I begin with a quote from Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2000).

Those who label us ‘hooligans’ have very little understanding of feminism nor of the history and culture of civil society nor indeed of how democratic institutions work. They have (which is a lot of women) grown up with the social mandate that says “be nice”. History has taught us that being nice got us nowhere.

Another confusion is with regard to AWARE as a women’s organization. What is AWARE? Is it a welfare organization? Is it a social club?

It is both. But AWARE is more than that. AWARE’s founding members realized that AWARE needed to go beyond maintaining the status quo if women’s aspiration to be treated as equals to the men were ever to be achieved.

AWARE, then, set out to follow the feminist ideology and mode of action. It became a movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women. Equality, in these terms, is a balance between the male and female with the intention of liberating the individual.

Feminism’s goals are social and political change. This means one must be engaged with the government and law, as well as social practices and beliefs. And implicit to these goals is access to sufficient information to enable women to make responsible choices.

Take for example one issue that AWARE pioneered and feminist organization the world over) and promoted – domestic violence. Until feminism, there was no word for battered women or domestic violence, no legal protection and no shelter system. AWARE needed to raise consciousness of the public, policy-makers and the victims to succeed in raising the issue as a serious concern and lobby for laws to garner mainstream support and provide victims with support.

But unfortunately when the concern becomes mainstream, as it has in Singapore, the resulting social programs are reduced to treating the symptoms rather than curing-or preventing-the disease. This is the mode of action of welfare organizations.

In order to have a robust movement, domestic violence and economic development need to be re-identified as feminist issues and victories.

Take all the concerns that AWARE has pioneered and promoted – citizenship rights, equal medical benefits, one-third quota in the medical faculty and others – have all since become mainstream issues.

Another case in point is sexual harassment. This was again not recognized nor acknowledged till AWARE did the survey two years ago. The feminist mode of action for AWARE would be to lobby for laws against sexual harassment, public policies and protocol to deal with harassment in the workplace, trainings for implementation of these laws, and process to help women through the process.

Feminism requires action and responsibility for oneself. A feminist organization such as AWARE is required to work for political and social change; campaign for laws and policies that support individuals toward equality; provide individuals with the knowledge, skills and power to make their own choices and respect each other as equals.

This is why AWARE can never ‘be nice’. If it becomes ‘nice’ it would have failed in its mandate.

Constance Singam
July 8 2009

Related:

• July 11, 2009 -- Rawkin’
• June 5, 2009 -- They’re Coming to Get You
• June 1, 2009 -- How ST covered the story
• May 28, 2009 -- Sin Boon Ann: AWARE & Failure of the Media
• May 28, 2009 -- Koo Tsai Kee: Tolerance & Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In full: Expat Magazine June 2009

Photo by Yvonne Loh

Related:

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

May 30, 2009
AWARE SAGA

How ST covered the story
ST’s editor answers critics of this newspaper’s reporting of events
By Han Fook Kwang, Editor

The recent leadership tussle at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) sparked a divisive debate on issues such as religion and homosexuality.

I HAD been reluctant to write this piece defending The Straits Times’ coverage of the Aware saga. Some of my colleagues had wanted the paper to put out its side of the story in the face of criticisms over how we covered the saga. But I wasn’t keen to make the paper the focus of this long-running debate, for I’ve always felt that newspapers shouldn’t be active players in the stories they cover. Our job is to report accurately and fairly what is happening and to make sense of it for our readers so they can draw their own conclusions. However, critics have assailed us over these very issues, and I have little choice now but to set out the facts concerning our coverage after two MPs spoke about it in Parliament this week.

On Tuesday, Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann said that reporting on the saga had been biased and lacked a diversity of views. She did not name The Straits Times but everyone listening to her would have concluded that she was referring to this newspaper.

Were we biased and one-sided in our coverage? This is best answered by detailing how we covered the story.

