We Are Aware » Support

Letter to ST Forum by Pam Oi

admin — Thu, 07 May 2009 07:57:05 +0000

The following letter was written to the ST Forum and published Thursday May 7th:

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)

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

Letter to the ST Editor by Dr Lai Ah Eng

admin — Thu, 07 May 2009 07:52:41 +0000

Shared with permission from Dr Lai Ah Eng received May 5th 2009. As of May 6th this was not published in the Straits Times.

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

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

Past Blog Posts

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

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

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

Blogs from Home Ground

From the World Wide Blogosphere

AWARE is back in our hands!!!

unfluff — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:03:01 +0000

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!

Letters of Support via our Website

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

1. May 2 – Letter from Tan Boon Kim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. May 1 – Letter from George Wong

You are THE BEST.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With all my best wishes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers from a pro-inclusion family

4. April 30 - Letter from Chia Guo Hao

To all the determined women of AWARE,

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

5. April 30 – Letter from Siow Li Sen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. April 30 – Letter from Brandon Goh

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

7. April 30 – Letter from Calvin Hwang

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

Hope you win, its a costly event for me.

Good luck.

8. April 27 – Letter from Malti Lalwani

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

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

The implications of this? You decide.

9. April 25 – Letter from Mullai Pathy

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

Regards, and best of luck in recapturing Aware.

10. April 25 – Letter from Aw Guan Bee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Letter by Alexandra Serrenti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Letter by Martha Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Letter by Tania Chew

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unpublished: Letter by Gurpreet Kaur

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

Unpublished Straits Times letter by Gurpreet Kaur

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

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

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

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

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

Unpublished: Let’s not forget AWARE’s achievements

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:12:46 +0000

Unpublished Straits Times letter by Audrey Wong

I refer to the situation at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) and would like to note a glaringly missing link in the media coverage: the lack of information on the organisation’s remarkable achievements over the 25 years since its founding. It is a true pioneer among civil society organistions in Singapore and its longstanding members including its founders like Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Constance Singam are well-respected in Singapore and abroad for their tireless work over the past three decades, that has led to positive change for women in Singapore.

It is easy for the media focus on more titillating topics like the new exco’s stance on homosexuality, but I feel that the coverage has done a disservice to women and to the organization’s excellent work. Aware’s research and advocacy work has contributed to bettering the lives of Singaporeans, such as: the revisions to the penal code in 2007 with regards to marital rape and the enactment of legislation with extra-territorial effect against child sex tourism; the constitutional change according the same citizenship rights to children born abroad of Singaporean women as for Singaporean men; the granting of equal access to medical benefits for spouses of female civil servants where previously only male civil servants had this privilege; reviewing of the quota of female students admitted to the medical faculty. On a daily basis, Aware has helped many women directly through its helpline, legal clinic and Befrienders programme.

This is the house that the so-called ‘old guard’ has built. Because of this, it is indeed troubling to hear that newcomers with a mere three months’ association with the organization and with no history of volunteering or working for the organization, have taken over en masse. It is even more disturbing to hear that they have sacked Braema Mathi as chairman of the committee preparing the report for CEDAW (the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which Singapore endorsed in 1995), despite Ms Mathi’s experience, expertise, and international standing. In a business corporation, there is usually the financial means to buy in the requisite expertise and consultants; the situation is vastly different for a non-profit, which usually operates on lean financial and human resources. This measure by the newly elected exco seems to be shortsighted and contrary to the sentiments expressed in the press statement released which spoke of recognizing the good work done by its predecessors.

I hope that the public realises the value of Aware’s work and understands why it was important for its older members to press the ‘newbies’ on their values and understanding of the principles of the organization. In the non-profit sector, the belief, values, and commitment of those who lead it matters a great deal.

Unpublished: Why I joined AWARE this week

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:11:57 +0000

Unpublished Straits Times letter by Lucy Davis

Although I have been a member of a number of various civil society organizations for many years and enjoy a relationship of respect for members such as Braema Mathi, Dana Lam, Constance Singam and many others, I have not until now signed on as a member of Aware.

