DPM Wong is right, all should be mindful of Singapore’s secularism

I REFER to last Friday’s article, ‘Questionable takeover but crucial service’. In it, the Bishop of the Anglican Church in Singapore, Dr John Chew, argued that the women who took control of the secular group, Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), performed a ‘crucial service’ to Singapore by highlighting the ‘revisionist sexuality norms’ that were purportedly taught by Aware in schools.

Let me state unequivocally at the outset that I respect all religions and people with religious beliefs. However, the statement, by a leader of the Christian community, is somewhat misleading.

The themes that were advocated in the programmes conducted in schools focused mainly on the virtues of abstinence and the proper use of contraception to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers.

To claim that ‘mainstream society at large would be grateful for the… vigilance of the Christian community’ equates to saying that our secular society should adhere to the beliefs of a narrow segment of a vocal religious minority.

Much has been said about how the group of women seized power and was booted out at the recent extraordinary general meeting. I believe the lessons to be learnt have been well-articulated by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng – that we have to be tolerant of people with different opinions, and people with different religious beliefs, including those who are not bound to a particular religion.

After all, our society is made up of people from a multitude of religions as well as non-believers, people of different races, and people who are straight and those who are gay. As we continue in our quest to be an inclusive society, let us all be acutely mindful of our differences, but even more conscious of the glue that binds us together as Singaporeans.

Vincent Tan

Related:

• May 15, 2009 -- Letter to Dr John Chew
• May 11, 2009 -- ST Forum: Lessons from AWARE
• May 8, 2009 -- Open Letter to MOE by Leon Ryan
• April 29, 2009 -- ST Forum: No complaints from parents, Dr Thio – MOE
• April 28, 2009 -- ST Forum: Restore reason, civility to debate – Constance Singam

Letter to Dr John Chew, Anglican Bishop of Singapore

Dear Dr Chew,

We note with some concern that in your pastoral letter of 10 May 2009 you appear to be perpetuating the misconception that AWARE has an agenda ‘for redefining mainstream sexual ethics and social norms’. You say that ‘unfolding revelations’ have shown that the concerns of Dr Thio Su Mien and her mentees about AWARE’s direction were ‘not misplaced’.

The truth, Dr Chew, is that the concerns were misplaced. AWARE has never promoted homosexuality. In our 24 years of existence, our stand on homosexuality has been identical to that of the government. We agree that the heterosexual family is the norm for our society. But homosexuals are also part of our society and they should be able to live freely and happily, free of any discrimination.

Yesterday we issued a statement to the media in response to DPM Wong Kan Seng’s Q&A with the media. We said it is most regrettable that some people in Singapore now have the impression that AWARE has a ‘gay agenda’ as this is totally unfounded.

The allegation of a ‘gay agenda’ was made by Dr Thio Su Mien, and the team of women she handpicked to join AWARE and take over its leadership, on the strength of bits of information taken out of context and strung together to create an imaginary and inaccurate picture of AWARE’s activities.

This unhappy episode, and the many wrongful allegations made during it, have damaged AWARE’s reputation and insulted the many women and men who, over the last 24 years, have worked so hard to improve the lives of women in Singapore and our society as a whole. Sadly, the allegations and the misperceptions continue in online forums and other channels.

We at AWARE are already moving on and putting together our programmes for the year. We assure you that none of the programmes have anything to do with promoting or even endorsing homosexuality.

Dr Chew, we would like to invite you and the heads or representatives of other Christian churches in Singapore to join us at the AWARE Centre for lunch sometime in the near future. It would be a chance for us to give you an accurate picture of AWARE’s agenda and our programmes. It would also be an opportunity for you to meet some AWARE members and dispel any notion you might have that we are a bunch of radicals out to promote ‘revisionist sexuality norms’.

There is another matter we would like to address in this letter. In the last two weeks or so, highly confidential documents about our Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme have been appearing online at various online file storage sites. I attach a screen capture of the list of files available for download at MediaFire, one such service.

