We Are Aware » Archives

Rawkin’

admin — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:34:11 +0000

Thanks for letting us have a bit of fun for the last two days… sorry if you missed it!

How ST covered the story

admin — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:52:19 +0000

Archived
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_383613.html

May 30, 2009
AWARE SAGA

How ST covered the story
ST’s editor answers critics of this newspaper’s reporting of events
By Han Fook Kwang, Editor

The recent leadership tussle at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) sparked a divisive debate on issues such as religion and homosexuality.

I HAD been reluctant to write this piece defending The Straits Times’ coverage of the Aware saga. Some of my colleagues had wanted the paper to put out its side of the story in the face of criticisms over how we covered the saga. But I wasn’t keen to make the paper the focus of this long-running debate, for I’ve always felt that newspapers shouldn’t be active players in the stories they cover. Our job is to report accurately and fairly what is happening and to make sense of it for our readers so they can draw their own conclusions. However, critics have assailed us over these very issues, and I have little choice now but to set out the facts concerning our coverage after two MPs spoke about it in Parliament this week.

On Tuesday, Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann said that reporting on the saga had been biased and lacked a diversity of views. She did not name The Straits Times but everyone listening to her would have concluded that she was referring to this newspaper.

Were we biased and one-sided in our coverage? This is best answered by detailing how we covered the story.

Many have forgotten how this story began. Aware held its annual general meeting (AGM) on March28, and for almost three weeks few knew that the group’s leadership had changed in a dramatic fashion that day. The old guard team who were tossed out did not announce it. The new president, Mrs Claire Nazar, and her team were silent. It was only on April6 that The Straits Times was tipped off that something unusual had happened at Aware and we began work on the story. Our first report did not appear until April10, because for most of that week we had tried hard to confirm with both sides – the old guard and the new – what had happened.

Founder members and old guard leaders of Aware spoke to us. They confirmed that the election had taken place legitimately and according to Aware rules, which allowed brand new members to seek leadership positions right away. They were distraught, not at seeing their preferred list of candidates lose the election, but at the manner in which the new team moved in. Their account was that the majority of the 102 people who attended the AGM comprised new members who had joined in recent months. Most were unknown, and most stayed silent during the AGM. When it was clear that the new members were contesting executive council positions with the intention of taking over the organisation, older members tried to ask them who they were but received few clear answers.

We were faced with a curious situation. Here was a new team of women who had contested and taken over Aware. Yet, three weeks after they had taken charge of this well-known group, they remained unwilling to explain who they were, why they had acted and what they intended to do with Aware. These are basic questions that any group which takes over a society, grassroots organisation, union, clan or country club should expect to be asked if it pulls off as successful a leadership grab as this appeared to be.

In the days before our first report appeared, our reporters tried hard to reach members of the new leadership. We were willing to report whatever they had to say, but our reporters were stonewalled by everyone they reached. Ms Jenica Chua confirmed she was in the committee but refused to speak. Repeated calls to Ms Josie Lau and Ms Lois Ng were not successful. Ms Lau’s husband, Dr Alan Chin, had joined Aware as an affiliate member and had been present at the AGM, but he too would not speak to our reporter. Even the new president, Mrs Nazar, refused to say anything until the day she confirmed that she had resigned after just 11 days at the helm.

More than once, those approached in the new team asked for a set of questions to be sent to them in writing by e-mail. Our reporters obliged, only to receive no answers by e-mail and no face-to-face interview either.

After Ms Lau was appointed president, The Straits Times continued to hope that Aware’s new leadership would see fit to open up about themselves and their plans. Attempts to reach individual exco members failed as everyone insisted that only the president was authorised to speak to the media. Yet Ms Lau did not make herself available either, despite numerous attempts to reach her by telephone, e-mail and text message. Instead, she chose to make her first public statements on a television current affairs programme. The Straits Times reported what she said there.

Those who accuse us of being one-sided in our reporting in the first two weeks after the story broke are right in a way. But it was not because we deliberately sought to shut out the views of the new group while providing the old guard space in this newspaper. The new leadership was often absent in our pages because they chose to remain silent, for reasons best known to themselves.

It was not until April23 – almost a month after the Aware AGM – that Ms Lau and some members of her team finally decided to open up at a press conference. The Straits Times sent a team of reporters and covered it comprehensively with reports on Page1 as well as in the inside pages.

Some have criticised our extensive coverage of this story and wondered why our reporting was so ‘breathless’. There are many reasons. As this story played out, we witnessed some highly unusual twists. Aside from the leadership change, Aware’s new president resigned within a fortnight. Her replacement, Ms Lau, was criticised publicly by her employer, DBS Bank, for taking office. The Straits Times was prepared to give the new team as much space as we had given the old group, and more if necessary, to answer all those questions which had been on everyone’s mind: Who were they, why did they take over Aware in the manner they did, and what did they hope to achieve?

It was only at that April23 press conference that senior lawyer Thio Su Mien revealed herself as the mentor of the women who had taken over Aware, and made several comments explaining why she felt Aware needed fixing. We reported that press conference extensively, and followed up by running extracts of what Dr Thio and others said, as well as their answers to additional questions our journalists put to them. We had maintained throughout that The Straits Times was prepared to run what the new leadership said, and we did so, in the interests of providing balance in our coverage so readers could better judge the merits of the arguments.

Our readers are not always aware of the work journalists do behind the scenes to try to present reports that are factual and objective, or the lengths to which we go to persuade those who are unwilling to speak to engage with the media and open up. It was certainly not for lack of trying on our part that the views of the new team led by Ms Lau and her supporters did not appear more often in our pages, especially in the early stages.

Mr Sin Boon Ann, in his speech in Parliament on Wednesday, accused the press of ‘framing this episode as one that carries a religious undertone’ and, in the process, polarising Singapore society. We should again let the facts speak for themselves. From the outset, we wanted to find out more about the new group, but because they were not willing to speak, we had to do our own research. Our checks showed one common link initially: several members of the new group had written letters to the press expressing concern about the perils of promoting a homosexual lifestyle in Singapore. We subsequently also found out that several of them belonged to the same Anglican Church of Our Saviour. We reported these factually.

Were we wrong to have highlighted those links? The April23 press conference confirmed what The Straits Times had reported. Dr Thio, who also attends the same church, revealed that she began monitoring Aware’s affairs about a year ago because she was disturbed by what she saw as signs that it was promoting lesbianism and homosexuality. She then began urging women she knew – including many in her church circle – to challenge what she perceived to be Aware’s attempts to redefine marriage and families.

What of the ‘religious undertones’ which Mr Sin accused the press of promoting in its coverage? This is totally mistaken, and akin to shooting the messenger. In fact, the strongest expressions of concern over this were not made by the press, but by various other parties.

As Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng observed in an interview with this paper: ‘The Government was worried about the disquieting public perception that a group of conservative Christians, all attending the same church, which held strong views on homosexuality had moved in and taken over Aware because they disapproved of what Aware had been doing. This caused many qualms among non-Christians, and also among Christians who believed that this was an unwise move in a multiracial, multi-religious society. It was much more dangerous because now, religion was also getting involved, and it was no longer just the issue of homosexuality.’

No higher authority in the Christian community than Anglican Archbishop John Chew of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a clear statement that the NCCS did not condone any church getting involved in the Aware dispute. Leaders of other religious faiths also put out statements to reinforce NCCS’ message.

Why did so many feel it necessary to speak out on the danger of mixing religion with politics in the Aware saga? It wasn’t the press which gave them the idea.

Was it because of what Senior Pastor Derek Hong of the Church of Our Saviour was reported to have said from the pulpit, urging his flock to support the then new exco in Aware? He had said:

‘It’s not a crusade against the people but there’s a line that God has drawn for us, and we don’t want our nation crossing that line.’ We leave it to readers to decide.

Far from The Straits Times raking the ground with an anti-religious agenda, we provided the available facts surrounding the makeup of the new group for readers to draw their own conclusions. Subsequent events showed that we were not barking up the wrong tree.

Mr Sin wondered if ‘the press would have been so quick on the take if it were women from another faith who took up the cause instead’.

He ought to know better than to use the religion card in this fashion. If Mr Sin is accusing The Straits Times of being in favour of some religions against others – a very serious accusation against a newspaper with 1.4million readers of every religious shade – he should substantiate his complaint.

I hope the facts I have set out above will help readers understand better our coverage of the Aware saga. Were we right in every aspect of our coverage? Of course not. Journalists are human, we make mistakes and we have our blind spots. Our record is that we are upfront about our errors and apologise for them promptly. Our internal processes, which involve several layers of editing and gate-keeping, ensure that individual reporters do not push their own agendas. We have also carried out our own internal review of our coverage and have found that we could have done better in several respects. For example, we should have pressed the old guard more on Aware’s school sexuality programme and the appropriateness of some of its content.

But I stand by the professionalism of our reporters. The personal attacks against the integrity of our journalists sadden me because they show the vindictiveness of our critics and the length to which they are prepared to go to attack our professionalism. In fact, there appears to be an organised campaign to discredit the media, with mass e-mail being sent, including to Reach, the government feedback portal.

The Straits Times has no hidden agenda to push this line or that, or to favour one group against another. On this story, as with others, we were driven by our desire to provide as much information to our readers as possible, in as timely a manner. That remains our primary objective.

Chronology of AWARE Saga

admin — Wed, 06 May 2009 22:24:56 +0000

Jan – March 2009: A sudden and unprecedented spike in AWARE membership.

Sat March 28: An unusually large turnout during the AWARE AGM (about 3 times bigger than normal, almost 80% are new members.

Newcomers defeat seasoned AWARE members to win 9 of 12 positions on the executive committee. Newcomers have no subcommittee experience. Claire Nazar, a member since January last year, was elected unopposed as president.

Wed April 8: Claire Nazar resigns as president, stating differences in decison to remove key sub-committee members and her disapproval of their “stormtrooper” tactics

Tues April 14: AWARE’s old guard leads 160 members in calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM).

Wed April 15: New Exco appoints DBS executive, Josie Lau, as new AWARE President. DBS issues a statement saying it does not support her taking up the post.

Thurs April 16: Two-time Aware President and former NMP Braema Mathi is told by e-mail she is no longer in charge of producing a key report on discrimination against women in Singapore for the UN.

Fri April 17: Josie Lau issues a statement questioning the motives of the old guard in calling for an EGM and asks if they harbour another agenda. Old guard issues a statement to say its motives and objectives have been fully visible the past 25 years.

Sat April 18: Veteran member and former president Constance Singam resigns as Aware’s adviser.

Sun April 19: Josie Lau refuses to be interviewed on TV together with Dana Lam, ex-President. She and Maureen Ong are subsequently interviewed on Talking Point (without Ms. Lam presence at the same interview).

Tues April 21: Campaign site http://www.we-are-aware.sg/ launched.

Thurs April 23: Introducing Dr Thio Su Mien, as their “feminist mentor”, new Exco claims AWARE has become single purpose organisation overly concerned with promoting lesbianism.

New Exco intentionally excludes current Honorary Treasurer Chew I-Jin (elected by old guards) from their news conference.
Current president Josie Lau claims she received death threats.
At the same time, New Exco changes locks at the office despite vote of no-confidence and upcoming EGM.
The centre’s manager, Schutz Lee, was fired without reason.

Fri April 24: The Old Guards holds a news conference addressing New Exco’s claims: the issue is not about whether the organisation has strayed from its original aims, but more about ensuring that there is space for diversity of views in society.

Sat May 2: Extraordinary General Meeting is scheduled.

ENP: The AWARE Volunteers

admin — Tue, 05 May 2009 08:28:19 +0000

OLD GUARD SAY VOLUNTEERS HELPED THEM TO VICTORY
‘Whatever you can think of, they did’
By Benson Ang
May 05, 2009

The following article appeared in the Electric New Paper on 5th May 2009.

ON SATURDAY, Ms Alex Serrenti, 35, got up at 5.15am, jumped on her motorcycle and rode to Suntec City.

She had a mission – she was there to ‘warm’ seats for someone at an event that was to start only seven hours later.

The teaching assistant was one of about 100 ‘white-shirt’ volunteers on the side of the former leadership of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) at its extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on Saturday.

They offered their services as legal advisors, social workers, seat-warmers, crowd-controllers, caterers, and even bodyguards for the old guard if the situation got out of hand.

These volunteers were the muscle behind the dramatic victory of the old guard, who wrestled back control of the feminist orgnisation from a group who had ousted them earlier this year.

The old guard did so by successfully passing a vote of no confidence in the new leaders, who then resigned.

Roughly two-thirds of the members at the EGM voted for the no-confidence motion.

Most of these volunteers were friends of the old guard, or concerned members of the public. Some were men.

Through their personal networks, they also called on others to chip in.

Amazing

Said veteran member Braema Mathi, 51: ‘The seat-warmers struck me the most. That kind of dedication… they were amazing.’

She added: ‘It’s a defining moment that people are willing to give so much of their time to do this type of job.’

She added that she felt there was so much goodwill around because people wanted to protect the secular state of Aware.

With fellow teaching assistant Ms Kamalini Ramdas, 36, Ms Serrenti headed the logistics team inside the auditorium.

By turning up early, she made sure that the old guard speakers had seats next to the microphones, and could speak easily.

When she was allowed to start queuing around 11am, she and 40 other seat-warmers were first in line.

During the meeting, Ms Serrenti was also actively involved in crowd-control, and tried to calm down the old guard supporters for the meeting to progress.

She was so busy that she did not have lunch, and only had dinner around 10pm, after the meeting was over.

Said Ms Serrenti: ‘It was never about us. It’s our responsibility to ensure safety for everyone.