This is because although I support the foundational, progressive values of Aware, I had faith that Aware was doing the good work that it needed to and had enough people in the organization to do this already. I devoted my civil society energies to other causes.

I have however, had occasion to refer a series of very desperate women to Aware for legal and psychological counseling over the years. I would like to highlight two of several cases, which would seem relevant to the current speculation over the new Excos values:

The one breadline income earner and already defacto a single parent, was trying desperately to obtain a divorce from a man who provided no child support but had beaten her up repeatedly over the years kicking her in the stomach while she was pregnant etc but who had now returned to India with no trace.

Another woman was a tertiary student who had become pregnant due to unprotected sex and was utterly terrified of the consequences. She did not dare tell her friends, her family or her Church about this. She was deeply ashamed, had considered suicide and was, when I spoke to her, in the process going online and ordering medication to induce an abortion. I counseled her very strongly not to do this and advised she contact both Aware and a doctor.

I join Aware for this week for the following reasons specific and general:

1) I am concerned over the speculation that behind the gloss of the new Excos pro-family policies are positions that would not permit the first battered wife I previously referred to Aware to obtain a divorce.

2) I am concerned that a pro-abstinence stand in sex education would leave young women such as the student I referred to Aware with even less control over their bodies and in even more desperate circumstances.

3) I am concerned as to the consequences for gay members of Aware and gay members of society that they be pressured, through sexual and religious prejudice into counseling and other ridiculous conversion schemes. I am concerned that Awares previous stance on sexuality as a
choice is in danger.

4) I am concerned for the previous secular values of the organization, now seemingly dominated by persons from extreme denominations of the Christian church.

My other reasons are general and ones of principal:

5) I find the closeted tactics taken by the new Exco and their refusal to come clean on their agenda and ideology abhorrent

6) I feel that this move is not just about Aware but is about protecting spaces in civil society as a whole against the non-democratic forces of religious exclusivity and sexual prejudice.

I look forward to the forthcoming Extra Ordinary AGM where the new Exco will perhaps finally be open as to their agendas on the above issues, why they felt it was necessary to take over so aggressively and also whey they felt they needed to so abruptly remove members such as Braema Mathi from projects in which they were doing such good work.

Unpublished: Letter from Susan Tang, SAFE Singapore

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:11:20 +0000

Unpublished Straits Times letter from SAFE Singapore, Susan Tang

We at SAFE, read with sadness, the recents reports on the events at AWARE that reinforce the homophobia that exists in our society.

Myths can be powerful in their control over our lives.The myth of the heterosexual family as it is spun in culture and society, excludes many people, specifically the families of gays and lesbians.

At SAFE, our attempt to listen to and understand the stories of parents and siblings who tell us what it like to discover that their child, brother or sister is homosexual, has pointed us to the dangers of this powerful myth.

The belief that only heterosexuals who are married and have children are “normal” and happy, encourages us to rear our families with these same expectations. This works fine for most people, but those who deviate from this majority are condemned as “abnormal” or “flawed” — the common labels we use on homosexual people.

Parents of a gay child in turn regard the “flaw” in their child as shortcomings in themselves. For to be the “perfect parent” is to have a “perfect child”, who should of course, be heterosexual. This “flaw” is nothing but the absence of heterosexuality in their child. How then are parents to transcend this conviction that their child’s homosexuality is a “flaw” amidst a society that stigmatises and shames gay people?

At SAFE we have discovered that the key to success has to do with parents realising that that their love for their child is indeed, unconditional. It is a love at all costs, a love that nourishes the wholeness of our children. On the other hand, the sense of conditional love makes a child hide that part of her/himself believed to be unlovable, disclosing only the lovable parts, resulting in many years of hiding, dishonesty and fear of rejection.

The heterosexual family myth becomes that barrier to real and loving relations between parents and their gay and lesbian children, who simply cannot fulfil society’s expectations and as a consequence, the whole family feels shame, fear and failure, and exile from the larger community. This myth of course, similarly applies to heterosexuals who choose not to marry,
or have children, those who are divorced, single parents, blended families and so on.

