It is a succinct summary of the saga and a colourful look at the small group of Christians involved in the affair, highlighting this occurred against a backdrop of growing Christian Fundamentalism in Singapore:

The history- making Extraordinary General Meeting last month pitted roughly 1,500 “old guard” members (a misnomer, as many had joined in the previous two weeks) against a cabal of evangelical Christians from a “charismatic” Anglican church with an anti-homosexual platform. The women, all professionals, were led by a 71-year-old soi-disant “feminist mentor”, who, according to past employees and associates, has rather unconventional methods of communicating with the Lord.

 
The article also voices the whispers and speculation about the government’s position in the affair:

Nothing on Saturday could have happened without the tacit approval of the Singapore government. At any time the event could have been shut down for any reason you care to consider: public health, overcrowding, law and order.

The Singapore government has a very strong interest in not letting any group – especially a fundamentalist Christian group opposed to initiatives such as stem cell research, family planning and casinos – get out of line. One blogger quipped that the angriest person in Singapore would have to have been Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, whose title of “mentor” was usurped by Dr Thio.

 
They were not, however, above poking fun at AWARE itself:

In recent years, Aware had shed its firebrand image and was settling down into a comfortable middle age. Since its founding in 1985, the group had agitated for – and often got – legislation that protected women in all walks of life and under many circumstances. Their batting average wasn’t perfect, but the group dragged Singapore feminism into, if not the 21st century, at least into the 1980s.

In full: Expat Magazine June 2009

Photo by Yvonne Loh

Related:

• May 7, 2009 -- Letter to ST Forum by Pam Oi
• May 7, 2009 -- Letter to the ST Editor by Dr Lai Ah Eng
• June 1, 2009 -- How ST covered the story
• May 19, 2009 -- Being Culturally Aware
• May 12, 2009 -- Featured Post: Heroines & Warriors

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.

There has justifiably been much scrutiny on the role of the religious and the secular in society following the recent Aware saga. Just as important in explaining the eventual outcome, I believe, is the fundamental difference in “corporate culture” and “civil society culture”.

There is no reason to disbelieve the members of the Thio camp when they say they did not know each other prior to the AGM and were merely a group of like-minded individuals concerned about specific social issues and disappointed in the perceived direction that an established women’s organisation had taken.

Rather than coming from activist or homemaker backgrounds, most were successful corporate women. Indeed, one perceives many characteristics of old-line corporate culture in their behaviour: A propensity towards a hierarchical structure of control, an emphasis on the “letter of the law”, a predilection towards measuring success through quantifiable indicators such as membership numbers, a belief that corporate qualifications are sufficient preparation for leadership and a tendency to see clear delineation between work and personal lives.

It is perhaps their lack of knowledge of how civil society really works that led to the ill-judged attempt to take over Aware by overwhelming the AGM with a majority of new members. Thus, it was perhaps out of naiveté rather than insidious design that the ensuing saga was set in motion.

Seen through the prism of their experiences, one can understand why such a move made good sense. Rather than spending years building up an organisation, would not a “corporate takeover” be more efficient and pragmatic? One acquires an “instant” organisation, “instant” branding, “instant” credibility and instant gratification as leaders of one of the region’s most respected NGOs.

In the aftermath, it became embarrassingly obvious just how irrelevant their experiences were in handling their new role. Faced with questions they were ill-prepared to answer, they shunned talking to reporters for two weeks, following which they rolled out damage control in the form of a TV interview that gave no confidence and a press statement that gave no answers.

As public perception swung against them, desperate measures were called for. A “big cannon” in the form of Thio Su Mien was trotted out. That the leadership bid was backed by a respected establishment authority figure might have worked in allaying concerns in the corporate world but here, Thio’s own unfamiliarity with and to civil society, her self-declaration of being a “feminist mentor” and her “sky-is-falling” warnings about a homosexual takeover of society led to an even bigger backlash, confirming fears that the takeover was fuelled by religious fundamentalism and validating concerns that the new camp was just not ready to handle the nuances of running a leading NGO and the complexities of navigating the civil society space.

