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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vincent Tan

Related:

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

The GRC parallels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnny Heng

Related:

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

As published:

I READ with great concern the Ministry of Education’s statement regarding the suspension of Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme.

The programme was based on material put together by leading international academics, health workers and medical experts working with the International Women’s Health Coalition. As such, it is a document reflecting some of the most recent research on women’s health, reproductive and gender issues worldwide. Singaporean counsellors, social workers, law enforcement officers, parents and teachers have attested to the value and importance of Aware’s programme for our youth today.

The suspension of the programme is a step in the wrong direction and sends a message that as a society, we are not prepared to stand up for the facts as established by authoritative medical and social work groups when social pressure is strong. Surely, this is not the signal we want to send, both to groups in Singapore and also to the international community to which Singapore belongs.

Alexandra Serrenti (Ms)

Original (reproduced with permission):

Is the Ministry of Education now defending prejudice over informed medical opinion?

I read with great concern the press release by the Ministry of Education over the suspension of AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme.

AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme was based upon material put together by leading international academics, health workers and medical experts working with the International Women’s Health Coalition. As such, it is a document reflecting some of the most recent research on women’s health, reproductive and gender issues worldwide. As those individuals who attended Saturday’s EGM will know, Singaporean counsellors, social workers, law enforcement officers, parents and teachers have attested to the value and importance of AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme for our youth today.

The Government of Singapore and the Ministry of Education have garnered much credibility internationally because of their respect for expert testimony on medical, health and pedagogic issues. We are internationally respected because of our fearless determination to build an education system that is based on and supported by good research and by informed expert opinion.

In this respect, I am deeply disappointed to hear of the Ministry’s decision to suspend support for AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme on account of the protests of persons who have NOT attended any of AWARE’s CSE programme sessions. Public sentiment has been whipped up by a group of women (Dr Thio Siew Mien and the deposed Exco of AWARE) who have been shown to have no medical or social work expertise — and precious little impartiality when it comes matters of sexuality and sexuality education.

That the Ministry of Education should have suspended AWARE’s well-respected programme on these grounds is a step in the wrong direction and sends a message that as a society, we are not prepared to stand up for the facts as established by authoritative medical and social work groups if social pressure is strong enough. Surely, this is not the signal we want to send, both to groups within Singapore, and also to the international community to which Singapore belongs.

Alexandra Serrenti

More: Robust Rebuttal From Conservative Singgies

Related:

• April 24, 2009 -- ST Forum: Will programmes continue to be neutral?
• April 29, 2009 -- ST Forum: No complaints from parents, Dr Thio – MOE
• April 28, 2009 -- ST Forum: Restore reason, civility to debate – Constance Singam
• April 25, 2009 -- ST Forum: Leaders’ acts reveal exclusionary stance
• April 25, 2009 -- ST Forum: Silver lining in Saga – Tania Chew

We refer to recent claims and comments about the sexuality education programme in schools by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).

Sexuality education conducted in Ministry of Education (MOE) schools is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.

Core programmes are delivered by teachers but schools do collaborate with other agencies in delivering additional modules. However, in doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are secular and sensitive to the multi-religious make-up of our society. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes.

Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged Aware to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted three hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.

Aware also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45 minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.

The schools that engaged Aware found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students who attended the workshops and talks or their parents.

In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio to seek clarification and facts to substantiate her claims.

If parents and members of the public know of specific instances where guidelines have not been adhered to, they should report them directly to MOE to investigate. MOE recognises that sexuality education is sensitive. In conducting these programmes, the views of parents will be respected and values taught should not deviate from the social norms accepted by mainstream society in Singapore.

Sum Chee Wah (Ms)
Director, Education Programmes
Ministry of Education

The link is here.

IN A climate of debate that has seen fear mongering, character assassination, heads of sub-committees sacked, employees fired, police called, votes of no confidence, churches weighing in and threats of violence, it is necessary to remind ourselves what being part of a civil society means.

A civil society is one where every citizen has an option to make her own life in a safe public sphere and where no one should be discriminated against or excluded because of her religion, class, race, sexuality, lifestyle, ideology or gender.

Given the political dominance of one party and Singapore’s multicultural and multi-religious nature, groups like the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) are important for providing the expression of alternative views and hence for good governance.

The totality of Aware’s work and the make-up of every executive committee (exco) since its formation are representative of a ‘rainbow coalition’. However, and somewhat unfortunately, the current exco does not represent Singapore’s racial and religious diversity. In that sense, one wonders to what degree it best represents civil society.

