The No To Rape campaign advocates one simple idea: sexual violence by any person, against any person, is criminal violence. Consequently, non-consensual sexual penetration, regardless of whether the victim and perpetrator are married to each other, should be treated as rape.

At the moment, under the Penal Code, this is not the case. Except under limited circumstances that do not apply to the majority of married couples, this act will not be treated as rape.

With the repeal of Sections 375(4) and 376A(5) of the Penal Code, marital rape and other forms of rape will be treated in the same way under the law.

Please visit NoToRape.com to sign the online petition and check out resources to help you spread the word about the campaign. If every one of us can convince even one other person to sign, collectively, we will have a powerful voice.

No To Rape. No Exceptions.

Related:

• May 10, 2009 -- Singapore’s Invisible Abused Women

The AWARE Training Institute (ATI) will be going full steam ahead to develop and conduct programmes in three areas – skills development, knowledge building, and self-knowledge. The aim is to educate, enable and empower women to achieve their highest potential in society. These programmes include:

• ATI’s Body Image Workshops will help young girls to reflect on body image, and concepts of attractiveness and beauty, to enable them to deal with body image and self esteem issues.
   
• Following from AWARE’s major recent report on sexual harassment which showed that more than 50% of respondents had experienced sexual harassment at work, ATI is currently developing workshops to train organisations to deal with sexual harassment and assault. The sexual harassment team comprising HR practitioners, lawyers and social workers target to provide by the end of the year a comprehensive package of services to train and advise companies on policies and practices to prevent and deal with sexual harassment and assault in the workplace.
   
• The financial training programme for women is being enhanced. The aim here is to help women with financial empowerment. Further announcements on this will be made shortly.
   
• Women in Conversation is an innovative approach to learning. ATI provides safe spaces for women to get together in small groups to learn from each other and to share their personal and common experiences in matters such as sex, dating, marriage, gender discrimination, career development, leadership.
   

Related:

• July 7, 2009 -- AWARE Press Con Highlights
• July 6, 2009 -- AWARE Presscon: The $90k Question
• February 22, 2009 -- Corinna Lim File Photos
• July 2, 2009 -- Video: Yvonne Reflects
• June 25, 2009 -- Video: Hafizah Reflects

Tweeters Callan & June wait for the presscom to start.

Callan’s Report on the Press Con

June shows Twitter to Connie Singam

Corinna, Ching Wi, Dana & Joo Hymn just before kick off.

Press Kit:

• PressKIT EXCO Profiles
• Aware Media Con 6 July – Dana’s Opening Remarks
• AWARE Media Release 6 July 2009
• AWARE Media Release 6 July 2009 – EGM costs

State of the Nation’s Women report

AWARE, Singapore’s leading women’s rights advocacy group, is launching a two-year project to reach out to a wide range of women in Singapore and gather their views on the issues that most affect them. These views, together with other research findings, will be published in 2011 in a report titled The State of the Nation’s Women.

In its scope, the State of the Nation’s Women (SNW) report will be similar to the CEDAW shadow reports that AWARE produces and submits to the United Nations. CEDAW, or the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, is regarded as an international bill of rights for women. Countries that sign the convention have to submit national reports at least once every four years on the progress they have made to remove all discrimination against women. Shadow reports are submitted by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and are considered alongside the national reports by the UN’s CEDAW Committee.

Like the CEDAW report, the SNW report will examine the state of Singapore’s women in areas such as employment, health, family, leadership, and media. But a key difference is that the voices of Singapore’s women will feature prominently in the SNW report.

“Our CEDAW shadow reports have identified the inequalities that still exist and the many issues that need to be addressed, such as the lack of sexual harassment laws, stereotyping in the media, the need for more day care centres for young parents and for greater financial security for older women,” said Dana Lam, AWARE president.

“What we will now do, in parallel with our CEDAW work, is reach out to women in Singapore and get their views on all these issues. We want to get the women to talk and we will listen carefully. We want to find out what they see as the key challenges in their lives, what they would like to see by way of changed or new policies and laws. The State of the Nation’s Women report will cover largely the same ground as the CEDAW reports but it will be from the perspective of a cross-section of Singapore’s women.”