‘Some of the old guard have spent their lives fighting for Aware. It would not have been fair if the logistics stopped them from defending their organisation.’

Although Ms Serrenti was in the final stages of her PhD, she said she ‘couldn’t not do anything’ because she had supported several students to go for Aware’s counselling services before, and was afraid these services would be affected under the new guard.

She had been an Aware member in 2001, but had let her membership lapse.

She claimed their team initially sent letters to the new guard seeking to co-ordinate the logistics in the auditorium together, but the latter was unresponsive.

It was then that their team thought of safety measures on their own.

Volunteers like her had been planning for about three weeks, meeting at the Women’s Initiative for Ageing Successfully, a venue they arranged through a founding member of Aware, Dr Kanwaljit Soin.

Money was tight – the old guard had only $10,000, from two anonymous donors.

Most of it was spent renting out the restaurant New York, New York for a day, so the old guard could have a place to organise themselves, and hold a press conference if their no-confidence vote failed.

When asked about the volunteers, newly-elected Aware president Dana Lam-Teo, 56, a writer, smiled.

She said: ‘They have given us the kind of quality service that no money can buy.’

She had never seen the We Are Aware website updated so speedily, and felt very supported because everything else was taken care of.

‘Whatever you can think of, they did,’ she said. ‘We had better organisation than the F1, I would imagine!’

What the volunteers did Before the meeting:

Designed white T-shirts in support of the old guard.
Updated the website (www.we-are-aware.sg).
Released two YouTube videos campaigning for the old guard – one featuring various women calling for support, and another an interview with Ms Dana Lam, who was eventually elected president.
Prepared an information pack for voters, and a sign for them to hold up.
Arrived at the venue at 7.30am to fill the seats, and ensure that key speakers from the old guard could sit close to the microphones.
Greeted each voter, and gave out the information pack and a badge, a piece of styrofoam in the shape of a heart.
Bought and distributed flowers to their supporters.
Prepared to negotiate with the event organisers if there were disputes with voters’ memberships.
Borrowed loud hailers, and supplied publicity materials.
Recced each of the three venues which the EGM was slated to be held in.

During the meeting

Sent out SMSes to voters’ mobile phones with instructions such as ‘Stay Calm Be Dignified’ and on how to fill in the voting forms.
Scrutinised the counting of the votes with the audit firm.
Calmed down passionate old guard supporters so the meeting could progress.
Kept a look out for people who appeared too upset, and guided them outside, where volunteer social workers were ready to provide counselling.
Supplied the audience with spring rolls, mini-sandwiches, fish fingers, onion rings, apples and water when the meeting dragged on.

Contingency plan

Escorted the key old guard speakers, and in case a fight broke out, were ready to act as bodyguards.


LEGAL BEAGLES: The old guards legal team, with Ms SIngam (in green). They are (clockwise from bottom left) Ms Halijah Mohamad, Mr Mark Goh, and Mr Siew Hum Hong. TNP PICTURE: BENSON ANG		Ms Singam.	DEDICATED: Volunteer Alex Serenti got up at 5.15am to ‘warm’ seats at an event that was to start only seven hours later. TNP PICTURES: NG XI JIE, KELVIN CHNG

Congratulatory Messages from AWARE Supporters

admin — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:33:38 +0000

May 5 – Email from Harmin Kaur
May 5 – Email from Steve Thio
May 5 – Email from Stephanie Chok, PhD Candidate, Asia Research Centre
May 5 – Email from Anu Selva
May 5 – Email from Kavitha Dorairaj
May 4 – Email from Kerry Wilcock, Manager of AWARE Direct Services
May 4 – Email from Suchen Christine Lim
May 4 – Email from Adeline Kueh
May 4 – Email from Indra R. L. Iswaran
May 4 – Email from Fanny Ler
May 4 – Email from Lenore Lyons

1. May 5 – Email from Harmin Kaur

What i miss about AWARE is the passion of all you fantastic women.

From the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU. You begin to see the value of something when you are at risk of losing it. AWARE has touched so many women in different ways and the risk of losing that voice which fights for our rights was horrifying.

This is a big victory for AWARE, civil society and Singapore Women.

Once again thank you for keeping the flame alive. Your courage, spirit and fervor are inspirational. I look forward to seeing you all again soon.

2. May 5 – Email from Steve Thio

It was an honour for me to help and assist an organisation that has done so much to further the cause of the minorities and marginalised. The little I did is nothing compared to all that AWARE has done through the years.

I can only hope now that the organisation will grow stronger, more respected and achieve its goals with the support of more people.

Congrats and well done!

1. May 5 – Email from Stephanie Chok, PhD Candidate, Asia Research Centre

CONGRATULATIONS!!! To all of you and your amazing team!

What an incredible, inspiring and historic event.

Dana, Congratulations on being AWARE President! I was so happy and relieved to see up on stage at the end, and it was heartwarming to see the new Exco on stage, arms linked.

I was glued to my laptop all Saturday here in Perth, obsessively clicking on The Online Citizen and following the Twitter trail (the power of online media!). And Sunday I was obsessively watching all the online videos I could find, cheering and boo-ing in my living room. (Oh how I wished I could’ve been there!!)

It was truly wonderful to see all these women (and men) gathered to restore justice and I really thought the (old and now present!) AWARE team did an awesome job and provided such a direct contrast to the (new and now former) Exco!

It has inspired hope in many, judging from the burst of energy online and everyone’s facebook status updates.

Thank you! And all the best in the coming weeks and the work that lies ahead. There is much to look forward to!

Warm congratulatory hugs

2. May 5 – Email from Anu Selva

It was the most inspiring day of my life and my hope in this country was renewed by the intelligence, passion and charisma of so many of the women I met and the men who put in as much heart and hard work. Thanks for allowing me the chance to do the wee bit I did.

3. May 5 – Email from Kavitha Dorairaj

I too would like to thank you for the opportunity to do a small part. I am deeply honoured that I could help in what little way. It was amazing to see such strong, intelligent, articulate women and men coming together and standing up for what they believe in.

4. May 4 – Email from Kerry Wilcock, Manager of AWARE Direct Services

As a staff member at AWARE, I appreciate the passionate work that has gone into reclaiming ‘our AWARE’ over the past 5 weeks. It has been an incredibly hostile space for us to continue to offer a place for women to ‘heal’. Despite this, our Direct Service team have continued to do their job and fight for safety for our clients. Clients have told us over and over again how important AWARE is to them and have even shown concern to our counsellors.

We have an exciting year ahead. I feel priviledged to be part of this organisation. I have no doubt that we are capable to stepping up to the challenge.

Let’s do it!

5. May 4 – Email from Suchen Christine Lim

Greetings to new President and Vice President.

All of Singapore and the Maldives cheered and yelled ourselves hoarse when we heard the great news on the phone. We danced on the sand pit and hugged each other! I felt so proud of all of you, Singapore’s woman warriors.

It made me cry and laugh at the same time.

I am proud to be Singaporean!

Hugs to all my friends in AWARE!

