As a member of AWARE and having interned there under the old guard, I can say with confidence that my internship stint there was the most fruitful experience for me as a woman. I got involved in a myriad of projects, did hands on work and met so many passionate and wonderful women who shared the same vision. To be in an environment that was all-inclusive has made AWARE a safe place to work in, a place where I was comfortable expressing a lot of views, intellectually, objectively and subjectively.

The recent events at AWARE have some people mislabelling our moves and concerns as sore-losing or complacency. It would only be sore-losing if we knew who these new people are, what their agendas are, and why they used “stormtrooper tactics” to take over the Exco, and after knowing all this, countered them. As of now, they have left too many questions unanswered. Most importantly, none of these women have volunteered or spent a single hour at AWARE before. So their claim that members “were not interested” in voting at the previous AGM nullifies itself automatically, since they themselves have never been interested either and do not even know who the members are. Josie has spent all her time and energy communicating to the media, but has she made the effort to reach out to her members? To communicate with them? To allay the distrust towards the management? The answer is a big no. None of the new Exco members have taken the initiative to do this.

I would say that for members, the AGM has been an issue of trust and not complacency. Over the past 24 years, members have had complete trust in who will be holding the positions of power in the Exco. We trust the old guard to make the right choices and decisions. This time too, it was this trust that we members had and still have in the old guard to put in place the right people in the Exco, and not disinterest as Josie claims or complacency that some other people are claiming.

If anything, Josie and her team have broken the members’ trust by the takeover and now not answering any questions that we are putting forth. If there is anyone who is complacent, it is Josie and her team for not communicating with the members and assuming that just because they have the sheer strength of numbers, they will stay in power and dictate the happenings in AWARE. And even if they do stay in power due to the numbers game, they would have lost the trust and a good following of their members who have helped to build this organisation to its current status.

AWARE would then be there only by name, a shadow of its former self, with its spirit no longer there. And that would not only be a true loss, it would be losing in the truest sense of the word.

I refer to the situation at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) and would like to note a glaringly missing link in the media coverage: the lack of information on the organisation’s remarkable achievements over the 25 years since its founding. It is a true pioneer among civil society organistions in Singapore and its longstanding members including its founders like Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Constance Singam are well-respected in Singapore and abroad for their tireless work over the past three decades, that has led to positive change for women in Singapore.

It is easy for the media focus on more titillating topics like the new exco’s stance on homosexuality, but I feel that the coverage has done a disservice to women and to the organization’s excellent work. Aware’s research and advocacy work has contributed to bettering the lives of Singaporeans, such as: the revisions to the penal code in 2007 with regards to marital rape and the enactment of legislation with extra-territorial effect against child sex tourism; the constitutional change according the same citizenship rights to children born abroad of Singaporean women as for Singaporean men; the granting of equal access to medical benefits for spouses of female civil servants where previously only male civil servants had this privilege; reviewing of the quota of female students admitted to the medical faculty. On a daily basis, Aware has helped many women directly through its helpline, legal clinic and Befrienders programme.

This is the house that the so-called ‘old guard’ has built. Because of this, it is indeed troubling to hear that newcomers with a mere three months’ association with the organization and with no history of volunteering or working for the organization, have taken over en masse. It is even more disturbing to hear that they have sacked Braema Mathi as chairman of the committee preparing the report for CEDAW (the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which Singapore endorsed in 1995), despite Ms Mathi’s experience, expertise, and international standing. In a business corporation, there is usually the financial means to buy in the requisite expertise and consultants; the situation is vastly different for a non-profit, which usually operates on lean financial and human resources. This measure by the newly elected exco seems to be shortsighted and contrary to the sentiments expressed in the press statement released which spoke of recognizing the good work done by its predecessors.

I hope that the public realises the value of Aware’s work and understands why it was important for its older members to press the ‘newbies’ on their values and understanding of the principles of the organization. In the non-profit sector, the belief, values, and commitment of those who lead it matters a great deal.

Although I have been a member of a number of various civil society organizations for many years and enjoy a relationship of respect for members such as Braema Mathi, Dana Lam, Constance Singam and many others, I have not until now signed on as a member of Aware.

This is because although I support the foundational, progressive values of Aware, I had faith that Aware was doing the good work that it needed to and had enough people in the organization to do this already. I devoted my civil society energies to other causes.

I have however, had occasion to refer a series of very desperate women to Aware for legal and psychological counseling over the years. I would like to highlight two of several cases, which would seem relevant to the current speculation over the new Excos values:

The one breadline income earner and already defacto a single parent, was trying desperately to obtain a divorce from a man who provided no child support but had beaten her up repeatedly over the years kicking her in the stomach while she was pregnant etc but who had now returned to India with no trace.

Another woman was a tertiary student who had become pregnant due to unprotected sex and was utterly terrified of the consequences. She did not dare tell her friends, her family or her Church about this. She was deeply ashamed, had considered suicide and was, when I spoke to her, in the process going online and ordering medication to induce an abortion. I counseled her very strongly not to do this and advised she contact both Aware and a doctor.