AWARE will reach these women in a variety of ways, including a forum series called ‘Stand Up and Speak Out’. There will also be talks and small group discussions, and at least one major conference. Joint projects and other forms of collaboration with the media and with other NGOs will be explored.

Millie (camera woman & editor extraordinaire) with Fizz and Nicole

Ching Wi, Rina, Kerry and Marisse

Margie and Nancy

Lelia and Joo Hymn

Related:

• July 7, 2009 -- Video: New AWARE Training Institute Programmes
• July 6, 2009 -- AWARE Presscon: The $90k Question
• May 31, 2009 -- Dana Lam: No Apologies
• February 22, 2009 -- Dana Lam – File Photos
• May 21, 2009 -- Response to MOE Decision

Yvonne was part of the volunteer audio-visual-video team at the EGM, who said yes at the drop of a hat. Thanks!

___

Give us your feedback: who else would you like to see interviewed?

Related:

• June 25, 2009 -- Video: Hafizah Reflects
• June 18, 2009 -- Video: Aye See Reflects
• June 10, 2009 -- Video: Meera Jane Reflects
• July 7, 2009 -- Video: New AWARE Training Institute Programmes
• June 18, 2009 -- IS Interview: Dana Lam

The original purpose of We-Are-Aware was to galvanise support for the Old Guard in order to win back control of AWARE from the Feminist Mentor’s team.

Mission Accomplished.

 
Then, with the EGM passed, the We-Are-Aware volunteers found themselves with a website that represented the spirit of fighting for what you believe in, for standing up and for speaking out.

So instead of letting the site die, we chose to revamp and continue it in order to give a platform to not only those who spoke out at the EGM but also to those who would one day follow.

As part of this, we are regularly publishing new video content. Initially, this will focus on EGM reflections but eventually we hope to widen the focus to look at issues of interest to our supporters be it secularism, homophobia, migrant workers, women’s rights, etc.

We hope this will generate dialogue and cross fertilization of ideas that will help direct the growth of civil society.

 
Is it working?

The risk is that such a goal may seem too mundane to some – certainly for the online community that prefers to get frothy and vitriolic in comments to the ST Forum or over at Reach.gov.sg.

Saying that, we are still genuinely surprised at how unscathed we have been by the astroturfers who have otherwise had AWARE and the CSE in their sights for some time. Does this mean we are playing it too safe?!

We-Are-Aware has clearly been used to push out a lot of AWARE news lately. This will probably tail off when the AWARE.org.sg site is revamped (yes we know it needs it!).

Is all the AWARE news more than people can bare after the deluge of stories in April & May? Perhaps. We’re AWARE volunteers so we live and breath this stuff. Feel free to give us some perspective!

Which brings us to the main point:

We would really appreciate your feedback on how to make WAA! a better website.

• What do you like/dislike about WAA! ?
• What other content would you like to see – in particular what non-AWARE content would be of interest to you – what civil society topics/issues?
• How can we collaborate with other bloggers to generate discussion?
• Do you think we’re getting this right or have we missed the boat?

Please talk to us. Feel free to be brutal. Of course if you are overflowing with love for us, you are welcome to express that too.

Thanks.

Related:

• No Related Post

Jean	Ann	Hedwig	Myrna
Lena	Margie	Kum Hong	Mark
Ching Wi	Halijah	Poonham	I-Jin

Related:

• No Related Post

 
We-Are-Aware Video Series
Talking Heads Every Thursday

More

Related:

• June 10, 2009 -- Video: Meera Jane Reflects
• July 2, 2009 -- Video: Yvonne Reflects
• June 25, 2009 -- Video: Hafizah Reflects
• July 7, 2009 -- Video: New AWARE Training Institute Programmes
• June 18, 2009 -- IS Interview: Dana Lam

 
We-Are-Aware Video Series
Talking Heads Every Thursday

Six weeks have passed and the dust has somewhat settled. But far from falling into the recesses of mere memory, the Aware EGM has had a profound impact on many of those who came together to save Aware.

These are the nameless, faceless heroes – those who spoke up, those who volunteered behind the scenes, those who just simply turned up to vote for what they believed in.

Meet them here over the coming weeks.