The second question is what are the tones and sensibilities of civil society? This is a far harder question to answer. But we have had clear, if unspoken, codes of conduct at Aware for many years. These codes have been replaced by mistrust, betrayal, misinformation and silence.

In this regard, character assassination of individuals shows the extent to which people will descend to sell their point of view. Misinformation about me is being circulated by text messages and the Internet that I have a homosexual brother and am working to turn Aware into a gay/lesbian organisation.

My maiden name is D’Cruz and my full married name is Thurairasingam and so Clarence Singam cannot be my brother (see http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/society/1548/122336/3.htm ) .

I have emphasised that Aware will not be used as a platform for lesbian issues. I have stated categorically that Aware speaks for all women and we address issues of discrimination against all women. These are facts that can easily be verified. But facts are a casualty in this whole sad episode.

We must restore a sense of reason, civility and respect to a debate that is increasingly unproductive. This will surely be good, not just for Aware but for all women, families and Singaporeans.

In that sense, I am grateful for the statement by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, in yesterday’s report, ‘Keep religion above ‘petty politics’, says Vivian’.

FORUM NOTE: The writer was president of Aware before the society’s AGM last month. She quit as its adviser following the fallout between veterans of the society and the new executive committee, comprising largely new members led by Ms Josie Lau.

The link is here.

I refer to yesterday’s reports about the press conference by the new executive committee (exco) of Aware, ‘Lawyer’s key role in Aware coup’, ‘New exco members tell of death threats’, ‘Long-time member and new exco lock horns’ and ‘Locks at Aware offices changed’.

My point is simple: Women who discriminate against other women should not lead an organisation meant to help all women. And it is clear that new Aware president Josie Lau and her fellow exco members discriminate against lesbians, women who choose premarital sex, and women who defend the right to have abortions, for a start.

That they have accused Aware of becoming a gay rights group only reflects their own homophobia and severely diminishes the vast portfolio of Aware’s work in advancing the rights of all women.

Their actions since the election are telling of their direction away from Aware’s spirit of inclusion – they have excluded committee member Chew I-Jin from an important press conference and excluded many more by changing the locks on the Aware centre without informing all members, causing confusion and forcing distressed women there for counselling to leave abruptly.

It appears that building a fortress against an imaginary siege is more important for Ms Lau and her fellow exco members than ensuring the smooth day-to-day functions of Aware, which include counselling distressed women.

I cannot see the new exco helping women who are retrenched from work or facing harassment as a result of their sexual orientation or their views on premarital sex and abortion. And that is just for a start. What other hidden discrimination do they harbour against other groups of women?

Aware gives help to many women that not everyone supports or approves of. Aware’s gift to Singapore women is not that it toes the line of public consensus, but that it bravely pushes against the status quo to advance rights for all women.

If Ms Lau and her like-minded exco members truly want to help other women within the ambit of their religious convictions, they are free to do so – from within their church.

Singapore was founded on a creed of religious tolerance – but only so long as one group’s religious convictions are not imposed on others.

The link is here.

The controversy between the old and new leaders of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) is churning out much ill feeling, which does not help matters. Aware is about women. It is about gender equality and non-discrimination.

I will fight to preserve an agenda that is devoid of religious, racial, gender or sexuality bias. At the same time, I am heartened that things have come to a head because without it, so many of us would have just carried on with life, not really knowing, not really caring.

The recent developments have served to awaken interest and vigorous activism in people, and I am cheered by that.

I also think all this is happening at a time when Singaporeans are more open-minded and vocal, and willing to fight for what they believe in. No doubt the dialogue will be colourful, even controversial, but it is key to bringing about change for the greater good of everyone.

It is unfortunate that it took something like this to get more people to sit up, take notice and voice their views.

The link is here.

I REFER to the ongoing debate about Aware. That its Constitution provided for democratic elections and, hence, takeovers, seems clear. Old members should just accept the rules everyone plays by.

The new exco also mentioned its concerns about an over-emphasis on a single issue of women, namely, lesbianism. That is also a legitimate concern for some women, especially mothers with daughters at an impressionable age.

Aware has in the past contributed to the improvement of women’s welfare. It should continue to do so and not be sidetracked by this controversy. It should refocus on its entire spectrum of concerns and give them a fair degree of attention.

A single screening of a movie in 2006 does not constitute that big a deal, taken in the context of what Aware has done in 24 years. Nor are a few talks given in schools about homosexuality. It comes across as a bit of an overreaction.