The Thio camp was reduced to unconvincing platitudes about their views on women’s issues, implausible claims of ignorance as to why there was such anger, an almost-compulsive resort to hot-button issues as a response to any questioning and ineffectual insistence on the legality of their elected status; when pointed out that the move for a “No Confidence Vote” is equally legitimate, their supporters could but retreat to playground taunts of “sore loser”.

Lacking the ability to recognise their predicament, deficient in the knowledge and experience necessary to cope in an alien milieu, bereft of the grace to seek rapprochement in deed rather than in word, they could only succumb to the whirlpool of negativism, culminating in the almost comical authoritarian way they attempted to control the EGM.

In an astonishing act of obtuseness, the Thio camp even tried to list the past achievements of Aware at the EGM as accomplishments of “their” organisation, oblivious to the insult this constitutes to the individual veteran members present on whose sweat and tears the achievements were wrenched.

Indeed, past Aware president Constance Singam’s ringing question at the EGM cut straight through the pretence: Where WERE you (when we were fighting to achieve all these)?

And while developments gradually revealed the inadequacies of the Thio camp, it brought out the best in the Old Guard and its supporters. The veterans found themselves playing a role they had been preparing to play for twenty-odd years. Within their element in terms of issues, bound together in camaraderie by the major crisis, familiar and competent in the role of the underdog, and equipped with the sheer doggedness, resourcefulness and organising ability built up over of two decades of tough struggle, the leadership tussle played completely to their strengths.

The vast store of goodwill across society that the organisation and its leaders had accumulated through the years also unleashed itself in a torrent, surprising even the veterans themselves.

Indeed, the solidarity, soul-searching and subsequent re-avowal of shared ideals among this group of tested women and their supporters brought their efforts to reclaim Aware to ever dizzying heights, soaring at moments to truly inspirational levels, rousing many in society who had never before been involved in civil society to make a stand for what they believe in.

It was a lop-sided battle from Day One and it became apparent to many as the campaigns developed that the usurpers were outclassed on every single front.

With the saga now over, we can perhaps look back to see what can be learnt from this event.

Distilled to the essence, are not the underlying objectives of both sides the same thing, namely a better life for women and families? And does each side not require the existence of the other to define and energise itself? If all elements of society subscribe to the same value system and beliefs, how do we tell what is progressive and what is conservative? Is it not pluralism and contestation that allow society to continue to progress on a balanced keel?

At an individual level, this saga clearly holds valuable lessons for bureaucrats dealing with implementation of policy and company executives starting ventures in new environments with their own unwritten rules. For the rest of us, it will come as no surprise that we find characteristics of both camps within ourselves, buffeted as we are by a myriad of influences in Singapore’s years of rapid growth following independence. Perhaps this is the perfect opportunity to reflect and take stock of our “inner Aware”.

Related:

• May 7, 2009 -- Letter to ST Forum by Pam Oi
• May 7, 2009 -- Letter to the ST Editor by Dr Lai Ah Eng
• May 4, 2009 -- Open Letter: Lessons for our Secular Nation
• May 3, 2009 -- Open Letter: The euphoria and the reality
• May 3, 2009 -- AWARE is back in our hands!!!

The GRC parallels

THE Aware saga and the valuable lessons learnt from it have made me better appreciate our system of group representation constituencies (GRCs), despite the fact that, until now, I was never an admirer of the system.

The Aware incidents have glaringly highlighted the fragility of our multiracial and multireligious society. It has given us a useful peek into the potential troubles that may crop up when there is a polarisation of a particular view championed on grounds of a faith – real or perceived.

The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) was an interest group with merely 300 members until recently. Yet, the racial and religious mix of its ‘new’ executive committee made some Singaporeans uncomfortable.

Imagine the situation if Parliament was composed of members from a single race or religion. If there were no GRCs and only single-member constituencies, a freak result could bring about such a crisis. Think of the discomfort and distrust it would cause.

The Aware saga clearly demonstrated to us that a faith-based approach to a broader issue – even if it is merely a perception – can breed distrust. One can safely conjecture that the same can be said of national issues.