Related:

• June 18, 2009 -- Video: Aye See Reflects
• July 2, 2009 -- Video: Yvonne Reflects
• June 25, 2009 -- Video: Hafizah Reflects
• July 7, 2009 -- Video: New AWARE Training Institute Programmes
• June 18, 2009 -- IS Interview: Dana Lam

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

THANK YOU,

May I ask your indulgence and invite the Exco of AWARE to join me on stage.

Thank you.

Good Evening ladies and gentlemen, friends,

The world is a stage. And AWARE is our band. And, more importantly, EVERYONE plays a part.

We have been way too much in the news lately. We thank those of you who have continued to speak up for us. We have been busy house-keeping and planning ahead. In a few more weeks, you will likely hear from us.

For now, I would like to reiterate that AWARE has never deviated from her mission of promoting the development of a gender equal society. We do this by furthering the emotional, psychological, physical, intellectual health of women to enable them to contribute optimally to the development of a functional, and balanced society.

Therefore, we make no apologies for our programmes. We make no apologies for the support of straight, homosexual or any other members.

However, we do apologise to those supporters- the teachers, parents, students, a certain NMP and others whose association with us has drawn flak from employers and public.

We apologise to sponsors who have been funding our activities for a good 24 years. We apologise to our volunteers; we apologise to our members of staff for the inadvertent trauma of the past weeks.

Tonight, we celebrate these top girls and boys. Please join me in acknowledging their contribution.

It leaves me now to thank the organising committee, sponsors Bengawan Solo, Wine guru and Harry’s bar and the Wessex theatre’s talented cast and crew.

Tonight, unlike at the EGM, I promise you, there will be bad language and there will be women behaving badly.

Enjoy!

Related:

• July 7, 2009 -- AWARE Press Con Highlights
• July 6, 2009 -- AWARE Presscon: The $90k Question
• May 21, 2009 -- Response to MOE Decision
• May 7, 2009 -- I am AWARE of Reflecting and Letting go
• May 3, 2009 -- Open Letter: The euphoria and the reality

He also had words for the media singling out The Straits Times for a failure to report all sides of the story.

Extract:

The recent incident involving the takeover of AWARE by a group of concerned Singaporeans demonstrates how fragile our society is. For a brief period of time, our nation was on the boil. What turned out to be a relatively simple and lawful act of democracy suddenly turned into a deeply polarized and heated debate between the Christian Right and the homosexual and lesbian interest groups. The spotlight was quick to focus on a few key groups, rightly or wrongly; namely the Church, as seen to be represented by supposed usurpers, the old leadership who were seen to champion the rights of the homosexuals and the lesbians in Singapore, the Ministry of Education who denied all knowledge of the instructor’s manual for the Comprehensive Sexual Education (CSE) in schools run by AWARE, and of course the press.

Sir, I do not intend to go into the rights and wrongs of the way in which a group of concerned ladies decided take over the leadership of a voluntary welfare organization, save to say that I find it odd that democracy suddenly takes on a very different meaning when a group of new members decide to legitimately contest in an election to determine a new agenda. I also find it odd that many of the members who did not bother even to attend the most important meeting in the year to elect a new leadership should now decide to raise a howl of protest after the event. If they, meaning the older members, were that concerned in the first place, I believe they should have taken a more active role in the affairs of the organization. Perhaps, AWARE should have been more selective of its membership? The question of who should be given the right to vote has deep philosophical implications that would be applicable not only to AWARE, but for Singapore as well.

Role of the Media

Of the few protagonists involved in the saga, I would like to mention the role of the press in reporting this spat. One self evident condition of a free press in a democracy is the need to be responsible, impartial and to present the facts as neutrally and objectively to the readers. One wonders whether the press can be truly called upon to discharge that duty when some of its own members feel rather passionately about the issues in the public domain. The recent saga surrounding AWARE is one but one example. I will quote one email that I received from one Cheryl Ng. I must add that I do not know Ms Ng and I have not verified the substance of her email. However, I would say that I would not be surprised if it were true and would be very concerned if it is.