These documents include the list of schools where the CSE was conducted and the list of CSE trainers and auditors, which gives their mobile numbers and email addresses as well as the results of the tests they sat for as part of their training as CSE trainers.

These documents are kept in the AWARE office and are only available to Executive Committee (Exco) members, the members of the CSE subcommittee and relevant staff. In the two years that we ran the CSE programme, these documents were kept strictly confidential. But during the short tenure of the Exco led by Ms Josie Lau, these documents have been put online. Note that along with the CSE files, there is one titled ‘AWARE HOMO SLANT’. This is the PowerPoint document that the previous Exco used at its press conference at Raffles Town Club on 23 April.

We can only conclude that the previous Exco either put these documents online themselves, or gave access to the files to someone who then put them online. In either case, this is a serious breach of the confidentiality of our programme and the privacy of our volunteers and clients. Whatever the objections to the CSE programme, this is irresponsible, unethical and reprehensible behaviour. If, as you say in your letter, the previous Exco’s ‘takeover’ actions raised ‘ethical and propriety difficulties’ in the minds of many Christians, this breach of confidentiality is just as bad if not worse.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, Dr Chew. I will call your office next week to arrange for a suitable date for you to visit the AWARE Centre.

Yours sincerely,

Related:

• May 8, 2009 -- Open Letter to MOE by Leon Ryan
• May 21, 2009 -- Response to MOE Decision
• May 19, 2009 -- ST Forum: Reaction to DPM Interview
• May 11, 2009 -- ST Forum: Lessons from AWARE
• May 4, 2009 -- Open Letter: Lessons for our Secular Nation

I am writing with regards to an article by Alicia Wong on Advocacy Groups VS Party Politics featured on 14may, 2009 in Today.

I honestly thought that the issue on AWARE is already over & done with. The organisation has moved on and back at doing what they do best, to find ways and means to support women who are in need of their help.

Apparently I am wrong.

What does Ms. Dana Lam’s political affiliation got to do with her involvement or presidency post in AWARE?

Let’s not start a new saga. The first was Church VS AWARE and now is it Politics VS AWARE? Why can’t a person volunteer his or her time, effort, expertise etc for the good of mankind? Must everything be scrutinised?

AWARE is a non-profit organisation that was established to help but not to influence. I am a member of AWARE and I voted for PAP and I have no qualms about Ms. Lam holding the post of President for AWARE. She is passionate in helping others as a woman and as a human being but not as a WP supporter.

Please do not mix politics with NGO. The meaning of NGO, Non-Governmental Organisation, speaks for itself. When one calls the AWARE line for assistance, never before were they asked on matters on their affiliation, beliefs, race etc. Please give Ms Lam and her committee a chance to prove themselves that there is no political agenda behind their election. She said in the same article that “collaborations must be to further the objectives of AWARE” and stated that she will not “push” the agenda on whether one should join the PAP, WP or any party.

It’s time to move on and focus on other issues such as the Economic situation, on why NUS is ranked 10th amongst the universities in our region and not top 3 at the least.

Siddy ZB
S1629xxxx
[Address redacted]

Related:

• May 21, 2009 -- Response to MOE Decision
• May 19, 2009 -- ST Forum: Reaction to DPM Interview
• May 19, 2009 -- Being Culturally Aware
• May 15, 2009 -- Letter to Dr John Chew
• May 11, 2009 -- AIDS Candlelight Memorial 2009

Action for AIDS would like to invite AWARE and its members to the Singapore AIDS Candlelight Memorial to be held on 17 May 2009 from 7pm-9pm. The theme for this years Memorial is “Remembering Our Women.”

The Memorial is held in conjunction with the International AIDS Candlelight Memorial, led by the Global Health Council. The Memorial will be observed simultaneously in over 300 cities around the world to honor the lives and memory of those who have fallen to the scourge of HIV/AIDS.

The Memorial makes a clear and yet profound statement that the HIV/AIDS is present in Singapore and that there are people affected and infected with it. It hopes to increase the visibility of the fight against the disease. It’s also a reminder that our fight against the disease is ever ongoing and our guard must never be let down.