6. May 4 – Email from Adeline Kueh

Phrases from Maya Angelou’s Phenomenal Woman kept running through my mind when we-are-aware members spoke – their dedication, humility & tireless drive for the cause was awe-inspiring

Hat’s off to these women & the men who are there to support our cause!

7. May 4- Email from Indra R. L. Iswaran

Dear Dana and Team,

Congratulations, congratulations, congratulations for a successful return of a more suitable team that will drive AWARE in a positive direction. Well done for a great job done for keeping the fires of progress burning for the Singapore women. I realise how much the organisation needs the support… each and everyone of us were mistaken and lulled into a sleep mode thinking there were many there to do their bit. Little did I realise till I watched the interviews and transmissions on RAZORTV that it was in dire need of support. Well here I am and would love to help where ever the need arises to help make a difference.

Warmest regards and a huge hug to the AWARE members
Indra R. L. Iswaran

8. May 4 – Email from Fanny Ler

Good day to you. I would like to extend my congratulation to you and your committee for fight hard to take back the in-charge of AWARE administrative office and am really happy for you.

Although I am not able to join AWARE due to my gender still reflected as Male, but I had signed the online petition that had posted some times back. I had also sent my email expressing my point of view about the New Exco to PMO and explained to Govt about my (our) worries when New Exco took over. I guess most of us got it correct that they are just a bunch who “bullshited” the public.

Anyway, I’m glad that AWARE office had now return back to the old members and I believed the new leader will lead AWARE to the next greatest height to promote gender equality.

Last but not least, my name is Fanny and I’m a Transsexual in Singapore. I’m currently going through my transitioning and into last stage. Once I’m able to affort my sex change operation, after my sex change, i will join AWARE liao.

9. May 4 – Email from Lenore Lyons

I just wanted to pass on my congratulations and support for the new Exco appointed at the EGM. As a longstanding Friend of AWARE I have been watching events unfold with a growing sense of alarm and dismay. I have every faith in the incoming Exco and believe that they will do a fantastic job of continuing AWARE’s important work.

Past Blog Posts

admin — Mon, 04 May 2009 07:15:51 +0000

Blog Posts on The Aware Saga up to May 4th 2009

Videos | Blogs from Home | Blogs from Abroad Videos (Just for laughs)

Blogs from Home Ground

From the World Wide Blogosphere

Open Letter: Lessons for our Secular Nation

unfluff — Mon, 04 May 2009 07:00:47 +0000

May 4: Open letter by Soh Chin Ong: Be Aware – Lessons for our Secular Nation

As a kid, I remember visiting a public pool and seeing this sign: We don’t swim in your toilet so please don’t pee in our pool.

That pithy slogan from my childhood popped into my head in the last few weeks as the Aware saga developed. No matter what the intentions of Josie Lau and her team were, they cannot deny that when push comes to shove, as an exco unified by one religion and one church, they would one day come to a point where they would have to draw the line, so to speak, borrowing the infamous phrase of their church pastor Derek Hong.

As an agnostic who has increasingly become discomfited by what I perceive to be a growing religiosity in society as a whole, Saturday’s EGM gave me much hope that Singapore truly values its secular spirit, no matter what religion one subscribes to, if any.

Since Saturday, however, I have suddenly come to know, separately, to my surprise, that two friends of mine attend the Church Of Our Saviour. Before Saturday., what they believed in and where they worshiped was not a matter we discussed nor cared to discuss. But because Aware is the nation’s hot topic now, these revelations have come to light.

One of them told me she supported the Old Guard because she believed, like me, that one’s faith must not spill into the secular realm. I was very very heartened to hear her words.

They certainly made up for the conviction of my other friend who was quite clearly supportive of the COOS exco which had just been ousted.

Like Josie and her team, this friend firmly believes that homosexuality is unnatural. Like Josie and her team, she believes in the letter of the law – after all, Josie et al got voted in fair and square, via a democratic process, according to the Constitution. And remember how Dr Thio Su Mien on Saturday kept going on about abiding by the constitution and the law? If you don’t like what’s in the Constitution, she said, you have to table it for discussion and change it first. Logically and legally, she is right.

By the letter of the law, therefore, my friend continued, because Proposition 377A was not repealed, which means homosexuality is still illegal in Singapore, the nation’s law actually supports the beliefs of COOS. So why the venom when they protest the propagating of homosexuality in schools as a “neutral” act?

But, as Saturday’s proceedings showed, the Constitution can be overturned on moral authority. While Josie and her team were not legally obliged to step down, they were advised to do so by their legal counsel on the basis of “common sense”.

Whatever lessons one has gleaned from Saturday, it is quite obvious that some kind of line has been crossed. While Saturday was a joyous triumph of unity and spirit on the side of the Old Guard and its new-found supporters, it has also thrown up in stark relief the intimidating prospect of bigger barricades and battle lines in the future.

Saturday saw a clash of two civilisations and two value systems within the sphere of a women’s organisation. As such, the government, rightly, did not intervene. But what happens when the issue in future becomes a national one, and not one limited to a small NGO?

As an agnostic, I have long yearned for a space for my beliefs to be heard. But it is a fine line between offering constructive criticism and being accused of not respecting religious beliefs. Our inter-faith dialogues exclude input from agnostics and atheists, as if we do not have a valid value system.

I believe it is precisely because of this absence of hard talk with regard to religious beliefs that things came to a head on Saturday.

It is time to square our nation’s laws with our nation’s credo of being a secular state. Homosexuality is a personal matter, not one that should be mandated as right or wrong by the state. It is a sin only in the Judeo-Christian framework, not in Buddhism or Hinduism. If Singapore is a truly secular state, its laws should encompass all beliefs and the space for each individual to make his own choice based on his personal values and belief system.

Because of Saturday, Singaporeans, thank goodness, have realised that moral authority does not necessarily come from a big book of wisdom – whether they contain words of state or words of God – but is earned through trust, hard work and a sense of fairness for all, regardless of race, language or religion, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

I support our Prime Minister’s call for us to be a truly inclusive nation.

Therefore, for the sake of this inclusive, secular nation, let us not be caught unaware again.

Open Letter: The euphoria and the reality

unfluff — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:05:32 +0000

May 3rd by Tan Joo Hymn

Open letter by Tan Joo Hymn (past president and new Honorary Treasurer): The euphoria and the reality (3 May, 2:49a.m.)

We barely planned for Plan A. Honestly, we rehearsed and went through Plans B to Z, but barely spent time on Plan A. And then we won. Civil society won. It was almost beyond our imagination, especially by such a large margin of 2 to 1. One thousand four hundred votes in favour of Old AWARE!

Perhaps the statement from the National Council of Churches and the apology from Pastor Derek Hong ensured that bus loads did not arrive. With 4 Ministers and 3 Ministers of State speaking out on this issue, the writing was on the wall I suppose.