I join Aware for this week for the following reasons specific and general:

1) I am concerned over the speculation that behind the gloss of the new Excos pro-family policies are positions that would not permit the first battered wife I previously referred to Aware to obtain a divorce.

2) I am concerned that a pro-abstinence stand in sex education would leave young women such as the student I referred to Aware with even less control over their bodies and in even more desperate circumstances.

3) I am concerned as to the consequences for gay members of Aware and gay members of society that they be pressured, through sexual and religious prejudice into counseling and other ridiculous conversion schemes. I am concerned that Awares previous stance on sexuality as a
choice is in danger.

4) I am concerned for the previous secular values of the organization, now seemingly dominated by persons from extreme denominations of the Christian church.

My other reasons are general and ones of principal:

5) I find the closeted tactics taken by the new Exco and their refusal to come clean on their agenda and ideology abhorrent

6) I feel that this move is not just about Aware but is about protecting spaces in civil society as a whole against the non-democratic forces of religious exclusivity and sexual prejudice.

I look forward to the forthcoming Extra Ordinary AGM where the new Exco will perhaps finally be open as to their agendas on the above issues, why they felt it was necessary to take over so aggressively and also whey they felt they needed to so abruptly remove members such as Braema Mathi from projects in which they were doing such good work.

We at SAFE, read with sadness, the recents reports on the events at AWARE that reinforce the homophobia that exists in our society.

Myths can be powerful in their control over our lives.The myth of the heterosexual family as it is spun in culture and society, excludes many people, specifically the families of gays and lesbians.

At SAFE, our attempt to listen to and understand the stories of parents and siblings who tell us what it like to discover that their child, brother or sister is homosexual, has pointed us to the dangers of this powerful myth.

The belief that only heterosexuals who are married and have children are “normal” and happy, encourages us to rear our families with these same expectations. This works fine for most people, but those who deviate from this majority are condemned as “abnormal” or “flawed” — the common labels we use on homosexual people.

Parents of a gay child in turn regard the “flaw” in their child as shortcomings in themselves. For to be the “perfect parent” is to have a “perfect child”, who should of course, be heterosexual. This “flaw” is nothing but the absence of heterosexuality in their child. How then are parents to transcend this conviction that their child’s homosexuality is a “flaw” amidst a society that stigmatises and shames gay people?

At SAFE we have discovered that the key to success has to do with parents realising that that their love for their child is indeed, unconditional. It is a love at all costs, a love that nourishes the wholeness of our children. On the other hand, the sense of conditional love makes a child hide that part of her/himself believed to be unlovable, disclosing only the lovable parts, resulting in many years of hiding, dishonesty and fear of rejection.

The heterosexual family myth becomes that barrier to real and loving relations between parents and their gay and lesbian children, who simply cannot fulfil society’s expectations and as a consequence, the whole family feels shame, fear and failure, and exile from the larger community. This myth of course, similarly applies to heterosexuals who choose not to marry,
or have children, those who are divorced, single parents, blended families and so on.

SAFE strives for the day when society can break down this myth and confront the negative stereotypes attributed to gays and lesbians by the dominant culture. It starts with each of us – parent, sister, uncle, friend, colleague – to confront our own attitudes that have fed the dominant culture. Only till then can we claim to be truly pro-family, standing up for honest, strong and whole family relationships.

I am sorry to hear of the death threats and hostility that Aware’s new exco members have faced. The threat of violence cannot be justified.

From the recent reports on the views of Aware’s new executive committee members – and their mentor, lawyer Thio Su Mien – it is clear the group’s new leaders worry that it has become a “single-objective organisation” preoccupied with promoting homosexuality. And it is clear that they’ve got it wrong.

Aware has, as one of its long-time member Chew I-Jin pointed out, recently worked on issues such as sexual harassment in the workplace and the burden on singles in an ageing society. How does that make Aware a single-objective organisation?

Did Aware, as its new leaders claim, promote homosexuality? Well, it does not condemn homosexuality, as Dr Thio, who sought out and encouraged some of these women who are now exco members to challenge Aware’s “pro-homosexuality agenda”, would have liked. In Aware’s sexuality programme for schools, she found out, homosexuality is a neutral term, not a negative one.

What Aware’s new leaders object to is a natural consequence of Aware’s professed and cherished inclusiveness. They seem to be upset that it promotes gender equality for all, regardless of race, religion or sexuality. [Please keep emphasis.] If they do not agree with what Aware stands for, why did they join Aware? I applaud their willingness to serve. But would their energies not be better used in an organisation that truly reflects their values?

As a founder member of Aware, its first president, and long time volunteer on the Helpline, I would like to share with you what Aware means to me.

Aware gave me the opportunity to broaden my horizons beyond my immediate family and career as a publisher and bookseller. Aware gave me a third dimension – a feminist dimension. It taught me to see, to perceive and act; to listen, to hear and speak out. To be assertive without being confrontational, to empathise not pity.

We undertook many projects – public talks to raise consciousness about women’s issues, campaigns against domestic violence and sexist advertisements, research on population issues, and quality education, financial intelligence training are just some.