Many have forgotten how this story began. Aware held its annual general meeting (AGM) on March28, and for almost three weeks few knew that the group’s leadership had changed in a dramatic fashion that day. The old guard team who were tossed out did not announce it. The new president, Mrs Claire Nazar, and her team were silent. It was only on April6 that The Straits Times was tipped off that something unusual had happened at Aware and we began work on the story. Our first report did not appear until April10, because for most of that week we had tried hard to confirm with both sides – the old guard and the new – what had happened.

Founder members and old guard leaders of Aware spoke to us. They confirmed that the election had taken place legitimately and according to Aware rules, which allowed brand new members to seek leadership positions right away. They were distraught, not at seeing their preferred list of candidates lose the election, but at the manner in which the new team moved in. Their account was that the majority of the 102 people who attended the AGM comprised new members who had joined in recent months. Most were unknown, and most stayed silent during the AGM. When it was clear that the new members were contesting executive council positions with the intention of taking over the organisation, older members tried to ask them who they were but received few clear answers.

We were faced with a curious situation. Here was a new team of women who had contested and taken over Aware. Yet, three weeks after they had taken charge of this well-known group, they remained unwilling to explain who they were, why they had acted and what they intended to do with Aware. These are basic questions that any group which takes over a society, grassroots organisation, union, clan or country club should expect to be asked if it pulls off as successful a leadership grab as this appeared to be.

In the days before our first report appeared, our reporters tried hard to reach members of the new leadership. We were willing to report whatever they had to say, but our reporters were stonewalled by everyone they reached. Ms Jenica Chua confirmed she was in the committee but refused to speak. Repeated calls to Ms Josie Lau and Ms Lois Ng were not successful. Ms Lau’s husband, Dr Alan Chin, had joined Aware as an affiliate member and had been present at the AGM, but he too would not speak to our reporter. Even the new president, Mrs Nazar, refused to say anything until the day she confirmed that she had resigned after just 11 days at the helm.

More than once, those approached in the new team asked for a set of questions to be sent to them in writing by e-mail. Our reporters obliged, only to receive no answers by e-mail and no face-to-face interview either.

After Ms Lau was appointed president, The Straits Times continued to hope that Aware’s new leadership would see fit to open up about themselves and their plans. Attempts to reach individual exco members failed as everyone insisted that only the president was authorised to speak to the media. Yet Ms Lau did not make herself available either, despite numerous attempts to reach her by telephone, e-mail and text message. Instead, she chose to make her first public statements on a television current affairs programme. The Straits Times reported what she said there.

Those who accuse us of being one-sided in our reporting in the first two weeks after the story broke are right in a way. But it was not because we deliberately sought to shut out the views of the new group while providing the old guard space in this newspaper. The new leadership was often absent in our pages because they chose to remain silent, for reasons best known to themselves.

It was not until April23 – almost a month after the Aware AGM – that Ms Lau and some members of her team finally decided to open up at a press conference. The Straits Times sent a team of reporters and covered it comprehensively with reports on Page1 as well as in the inside pages.

Some have criticised our extensive coverage of this story and wondered why our reporting was so ‘breathless’. There are many reasons. As this story played out, we witnessed some highly unusual twists. Aside from the leadership change, Aware’s new president resigned within a fortnight. Her replacement, Ms Lau, was criticised publicly by her employer, DBS Bank, for taking office. The Straits Times was prepared to give the new team as much space as we had given the old group, and more if necessary, to answer all those questions which had been on everyone’s mind: Who were they, why did they take over Aware in the manner they did, and what did they hope to achieve?

It was only at that April23 press conference that senior lawyer Thio Su Mien revealed herself as the mentor of the women who had taken over Aware, and made several comments explaining why she felt Aware needed fixing. We reported that press conference extensively, and followed up by running extracts of what Dr Thio and others said, as well as their answers to additional questions our journalists put to them. We had maintained throughout that The Straits Times was prepared to run what the new leadership said, and we did so, in the interests of providing balance in our coverage so readers could better judge the merits of the arguments.