Amidst the euphoria, one thing troubled me. The men who spoke (the non-supporters of We-Are-Aware). A few were obviously from “their” camp, and a few were unknowns. They talked about such frivolous and irrelevant things, when a long queue of people were waiting patiently to make their point. Their remarks showed that they thought so little of women and women’s issues, trivialising the whole meeting even. Patronising and condescending.

That is why AWARE still has so much work to do.

On the flip side, oh, the women who spoke up. It appeared that many had not spoken in front of an audience, much less one this big. But they spoke with such conviction, such passion. It has been said that some fear public speaking more than death. Well, these women did it, to a crowd of over two thousand. Fueled solely by their sense of justice and conviction.
To paraphrase what Lotte said, we shouted and jeered and clapped because we are passionate, passionate about the issues, passionate about AWARE. Do you see passion in the faces of the new (well, now ex) Exco members?

The energy, the passion, and conviction of every person in that audience. People who left children and elderly at home, who sacrificed time away from work or their precious Saturday. Civil society really won big time today.

So perhaps we have to thank Josie and her gang, and their “Feminist Mentos” after all… They have galvanised previously apathetic people to turn out in force, brought long-time but lapsed members back into AWARE, so many passionate intelligent courageous new members to AWARE and ensured that truly, everybody in Singapore must now be aware of AWARE! And highlighted the potential fault lines in our multi-religious multi-ethnic society.

After the euphoria, we face reality today, and I confess I’m not looking forward to it. The big clean-up that we have to do, after just one month. The damage that some people can wreak in such a short time.

For now, For all women, trust, choice and respect. And sleep.

I will NOT sit down and shut up!

unfluff — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:58:08 +0000

May 3 Letter by Tania Chew

I’m privileged to have lived, breathed, whooped and hollered during a landmark piece of Singapore history and I’ve never felt prouder of my country and the people — both men and women from all walks of life — who stood up for the greater good than today. Yes, the AWARE EGM.

Pride in the people who gave up a whole Saturday to show up and stand in line for ages to get in.
Pride in those who willingly agreed to be interviewed on video.
Pride in the passion, intelligence and eloquence in the people who stood up at the EGM and spoke up for what’s right (and I especially remember the Malay Muslim ex-law enforcement father of 3 teenage daughters).
Pride in the decency that was shown despite the adversity.
Pride in the media and our lawyers…and so much more.

Hours later I’m still buzzing from the events of the day…some infuriating, some funny…but the one thing that stands out is the solidarity and fervor that I saw in the majority who were fighting to preserve and further the mission and work of AWARE as an inclusive and secular organization.

I went in today hopeful but a little bit nervous, not knowing if it was going to turn into a bloodbath, but I came out of it high on the happiest vibe ever. It was obvious to me that supporters of the old guard knew exactly what they were there for and knew exactly what they wanted to say, backed by a passion that you don’t often see here in SG. And they were FAIR. Unfortunately, I can’t say much about the almost clown-like “speeches” of the new guard supporters, who showed up in bus-loads, didn’t have anything useful to contribute and started leaving after casting their vote.

But I will not dwell on that. Everything’s out in the news and online for the world to see (yes, our manic Twittering made #awaresg a top-trending topic for the day).

This is not a war so I won’t call the majority no-confidence vote a victory. I prefer to see it instead as a milestone marker that will hopefully be the start of much bigger and better things to come for AWARE.

To everyone who recently joined as a member (myself included), don’t let your passion end today because what lies ahead is when it really counts and starts to make a difference. Tell your friends about AWARE, volunteer your time and continue to do what you started doing when you showed up at SUNTEC.

Yes, the old guard has done a great job so far. Imagine how much more we can achieve if we all contribute.

I’d like to end with my fav funny quotes from today’s EGM:

“Sit down and shut up”
“I’m on page 73…show your elders some respect”
“We’ll refer to legal counsel…”
“I’m a man, don’t harass me”
“Women are emotional and irrational”
“I’d like to say to the CONGREGATION…”
“We’ll help transsexuals according to what’s stated on their IC”

Quotes: Before and After

admin — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:27:25 +0000

Post-EGM

“The feeling in the room was electrifying. I still can’t get over the fact that we got Aware back. It is a great moral victory.”- Constance Singam, past president of Aware

“It has been a privilege to be part of this whole effort to save Aware.” – Dana Lam, newly elected president of Aware

“It was a great demonstration by Singaporeans of what they believe in, or rather, what they do not believe.” – Eileena Lee, 38, Aware member since 2002

“You have not been open and honest with us from the beginning. I am concerned that if you remain in office, you will change the fundamental nature of Aware.” – Former Aware president Zaibun Siraj, on Ms Josie Lau’s team

“The members have spoken. It was a resounding, clear mandate about who we want to lead us.” – Kamalini Ramdas, 36, Aware volunteer since 2000

“Discussing sexual behaviours and practices does not make a child a homosexual.” – A psychologist, who declined to be named. She took the floor and said she used to work with abused teenagers as a counsellor with the former Ministry of Community Development.

“They were just out of their depth. They could not hold their own on any issues. What they demonstrated today was that they did not understand what Aware stood for and what it is all about. They are totally incapable of leading the organisation.” – Seri Suriyani, 37, a client director at a branding consultancy firm

“I thought they had it rough but they could have handled the situation better. Josie appeared arrogant to me from her choice of words and demeanour. She kept calling for security and had to repeat it two or three times. You would expect better standards of organisation from the leadership. The team’s words were also not well thought out, whereas the old guard came very prepared.” – Kamalam Suppiah, 50, a lawyer

Pre-EGM

“I arrived at the meeting late and found out that I was No. 100 on the attendance list. I’ve been a member for 10 years, and never before has there been such a turnout” – Former president Tan Joo Hymn

“It was alarming. How could a new member who had just joined for a couple of months, and whom we knew nothing about, be picked over someone who has been with Aware for more than 15 years?” – Former president Dana Lam

“I attended the AGM and it was heartbreaking when I stood up and asked if they understood the principles of AWARE and they did not answer.” – Nancy Griffiths, mother of two and AWARE member since 2002

“Why can’t they come in and be part of the process, and build it together and in a more evolutionary manner? That way, the comfort level will be high for everyone.” – Former NMP, Former President Braema Mathi and Head of CEDAW Committee (prior to ignominous sacking by Exco)

“It is clear from the first exco meeting that they were not going follow my direction… it was pointless for me to carry on.” “[the new Exco is] too gung-ho… with its stormtrooper tactics.” – Claire Nazar on on why she quit as President just 11 days after she won the seat.