The GRC system seems an effective means to meet the higher objective of ensuring reasonable minority representation. I now accept and see it as the best solution because the consequences without such safeguards can be dire.

Look no further than the Aware story. We cannot take peace and harmony for granted. The penalty for complacency is never pre-paid and the price will never be known until it is time to pay. So let us be aware.

I urge the Government to impose safeguards to ensure that the GRC system is not misused by any future rogue government by changing the ground rules. I see the GRC concept as a ‘fire extinguisher’ and would hate to see Singapore lose it.

Johnny Heng

Related:

• April 22, 2009 -- ST Forum: Why AWARE is important to ordinary Singaporeans
• May 21, 2009 -- Response to MOE Decision
• May 19, 2009 -- ST Forum: Reaction to DPM Interview
• May 15, 2009 -- Letter to Dr John Chew
• May 8, 2009 -- Open Letter to MOE by Leon Ryan

Taken unawares

May 7th 2009 | SINGAPORE
From The Economist print edition

Liberals rally to take on the Christian right

A BLOODLESS coup instigated by a septuagenarian “feminist mentor”; a death threat sent to the new president’s husband by a self-proclaimed “jihadist sleeper”; a 3,000-person showdown. The tiny world of Singapore’s usually timid NGOs has never seen anything like it.

In late March a secretive group of conservative Chinese Christian ladies surreptitiously took over the executive council of AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research), an advocacy group that has done much to promote women’s rights. Half of the new council attend the same church. They were jolted into action by AWARE’s alleged pro-gay agenda, particularly in sex-education courses taught at some schools. “Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?” bemoaned Thio Su Mien, their 71-year old matriarch.

Ms Thio’s disciples snatched control from a group of liberals who had served AWARE for years. The conservative new council and the liberal old guard traded barbs, exposing an ideological divide. Critics questioned the new lot’s shady tactics as well as their religious motives.

And so the old guard tabled a no-confidence motion, forcing an extraordinary general meeting. Ahead of it, politicians called for tolerance. And the new council’s pastor, Derek Hong, tried to mobilise support from the pulpit. Rebuked by leaders from a number of religions, he later apologised.

But the damage was done. At the meeting on May 2nd, the new council lost the vote and resigned. The question is why it staged the ill-fated raid in the first place. According to Alex Au, an online commentator, the Christian right will tend to use stealth to achieve its goals, because the discussion of religion is taboo in Singapore. They do not have well-established channels of discourse.

Yet the manner in which this conflict was resolved—through reasoned debate, without government intervention—is reason to cheer, says Braema Mathi, a former AWARE president. On May 7th, however, the government announced that AWARE’s programmes in schools did not conform in all respects to its guidelines and would be suspended.

Mr Au rejoices that the episode saw more people involve themselves in important issues. They are still, however, in a minority. In a survey, 70% of those polled said they did not care about what is going on at AWARE. But then, with Singapore’s trade-dependent economy facing its worst recession in history, most people have more prosaic worries.

Related:

• July 7, 2009 -- Siew Kum Hong is not reappointed as NMP
• May 28, 2009 -- Sin Boon Ann: AWARE & Failure of the Media
• May 28, 2009 -- Koo Tsai Kee: Tolerance & Diversity
• May 28, 2009 -- Thio Li-ann: Religion & the Secular State
• May 21, 2009 -- Information Sheet on MOE SEd Programme

Volunteer tells why Aware’s EGM turned raucous

I READ Ms Sumiko Tan’s article on Tuesday, ‘More losers than winners’, with dismay. There were some 3,000 people present last Saturday at the extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Emotions were charged, people came to correct what they thought was a grave injustice to the core principles of Aware, they came to stand up for what they believed in, they came to speak up.

If Ms Tan expected 3,000 people in these emotionally strenuous conditions to sit like sheep and make polite conversation, then obviously she had not thought through the gravity or extent of the event.

I was one of the volunteers for the old guard and my duties included keeping peace in the hall. As volunteers, we were prepped for these conditions and we braced ourselves for extreme ugliness. There was none. There was no violence and considering what we had to put up with, I think the crowd was very well-behaved.