Our readers are not always aware of the work journalists do behind the scenes to try to present reports that are factual and objective, or the lengths to which we go to persuade those who are unwilling to speak to engage with the media and open up. It was certainly not for lack of trying on our part that the views of the new team led by Ms Lau and her supporters did not appear more often in our pages, especially in the early stages.

Mr Sin Boon Ann, in his speech in Parliament on Wednesday, accused the press of ‘framing this episode as one that carries a religious undertone’ and, in the process, polarising Singapore society. We should again let the facts speak for themselves. From the outset, we wanted to find out more about the new group, but because they were not willing to speak, we had to do our own research. Our checks showed one common link initially: several members of the new group had written letters to the press expressing concern about the perils of promoting a homosexual lifestyle in Singapore. We subsequently also found out that several of them belonged to the same Anglican Church of Our Saviour. We reported these factually.

Were we wrong to have highlighted those links? The April23 press conference confirmed what The Straits Times had reported. Dr Thio, who also attends the same church, revealed that she began monitoring Aware’s affairs about a year ago because she was disturbed by what she saw as signs that it was promoting lesbianism and homosexuality. She then began urging women she knew – including many in her church circle – to challenge what she perceived to be Aware’s attempts to redefine marriage and families.

What of the ‘religious undertones’ which Mr Sin accused the press of promoting in its coverage? This is totally mistaken, and akin to shooting the messenger. In fact, the strongest expressions of concern over this were not made by the press, but by various other parties.

As Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng observed in an interview with this paper: ‘The Government was worried about the disquieting public perception that a group of conservative Christians, all attending the same church, which held strong views on homosexuality had moved in and taken over Aware because they disapproved of what Aware had been doing. This caused many qualms among non-Christians, and also among Christians who believed that this was an unwise move in a multiracial, multi-religious society. It was much more dangerous because now, religion was also getting involved, and it was no longer just the issue of homosexuality.’

No higher authority in the Christian community than Anglican Archbishop John Chew of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a clear statement that the NCCS did not condone any church getting involved in the Aware dispute. Leaders of other religious faiths also put out statements to reinforce NCCS’ message.

Why did so many feel it necessary to speak out on the danger of mixing religion with politics in the Aware saga? It wasn’t the press which gave them the idea.

Was it because of what Senior Pastor Derek Hong of the Church of Our Saviour was reported to have said from the pulpit, urging his flock to support the then new exco in Aware? He had said:

‘It’s not a crusade against the people but there’s a line that God has drawn for us, and we don’t want our nation crossing that line.’ We leave it to readers to decide.

Far from The Straits Times raking the ground with an anti-religious agenda, we provided the available facts surrounding the makeup of the new group for readers to draw their own conclusions. Subsequent events showed that we were not barking up the wrong tree.

Mr Sin wondered if ‘the press would have been so quick on the take if it were women from another faith who took up the cause instead’.

He ought to know better than to use the religion card in this fashion. If Mr Sin is accusing The Straits Times of being in favour of some religions against others – a very serious accusation against a newspaper with 1.4million readers of every religious shade – he should substantiate his complaint.

I hope the facts I have set out above will help readers understand better our coverage of the Aware saga. Were we right in every aspect of our coverage? Of course not. Journalists are human, we make mistakes and we have our blind spots. Our record is that we are upfront about our errors and apologise for them promptly. Our internal processes, which involve several layers of editing and gate-keeping, ensure that individual reporters do not push their own agendas. We have also carried out our own internal review of our coverage and have found that we could have done better in several respects. For example, we should have pressed the old guard more on Aware’s school sexuality programme and the appropriateness of some of its content.

But I stand by the professionalism of our reporters. The personal attacks against the integrity of our journalists sadden me because they show the vindictiveness of our critics and the length to which they are prepared to go to attack our professionalism. In fact, there appears to be an organised campaign to discredit the media, with mass e-mail being sent, including to Reach, the government feedback portal.

The Straits Times has no hidden agenda to push this line or that, or to favour one group against another. On this story, as with others, we were driven by our desire to provide as much information to our readers as possible, in as timely a manner. That remains our primary objective.