The venue is the Ngee Ann Kongsi Auditorium at School of Accountancy/School of Law, Singapore Management University (SMU).

The Guest of Honour is Nominated MP Mr Siew Kum Hong

See the e flyer below.
Please RSVP to afa@pacific.net.sg by 15th May 2009

We look forward to your continued support!

Best Regards

Sreyashi Sen
Secretary
Organising Committee
Singapore AIDS Candlelight Memorial
2009
 

Related:

• May 21, 2009 -- Response to MOE Decision
• May 19, 2009 -- ST Forum: Reaction to DPM Interview
• May 19, 2009 -- Being Culturally Aware
• May 15, 2009 -- Letter to Dr John Chew
• May 14, 2009 -- Letter: On Advocacy Groups vs. Party Politics

As published:

I READ with great concern the Ministry of Education’s statement regarding the suspension of Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme.

The programme was based on material put together by leading international academics, health workers and medical experts working with the International Women’s Health Coalition. As such, it is a document reflecting some of the most recent research on women’s health, reproductive and gender issues worldwide. Singaporean counsellors, social workers, law enforcement officers, parents and teachers have attested to the value and importance of Aware’s programme for our youth today.

The suspension of the programme is a step in the wrong direction and sends a message that as a society, we are not prepared to stand up for the facts as established by authoritative medical and social work groups when social pressure is strong. Surely, this is not the signal we want to send, both to groups in Singapore and also to the international community to which Singapore belongs.

Alexandra Serrenti (Ms)

Original (reproduced with permission):

Is the Ministry of Education now defending prejudice over informed medical opinion?

I read with great concern the press release by the Ministry of Education over the suspension of AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme.

AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme was based upon material put together by leading international academics, health workers and medical experts working with the International Women’s Health Coalition. As such, it is a document reflecting some of the most recent research on women’s health, reproductive and gender issues worldwide. As those individuals who attended Saturday’s EGM will know, Singaporean counsellors, social workers, law enforcement officers, parents and teachers have attested to the value and importance of AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme for our youth today.

The Government of Singapore and the Ministry of Education have garnered much credibility internationally because of their respect for expert testimony on medical, health and pedagogic issues. We are internationally respected because of our fearless determination to build an education system that is based on and supported by good research and by informed expert opinion.

In this respect, I am deeply disappointed to hear of the Ministry’s decision to suspend support for AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme on account of the protests of persons who have NOT attended any of AWARE’s CSE programme sessions. Public sentiment has been whipped up by a group of women (Dr Thio Siew Mien and the deposed Exco of AWARE) who have been shown to have no medical or social work expertise — and precious little impartiality when it comes matters of sexuality and sexuality education.

That the Ministry of Education should have suspended AWARE’s well-respected programme on these grounds is a step in the wrong direction and sends a message that as a society, we are not prepared to stand up for the facts as established by authoritative medical and social work groups if social pressure is strong enough. Surely, this is not the signal we want to send, both to groups within Singapore, and also to the international community to which Singapore belongs.

Alexandra Serrenti

More: Robust Rebuttal From Conservative Singgies

Related:

• April 24, 2009 -- ST Forum: Will programmes continue to be neutral?
• April 29, 2009 -- ST Forum: No complaints from parents, Dr Thio – MOE
• April 28, 2009 -- ST Forum: Restore reason, civility to debate – Constance Singam
• April 25, 2009 -- ST Forum: Leaders’ acts reveal exclusionary stance
• April 25, 2009 -- ST Forum: Silver lining in Saga – Tania Chew

Dear Sir,

I am a student who has been following the recent issues involving sexual education in schools, and have read the latest news of a suspension of all third party programs with no small concern. I would like to preface this letter with acknowledge that a temporary suspension at very least to reassess the vetting procedure is necessary, and that I no quarrel with the wisdom of the Ministry in taking that step. I pen this instead, with the future in mind and how the Ministry shall be moving forward.