SAFE strives for the day when society can break down this myth and confront the negative stereotypes attributed to gays and lesbians by the dominant culture. It starts with each of us – parent, sister, uncle, friend, colleague – to confront our own attitudes that have fed the dominant culture. Only till then can we claim to be truly pro-family, standing up for honest, strong and whole family relationships.

Unpublished: Letter by Chan Tse Chueen

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:10:26 +0000

Unpublished Straits Times letter by Chan Tse Chueen

I am sorry to hear of the death threats and hostility that Aware’s new exco members have faced. The threat of violence cannot be justified.

From the recent reports on the views of Aware’s new executive committee members – and their mentor, lawyer Thio Su Mien – it is clear the group’s new leaders worry that it has become a “single-objective organisation” preoccupied with promoting homosexuality. And it is clear that they’ve got it wrong.

Aware has, as one of its long-time member Chew I-Jin pointed out, recently worked on issues such as sexual harassment in the workplace and the burden on singles in an ageing society. How does that make Aware a single-objective organisation?

Did Aware, as its new leaders claim, promote homosexuality? Well, it does not condemn homosexuality, as Dr Thio, who sought out and encouraged some of these women who are now exco members to challenge Aware’s “pro-homosexuality agenda”, would have liked. In Aware’s sexuality programme for schools, she found out, homosexuality is a neutral term, not a negative one.

What Aware’s new leaders object to is a natural consequence of Aware’s professed and cherished inclusiveness. They seem to be upset that it promotes gender equality for all, regardless of race, religion or sexuality. [Please keep emphasis.] If they do not agree with what Aware stands for, why did they join Aware? I applaud their willingness to serve. But would their energies not be better used in an organisation that truly reflects their values?

Unpublished: Why I am Aware – Lena Lim

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:09:35 +0000

Unpublished Straits Times letter by Lena Lim (founding Aware member and first president)

As a founder member of Aware, its first president, and long time volunteer on the Helpline, I would like to share with you what Aware means to me.

Aware gave me the opportunity to broaden my horizons beyond my immediate family and career as a publisher and bookseller. Aware gave me a third dimension – a feminist dimension. It taught me to see, to perceive and act; to listen, to hear and speak out. To be assertive without being confrontational, to empathise not pity.

We undertook many projects – public talks to raise consciousness about women’s issues, campaigns against domestic violence and sexist advertisements, research on population issues, and quality education, financial intelligence training are just some.

We were all workers, there was no queen bee, no bureaucratic procedures. The process of working as a team was as important to us as the end result. Along the way, Aware’s values of acceptance of diversity in ethnicity, religion, culture and sexuality were ingrained in our thinking, and all our programs.

This was an imperceptible process; there were no lectures, no undertakings that new members had to sign, no enshrined constitutional clauses. The Aware values that Constance Singam enumerated in her letter to members - these are intangible assets that cannot be just taken over, physically or constitutionally. They have to be earned.

I have known for a long time that I have gained a lot more from Aware than I can ever hope to contribute to it. Aware was our ‘finishing school’. It made us AWARE Women.

And so it is heartbreaking to realize that all this is now in jeopardy. That is why we are fighting so hard for OUR Aware.

Cheng U Wen Lena (also known as: Lena Lim)

Open Letter: Mary-Anne van Adrichem

unfluff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:08:47 +0000

Although I would like to offer my support for the retention of AWAREs core principles – I find that as I am not a Singaporean or PR – there are not any options open to me.

I wish you all well, although I joined as a member – it seems that this action is more than useless as the “inclusive” organisation does not allow women here on Visa’s much of a voice.

The agenda and orchestration behind the new EXCO is more than frightening. The fact that they actually feel free to go public with it, is a sad statement on how they feel their message will be received in Singapore. Coupled with the progressive deconstruction of the sub committees and office staff – AWARE looks to be progressively wound down.

Good luck for the EGM – you have my support even though I cannot vote or sign the petition!

Best wishes