. I would like to touch on a point pertinent to this discussion.
In today's relativistic environment, pluralism no longer means tolerating competing ideas, but rather forced neutrality: no one should express any idea that could offend another. Author Gary Phillips said that the objective of dialogues today is "no longer a search for any kind of normative truth, but an exercise in social healing for marginalized groups.
We need to make the case for real tolerance in Singapore so that we can be truly aware (pun intended) of the pitfalls present here. For this, I would like to quote Gregory Kouki (The Intolerance of Tolerance, 2006 Townhall):
âMost .....
"AWARE has lost focus"- by new exco, by any definition is a direct clash to their beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, hence there is a need to "fix" this clash in their beliefs by instigating .....