In fact, everything was relatively quiet until Ms Josie Lau’s team started to switch off the microphones on the floor at the start of the meeting to silence the crowd. When one is trying to speak up in a hall as cavernous as the one in Suntec City with no microphone, one is left with little choice but to shout to be heard. Even the new guard’s legal counsel, Mr Gregory Vijayendran, advised that the microphones be left on as this was normal procedure at an EGM.

Ms Lau’s team’s actions set the tone for the EGM, the crowd did not. This ‘unbecoming behaviour’, which Ms Tan described as ‘disquieting and disgusting’, was not ‘bitchiness’ as she claimed. This was passion, which Ms Lau’s supporters did not have, made clear by the fact that most of them left after voting, without even caring about the outcome.

We protested when Mr Siew Kum Hong was told to go and sit with the men at the sidelines. There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates segregation of sexes at an EGM. Furthermore, Mr Siew was acting as legal counsel for the old guard, so he had every right to sit with them.

We protested when Ms Lau started making her president’s address; we had not come to listen to her speech. This was not an ordinary meeting, this was a meeting requisitioned for by 160 Aware members to submit our vote of no confidence in Ms Lau’s exco. Ms Lau proceeded with her speech eventually and we protested again when she brought up a slide that showed the achievements of Aware in the past 24 years, none of which she or her team was responsible for.

We protested when Ms Lau tried to credit the spike in membership from January to last month to her new exco. The spike in membership had nothing to do with the work of her new exco, they had not done any.

We protested when Ms Sally Ang shouted the now infamous ‘shut up and sit down’ line into the microphone. We were treated like primary school children from the start and we were not about to allow that to happen.

We protested when Dr Thio Su Mien hijacked the microphone from people who had queued for up to an hour and a half for their chance to speak.

We protested when she started to boast of her credentials and why she deserved the self-named title of ‘Feminist Mentor’. This was the woman who had admitted that she was the driving force behind the March 28 takeover of Aware.

We protested when she demanded that we respect our elders; as a member of the meeting so rightly called out, respect has to be earned.

We protested when it was revealed that $90,000 had been spent by Ms Lau’s team in the past month, a staggering figure that made many of us gasp in shock.

As a volunteer peacekeeper, I found certain times very trying myself, such as when a male supporter of Ms Lau’s team twice referred to the crowd as ‘the congregation’. We were not a congregation, but we were certainly expected by Ms Lau’s team to behave like one.

Pamela Oei (Ms)

Related:

• May 7, 2009 -- Letter to the ST Editor by Dr Lai Ah Eng
• June 5, 2009 -- They’re Coming to Get You
• May 19, 2009 -- Being Culturally Aware
• May 4, 2009 -- Open Letter: Lessons for our Secular Nation
• May 3, 2009 -- Open Letter: The euphoria and the reality

Dear Editor,

I wish to respond to two points raised in the interview with the AWARE exco after it resigned at the AWARE EGM on 2nd May: people who turned up to vote for the Old Guard, and Singapore’s conservatism.

At the interview, one exco member referred to the “numbers game” in the voting and another implied that voting turned out to be in the Old Guards’ favour because AWARE’s founding and life members were roped for support. Ex-president Josie Lau insisted that Singapore is “basically conservative”.

It is true that voting at the EGM turned out to be a “numbers game”.

This numbers game was first started when the exco’s members and their supporters signed up en masse as new members and got themselves voted into power at the AWARE AGM. When the EGM was called, both sides appealed to supporters to sign up as members to vote. This could not have been otherwise in the real politics of voting.

However, that at least some 1,400 voted for the Old Guard requires some understanding of the range of people who turned out to be its supporters. For sure, some were founding, life and active members, but together they numbered probably no more than 200. (Remember, AWARE membership was at an all time low until the saga began). Lesbians and homosexuals would have formed an even smaller number. The vast majority was made up of inactive members and newcomers (young, middle-aged, old) who signed up last minute to witness the event, among whom must have been many fence-sitters who took a `wait and see’ and `give the exco a chance’ attitude prior to the meeting.