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”

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

‘Intolerance’ is a threat
The Straights Times, 28 May 2009, By Jeremy Au Yong

INTOLERANCE, not the economic crisis, poses the biggest threat to Singapore, Associate Professor Koo Tsai Kee (Tanjong Pagar GRC) warned in Parliament on Wednesday.

While the economic slump will pass, religious and racial bigotry could bring about Singapore’s downfall, he said during the debate on the President’s Address at the opening of the new session of Parliament.

‘This economic crisis cannot set us back permanently. It is a passing thunderstorm,’ he said.

‘But if we fall prey to religious and racial bigotry, then it will be a growing cancer in society.’

Although he did not state it explicitly, it was apparent that Prof Koo was referring in part to the recent leadership tussle at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). The controversy sparked a divisive debate on issues such as religion and homosexuality.

‘I see an increasing number of Singaporeans identifying themselves with race and religion. That in itself is nothing wrong if seen in the right perspective,’ he said. ‘But I see small groups becoming self-righteous and becoming intolerant of diversity. This intolerance may be our downfall.’

Singapore has succeeded so far as it has a system of tolerance and meritocracy, one which embraces diversity and inclusiveness, he said.

Still, he warned that the country was not in the clear yet: ‘We are still a young country. In the history of nations, we are still a long way from proving that our success in peaceful co-existence can withstand the test of time.’

The Minister of State for Defence used the examples of Sri Lanka and the former Yugoslavia to show how multi-racial, multi-religious societies had fractured. He contrasted this against cities like New York and London which embraced diversity and tolerance ‘in huge doses’.

‘While we focus our energies on solving this economic crisis, we should never lose sight of the long-term challenge of building a tolerant, diverse and inclusive infrastructure where everybody has a private space within the bigger common space,’ he said.

More:
Embrace diversity – ST May 27, 2009 By Bryan Huang
Koo Tsai Kee Speech to Parliament May 26

Related:

• May 28, 2009 -- Thio Li-ann: Religion & the Secular State
• May 28, 2009 -- Sin Boon Ann: AWARE & Failure of the Media
• 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”

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”

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!!!

Shakespeare said “Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them.” For these amazing warriors they certainly achieved greatness. I salute you all – Ms Dana Lam, Constance Singam, Brema Mathia, Margeret Thomas and, last but never least, Mr. Siew Kum Hong who – possibly motivated by a sense of justice – took on the legal role for free!

So join me friends in saluting these amazing Amazon warriors of Singapore. You can’t find me on page 69 or page 73 of anywhere but you can find me here at this blog. So post your ‘salutes’ here and share this moment.

To these warriors, I have a message too. You have earned the respects of many of the 4 million Singaporean; some of whom have come to look upon you all as guardians of civil society.

More

Related:

• June 5, 2009 -- They’re Coming to Get You
• June 1, 2009 -- How ST covered the story
• May 19, 2009 -- Being Culturally Aware
• May 7, 2009 -- Letter to ST Forum by Pam Oi
• May 7, 2009 -- Letter to the ST Editor by Dr Lai Ah Eng

At the EGM, the previous Exco reported that it had spent some $90,000 from the time it took office. On the face of it, this does seem excessive and does exceed the monthly spending limit of the Executive Committee as specified in the Constitution.
The current Exco is reviewing documents provided at the recent handover before deciding on appropriate action.

More about our fundraiser ‘Top Girls’

‘Top Girls’ is a fundraiser whose ticket sales has been hampered due to the Aware saga. Now that the dust has settled, we need your support. The funds raised through sponsorship, donations and sale of tickets for the Gala evening will enable AWARE to continue its work which includes:

• Direct Services which comprise the AWARE Helpline, Counselling, the Befriender’s Service and Legal Clinic
• Educational Programmes such as Financial Intelligence Training
• Research such as a Survey on work-life balance

‘Top Girls’ is being staged from 27^th May to 30^th May. Tickets for the Gala Night on 30^th May are at $80 each. This comes with an invite to a reception brought to us by Harry’s and WineGuru. Please call AWARE Centre 6779 7137 or email tickets@aware.org.sg to buy tickets.