“This is not a gay versus Christian debate. It is getting away from what Aware stands for. We have spoken up and initiated discussion on a lot of much broader issues – foreign worker abuse, domestic abuse, financial intelligence, education, body image, sexual harassment. We address issues that have large and wide implications which affect society.“ – Former president Constance Singam

“Our values, which are the essence of this organization, are based on the fundamental rights and responsibilities of women as women. These include being treated as informed individuals capable of choice; being deserving of opportunities equal to those of men in education, marriage and employment; and being able to control their own bodies, particularly with regard to sexual and reproductive health. Upholding and promoting these values is at the core of AWARE, and I expect members who want to serve on the EXCO, particularly as office bearers, to understand and support this.” – Former president Constance Singam

“How can you let past such as situation in which the new leaders could not unequivocally say they believe in the principle of gender equality?” – Nur Adlina Maulod on why she is supporting the SaveAware Cause

“I realise that I have to pay a bigger part in such issues that I care about, because they can easily be hijacked.” – Natasha Ho on why she signed up as a new Member

Letters of Support via our Website

unfluff — Sat, 02 May 2009 08:46:11 +0000

1. May 2 – Letter from Tan Boon Kim

Today will be the day when we will know what will be the outcome of this AWARE episode. To the voters, I hope you will consider the following during the event:

1) Among many other undertakings, AWARE is an organisation helping distressed women. Some of them are just about to give up on life or even give up their life – we NEED to do what is best to continue to help these women. This is the paramount if not the overwhelming consideration.

2) Having strong values, moral or religious, are indisputably important. However, imposing a strong stand on certain value/s in all of society is unhelpful. In fact in this case, detrimental to AWARE’s work. Should AWARE cease to classify homosexuality as neutral, it will probably be easy for most to understand why, some lesbians and bisexual females, who will otherwise benefit from AWARE’s programs or assistance, will not even consider approaching AWARE in the first place. This will affect AWARE’s core mission to reach out to all women and dilute its purpose significantly.

3) As much as moral and religious values are important to many, we must weigh the merits of the individual value against other considerations in each unique situation. As there are other means beside the AWARE platform to support our value system, with less disruptions to society at large and more effectively too, the AWARE EGM is certainly not the venue to make such a stand or vote. In fact doing so, might work against your noble purpose.

4) AWARE had significant clout to date. It is the experience, creditability and effectiveness in helping distressed women that won it support from many, including numerous important organisations. Where does AWARE derive this? From its long standing members and staff. Without them, AWARE will lose critical mandate/s with such parties and will be a shadow of itself.

Please note that AWARE, in its day to day dealings, encounters with many situations that are not mainstream and even counterintuitive to the lay person. Hence, relevant experience counts deeply here and as in all progressive organisations, AWARE will benefit from meaningfully including and involving key players from the old guard and staff, whilst introducing new blood. Without the experienced AWARE members and staff, the changes and effects on AWARE will be drastic and detrimental to its mission and beneficiaries for some time. For this reason, we cannot afford to be reckless.

Last but not least, I will like to appeal and remind all not allow your own moral or religious values, distract from choosing the best for AWARE. It is not un-Christian to vote for the best team for AWARE and in fact there should be no place for religion to affect any voting in the first place.

I wish all voters a clear and benevolent mind for your task ahead.

2. May 1 – Letter from George Wong

You are THE BEST.

MOE’s affirmation of your programme is timely. The accusations by the new exco were really horrendous. They will never admit it, but it’s all about extending the influence of their church, COOS, which is obsessed with the issue of homosexuality. Their pastor has described the AWARE conflict as a spiritual war the church is facing and has written to ST on homosexuality (not published as far as I know).

I myself has written to ST to urge the church leaders not to mobilise its people to steer the course of events at AWARE as this would be clear interference by a church in the affairs of a secular institution (unfortunately, not published).

If all else fail, perhaps everyone should resign and reform. Let the COOS member run AWARE. They will have no credibility as they’ll be just an extension of COOS.

I’m sure with all the spontaneous support that you now have, you can easily form a “Rainbow” coalition with a broad-based membership (I’ll join as associate member).

If the new committee stays in power, I don’t think you should remain to lend them your support. They’ll just make use of your expertise and claim the credits. You might think you should stay to fight your cause, but I think, knowing the way fundamentalist Christians are like, it’ll be a never-ending battle that will just sap your energy.

I’m in my 50s but I’m energised and inspired by your clear mission, your integrity, how much you’ve done, your graciousness in the face of insults, everything you stand for. You are AWESOME!

With all my best wishes.

3. April 30 – Letter from husband and wife, Tan Boon Gim & Heidi Hui

Firstly, we would like to applaud you for your work and achievements with AWARE before the “saga”.

I have only recently taken interest in the happenings of AWARE since and have been avidly following the case. What we have gleaned from this and reading almost all the post in the we-are-aware.sg website, newspaper articles and portions several other websites, and blogs has only galvanised my original impression of a well run organisation led by a group of informed and capable women. Until now that is!

Well, many of these articles have already articulated most of my opinions and feelings, but just one. We just want you to know that we do support you on your mission to wrestle control from the current Exco and we feel that there is absolutely no ‘sore loser’ attitude in this at all. We need AWARE and AWARE needs to be run by well and relevantly qualified people and I do not think the current group qualifies. It will be a great loss to Singapore and our residents to lose AWARE to this group of fanatics who thinks that inclusiveness can be selective. Hence, though there are some who opine that your team should let public support take a natural course, we feel that your team should not feel any less for aggressively canvassing support for your currently mission.

In fact, I think it is a must that you aggressively obtain support from sane women so to get back what you have so painstakingly built over so many years. I also pray that you have a way to claim back all the monies they have mindlessly spent during the short time.

I hope your team is mindful of the venue changing and be prepared for any necessary last minute maneuvers.

We are unable to join the EGM on Saturday but our hearts and prayers are with you. May common sense prevail!

Cheers from a pro-inclusion family

4. April 30 - Letter from Chia Guo Hao

To all the determined women of AWARE,

I am proud to know that women like you are fighting for the equality of other women. Your actions through the saga has been honourable and deserve our respect. I sincerely hope the best for all of you in the coming EoGM. No matter the results, I would want to thank you for bringing this lesson to all of Singapore and do hope that all of you will continue with your efforts in realising your goals of a non-discriminating, all-inclusive society in the future.

5. April 30 – Letter from Siow Li Sen

Most parents including liberal me are uncomfortable when talking sex with their kids the first time. But it shouldn’t stop them when their kids have questions. It’s knowing – depending on the maturity of the child – how to explain with sensitivity. I recalled the first time I felt I had to ‘confront’ it with my older son was when I stumbled upon the porn sites on his computer. He was a young teen then. My approach then was to try to sensitise him to how awful it would be if these foot long penises poking into some women turned out to be me, his mother or his girl cousins. The idea was to show him how degrading pornography is to women. But I had to relate it by putting it into context. What I didn’t want to was make him feel just guilty for visiting porn sites, or that there is something wrong for his teenage lust which caused him to seek these sites. My concern then was to try to support him as he matures and help him instil discipline into some of his natural impulses. I also wanted to have an open dialogue with my sons on any issues, and not just on sex.

I think I managed somewhat because he did over the years bring up all kinds of issues he encountered, some related to sex and others on peer pressure, which sometimes he just needed me to tell him it was wrong.