What is important to understand is why this vast majority was willing to turn up in the first place and stay on to cast their vote at a 7-hour long meeting held over a long holiday weekend possibly more enjoyable spent elsewhere.

I believe that the way in which the exco came into power already riled people’s sense of fair play and natural justice. But the EGM, beyond media reports, provided a real opportunity for people to see and to judge for themselves the quality and worthiness of its leadership.

What happened at the meeting certainly decided the voting among the majority and the fence-sitters. The Old Guards came prepared with homework done and were highly alert. The exco started with little to offer besides its members’ curriculum vitae and a list AWARE’s achievements over 24 years but which the crowd immediately recognized to be appropriated from the Old Guards. Worse, the exco and its feminist mentor showed a grave lack of emotional intelligence in facing a crowd it didn’t know or understand – their top down orders and responses such as `security, take him out!’, `sit down and shut up!’,`respect your elders!’ and the mischievous switching off of microphones alienated intelligent grown-ups. These and exposes during question time, such as items and amount of expenditure incurred by EXCO, opened a floodgate of emotion and made the queue of people waiting to have their say even longer. Even the Old Guard could not have anticipated this spontaneous outpouring of sentiment that turned the voting in its favour.

The humiliation of the exco at the EGM was of its own making. It should not cast the blame of its loss in the voting onto a numbers game it started. The EGM proved to be a lively (and noisy) marketplace of ideas, competences and smarts that the exco and its supporters simply did not have or could not match. The EGM also clearly showed that Singapore is complex, not conservative.

Dr Lai Ah Eng
Founding and Life Member of AWARE

Related:

• May 7, 2009 -- Letter to ST Forum by Pam Oi
• June 5, 2009 -- They’re Coming to Get You
• May 19, 2009 -- Being Culturally Aware
• May 4, 2009 -- Open Letter: Lessons for our Secular Nation
• May 3, 2009 -- Open Letter: The euphoria and the reality

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.

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

]]> http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/05/enp-the-aware-volunteers/feed/ 1 http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/05/congratulations/ http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/05/congratulations/#comments Tue, 05 May 2009 06:33:38 +0000 admin http://awaresg.wordpress.com/?p=111

1. May 5 – Email from Harmin Kaur
2. May 5 – Email from Steve Thio
3. May 5 – Email from Stephanie Chok, PhD Candidate, Asia Research Centre
4. May 5 – Email from Anu Selva
5. May 5 – Email from Kavitha Dorairaj
6. May 4 – Email from Kerry Wilcock, Manager of AWARE Direct Services
7. May 4 – Email from Suchen Christine Lim
8. May 4 – Email from Adeline Kueh
9. May 4 – Email from Indra R. L. Iswaran
10. May 4 – Email from Fanny Ler
11. 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.

back to top

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!

back to top

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

back to top

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.

back to top

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.

back to top

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!

back to top

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!

back to top

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!

back to top

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

back to top

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.

back to top

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.

back to top

]]> http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/05/congratulations/feed/ 0 http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/04/past-blog-posts/ http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/04/past-blog-posts/#comments Mon, 04 May 2009 07:15:51 +0000 admin http://awaresg.wordpress.com/?p=146 Blog Posts on The Aware Saga up to May 4th 2009

