It is regrettable that the Ministry has seen a need to make this move. However, we recognise that the ministry has been under considerable pressure from some parents on the matter and we can understand why it has taken this action.

AWARE still believes our Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme is a much needed resource for youths. It was drawn up by professionals and, during the two years it was run in schools, there was no negative feedback. During the furore of recent weeks, many parents made a point of saying they would be keen for their children to benefit from the objective and frank approach AWARE’s programme takes to sexuality. We will continue with our review of the programme, and this will be done in consultation with parents, teachers, counsellors and other relevant parties. At the appropriate time we may offer it again to the Education Ministry.

The CSE programme, however, is just one of AWARE’s activities. It has been given disproportionate publicity in recent weeks. It is unfortunate if there are now people in Singapore who associate AWARE only with sex education.

AWARE has three areas of activity – research and advocacy, direct services, and public education. The first, research and advocacy, has been AWARE’s hallmark from the start. The work goes on with the CEDAW shadow report, and research into issues such as sexual harassment at work, work life balance, the challenges faced by singles in Singapore, and the trafficking of women and children.

The AWARE helpline, along with our counselling service and the Legal Clinic, continues to be invaluable to women in distress. With our newly expanded membership, we have many new members who are offering to help in these areas and we hope to improve and expand these services in the course of this year.

We also plan to step up our efforts in public education, including reviving the talks and forums that we used to hold in the early years at public libraries and other community locations. The EGM on 2 May showed very clearly that the women of Singapore have strong views on many matters and that they want to stand up and speak out. AWARE will organise forums and other opportunities for them to do so. We will make greater use of new media to reach out to members and to create channels for them to express their views and to network with each other.

Dana Lam,
President

Related:

• May 7, 2009 -- Standing by the CSE
• May 4, 2009 -- We All Won!
• May 3, 2009 -- Open Letter: The euphoria and the reality
• April 30, 2009 -- Open Letter by Martha Lee
• April 30, 2009 -- Open Letter: Setting the record straight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vincent Tan

Related:

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

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

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

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

Apparently I am wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

Siddy ZB
S1629xxxx
[Address redacted]

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

The Guest of Honour is Nominated MP Mr Siew Kum Hong

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

We look forward to your continued support!

Best Regards

Sreyashi Sen
Secretary
Organising Committee
Singapore AIDS Candlelight Memorial
2009
 

Related:

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

The GRC parallels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnny Heng

Related:

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

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,
Leon Ryan
7 May 2009

Related:

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

Volunteer tells why Aware’s EGM turned raucous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pamela Oei (Ms)

Related:

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Lai Ah Eng
Founding and Life Member of AWARE

Related:

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

As a kid, I remember visiting a public pool and seeing this sign: We don’t swim in your toilet so please don’t pee in our pool.

That pithy slogan from my childhood popped into my head in the last few weeks as the Aware saga developed. No matter what the intentions of Josie Lau and her team were, they cannot deny that when push comes to shove, as an exco unified by one religion and one church, they would one day come to a point where they would have to draw the line, so to speak, borrowing the infamous phrase of their church pastor Derek Hong.

As an agnostic who has increasingly become discomfited by what I perceive to be a growing religiosity in society as a whole, Saturday’s EGM gave me much hope that Singapore truly values its secular spirit, no matter what religion one subscribes to, if any.

Since Saturday, however, I have suddenly come to know, separately, to my surprise, that two friends of mine attend the Church Of Our Saviour. Before Saturday., what they believed in and where they worshiped was not a matter we discussed nor cared to discuss. But because Aware is the nation’s hot topic now, these revelations have come to light.

One of them told me she supported the Old Guard because she believed, like me, that one’s faith must not spill into the secular realm. I was very very heartened to hear her words.

They certainly made up for the conviction of my other friend who was quite clearly supportive of the COOS exco which had just been ousted.

Like Josie and her team, this friend firmly believes that homosexuality is unnatural. Like Josie and her team, she believes in the letter of the law – after all, Josie et al got voted in fair and square, via a democratic process, according to the Constitution. And remember how Dr Thio Su Mien on Saturday kept going on about abiding by the constitution and the law? If you don’t like what’s in the Constitution, she said, you have to table it for discussion and change it first. Logically and legally, she is right.

By the letter of the law, therefore, my friend continued, because Proposition 377A was not repealed, which means homosexuality is still illegal in Singapore, the nation’s law actually supports the beliefs of COOS. So why the venom when they protest the propagating of homosexuality in schools as a “neutral” act?

But, as Saturday’s proceedings showed, the Constitution can be overturned on moral authority. While Josie and her team were not legally obliged to step down, they were advised to do so by their legal counsel on the basis of “common sense”.

Whatever lessons one has gleaned from Saturday, it is quite obvious that some kind of line has been crossed. While Saturday was a joyous triumph of unity and spirit on the side of the Old Guard and its new-found supporters, it has also thrown up in stark relief the intimidating prospect of bigger barricades and battle lines in the future.

Saturday saw a clash of two civilisations and two value systems within the sphere of a women’s organisation. As such, the government, rightly, did not intervene. But what happens when the issue in future becomes a national one, and not one limited to a small NGO?

As an agnostic, I have long yearned for a space for my beliefs to be heard. But it is a fine line between offering constructive criticism and being accused of not respecting religious beliefs. Our inter-faith dialogues exclude input from agnostics and atheists, as if we do not have a valid value system.