He went to a local Christian school and he related how he felt bad when other boys teased those who were deemed ‘gay’ and I told him he should tell them off or definitely show it was wrong by not joining in. In fact he wanted to highlight this ‘bullying” plus the high ministers pay when he was given the opportunity to make a presentation during assembly. His class teacher called me in desperation the night before his talk and begged me to tell him he couldn’t tackle these subjects because being a Christian school – homosexuality cannot be discussed – and of course politics is not allowed.! Eventually my son agreed and changed the topic to how respect has to be earned. He also brought up the matter of how the discipline master in the school disciplined by pinching and twisting the boys’ nipples (through their shirts) when they were caught without the school badges. After he finished, the headmaster quickly told the assembly that the boys should concentrate on their studies, etc. But my son said the discipline master never pinched the boys after that.

I also think that is why it is quite useful to have third parties to give these talks. I remember when my younger son brought back the sex education material from his school, this was when he was 12. One of the materials talked about how natural it is for boys to have erections, especially in swimming pools. And how they can handle the situation. I didn’t realise before how embarrassing these situations can be.

My concern is that sex education at schools will be stopped because of the Aware controversy or replaced with a guilt based programme – and our children will be the poorer for it.

We know that premarital sex happens, regardless of whether kids are told it’s negative or positive. Anal sex too, for that matter, though I’ve always thought it unhygenic and won’t it work as a suppository, and so rather unromantic? .

My concern is the appropriateness of the material to the maturity of the kids.

You may not want to raise the topic of anal sex to 12 year olds but if it was asked, then the counsellor hopefully is trained to tackle it.

6. April 30 – Letter from Brandon Goh

Thanks for all the updates and news. Must be a tough time for all. Great work and don’t lose hope! Will not be able to vote because I’m an associate member, but will be going to lend my support. Behind you all the way!

7. April 30 – Letter from Calvin Hwang

I just wonder if you managed to gather enough women members to vote no confidence on May 2? I managed to persuade 4 of my girlfriends to join and cast their votes. Afer which I promised them dinner at St Pierre.

Hope you win, its a costly event for me.

Good luck.

8. April 27 – Letter from Malti Lalwani

Remember the question Mr Balji asked Josie Lau on CNA last Sunday 21 April — “What if AWARE was approached by someone who claimed she was discriminated against at work — what would you do?” And Josie’s reply was “Have to check with my committee first to see what is the direction we should go. Give us time etc etc.”

Personally, I think — if the new exco were still running aware after May 2 — they would be inclined to look at the workplace discrimination issue as less of a priority — but they would I feel, be more inclined to counsel this lady who approached them and try to change her sexual preferences to a more heterosexual one.

The implications of this? You decide.

9. April 25 – Letter from Mullai Pathy

Sorry to read about you recent travails but the good point is that the public has been alerted to a hitherto unknown threat – insidious takeover of secular civic organisations by religious nut-cases- and ultimately we will all learn from this episode.

Regards, and best of luck in recapturing Aware.

10. April 25 – Letter from Aw Guan Bee

I have been a regular reader of the Straits Times’ forum and of recent years, I have noticed increasing concerns by the readers of the forum on the aggressive evangelism activities by certain Christian groups.

We are a multicultural, multiracial and multi-faith society and we have been able to live in harmony with one another all these while.

However, recent-year events have shown that there there has been a surge of aggressive evangelism activities by certain Christian groups to convert the non-believers. These may give rise to tension among the Christians and the non-believers in our multi-faith society.

Only a few months ago, we had a Christian couple sending offensive cartoons materials to Muslims and as recently we also read on the ST forum about the attempts by Christians to convert Muslims which prompted some of them to write to the forum and raise the concern. If I have not recalled wrongly, there was a letter to the forum proposing the enacting of a law against religion touting against the aggressive evangelism by the Christians. About a year ago, we also read on the forum of the attempts by certain Christian groups to convert patients in hospitals when the patients were at their weakest mentally and easily succumbed to aggressive evangelism activities.

Do not you think that their aggressive evangelism activities can lead to tension in our multi-faith society?

And lately, the AWARE saga has once again raised the fear of fundamentalist Christians hidden agenda of imposing their beliefs on non-believers in our multi-faith society through a public institution.

As an atheist, I am alarmed by the surge of the aggressive evangelism activities by certain Christian groups. Could the government step in to advise these overly aggressive Christian groups to tone down their overly aggressive evangelism activities and be more sensitive towards the feelings of believers of other faiths? Otherwise, I am afraid their overly aggressive evangelism activities will destroy our multi-faith society one day.

Open Letter by Alexandra Serrenti

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:15:26 +0000

Having had the opportunity to work with AWARE on several previous initiatives, I would like to state for the public record, that I was deeply impressed with the seriousness, sincerity and depth of commitment of AWARE volunteers and counsellors that I have encountered over the years. AWARE, through the efforts of generations of long-term members, has made invaluable contributions to the protection of women, to supporting vulnerable members of the community, and to public education.

I was therefore deeply disturbed to learn of the events at AWARE’s AGM in which there appeared to have been a concerted attempt at hijacking an organisation that has worked consistently and quietly in Singapore to protect and promote the interests of women. What is particularly objectionable is the lack of transparency of the new office bearers concerning their alternative vision for Singapore’s oldest women’s group. What is it about their new vision which is so threatening that they feel they are unable to communicate it publicly? If, on the other hand, as they say, they are not communicating their position because they are new office bearers and have not as yet gained an understanding of the organisation, then questions need to be raised concerning their suitability for office as it suggests that they are ill-prepared and ill- qualified to lead this organisation. This is especially true when you consider the wealth of experience and talent already existing in AWARE, from whom office-bearers could be drawn. The secrecy which has shrouded the new executive committee and also the manner in which the new leadership has come to power has left significant doubt in the minds of concerned observers as to their integrity, honour and good intentions.

The press has pointed to the religious affiliations of many members of the new Executive Committee of AWARE. I respect the rights of all persons to commit themselves to lives of conscience. However, the appropriate exercise of a life of conscience in civic society is to form one’s own religiously- based advocacy group and to be clear about the fact that those religious values are the values that animate its services. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for such a group to engineer a take-over of an organisation with a clearly secular pedigree and in the process, disenfranchise and marginalise a group of women who have worked tremendously hard to be heard and taken seriously. The composition of the new executive committee is hardly representative of Singapore’s multi-religious, multi-racial heritage.