It would be presumptuous for a mere student to make calls on educational policy, but as the final product of the entire education system, I believe that students too have valuable insights in this matter. Throughout my schooling years, I have been privileged to be taught by excellent teachers to whom I simply cannot thank enough, no matter how many Teacher’s Days may pass. Quite simply, I owe my teachers for having painted colour in my eyes. As many frustrated students can attest, in later parts of one’s education very often a teacher will merely say “there is no right answer” – a notion that is almost anathema to students so used to10 year series and assessment books. Looking back, I realise that rather than simply being difficult, my teachers were are that point making me realise that we do not live in a drab, black and white world of MCQ questions and answers. We live in a world of open ended essay questions, or vibrancy and colour and at times, of murky greyness.

Such colour is really the quintessence of a Liberal education. In these recent times, many people have misappropriated the term “Liberal” as one necessarily being subversive or championing certain views that are incompatible with our Asian values. Surely they have mistaken, for a Liberal education is not premised on rights or wrongs, but rather on an openness of approaches. Just as we cannot say that green is a better colour than red, neither can we say that fiscal economic policies are necessarily better than monetary economic policies. In school, we are taught that each has their short comings and may be appropriate in different areas, but we are never told (short of something being scientifically and factually wrong) that an approach is wrong. Our education system equips students nuanced and adaptable thinking skills, rather than a blunt blanket approach that is ill-equipped for the real world.

Sir, I mentioned above that our educational system has embraced life in all its vibrant colours as well as its greyness. We are now walking in such a area of greyness, where the answer is far from clear, and the pressure to get out of such an unclear position immense. I do not for once envy the Ministry’s position these weeks, in that it must be almost besieged by a flood of letters and complaints by concerned parents. No one can blame the distances a parent would go to for their child, but I write to urge sensibility on the part of the Ministry when considering the future of the sex education program in Singapore. The Ministry cannot bend to an outcry no matter how loud from parents who may, with the best intentions, assuming that they are representing the predominant view of Singaporeans.

More than numbers, the Ministry should not step down from controversial issues simply because of complaint as this sets the unwanted precedent that Ministry policies can be swayed by popular outcry. It may be sexual education today, but one can only speculate where such a trend will take us in the future. Any JC student will relate to GP issues such as abortion, euthanasia, terrorism or evolution. Will such topics also see their removal or censor on future protests from groups emboldened by their “victory” with sexual education? The slippery slopes slides both ways, and surely all the accusations levelled at those with a “gay-agenda” as eventually pushing for gay marriage, can similarly be levelled at religious groups. One need only looks to the American experience to see lobby groups pushing for Creationism, a concept with almost no scientific standing, to be taught in schools.

I thus urge the Ministry to take the case of sexual education on its merits, and not under the pressure of anyone. I have no doubt that the Ministry is already doing so, and write mainly to reinforce that there are people in the public who are concerned as to the future of a Liberal education in Singapore. On the facts of the issue, there are many fallacious claims being made right now, and all of them should be set aside when making educational policy. The idea for example, that a 3 hour course can alter a person’s sexuality is as conceivable as a GP module on terrorism making students into terrorist. Consider further the fact that the main complaint made of this course are 3-4 lines which take up 3-5 minutes out of 3 hours, and one should be cautious in believing them to be true.

Sir, I plea to the Ministry adhere to the same policy of an open and Liberal education as it has had in the past. I do so such that future generations of students can similar see the world in all its colour and diversity. There is no greater crime than to raise a generation who only sees in monochrome.

Yours sincerely,
Leon Ryan
7 May 2009

Related:

• May 15, 2009 -- Letter to Dr John Chew
• May 21, 2009 -- Response to MOE Decision
• May 19, 2009 -- ST Forum: Reaction to DPM Interview
• May 11, 2009 -- ST Forum: Lessons from AWARE
• May 4, 2009 -- Open Letter: Lessons for our Secular Nation

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.

