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
• July 2, 2009 -- Video: Yvonne Reflects
• June 25, 2009 -- Video: Hafizah Reflects
• June 18, 2009 -- Video Tribute to Volunteers

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”

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