Normal performances
Dates:  27th, 28th 29th May at 8pm.
Venue: DBS Arts Theatre, 20 Merbau Road, Singapore 239035
Ticket prices: $40 (Students $25) Tickets through Sistic. Link: http://tinyurl.com/p86pvy.

Top Girls AWARE Gala Night
Date: Saturday 30th May at 8pm (7p.m. Gala evening and reception)
Tickets price:  $80. Tickets through AWARE e-mail: tickets@aware.org.sg; or telephone AWARE 67797137 (10.00am – 5.00pm). You may download the order form at http://tiny.cc/FAljI.

Volunteer Opportunities

The way ahead for AWARE is a very fresh, exciting new one and we can only do it with volunteers of a range of skills and professionalism. These are some of the volunteer opportunities available:

• Fundraising – Interest/ experience in publicity, marketing, and/ or organization.
• Designers/ Illustrators – Interest/ experience in graphic design for print/ web
• Website development – Interest/ experience in WordPress and/ or Joomla
• New Media: Interest/ experience with new media outreach methods such as Facebook, Twitter and blogging.
• Database management – Interest/ experience in maintaining the integrity of databases
• Writing/ archival – Interest/ experiencing in book projects
• Research – Interest/ experience in conducting and analyzing research

If you are interested in any of the positions above, please send us

• your contact details (name, mobile, and email address)
• your resume and/ or experience in the field
• with the position of interest in the email header to volunteers@we-are-aware.sg.

Also you have interests not listed above, please let us know at volunteers@we-are-aware.sg. We will be sending out periodic volunteer opportunities.

Related:

• May 7, 2009 -- Standing by the CSE
• May 4, 2009 -- We All Won!
• July 16, 2009 -- Why AWARE cannot “be Nice”
• July 11, 2009 -- Rawkin’
• June 18, 2009 -- Video Tribute to Volunteers

It is urgent and critical that AWARE and our civil society transcend organisational norms and leadership structures, so as to seize the opening and momentum of May 2nd for the greater freedom and good of Singapore. In the spirit of working for all women and men with trust, respect and choice, I would like to voice out my honest observations and concerns. My deep apologies if I cause any misunderstand in this clumsy sharing.

Although I joined AWARE 15 years ago and contributed to its helpline and a few excos, I am not sure if I am an old-guard. When I was working with a passionate group of women and men for the past two weeks preparing for the EGM, I was not sure if I was old-new or new-new member. Does this identifying really matter? Of course not, so what really matters? AWARE and Singapore.

1. The House of AWARE – Limitations of Inactive Members and Leadership Challenges

AWARE is not the only CSO or even civic organisation that faces the challenge of inactive members and leadership transition issues. In fact, I would venture to say most organisations face similar challenges. Let us examine the root causes. For the past 24 years, AWARE is a house where feminists try hard to co-exist and unite. Alas, feminists come in all ideologies and cultural backgrounds. No matter how you agree to disagree or not fight, there will be tensions and multiple positions. Our passions and anxieties were further heightened as we were “held ransom” by a singular identity that society “restrict” onto us – AWARE women.

The head of a household can only be an individual or a small team of leaders. Surely, it cannot be that everyone living in the house can be heads of household? Hence, over the years, the torch bearers for AWARE became the dedicated “old guards”. For all the years when AWARE did not have sufficient people running for exco, the “old guards” came forth to carry on the torch. Overtime, sub-cultures evolved among these regular leaders and new members. My personal journey in AWARE is such that I felt the shoes of the regular leaders too big to fill. I was not sure how much I should push for my ideas or introduce new ways of working as I respect the years of hard work and sacrifice that the regular leaders put in to grow AWARE. Hence we have this unfortunate situation where the regular leaders kept asking for more help while the new members do not dare to step up. This seems to be a common script in most organisations that are registered societies.