I believe it is precisely because of this absence of hard talk with regard to religious beliefs that things came to a head on Saturday.

It is time to square our nation’s laws with our nation’s credo of being a secular state. Homosexuality is a personal matter, not one that should be mandated as right or wrong by the state. It is a sin only in the Judeo-Christian framework, not in Buddhism or Hinduism. If Singapore is a truly secular state, its laws should encompass all beliefs and the space for each individual to make his own choice based on his personal values and belief system.

Because of Saturday, Singaporeans, thank goodness, have realised that moral authority does not necessarily come from a big book of wisdom – whether they contain words of state or words of God – but is earned through trust, hard work and a sense of fairness for all, regardless of race, language or religion, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

I support our Prime Minister’s call for us to be a truly inclusive nation.

Therefore, for the sake of this inclusive, secular nation, let us not be caught unaware again.

Open letter by Tan Joo Hymn (past president and new Honorary Treasurer): The euphoria and the reality (3 May, 2:49a.m.)

We barely planned for Plan A. Honestly, we rehearsed and went through Plans B to Z, but barely spent time on Plan A. And then we won. Civil society won. It was almost beyond our imagination, especially by such a large margin of 2 to 1. One thousand four hundred votes in favour of Old AWARE!

Perhaps the statement from the National Council of Churches and the apology from Pastor Derek Hong ensured that bus loads did not arrive. With 4 Ministers and 3 Ministers of State speaking out on this issue, the writing was on the wall I suppose.

Amidst the euphoria, one thing troubled me. The men who spoke (the non-supporters of We-Are-Aware). A few were obviously from “their” camp, and a few were unknowns. They talked about such frivolous and irrelevant things, when a long queue of people were waiting patiently to make their point. Their remarks showed that they thought so little of women and women’s issues, trivialising the whole meeting even. Patronising and condescending.

That is why AWARE still has so much work to do.

On the flip side, oh, the women who spoke up. It appeared that many had not spoken in front of an audience, much less one this big. But they spoke with such conviction, such passion. It has been said that some fear public speaking more than death. Well, these women did it, to a crowd of over two thousand. Fueled solely by their sense of justice and conviction.
To paraphrase what Lotte said, we shouted and jeered and clapped because we are passionate, passionate about the issues, passionate about AWARE. Do you see passion in the faces of the new (well, now ex) Exco members?

The energy, the passion, and conviction of every person in that audience. People who left children and elderly at home, who sacrificed time away from work or their precious Saturday. Civil society really won big time today.

So perhaps we have to thank Josie and her gang, and their “Feminist Mentos” after all… They have galvanised previously apathetic people to turn out in force, brought long-time but lapsed members back into AWARE, so many passionate intelligent courageous new members to AWARE and ensured that truly, everybody in Singapore must now be aware of AWARE! And highlighted the potential fault lines in our multi-religious multi-ethnic society.

After the euphoria, we face reality today, and I confess I’m not looking forward to it. The big clean-up that we have to do, after just one month. The damage that some people can wreak in such a short time.

For now, For all women, trust, choice and respect. And sleep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m privileged to have lived, breathed, whooped and hollered during a landmark piece of Singapore history and I’ve never felt prouder of my country and the people — both men and women from all walks of life — who stood up for the greater good than today. Yes, the AWARE EGM.

• Pride in the people who gave up a whole Saturday to show up and stand in line for ages to get in.
• Pride in those who willingly agreed to be interviewed on video.
• Pride in the passion, intelligence and eloquence in the people who stood up at the EGM and spoke up for what’s right (and I especially remember the Malay Muslim ex-law enforcement father of 3 teenage daughters).
• Pride in the decency that was shown despite the adversity.
• Pride in the media and our lawyers…and so much more.

Hours later I’m still buzzing from the events of the day…some infuriating, some funny…but the one thing that stands out is the solidarity and fervor that I saw in the majority who were fighting to preserve and further the mission and work of AWARE as an inclusive and secular organization.

I went in today hopeful but a little bit nervous, not knowing if it was going to turn into a bloodbath, but I came out of it high on the happiest vibe ever. It was obvious to me that supporters of the old guard knew exactly what they were there for and knew exactly what they wanted to say, backed by a passion that you don’t often see here in SG. And they were FAIR. Unfortunately, I can’t say much about the almost clown-like “speeches” of the new guard supporters, who showed up in bus-loads, didn’t have anything useful to contribute and started leaving after casting their vote.

But I will not dwell on that. Everything’s out in the news and online for the world to see (yes, our manic Twittering made #awaresg a top-trending topic for the day).

This is not a war so I won’t call the majority no-confidence vote a victory. I prefer to see it instead as a milestone marker that will hopefully be the start of much bigger and better things to come for AWARE.

To everyone who recently joined as a member (myself included), don’t let your passion end today because what lies ahead is when it really counts and starts to make a difference. Tell your friends about AWARE, volunteer your time and continue to do what you started doing when you showed up at SUNTEC.

Yes, the old guard has done a great job so far. Imagine how much more we can achieve if we all contribute.

I’d like to end with my fav funny quotes from today’s EGM:

• “Sit down and shut up”
• “I’m on page 73…show your elders some respect”
• “We’ll refer to legal counsel…”
• “I’m a man, don’t harass me”
• “Women are emotional and irrational”
• “I’d like to say to the CONGREGATION…”
• “We’ll help transsexuals according to what’s stated on their IC”

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.