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

• The AWARE Singapore Collective
• AWARE Singapore in 300
• Be Aware

Blogs from Home Ground

• A Xeno Boy in Sg
  • May 2 – To hope till Hope creates
  • April 30 – Carafa’s Eye
  • April 27 – God’s Singaporean Son
  • April 25 – De-legitimising Legality
  • April 23 – A Peculiar Irony
• akikonomu
  • May 4 – An issue of statements I
  • April 27 – A message from Josie Lau
  • April 27 – The law of eternal return
  • April 24 – Group of 9 comes clean…
  • April 22 – What does religion have to do with anything?
  • April 16 – AWARE: a civil society primer
• Alice Cheong in Wonderland
  • May 4 – Moving on from EOGM
  • April 24 – AWARE sage: Revealing the hidden key leader & Reasons for take-over
• As My Life is: Speak Out and Stand Up! Blankanvas: aware: to find one’s voice again
• Bread Crumbs and Candy Cottage
  • May 3 – How a Little Education Can Influence Minds and Change the World: I Love Reasonable Christians
  • April 10 – Coup D’etat (or Organized Crime) of Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE)
• Cats and Stuff
  • April 26 – Some perspectives from an ex-NGO employee
  • April 21 – Working together
• Carpe Diem: BeAWARE: Keep religion out of civil society
• disjecta: A Letter to Christians
• dhamma musings:
  • May 3 – Because they care about AWARE
  • April 29 – More on the AWARE Affair
  • April 29 – Be AWARE, Be Very AWARE
  • April 28 – The AWARE Saga – A Buddhist View
• don’t look back, my friends. it’s me.: May 3 – 1414 & MORE FOR AWARE: A PHOTOESSAY OF THE MAY 2ND EOGM
• Diary of a Singapore Mind
  • May 4 – AWARE : One Saga, Many Lessons…
  • April 28 – MOE Replies on AWARE Sex Education Programme
  • April 24 – New AWARE : How to make enemies and offend people
  • April 11 – Why AWARE was ‘taken’ over…
• Flying Low
  • May 1 – Neutrality in the Classroom
  • April 26 – Stop Being Stupid
  • April 25 – The Gullibility of the Unthinking Reader
  • April 18 – A Woman’s Place
• GenieGrrl
  • May 2 – Thank goodness
  • April 22 – AWARE v the wolf in sheep’s clothing. (or, Stay away, please.)
• Glass Castle Editorial
• Jeff’s Blog
  • April 30 – AWARE Saga: Christ Is Neutral Towards Homosexuality
  • April 29 – AWARE And Obama’s National Academy of Sciences Speech
  • April 24 – AWARE: Analysis of Statements From A Representative Of New Guard
  • April 18 – AWARE Demonstration of Democracy
• Leona’s Blog
  • May 3 – Victorious Victorious – Aware has work cut out
  • April 25 – Time to close this chapter
  • April 12 – 10 things that could happen at the new Aware
• Little People Press: How things are Done are just as Important
• LundBlog: Beautiful Letters: May 3 – political activism in singapore
• Marrael: May 3 – Links and Observations on the AWARE EGM
• Misanthropic And Loving It!
  • May 5 – The AWARE EGM: My views
  • April 27 – The AWARE Brouhaha – A personal view and a PSA
• OpinionAsia: In Singapore: Surveying the responses to the AWARE Saga
• Popagandhi: Stop the AWARE Hijacking
• Random Thoughts of a Free Thinker
  • April 24 – The plot thickens
  • April 20 – We didn’t start the fire
• Salt * Wet * Fish
  • April 26 – AWARE SAGA: Of tolerance, diversity and wisdom
  • April 19 – AWARE of wolves in sheep clothing
  • April 16 – DBS credit cards, FOTF, AWARE and homophobia
  • April 15 – AWAREness in our midst
• Sam’s thoughts
  • May 2 – AWARE restored
  • April 26 – AWARE, Jihadist Sleeper and Unanswered Questions
  • April 24 – Who’s the monster?
  • April 23 – More (secret) allies to support and save AWARE
  • April 20 – Aware making me wary and weary
  • April 18 – AWARE and Information
  • April 17 – Josie Lau: Please answer your own question first!
  • April 16 – The new Adventures of Josie and the Pussycats
  • April 10 – Are you aware of AWARE?
• Sayoni
  • May 2 – Breaking News: AWARE EOGM Results – Old Guard Returned (Singapore)
  • April 24 – A tale of two events: how they have completely lost the plot
• Sgpolitics.net
  • May 4 – My response to the ST article: “Process, pluralism, protection”
  • May 3 – Josie Lau’s team removed, and a new leadership at AWARE has been voted in!
  • May 3 – An open letter to new AWARE president Dana Lam and her team
  • May 2 – Josie Lau’s team removed, and a new leadership at AWARE has been voted in!
  • April 29 – An open letter to Ms Josie Lau
  • April 26 – Countering the contradictions and poorly conceived propaganda of AWARE’s new Exco
  • April 25 – AWARE veterans set the record straight
  • April 24 – Misinformation spread by AWARE’s new Exco is deserving of the sternest rebuke
  • April 18 – New AWARE president disregarded DBS staff code of conduct twice
  • April 13 – More awareness needed about the “leadership grab” in AWARE
• Singapore Enquirer
  • May 2 – Ex-Aware panel members voice distress at ’sacking’
  • May 2 – Should faith-driven groups take over secular organisations?
  • April 24 – Petition against new Aware
• Singapore Life and Times:
  • May 3 – RIP
  • May 2 – The Other Page
  • April 16 – Toasted
• Stomp Talkback: The Hidden Hand
• Tantalizine: Be aware of morons at AWARE
• The Brotherhood: Why the AWARE cat fight is so important to Singaporean civil society?
• The Kent Ridge Common