Most of you probably know how the EGM went. WE WON!!!!!!!! For those who want the inside story, here are some highlights:

We started gathering from 10am, forming lines for registration, which started a little after the scheduled 12 noon. The two parties could be distinguished, with the old AWARE’s group given a folder and badge with the we-are-aware logo. The other side wore red t-shirts that said “Pro Women, Pro Family, Pro Singapore.”

The meeting started after 2pm with the new exco behaving like policemen. They tried from the outset to limit our voice by shutting off the mikes until their president had made her speech. But our side, Braema, Margie, Dana, Halimah and others led us in a protest. (It turned out later that the exco had instructed the sound tech company to turn off the mikes on us!) As they introduced the exco members, we booed till we were hoarse. Earlier, they tried to make NMP Siew Kum Hong go over to the associate members’ section but he insisted that he could stay as he was our legal adviser, especially considering they had their legal advisers from Rajah and Tan. They had also prohibited the media from the meeting, but some journalists became instant members and got entry that way.

We were proud of the AWARE old guard. The exco thought we were there to listen to them! We interrupted their self-gratuitious speeches consistently with points of order, but they kept coming at us to stop speaking and listen to them.

At one point, one of the exco members, Sally Ang, screeched at us to “SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN!!!” She was forced to apologise, and eventually gave in, only to further harangue us to behave ourselves! She looked and sounded like a thug.

The atmosphere was raucious rather than tense. We were somewhat tense when the exco introduced their legal counsel Rajah and Tann. But they eventually turned out to be one of the day’s surprises. They were even-handed, fair. They explained that the AWARE constitution did not provide for a vote of no confidence, so that legally the exco did not have to resign even if our vote succeeded. But they stressed that this was their legal opinion and that it could be challenged in a court of law. As the meeting drew on, they clarified that they were AWARE’s counsel, not the exco’s.

But otherwise, it was fun. And cathartic. All the feelings and thoughts I had had throughout this saga were expressed today. We women were not taking orders from anyone but ourselves! We forced the exco to stand down other matters to get straight to the vote of no confidence.

Here are some highlights from speeches given to support the vote of no confidence:

• Zaibun Siraj, an AWARE founder member and former president, testified to her disappointment with the exco’s behaviour, and her fear that all AWARE’s good work was going to come to naught under this exco’s watch. An academic teaching a feminist course testified that AWARE had a great reputation internationally. She found this out on the academic circuit of conferences. She hoped the new exco would not tarnish its good name.
• Immediate Past President, Constance Singam, wanted to know where these exco members had been at crucial points of AWARE’s history, when AWARE was fighting for female civil servants to get equal medical benefits, for better protection of women against domestic violence, to lift the quota on female medical students and for government to recognize women as equal heads of households, etc.
• Braema Mathi and other members of AWARE’s CEDAW shadow report sub-committee asked if the exco had any understanding of UN requirements of the CEDAW report when they made the decision to dissolve the sub-committee.
• One woman spoke of their inability to grasp the difference between NGO culture and Corporate culture, and the inappropriateness of their style in handling matters. She referred us to the exco’s attitude that they were not answerable to members or the general public.
• One woman approached the matter of whether they had spent more than $20K in organising the EGM. She pointed out that under the AWARE Constitution, the exco needed permission from members before spending more than $20 K a month. Josie Lau and company finally admitted to spending $18K+$5K alone on hiring the Suntec City hall.

Later in the meeting, they were forced to say that they had spent $90K in convening the EGM (incl. lawyers fees, security services, and a professional scrutineering consultancy to count the votes)! It was pointed out to them that, had they cared to seek help from the old guard, they would have learned about cheaper premises, and that volunteers would have done pro-bono work with regard to providing other support services. Founding AWARE member Margie Thomas said she had offered help with logistics several times but was turned down. She also said that she could have helped them obtain a quorum for a meeting to approve the expenditure.

They were accused of having acted unconstitutionally. It was also suggested that they might find themselves paying for the difference out of their own pocket! Yeah!