Her email reads:

“I’m also surprised and deeply troubled that the reporting in The Straits Times has not been honest in presenting the full picture to the public, especially concerned parents following the AWARE saga. There was a concerted effort by both the press and TV coverage not to mention the significant presence of the homosexual community. If I had not been there, I would never have known the truth.

a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story….hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.

b) Some members of the press and TV were candidly jubilant as they celebrated the passing of the ‘no confidence’ vote by punching their fists in the air and hugging the ‘old guard’ they were standing with.

c) In the sweep of fervent support, the constitutional amendments were also made to allow men and foreign women full voting rights (in a local women’s association that makes the CEDAW report on the state of women in Singapore). In the perspective that such an amendment was thrown out in the previous AGM, the motives may be called into question. The press made no mention of this important development.

I question the cover-up in the press. In review of newspaper coverage of AWARE developments, I’m also beginning to think that press focus on the sensitive issue of religious involvement was but a calculated red herring thrown out to manipulate public sentiments.

Sir, I am pleading for the authorities to look into this matter as I am becoming increasingly alarmed that minority groups with a political agenda may not have just reached its grasp into a vulnerable women’s group, and through it attempt to distort our children’s views on sexuality, but has actually infiltrated the press to block out news and prevent the public from accessing the truth. I actually feel frightened that the press in Singapore can attempt to shape my views as it wishes by misinformation or partial information”

The accusations brought up by Ms Ng have once again raised the question of whether there should ever be an unregulated press. In reporting the matter, the editors and journalists could have looked at the issue as one of the conservative group in our society taking on the liberals rather than be quick to frame this in the context of the Christian Right against the homosexuals and the lesbians. True, many of the ladies came from the same church. However, the same may be said of any group who comes from any organization. But that alone does not mean that they represent the organization. I do wonder if the press would have been so quick on the take if it were women from another faith who took up the cause instead. It is unfortunate that by framing this episode as one that carries a religions undertone, the whole debate deeply polarized our society very quickly.

Apart from the press, the education ministry in the early days of the AWARE leadership struggle has maintained consistently that they did not look into this matter as no complaint was made by any parent. Not surprisingly, what followed was a deluge of complaints from parents which then prompted an investigation by the ministry. The outcome was an implicit acceptance of the serious nature of the allegations against the CSE programmes run by AWARE. I am grateful to note the ministry has now tightened the procedures on the appointment of course providers in the area of sexuality education.

The AWARE saga is as much about the kind of values we want to promote in our society as it is about leadership struggle. To build a socially cohesive society, all interest groups must recognize and accept the fundamental building blocks of our society that have come to represent our values on families and relationships. Our values change if at all by evolution than by revolution. Aggressive proselytisation by fringe groups, whether carried out by insidious means or otherwise, will only invite a backlash from mainstream society. This is not how our society should be run. Social cohesion requires the active participation of all. In this particular episode, one wonders if the education ministry had taken a more proactive stand in the first place by being more vigilant, the leadership struggle and the ensuing polarization of our community would not have taken place in the manner that it did. The question that some have asked is whether a formal complaint must be made from someone before the ministry will act on a matter which it has heard about and which comes under its purview. Displaying annoyance at being dragged into the sorry saga does not help with the confidence recovery process in the aftermath.

In Full | Video

Follow Up: An Apology

During Thursday’s parliamentary session (May 27th), Mr. Sin apologized for not verifying the substance of the contents of the letter quoted above.

Rising to speak when Parliament resumed its session after a short break on Thursday afternoon, Mr Sin Boon Ann said: ‘On reflection I thought I should have sought some confirmation from the writer of the e-mail, or separately verify the contents of the e-mail since I believe the privilege of free speech in this House imposes the higher standards of diligence on the part of its members.

‘But to that extent I have fallen short of these standards. I proffer my unreserved apology to those involved.’

Source: Straits Times: MP apologises for slip - May 28, 2009

Related:

• May 28, 2009 -- Thio Li-ann: Religion & the Secular State
• May 28, 2009 -- Koo Tsai Kee: Tolerance & Diversity
• June 1, 2009 -- How ST covered the story
• July 7, 2009 -- Siew Kum Hong is not reappointed as NMP
• July 16, 2009 -- Why AWARE cannot “be Nice”

In her first speech to parliament since the AWARE EGM, Thio Li-ann took the opportunity to share her views on the subject framing “thick secularism” as another kind of religious belief: “anti-religion religion.”