I wish to place on record, as a professional ethicist and philosopher, my deep reservations concerning the future impartiality and professionalism of AWARE’s counselling and social education programmes in light of the religious affiliations of most of the members of the new Executive Committee. This is a point of particular concern given the fact that AWARE’s counselling services are often the last resort for many women at risk who deserve our special protection and care. In particular, the religious affiliations of the executive committee appear to be such that they are unlikely to endorse the following:

a) that victims of familial abuse be given advice and support to leave their families and spouses where necessary if it is determined that they are at risk, given the “pro-family” stance of the executive committee.

b) that rape victims be given access and support to all options during their counselling sessions, including advice on abortion, given the “anti-abortion” stance of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.

c) that sexual education programmes will include information about the use of contraceptives in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, given the “pro-abstinence” positions of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.

d) that homosexual women seeking advice and help be supported in their struggles to come to terms with their identities in a supportive environment since it is clearly documented in previous letters to the press that members of the executive committee believe homosexuals are psychologically disturbed — a position that is clearly and unequivocally at odds to the official positions of numerous professional bodies of psychiatrists and psychologists, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA),
American Psychological Association, The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, The World Heath Organisation, the Chinese Psychiatric Association amongst others.

I would be significantly reassured by the executive committee if they were to state unequivocally for the public record:

a) their exact positions on the points raised above pertaining to the social service programmes of AWARE so that clients may be better informed of the ethos and principles which govern the counselling they will be provided and may choose to go elsewhere if they do not agree that vision.

b) offer an assurance of non-interference in the professionalism, independence and impartiality of their counsellors to provide advice with courage and concern only for the welfare of the clients who seek them out.

This is not an issue of religious versus secular life, or of endorsement or condemnation of homosexuality, or of being anti or pro-abortion. It is an issue about transparency and honesty in the provision of social services and leadership so that women can make informed choices about the sorts of organisations they want to support and to have support them. Transparency and honesty, however, have been sadly lacking in the new executive committee of AWARE.

Open Letter by Martha Lee

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:14:46 +0000

I too am writing in support of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Before joining Aware in 2002, I was asked if I really want to be associated with a group of pot-banging, men-hating feminists who were bitter with their lot and had nothing better to do?

Since a feminist is one who believes that women should have political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights equal to those of men, I was joining and taking action! Just why would I want to embrace a belief where women, myself included, were born inferior, naturally less capable and good for only cooking, cleaning and washing?

People have asked why I am fighting for women’s rights when we already have so much. I had to explain the basics of gender equality which is the equality of the genders or the sexes. Aware was advocating for not women but rather both men and women. Also until the day women really believe, and embrace the power that is already theirs in working alongside men, the work of Aware needs to continue.

I have been volunteering with Aware in different capacities in the last eight years: from publicity, writing, and fund raising. I found the women of Aware far from what is often perceived. They were highly intelligent, extremely articulate, and well-respected successful individuals comfortable in their skin. Coming from diverse backgrounds – age, race, and religion – we have worked alongside one another, and on serious issues and projects.

Aware has always had a fine reputation, successfully nominating not one but three of our candidates to be NMPs. Consider this: Which organization meets with the police to discuss how rape victims in trauma can be better treated? Which non-profit has been hearing the heartaches of women in Singapore for the last 15 years through their helpline? Which other group in Singapore has the guts and stamina to proactively advocate for women’s rights?

Lately Aware has been in the media for the wrong reasons. How was this hostile takeover even possible? Were the members sleeping? No. We have simply been too busy doing the work. We did not anticipate this would happen.

But why wash dirty linen in public? Sure we are embarrassed but do we have a choice? The new Exco has not been acting in the best interests of members and women at large with their hostile takeover, not to mention disbanding the various sub-committees without reason.

I have been proud to be associated with Aware and these courageous women. The takeover has not changed this. We are now doing what we can to save Aware.

Women of today can apply to be doctors, work in the civil service and enjoy the same medical benefits or choose to stay home to cook, clean and wash for the family. We have choices our mothers and grandmothers did not. Aware has made a difference to the quality of our lives.

Women of Singapore: Aware has served you for the last 25 years. I urge you to make a stand: join Aware today at www.aware.org.sg and make a difference with your vote during our EOGM on May 2.

Open Letter by Tania Chew

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:14:25 +0000

This is turning into an issue about homosexuality. Which it is not. And it is also turning into an issue about Christianity. Which it is not. And now there is a lot of hate flying around because of that, which doesn’t help anything.

AWARE is about women. ALL WOMEN in ALL permutations. It is about gender equality and non-discrimination.

Right now, there is a serious imbalance in the leadership of AWARE, and that is what I am fighting against. I’m not out to crucify anyone for what they believe, but I will fight to preserve an agenda that is devoid of religious, racial, gender or sexuality skews.

At the same time, I am heartened that things have come to a head because, without it, so many of us would have just carried on with life, not really knowing, not really caring. The recent developments at AWARE have served to awaken interest and vigorous activism from people I didn’t expect it to come from, and I am cheered by that. I also think that all this is happening at a time when people are more open-minded and vocal, and willing to fight for what they believe in. No doubt those dialogs will be colorful, even controversial, but they are key to bringing about change for the greater good of EVERYONE. It’s unfortunate that it took something like this to get more people to sit up and take notice and open their mouths to speak, but better that than nothing. Silence doesn’t benefit anybody.

A lot of amazing work has been done by AWARE in the last 25 years. Please don’t allow of that to burn at the stake.

Unpublished: Letter by Gurpreet Kaur

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:13:23 +0000

Unpublished Straits Times letter by Gurpreet Kaur

As a member of AWARE and having interned there under the old guard, I can say with confidence that my internship stint there was the most fruitful experience for me as a woman. I got involved in a myriad of projects, did hands on work and met so many passionate and wonderful women who shared the same vision. To be in an environment that was all-inclusive has made AWARE a safe place to work in, a place where I was comfortable expressing a lot of views, intellectually, objectively and subjectively.

The recent events at AWARE have some people mislabelling our moves and concerns as sore-losing or complacency. It would only be sore-losing if we knew who these new people are, what their agendas are, and why they used “stormtrooper tactics” to take over the Exco, and after knowing all this, countered them. As of now, they have left too many questions unanswered. Most importantly, none of these women have volunteered or spent a single hour at AWARE before. So their claim that members “were not interested” in voting at the previous AGM nullifies itself automatically, since they themselves have never been interested either and do not even know who the members are. Josie has spent all her time and energy communicating to the media, but has she made the effort to reach out to her members? To communicate with them? To allay the distrust towards the management? The answer is a big no. None of the new Exco members have taken the initiative to do this.

I would say that for members, the AGM has been an issue of trust and not complacency. Over the past 24 years, members have had complete trust in who will be holding the positions of power in the Exco. We trust the old guard to make the right choices and decisions. This time too, it was this trust that we members had and still have in the old guard to put in place the right people in the Exco, and not disinterest as Josie claims or complacency that some other people are claiming.

If anything, Josie and her team have broken the members’ trust by the takeover and now not answering any questions that we are putting forth. If there is anyone who is complacent, it is Josie and her team for not communicating with the members and assuming that just because they have the sheer strength of numbers, they will stay in power and dictate the happenings in AWARE. And even if they do stay in power due to the numbers game, they would have lost the trust and a good following of their members who have helped to build this organisation to its current status.

AWARE would then be there only by name, a shadow of its former self, with its spirit no longer there. And that would not only be a true loss, it would be losing in the truest sense of the word.