2. An AWARE Village with a Computer Server In the Rainbow Coalition

In 1999, when the working committee (TWC), a network of civil society activists from diverse fields was organically formed, I quickly got myself involved as I wanted to find out how else civil society activists could organise ourselves. I discovered there were other ways of organising, such as a company limited by guarantee or social movement coalitions. Internationally we witnessed the complex coordinated protests by the international civil society at the 2000 Seattle WTO meeting. Locally, we see groups such as Raleigh Singapore, Food For Thought, ECO, HOME and TWC2 innovating their leadership, membership, organisation, and coalition technologies. With the recent EGM, we-are-aware was able to mobilise, communicate and recruit in very short time and with great efficiency and tremendous fun!

There is much for the current AWARE exco to review, restore and engage our membership of 3000. It is a very happy challenge for sure and we can consider a hybrid organisational format of an interest group with the new social movements. NSMs emphasize civic aspects of social changes in lifestyle and culture, rather than restricting changes in the public and economic aspects. Hence, NSMs do not need to be formal organisations with members but informal, loosely organised social network of supporters. Interestingly, NSMs seem to last longer than single issue campaigns and aim at change on various issues in relation to their set of beliefs and ideals. This hybrid solves our leadership renewal challenge as we no longer need to restrict ourselves into one house but honour the blooming of a hundred flowers all at the same time(百花齐放).

Indeed AWARE can expand its house to include the diverse interests and concerns of its new members while staying true to its focus of research, advocacy and direct services towards gender equity – much like a village with a computer server, to link up on the internet. In this way, the AWARE values of trust, respect, choice, diversity, inclusiveness and openness need not contradict in physical groupings or cyberspace groupings. And AWARE can work creatively and strategically with other stakeholders in the Rainbow Coalition.

3. Healing After the Storm – An Inward Journey of Gratitude and Letting Go

As a civil society activist and social worker, I am so aware of the importance of self-care. In the past two weeks and coming months, I am so grateful for fellow activists who have cared for me and who will continue to do so. I will do the same for you all. Self-care at a personal level involves taking stock of our fears, anxieties and ego; and trusting a few people into our lives to love and support us deeply. Self-care at an organisation level entails members coming together to process hurt and affirm unity and love. Self-care at a civil society level requires us to be generous and respect differences.

4. Enjoy the Rainbow

There is really no point holding blindly on to anger, fear or ego, as we have learnt from our immediate past exco. Let it go, and be free and be alive to enjoy the rainbow!

The strength of civil society is exactly creative problem solving propelling by a sense of justice and truth. If a house does not provide for leadership renewal or multiple heads, then let’s build a village. If the village is too far to reach, let’s build a virtual community. Learning from the achievements of the EGM, as long as we are united, we trust and we respect, hundred flowers will bloom towards greater equity and compassion. The pot of gold at the end of this rainbow coalition certainly can be shared with all like-minded folks, disadvantaged people, animals and the entire eco system.

For all women (men, animals and plants) – trust, respect, choice.

Related:

• May 3, 2009 -- Open Letter: The euphoria and the reality
• June 5, 2009 -- They’re Coming to Get You
• June 1, 2009 -- How ST covered the story
• May 31, 2009 -- Dana Lam: No Apologies
• May 19, 2009 -- Being Culturally Aware

Volunteer tells why Aware’s EGM turned raucous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pamela Oei (Ms)

Related:

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Lai Ah Eng
Founding and Life Member of AWARE

Related:

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

Sat March 28: An unusually large turnout during the AWARE AGM (about 3 times bigger than normal, almost 80% are new members.

Newcomers defeat seasoned AWARE members to win 9 of 12 positions on the executive committee. Newcomers have no subcommittee experience. Claire Nazar, a member since January last year, was elected unopposed as president.

Wed April 8: Claire Nazar resigns as president, stating differences in decison to remove key sub-committee members and her disapproval of their “stormtrooper” tactics

Tues April 14: AWARE’s old guard leads 160 members in calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM).