26 May 2009:
Video of Speech in Full
More from Channel News Asia

Excerpts

IN A recent interview, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng reiterated that religion and politics must not be mixed. This is sound, though there are difficulties of definition as no bright line demarcates ‘religion’ from ‘politics’. We need to understand what ‘secularism’ entails in Singapore for more specific guidance.

A state’s attitude towards religion turns upon its model of constitutional secularism. ‘Secularism’ is a protean, chameleon-like term: what it means depends on the context and who is using it; it can be a virtue or a vice. It is timely to eschew glibness and examine the Singapore model of secularism with precision.

There are in fact many secularisms or degrees of secularity. This complex term needs to be unpacked.

Historically, ‘secularism’ originates from the Latin ‘saeculum’, meaning ‘temporal’, worldly affairs, rather than ‘spiritual’, other-worldly matters. The word ‘secular’ is an emblem of intense historical conflict.

Today, in some circles, ‘secularism’ connotes systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction. The atheistic word was made flesh in the atheistic state produced by the Russian Revolution of 1917, devoted to Marx’s assumption that religion stupefies the masses and must be eradicated to bring forth the new Communist Man.

The principle of secularity dates back to the Roman Empire. It derived from the teaching of Jesus to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’. This principle of limited government opposed state absolutism in suggesting Caesar did not wield absolute authority: While a citizen was to obey civil authority, he was to enjoy freedom from state interference in matters pertaining to the worship of God. Religious liberty thus limits state power. America first experimented constitutionally with dividing sacred from secular authority, rejecting the European conflation of civil and religious power.

Senior Minister of State Zainul Abidin Rasheed described Singapore secularism as ‘secularism with a soul’. This deft juxtaposing of the material and the metaphysical speaks to the cooperative relation between state and religion.

The Constitution does not forbid the state to lend financial or other support to a religion; thus we have the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore as a statutory government body serving the Muslim community.

In 1989, Foreign Minister George Yeo observed the Government was ‘secular but it is certainly not atheistic’. This evinces a rejection of a thick, atheistic version of secularism.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view. Some courts recognise it as a religion. It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence. We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.

It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine. As Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol wrote: ‘It is the atheist’s opium to regard that unsubstantiated faith as established fact.’ Thick secularism is thus an anti-religion religion.

Secular democracies should be neutral not only between traditional religions but also regarding modern religions with atheistic foundations.

What is the situation in Singapore? DPM Wong emphasised the secular nature of the political arena and how keeping ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ separate was a key rule of political engagement.

What this means specifically is that laws and policies derive their legitimacy not from divine sanction but from a democratically elected government. Law generally applies to and equally protects all citizens, regardless of race, religion or social status. Clearly, the Singapore model of secularism is anti-theocratic in that religious tenets and secular law are separated, not conflated.

While anti-theocratic, the Singapore secularism is not anti-religious. This is a vital distinction.

DPM Wong welcomed the public service of individuals inspired by their religious convictions; they also ‘set’ society’s ‘moral tone’. He affirmed that religious individuals had the same right as other citizens to ‘express their views on issues in the public space’ guided by their beliefs.

Religion is thus separated from politics, but, religion is not separated from public life and culture. Everyone has values, whether shaped by religious or secular ideologies; all may participate in public discourse to forge an ethical social consensus. While religion is personal, it is not exclusively private and has a social dimension which is not to be trivialised.

Thus, Singapore secularism is ‘agnostic’ and ‘thin’. The Government does not favour or disfavour any particular religion. We practise ‘accommodative secularism’ described by the Court of Appeal as removing restrictions to one’s choice of religious belief. Religious values do have a role in public debate.

Agnostic secularism of this sort is a virtue; it is a ‘framework’ which facilitates the peaceful co-existence of religions.

Conversely, militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states.

Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious.

Militant exclusionist secularism is thus a recipe for social disharmony; it feeds the ‘culture wars’ in the US and provokes those it seeks to exclude. It will not promote unity in diversity.

When it comes to moral disagreements and public policy, the press is powerfully positioned to promote informed debate. However the press may, by biased and selective reporting, misrepresent, distort or obscure an issue. We need to broaden our understanding of responsible journalism in Singapore, which rejects the extremes of an adversarial American watchdog and a Pravda-like lapdog, or running dog.