It is, however, a little discomforting that the new exco appears to be less sympathetic towards homosexuality. The organisation that fights for women should do so, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. Personal beliefs and bias centred on religion should be discouraged. We are, after all, a multiracial country with different religions. Mutual respect and acceptance of one another’s beliefs are paramount.

The new Aware is now being watched by everyone. Its actions will be monitored and scrutinised. Let us hope that all the good work done in the past will continue to be improved on and not derailed. In the larger scheme of things, lesbianism is but a single facet of women’s issues. Let us not get carried away in this debate.

Homosexuality is a controversial issue. Society is still evolving in baby steps towards its acceptance. As witnessed, old fears still abound, so let us take it a step at a time.

The link is here.

The truth behind the fracas surrounding the so-called leadership coup at Aware has finally come to light. A group harbouring anti-homosexual sentiments had become upset over the organisation’ s promotion of social equity for gays and lesbians, and wanted to reinstate ‘traditional values’.

Is it not pungent with irony that a group dedicated to the promotion of equal rights for women should implicitly advocate social discrimination against another group? One would expect that individuals who undoubtedly appreciate the historical struggles women had to endure to free themselves of their societal shackles, also appreciate a similar, contemporary struggle for social acceptance. Have the oppressed become the oppressors?

But I understand that, for these individuals, it is a matter of morality. Their interpretation of their religion dictates that an innate sexual condition is grounds for opprobrium.

They might perhaps consider that even today, in certain societies, their counterparts continue to face unrelenting and imaginable prejudice, also because of an innate sexual condition – that of merely being a woman. Those who oppress them do so under the banner of perceived morality as well. Stories of how women are treated in some countries by the ‘morality police’ shock the conscience of women and men, straight and gay alike. Is it really moral or the fruit of a religion, whose early members were themselves persecuted as ideological deviants, to discriminate against people who are different?

Ultimately, this is not just a battle between pro- and anti-homosexual factions. It is but one front in the larger war against discrimination of all kinds. But just as the tide of history turned in favour of women in Singapore, so too will it eventually turn in favour of other groups. As for the new leadership at Aware, they must now struggle to keep their heads above the choppy waters of irony.

The link is here.

Consider these points: Dr Thio Su Mien’s admission that she engineered the ‘coup’ at Aware, ostensibly to promote her religious convictions; that some of the new exco members are from her church; that they all share her religious convictions; and that the ‘inclusive nature’ of Aware’s Charter has been deleted.

How can any objective bystander now say: ‘Give the new exco a chance to further Aware’s Charter?’

The way I see it, the new exco is bent on amending Aware’s founding Charter of inclusiveness to the exact opposite of what the group was founded on. There is now a real fear that the new exco members will infuse Aware’s secular, inclusive Charter with the values of their religious dogma.

How would a church organisation react if a group of non-believers subverted its election process, and put in place a group of non-believers who advocate sex education, condom use and women’s right to determine whether they wish to follow through with their pregnancy?

In a modern, non-theocractic society like Singapore, I cherish and uphold the right to be able to express my personal views and exercise my personal choice within the boundaries of the law.

If I advocate certain religious values, I will join an ostensibly religious organisation to further my cause. If I am a secularist who wants to promote other causes, I will join a non-religious organisation.

Why can Dr Thio and her group not form their own clearly branded religious women’s organisation, as an adjunct to their church group? They are clearly within their rights to do so.

This will cause less confusion and anxiety, and enable everyone to express his personal convictions peaceably.

The link is here.

Related:

• April 29, 2009 -- ST Forum: No complaints from parents, Dr Thio – MOE
• April 28, 2009 -- ST Forum: Restore reason, civility to debate – Constance Singam
• April 25, 2009 -- ST Forum: Leaders’ acts reveal exclusionary stance
• April 25, 2009 -- ST Forum: Silver lining in Saga – Tania Chew
• April 25, 2009 -- ST Forum: Remain focused on entire spectrum of women’s concerns

After reading yesterday’s article, ‘Lawyer’s key role in Aware coup’, I have to disagree with the statement that the old Aware exco promoted lesbianism and homosexuality in Singapore because it showed the film Spider Lilies at a charity gala. Such a statement is absurd.

If that was the case, then MediaCorp and other television networks promote terrorism and crime with the programmes they broadcast.