  • May 3 – Positive ending to a semi-revolution at Suntec City
  • May 2 – News commentary: AWARE’s Extraordinary Meeting
  • May 1 – Religion in secular society and its potential problems
  • May 1 – A series of interesting developments
  • April 28 – Hanging herself by her own rope?
  • April 27 – Playing with words and a controversial precedent
  • April 24 – Dr Thio Su Mien, what can you teach the ignorant ones, really?
  • April 24 – The aftermath of Dr Thio’s revelation
  • April 22 – Notice: Join AWARE and vote
  • April 20 – To AWARE’s new exco: Please leave out religion!
  • April 20 – Inconsistencies in Josie Lau’s Television Interview
• The Legal Janitor: Christian fundamentalists love Big Government
• The Online Citizen
  • May 4 – All about Aware
  • May 4 – Letter to TOC: Aware – readers’ views
  • May 3 – Voted out but still willing to contribute
  • May 3 – Josie Lau and team resign from Executive Committee
  • May 3 – Aware members demand: “Account for our money!”
  • May 3 – AWARE: Lessons from a fiasco
  • May 3 – Aware EOGM – Damien Chng’s photos
  • May 3 – TOC’s Exclusive Videos – Aware Extraordinary General Meeting
  • May 2 – TOC “live” report: Aware EOGM – the early crowd
  • May 2 – More than a thousand turn up for Aware EOGM
  • May 1 – Perspectives: Views on AWARE
  • April 30 – Church of Our Saviour clarifies “allegations”
  • April 26 – BREAKING NEWS: Staff sent out email asking members to vote at Aware EOGM
  • April 25 – Care about AWARE: Leaders we respect
  • April 25 – Constance Singam: “That trust is gone.”
  • April 25 – AWARE veterans set the record straight
  • April 24 – “We cannot have people acting like moral vigilantes..” says AWARE’s old guards
  • April 24 – Dr Thio Su Mien’s press conference
  • April 24 – Lawy’s key role in coup
  • April 21 – Josie Lau’s interview leaves questions unanswered
  • April 20 – Josie Lau’s first television interview
• the phallus monologue
  • April 26 – What do they want?
  • April 24 – Why YOU should care
  • April 18 – Beware of Aware
• The Singapore Monitor
  • April 25 – Weekly Roundup: Week 17
• The Wayang Party
  • May 4 – If you think good won over evil in AWARE, you better sit down, take a stress pill and think it through again!
  • May 4 – CNA Talking Point: Interview with Dana Lam and Braema Mathi
  • May 4 – Reflections of the Aware EGM from a member
  • May 4 – Aftermath of Aware EGM: Time for some house-keeping
  • May 3 – Aftermath of Aware EGM: How Josie and team manage to play the media card the wrong way
  • May 3 – Photo Gallery: AWARE EGM, 2 May 2009 (Inside Halls 402 and 403)
  • April 30 – Call for ROS to step in and dissolve AWARE for breaching provisions under Societies Act (CAP 311)
  • April 29 – EXPOSED: AWARE EGM venue moved to EXPO, next to “Transformation Conference 2009″ co-organized by COOS and 40 other Churches!!!
  • April 28 – Psychiatrists debunked Dr Thio’s and COOS’s claims that homosexuality can be “changed”
  • April 27 – The AWARE saga: Time for government to respond to its ramifications to draw a clear demarcation between secularism and religion
  • April 25 – Blogger launched “Operation Leper” against AWARE new exco
  • April 25 – The crux of the AWARE fiasco is not about homosexuality or religion but the space for diversity
  • April 24 – BREAKING: Old Aware exco rebukes Josie Lau during press conference at Bishan Junction 8
  • April 24 – Press statement from AWARE old guards on 24 April 2009
  • April 24 – Did Josie Lau LIE? Contradictions in earlier DBS statement and her revelation on CNA ‘Talking Point’ that she has no plans to run for AWARE President
  • April 24 – Hostile exchange between Josie Lau and old guard Chew I-Jin during press conference
  • April 24 – COOS Pastor Shawn Tay rallying troops to support new exco at EGM in the name of “Singapore”
  • April 24 – Transcript of new AWARE exco’s press conference last night at Raffles Town Club led by Josie Lau with Thio Su Mien expressing outrage at the turn of events
  • April 24 – BREAKING: Leaked emails from COOS members showed that AWARE take-over was pre-planned in advance!!
• Tomorrow: May 3 – AWARE: a case study in respect Traces from elsewhere
  • May 4 – I salute the wonderful women and men of Singapore for standing up for AWARE
  • May 1 – AWARE – Women make up your minds
• miyagi.sg
  • May 1 – What we should be AWARE of
  • April 22 – I wasn’t AWARE but I am now
• Unwired precipitations
  • April 26 – Why the government is loving this
  • April 10 – Pharisees
• Wayang Times: AWARE News Video Summary
• Writing-Yoga-Living
  • May 3 – Post EGM – Still High!
  • May 1 – Messrs Rajah & Tann, Why? Why? Why?
  • April 30 – Aware EGM Akan Datang
  • April 24 – Why Thio Su Mien’s Stand Is Good News
  • April 24 – Great News: Thio Su Mien Behind Coup Conspiracy!!
  • April 23 – What can I say?
  • April 23 – More Aware now
  • April 19 – Josie and The Pushy Cats on TV
• Youth:sg: Caught unAWAREs: Milestones and brickbats
• Yawning Bread
  • April 29 – Identity mobilisation – a threat to society
  • April 26 – Bloggers’ maturity demonstrated in Aware saga
  • April 21 – Pirates ahoy! Gay netizens and the AWARE hijacking
  • April 12 – From now on, be wary of AWARE