Wed April 15: New Exco appoints DBS executive, Josie Lau, as new AWARE President. DBS issues a statement saying it does not support her taking up the post.

Thurs April 16: Two-time Aware President and former NMP Braema Mathi is told by e-mail she is no longer in charge of producing a key report on discrimination against women in Singapore for the UN.

Fri April 17: Josie Lau issues a statement questioning the motives of the old guard in calling for an EGM and asks if they harbour another agenda. Old guard issues a statement to say its motives and objectives have been fully visible the past 25 years.

Sat April 18: Veteran member and former president Constance Singam resigns as Aware’s adviser.

Sun April 19: Josie Lau refuses to be interviewed on TV together with Dana Lam, ex-President. She and Maureen Ong are subsequently interviewed on Talking Point (without Ms. Lam presence at the same interview).

Tues April 21: Campaign site http://www.we-are-aware.sg/ launched.

Thurs April 23: Introducing Dr Thio Su Mien, as their “feminist mentor”, new Exco claims AWARE has become single purpose organisation overly concerned with promoting lesbianism.

• New Exco intentionally excludes current Honorary Treasurer Chew I-Jin (elected by old guards) from their news conference.
• Current president Josie Lau claims she received death threats.
• At the same time, New Exco changes locks at the office despite vote of no-confidence and upcoming EGM.
  
• The centre’s manager, Schutz Lee, was fired without reason.

Fri April 24: The Old Guards holds a news conference addressing New Exco’s claims: the issue is not about whether the organisation has strayed from its original aims, but more about ensuring that there is space for diversity of views in society.

Sat May 2: Extraordinary General Meeting is scheduled.

Dear Members

You may have already read or heard the news about the Education Ministry’s decision to suspend AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme in schools pending its new vetting processes for such programmes. This move also affects similar programmes offered by other organisations.

We sent the media our response yesterday and I thought I should also write to you regarding our position.

We stand by our CSE programme. As I’ve said to the press, we’ve been running the programme for two years without complaints. The Ministry’s statement of April 28th confirmed it had not received any complaints from the students, or their parents, who have been through the programme.

What is currently at issue, as revealed in the Ministry’s statement yesterday, lies specifically with some of the suggested responses in the Instructor Guide that it found to be “explicit and inappropriate”. We are prepared to review these and make any necessary changes so long as the principles and objectives of the CSE are not compromised. Yesterday’s statement from the Ministry has also noted that the CSE carries accurate information on STD and HIV and role-play practice for students to say no to sex.

What is important is that the CSE programme, and similar programmes that other organisations may have, continues to be available to students in Singapore . We hope to be able to resume the CSE programme before too long.

TOP GIRLS

Meanwhile, there is an immediate matter we need your help with – sale of tickets for the Gala evening of TOP GIRLS, a fund-raiser for AWARE scheduled for Saturday, 30 May. It will be a great opportunity to put aside more weighty issues and celebrate life and renewal together.

The Caryl Churchill play is among the best 100 plays of the 20th Century on the British National Theatre’s Millennium list. It won the Obie Award in 1983. The Wessex Theatre production is directed by Daniel Toyne, and has a seven member all woman cast playing 16 roles in all! The play has some coarse language but promises an evening of heart-warming truths, and laughter.

It is being staged from 27th May to 30th May. Tickets for the Gala Night on 30th May are at $80 each. This comes with an invite to a reception brought to us by Harry’s and WineGuru. See you all there!

Please call AWARE Centre 6779 7137 or email tickets@aware.org.sg to buy tickets. And, mark the date on your calendar!

Warmest Regards,

Dana Lam

President

Related:

• May 4, 2009 -- We All Won!
• May 21, 2009 -- Response to MOE Decision
• May 3, 2009 -- 2 May 2009 EGM Election Results
• May 8, 2009 -- Update From EXCO
• July 16, 2009 -- Why AWARE cannot “be Nice”