I have watched Spider Lilies, but that does not mean I am encouraged to be a gay. I have many gay and lesbian friends. I do not detest them because I know they have their reasons for being what they are. Again, having gay and lesbian friends does not mean I am encouraged to be a gay.

Showing movies like Spider Lilies will help us understand why some turn to lesbianism or homosexuality. We should find ways to help them instead of criticising or condemning them.

It is important that Singapore becomes more open about all issues, including lesbianism and homosexuality. Being open to such issues does not mean we are promoting lesbianism and homosexuality. Also, respecting lesbianism and homosexuality is not the same as promoting or supporting them.

The link is here.

I am perplexed by the Aware saga, especially after Dr Thio Su Mien said she was the ‘mentor’ to a number of new exco members. This raises some concerns:

1. Aware president Josie Lau reiterated that this change in leadership was never a coup. She mentioned that she did not know several members of the newly appointed exco, who coincidentally attend the same church as her. This is at odds with Dr Thio’s assertions that she encouraged the women to take up the posts.

In an interview on national broadcast, Ms Lau likewise stated that she was the ‘last man standing’ on the night of April 15, indicating that she had no prior plans to take up the presidency. This is contradictory, again, to the statement by DBS Bank that she had given prior notice that she intended to run for the appointment.

And despite the new exco claiming that it will tap the wealth of experience of the old exco, reports have shown that it has tried to exclude the latter by various means. These include not informing certain old guard members of events and changing the locks of the offices without prior notice.

2. Exco member Maureen Ong was quoted as saying: ‘I don’t want my children to say that, oh, it’s all right to experiment with homosexuality, to experiment with anal sex, to experiment with virginity or the pill or even premarital sex.’ (‘Group’s agenda ‘took gay turn”, yesterday).

I never knew these were advocated in the sex education programme in Singapore schools. There is a salient difference between highlighting and advocating. What seems to be the case, rather, is that the new exco, guided by its Christian values, is trying to dismiss the notions that these issues even exist in the real world.

This is flawed judgment. Schools should educate and bring to light these issues, highlighting the various pitfalls, rather than dismissing their presence altogether. The values portion of a child’s development should be left to the integral family unit to be taught. It is myopic to think otherwise.

3. Will there be seclusion in time to come? It is evident now that the new exco is strongly driven by pro-Christian values. In a 2007 consensus, the majority religion in Singapore is Buddhism, at 42.5 per cent. Christianity weighs in at 14.6 per cent. With such a strong leaning towards church teachings, will the new exco alienate most other religions here?

4. Will evangelical practices become common? In a close, intimate counselling session between two parties, will there be an affirmation stated that religion will not be used as a means to give assistance to a help seeker?

5. What is next? Right now, the hottest issues are homosexuality and the sexual issues teenagers and young adults face. What will be the agenda of the new Aware? Will it further the drive to incorporate added dimensions of Christian lifestyles? The major concern is that the new exco has yet to deliver a clear vision and mission statement. This is troubling.

I am not a homosexual. However, I respect the rights of minority groups, and that they exist in the real world. They are people, like you and me. It is wrong to invalidate their presence and rights.

Like any adult, I simply do not partake in what I feel I do not belong in. We should give the younger generation the same right as well. This is the entitlement of an individual, rather than a privilege.

The link is here.

The Aware situation has left me with many disturbing thoughts as a woman, wife and mother. I have never been involved with Aware in any way, but I always felt there was a need for such an association.

It is horrible that the new executive committee (exco) members have received threats and we should not allow such behaviour in our civilised society. I hope the police can help Aware president Josie Lau and her family.

However, we should not be blindsided and link these despicable threats with the old guard.

As a parent, I am concerned about the more insidious kinds of influence and messages my child is exposed to and the environment he will grow up in. What about qualities such as honesty, respect, openness, acceptance of diversity and inclusivity?

The high-handed behaviour of the new exco members demonstrates that they lack these qualities – from the way they treat past exco members, to their keeping silent on their agenda, to the way they changed the locks and held a press conference without informing the old guard. Are these the actions of a caring society that should include and help women from all walks of life?

The new exco claimed it wanted to honour the work of the past exco, but Ms Lau now says she was ‘being very polite’ when she said earlier that Aware had lost its focus.

While the new exco claimed it does not have an agenda, it is clear now it does. The new leaders joined Aware under instigation or persuasion from a single source to push their agenda.

It is highly worrying that the Aware exco now comprises mainly women from a certain religious sub-group with highly conservative points of view.