The feedback I received from friends and strangers on the reporting of the Aware controversy was that much of the reporting, particularly in one paper, was biased. It largely lacked a diversity of views in singing the same chorus that religious groups should not get involved in secular organisations. Some spoke of their new lists of ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ journalists.

Responsible journalism should extend to covering a diversity of views, not a journalist’s preferred view. It should include the accurate representation of differing viewpoints, and not paint the fringe as mainstream or the pathological as normal. Readers may then see all sides of an issue and decide what is true.

This is important given the near monopolistic position of Singapore broadsheets. A lawyer recently returned from London wrote to me expressing horror in finding local papers apparently had nothing better to report than the Aware saga, as opposed to the more interesting British papers which offered a lot more variety.

This made me somewhat nostalgic for my student days in Cambridge, where I could, with chocolate croissant and Nescafe coffee in hand, survey a range of perspectives from The Times, Guardian, Independent or Telegraph.

Related:

• May 28, 2009 -- Sin Boon Ann: AWARE & Failure of the Media
• May 28, 2009 -- Koo Tsai Kee: Tolerance & Diversity
• July 7, 2009 -- Siew Kum Hong is not reappointed as NMP
• June 1, 2009 -- How ST covered the story
• July 16, 2009 -- Why AWARE cannot “be Nice”

The following is a very quick guide to joining this discussion.

What is Twitter?

It’s a way to exchange information and talk to millions of people all over the world.

Twitter is NOT Facebook style updates of what you are doing every few minutes!

How do I join?

Get an account here.

Hint: Choose an ID that is as short as possible!

Hint: Avoid using all capital letters, underscores & pseudonym’s

Hint: Load your personal photo  immediately! No photo is the true mark of a noob (newbie) . If you are shy, a cartoon or logo will do.

Hint: Fill in your profile so people know a bit about you.

Order: Do NOT protect your updates. You will never get to experience the real Twitter if you do.

OK so I have an account, now what?

Stop using Twitter!

Virtually nobody actually uses the Twitter website to follow Twitter. There are many better alternatives.

For new users, I highly recommend TwitZap.com. It’s a Twitter interface that is easy on the eyes and is intuitive.

Just login with your Twitter ID…

OK I’m in. So how?

 
1. Tweet!
Send a message, 140 characters or less, to announce yourself to the world:

“Hello Twitterverse!”

Remember: everyone in the world can see your message if they bother to look for it. Do not tweet your e-mail address, phone number or IC! Duh.

Follow weareaware on Twitter!

2. Follow someone!
When you follow someone you see their updates. However they will not see yours unless they follow you. It’s not automatically mutual.

Already have friends on Twitter? Follow them.

You can follow anyone you want. It’s not like Facebook – you do not need to know a person to follow them. Just follow anyone you think is interesting. Your list of follows and followers will grow slowly over time.

3. Follow a conversation using hashtags!
When a group of people discuss a given topic, they use a key word that can be used as a common search term. The keyword is called a hashtag and starts with a hash # sign.

Talk about AWARE Singapore and related topics is marked with #awaresg (see recent #awaresg tweets above). Type #awaresg into your Twitzap search field in called add a channel. You are now following the conversation.

For an even richer experience of the buzz, there are lots of great sites devoted to following hashtagged conversations:

Twazzup | Twubs | Twendz | Twitterfall | Twitter Search

Final Words

Health Warning:
It takes a while to "get" Twitter but once you do, it can be highly addictive.

Who said what to whom?
One thing most twitter clients do VERY poorly is showing threaded conversation ie so that you know WHAT tweet is being replied to. If you get confused, try looking at the tweets through Tweetree, another web-based interface.

DMs:
You can send DMs (Direct Messages) to anyone that you follow and who follows you back. These are private messages. You cannot DM someone who does not follow you.

@:
The @ symbol is used when you want to reply or refer to a particular user. To reply to someone place the @ symbol before their username.

RT:
RT stands for Re-tweet. It is proper twitter etiquette to credit the source with RT @username then their message.

That’s it! You are not a noob anymore.

 
More:

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!!!

Letter to Dr John Chew, Anglican Bishop of Singapore

Dear Dr Chew,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Related:

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