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

___

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

Related:

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

Hafizah (“Fizz”) was elected to the AWARE EXCO at the 2nd May 2009 EGM

___

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

Related:

• July 2, 2009 -- Video: Yvonne Reflects
• June 18, 2009 -- Video: Aye See Reflects
• June 10, 2009 -- Video: Meera Jane Reflects
• June 14, 2009 -- IS Interview: Hafizah Osman
• July 7, 2009 -- Video: New AWARE Training Institute Programmes

 
We-Are-Aware Video Series
Talking Heads Every Thursday

More

Related:

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

 
We-Are-Aware Video Series
Talking Heads Every Thursday

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

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

Meet them here over the coming weeks.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In full: Expat Magazine June 2009

Photo by Yvonne Loh

Related:

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

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.

THANK YOU,

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

Thank you.

Good Evening ladies and gentlemen, friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy!

Related:

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

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

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

1. May 5 – Email from Harmin Kaur
2. May 5 – Email from Steve Thio
3. May 5 – Email from Stephanie Chok, PhD Candidate, Asia Research Centre
4. May 5 – Email from Anu Selva
5. May 5 – Email from Kavitha Dorairaj
6. May 4 – Email from Kerry Wilcock, Manager of AWARE Direct Services
7. May 4 – Email from Suchen Christine Lim
8. May 4 – Email from Adeline Kueh
9. May 4 – Email from Indra R. L. Iswaran
10. May 4 – Email from Fanny Ler
11. May 4 – Email from Lenore Lyons

What i miss about AWARE is the passion of all you fantastic women.

From the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU. You begin to see the value of something when you are at risk of losing it. AWARE has touched so many women in different ways and the risk of losing that voice which fights for our rights was horrifying.

This is a big victory for AWARE, civil society and Singapore Women.

Once again thank you for keeping the flame alive. Your courage, spirit and fervor are inspirational. I look forward to seeing you all again soon.

back to top

2. May 5 – Email from Steve Thio

It was an honour for me to help and assist an organisation that has done so much to further the cause of the minorities and marginalised. The little I did is nothing compared to all that AWARE has done through the years.

I can only hope now that the organisation will grow stronger, more respected and achieve its goals with the support of more people.

Congrats and well done!

back to top

1. May 5 – Email from Stephanie Chok, PhD Candidate, Asia Research Centre

CONGRATULATIONS!!! To all of you and your amazing team!

What an incredible, inspiring and historic event.

Dana, Congratulations on being AWARE President! I was so happy and relieved to see up on stage at the end, and it was heartwarming to see the new Exco on stage, arms linked.

I was glued to my laptop all Saturday here in Perth, obsessively clicking on The Online Citizen and following the Twitter trail (the power of online media!). And Sunday I was obsessively watching all the online videos I could find, cheering and boo-ing in my living room. (Oh how I wished I could’ve been there!!)

It was truly wonderful to see all these women (and men) gathered to restore justice and I really thought the (old and now present!) AWARE team did an awesome job and provided such a direct contrast to the (new and now former) Exco!

It has inspired hope in many, judging from the burst of energy online and everyone’s facebook status updates.

Thank you! And all the best in the coming weeks and the work that lies ahead. There is much to look forward to!

Warm congratulatory hugs

back to top

2. May 5 – Email from Anu Selva

It was the most inspiring day of my life and my hope in this country was renewed by the intelligence, passion and charisma of so many of the women I met and the men who put in as much heart and hard work. Thanks for allowing me the chance to do the wee bit I did.

back to top

3. May 5 – Email from Kavitha Dorairaj

I too would like to thank you for the opportunity to do a small part. I am deeply honoured that I could help in what little way. It was amazing to see such strong, intelligent, articulate women and men coming together and standing up for what they believe in.

back to top

4. May 4 – Email from Kerry Wilcock, Manager of AWARE Direct Services

As a staff member at AWARE, I appreciate the passionate work that has gone into reclaiming ‘our AWARE’ over the past 5 weeks. It has been an incredibly hostile space for us to continue to offer a place for women to ‘heal’. Despite this, our Direct Service team have continued to do their job and fight for safety for our clients. Clients have told us over and over again how important AWARE is to them and have even shown concern to our counsellors.

We have an exciting year ahead. I feel priviledged to be part of this organisation. I have no doubt that we are capable to stepping up to the challenge.

Let’s do it!

back to top

5. May 4 – Email from Suchen Christine Lim

Greetings to new President and Vice President.

All of Singapore and the Maldives cheered and yelled ourselves hoarse when we heard the great news on the phone. We danced on the sand pit and hugged each other! I felt so proud of all of you, Singapore’s woman warriors.

It made me cry and laugh at the same time.

I am proud to be Singaporean!

Hugs to all my friends in AWARE!

back to top

6. May 4 – Email from Adeline Kueh

Phrases from Maya Angelou’s Phenomenal Woman kept running through my mind when we-are-aware members spoke – their dedication, humility & tireless drive for the cause was awe-inspiring

Hat’s off to these women & the men who are there to support our cause!

back to top

7. May 4- Email from Indra R. L. Iswaran

Dear Dana and Team,

Congratulations, congratulations, congratulations for a successful return of a more suitable team that will drive AWARE in a positive direction. Well done for a great job done for keeping the fires of progress burning for the Singapore women. I realise how much the organisation needs the support… each and everyone of us were mistaken and lulled into a sleep mode thinking there were many there to do their bit. Little did I realise till I watched the interviews and transmissions on RAZORTV that it was in dire need of support. Well here I am and would love to help where ever the need arises to help make a difference.

Warmest regards and a huge hug to the AWARE members
Indra R. L. Iswaran

back to top

8. May 4 – Email from Fanny Ler

9. May 4 – Email from Lenore Lyons

I just wanted to pass on my congratulations and support for the new Exco appointed at the EGM. As a longstanding Friend of AWARE I have been watching events unfold with a growing sense of alarm and dismay. I have every faith in the incoming Exco and believe that they will do a fantastic job of continuing AWARE’s important work.

back to top

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.