It seems to me that, contrary to the new exco’s claims that the old guard was focused on issues of homosexuality, it is the new committee that has an agenda to eradicate any opinions on homosexuality contrary to its own.

I find it unbelievable that Dr Thio Su Mien says she has nothing personal against homosexuals, when her understanding of them demonstrates her ignorance. The homosexual friends I know came from neither abusive nor dysfunctional families.

As a multiracial, multicultural society, we have always thrived on and celebrated diversity and inclusivity. Singapore has taken steps forward because we have shown that people of different backgrounds – be they religious, racial or sexual – can work together.

Aware, as an organisation that supports women and equality, should all the more embody these values of openness, acceptance and candidness.

Thus the situation with Aware has broader implications beyond the group itself. If it is shown – and I am just giving a hypothetical example here – that a group of people with a specific ideology can simply take over an institution that embodies acceptance of diversity and celebrates non-discrimination, what would that signal?

I am sure the new guard are all good women individually and they have the right to their own beliefs. But will they impose those beliefs and challenge the very pillars that made Aware the credible and welcoming organisation it was, and I hope still is, regardless of race, religion and sexuality?

The link is here.

I am writing in support of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Before joining Aware in 2002, I was asked if I really wanted to be associated with a group of pot-banging, men-hating feminists who were bitter with their lot and had nothing better to do.

Since a feminist is one who believes women should have political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights equal to those of men, I was joining in and taking action.

People have asked why I am fighting for women’s rights when we already have so much. I had to explain the basics of gender equality, which is equality of genders or sexes. Aware advocated not for women, but both men and women. Also, until the day women really believe and embrace the power that is already theirs in working beside men, the work of Aware needs to continue.

I have volunteered with Aware in different capacities in the past eight years, including publicity, writing and fund-raising. I found the women there far from what is often perceived. They were highly intelligent, extremely articulate and respected successful individuals comfortable in their skin. Coming from diverse backgrounds – in terms of age, race and religion – we have worked side by side on serious issues and projects.

Aware has always had a fine reputation, successfully nominating not one but three candidates to be Nominated MPs. Consider this: Which organisation meets the police to discuss how rape victims can be better treated? Which non-profit group has heard the heartaches of women in Singapore for the past 15 years through its helpline? Which other group in Singapore has the guts and stamina to proactively advocate for women’s rights?

Lately, Aware has been in the news for the wrong reasons. How was this hostile takeover even possible? Were the members asleep? No. We have simply been too busy doing the work. We did not anticipate this would happen.

But why wash dirty linen in public? Sure, we are embarrassed but do we have a choice? The new executive committee has not acted in the best interests of members and women at large with their hostile takeover, not to mention disbanding various sub-committees without reason.

I have been proud to be associated with Aware and these courageous women. The takeover has not changed this. We are now doing what we can to save Aware.

Women today can apply to be doctors, work in the civil service and enjoy the same medical benefits as men, or choose to stay home to cook, clean and wash for their family. We have choices our mothers and grandmothers did not have. Aware has made a difference to the quality of our lives.

The link is here.

I commend The Straits Times for highlighting the recent developments in Aware. In the light of the religious affiliations of most members of the new executive committee (exco), I seek answers on the future impartiality and professionalism of Aware’s programmes.

Aware’s counselling services are often the last resort for many women at risk who need special protection and care.

Some of my concerns are these:

• Will victims of family abuse be given advice and support to leave their families and spouses if it is determined that they are at risk, given the ‘pro-family’ stance of the new exco?
• Will rape victims be given access to all options during counselling sessions, including advice on abortion, given the ‘anti-abortion’ stance of the religious organisations to which many of the new exco members belong?
• Will sex education programmes include information about the use of contraceptives in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, given the ‘pro-abstinence’ positions of most members of the new exco?
• Will homosexual women seeking advice and help be supported in their struggle to come to terms with their identity in a supportive environment?

I shall be much reassured if the new exco members:

• State publicly their exact positions on these points pertaining to Aware’s social service programmes; and
• Give an assurance of non-interference in the professionalism and impartiality of Aware’s counsellors to provide advice that focuses exclusively on the welfare of clients who seek them out.

I seek such answers because the tussle is not an issue of religious versus secular life, or of endorsement or condemnation of homosexuality, or of being anti- or pro-abortion.

It is about transparency and honesty in providing social services and leadership so women can make informed choices about the type of organisation they wish to support and have support them.

The link is here.