From the World Wide Blogosphere

• BoingBoing – Christian Fundamentalists hijack Singapore Feminist Group
• dogemperor
  • May 3 – AWARE: Proof that sometimes the good guys win
  • April 24 – Steeplejack of AWARE (women’s org) in Singapore by Joel’s Army church
• wiqaable: media: the AWARE saga

]]> http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/04/past-blog-posts/feed/ 0 http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/tan-joo-hymn-congrats/ http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/tan-joo-hymn-congrats/#comments Sat, 02 May 2009 23:05:32 +0000 unfluff http://awaresg.wordpress.com/?p=136 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.

]]> http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/tan-joo-hymn-congrats/feed/ 0 http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/matilda-gabrielpillai/ http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/matilda-gabrielpillai/#comments Sat, 02 May 2009 23:03:01 +0000 unfluff http://awaresg.wordpress.com/?p=134 May 3: Letter by Matilda Gabrielpillai

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!

]]> http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/matilda-gabrielpillai/feed/ 0 http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/tania-chew/ http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/tania-chew/#comments Sat, 02 May 2009 22:58:08 +0000 unfluff http://awaresg.wordpress.com/?p=118 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”

]]> http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/tania-chew/feed/ 3 http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/quotes-before-after/ http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/quotes-before-after/#comments Sat, 02 May 2009 22:27:25 +0000 admin http://awaresg.wordpress.com/?p=107 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

]]> http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/03/quotes-before-after/feed/ 0