• One woman attacked their lack of understanding of feminism. She linked this to their blinkered perception of discrimination against women as an issue as well as their poor attitudes towards gay women. She suggested they should bone up on feminist theory before taking on leadership positions in AWARE. Another woman said their rhetoric was all wrong, and that they needed to improve their command of the English language.
• Chitra Sankaran pointed out that it was just not the feminist way to discriminate against any minority, be it of sex, race, class or sexuality. She referred to the exco’s ambivalent attitude towards gays.
• Poonam spoke of how she had started AWARE’s legal clinic in the early 1990s, and how the exco’s installation of CCTV as well as the constant presence of the exco husbands at the AWARE centre were threatening to abused and other distressed women who used AWARE’s services.
• The loudest cheer of the evening was given to a woman who went up to declare that as a Singapore woman, she would not want Dr. Thio Su Mien as her feminist mentor!

Comic relief for the day was provided by Dr. Thio, who imposed upon us several times. She begun early in the event, trying to impress upon us what a great feminist she was because she was the first female dean of the law faculty at NUS! We failed to see the connection she was making. We heckled all through her stupid speeches. But the exco got real touchy about that, and wanted us to respect our elders!

Also providing comic relief were some male supporters of the exco, including Josie Lau’s husband, Dr Alan Chin, who actually referred to us as a “congregation” twice, and then switched to calling us an “assembly.”

We were scolded by these men for not behaving as women should!

A member of AWARE’s male chapter tackled the exco’s statement that AWARE’s move to give men voting rights was a mask to usher in homosexual activists. He announced that the only masks he wore were SKII, which he shared with his wife.

The voting took place at about 4pm. While we waited for the votes to be tallied, we continued to point to the failings of the exco. When Josie said that speakers could only speak once and for three minutes only, the old guard had to quit speaking for a while. However a long line of new members formed to speak in their stead, each one more eloquent , more passionate than the next!

The results were announced at 8pm. You should have seen the exco’s facial expressions change when the voting sheets were delivered to their table at the podium. At last, Jenica Chua’s smirk took a rest. Josie looked like somebody had clobbered her over the head. Maureen Chua looked like she had died–and had found out she wasn’t going to heaven.

The results: 1,414 for us, and 762 for them!

Margie Thomas demanded they resign immediately. They wanted to consult their legal counsel. Who advised them that legally they were not bound to do so, but that in such situations, it was usually considered common sense and courtesy to resign.

Siew Kum Hong said they had not lost in a court of law but in the court of public opinion.

Other lawyers on our side also pointed out to their legal counsel that in the AWARE Constitution, the will of the general meeting prevailed over that of the exco. Thus, within the constitution, they had to resign because we had voted for this.

The crowd kept chanting “Resign! Resign! Resign!”

We were kind and Constance Singam told them to take five minutes to deliberate among themselves off-stage.

They did not return after about 15 minutes. We were just about to move a motion that they had “abdicated” their position when they sent word they were returning.

But once again, they went MIA. So we made a motion rejecting them as our exco, and proceeded to elect a new exco.

Dana Lam (President), Chew I-Jin (VP), Joanne de Cruz, Hafidah, Margie Thomas, Ching Wi, Constance Singam as Immediate Past President, and a few others now form the new exco.

You should have seen Constance Singam on stage with the new exco–she was happy as a child is with a new toy, waggling her hands, waving at us! What a welcome change from the woman who had cried more than a week ago about the loss of trust and respect at AWARE.

In the midst of the election, Josie and Maureen returned to find their place at the podium taken, and their replacements being nominated! Josie said she had come to “graciously” resign. Then they left.

The old guard feted the newer members, and thanked them for their support. They were gratified to find many eloquent voices among the younger members.

After the meeting, many of us, including the old guard, convened at New York, New York, for dinner and yam sengs.

What a day! We went home psyched, knowing that anything is possible in civil society if we all put our mind to it. We witnessed the courage, the passion, the eloquence of our society. Let nobody say henceforth that Singaporeans are politically apathetic.

But then again, we’re not expecting the upcoming national general elections to be more exciting than today’s EGM!

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”