We were all workers, there was no queen bee, no bureaucratic procedures. The process of working as a team was as important to us as the end result. Along the way, Aware’s values of acceptance of diversity in ethnicity, religion, culture and sexuality were ingrained in our thinking, and all our programs.

This was an imperceptible process;  there were no lectures, no undertakings that new members had to sign, no enshrined constitutional clauses. The Aware values that Constance Singam enumerated in her letter to members -  these are intangible assets that cannot be just taken over, physically or constitutionally. They have to be earned.

I have known for a long time that I have gained a lot more from Aware than I can ever hope to contribute to it. Aware was our ‘finishing school’. It made us AWARE Women.

And so it is heartbreaking to realize that all this is now in jeopardy. That is why we are fighting so hard for OUR Aware.

Cheng U Wen Lena (also known as: Lena Lim)

I am a founding member of AWARE. I was a member of the Pro-Tem Committee in 1984 which drafted the application and founding constitution of AWARE. I was then a member of the first Executive Committee, when the Association of Women of Action and Research was formally registered in 1985. I served in at least five Executive Committees, occupying various positions, including Vice-President, Honorary Secretary, Ex-Co Member.
I cite these credentials because if anyone is to know what AWARE’s ‘original cause’ is, I should.

AWARE’s ‘original cause’ is stated clearly and plainly in its vision and mission. If AWARE’s Web site has not been tampered with, then the vision and mission can be read there as follows:

• Vision: gender equality for all
• Our mission is to identify areas for improvement in gender equality, encourage positive change, and support women in realising their highest potential. We believe that gains made by women are not gains made at the expense of men. Rather, they are gains which benefit families and society as a whole.

This is the ‘original cause’ from which AWARE has never deviated. If there has been a deviation, then the founding members who drafted the vision and mission would be the first to notice.

I am outraged that the group that has taken over AWARE, who have been members for only five months or less and who have not volunteered a single hour of work prior to the take-over, dare to justify their intrusion as “bringing AWARE back to its ‘original cause’.” They accuse AWARE of becoming ‘a single purpose organisation overly concerned with promoting lesbianism.’

The single purpose that AWARE has served for 25 years is to advance gender equality for all. The newcomers on the current Ex-Co do not seem to understand a simple three-letter word – ‘all’. All means all – i.e. all women, all men. All women have the right to gender equality, be they gay or straight, married or unmarried, mothers or not, employed or not, Christian or not. AWARE does not discriminate against any woman. Our ‘original cause’ and ‘single purpose’ is to attain gender equality for all women, not only some women.

As two letter writers to The Straits Times Forum, Hafizah Osman and Ravi Govindan, have observed, the new ‘AWARE’, run by mono-religious, intolerant leaders, is likely to become an exclusionary organization. That will be a fundamental deviation from the organisation’s foundational vision and mission. Women and Singapore will be the poorer for this.

It is curious why it is that during the five or so months these people were AWARE members, prior to the take-over, they never once mentioned any of the issues they are now raising. There have always been ample opportunities to have discussions of all issues in the organisation’s inclusionary environment. Moreover, if these newcomers were not satisfied after any such discussion, they could have always set up their own organization to embody their own vision and mission, rather than behaving like ‘brood parasites’, such as the cuckoo, by taking over the nests of others.

I refer to today’s Straits Times articles and forum letters on the AWARE matter. I am grateful that the Ministry of Education has issued a statement in response to Dr Thio Su Mien’s allegations about AWARE’s comprehensive sexuality programme. I am sure it has laid to rest any concerns that parents may have had about what is being taught to their children in schools.

Aside from this, I also note that this is just the latest in what I have observed to be inconsistencies raised by the new AWARE Ex-co members and their mentor, Dr Thio.

Firstly, in Josie Lau’s live interview on Channel News Asia’s Talking Point on 19 April 2009, she “denied that the Exco had orchestrated a leadership grab” as reported in the online article on the same programme (see Note 1 below). However, at the new Ex-co’s press conference on 24 April 2009, which was reported in the Straits Times the next day, Dr Thio “revealed the key role she played in brining about the change of leadership” at AWARE. She admitted that she “began monitoring Aware’s affairs about a year ago” and “began urging women she knew to challenge” Aware. This is clearly inconsistent with Ms Lau’s earlier assertion.

Secondly, Ms Lau also insisted on the programme “that several members were previously strangers to one another”. Yet Dr Thio claimed that she “had been teaching and counselling some of them in different groups for up to 10 years”. In addition, it was reported in the Straits Times on 18 April 2009 that several of the new Ex-co attend the same church.

Finally, Dr Thio made various allegations against Aware’s comprehensive sexuality programme, saying that “Aware seems to be only very interested in lesbianism and the advancement of homosexuality”. She has now been asked by the Ministry of Education to substantiate her claims as the Ministry has so far “not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio”.

The recent publicity has given the public an opportunity to make their own informed opinions, rather than basing their opinions on mere “innuendo”, as Senior Minister of State Mr S Iswaran mentioned. Even if the new Ex-co wins the members’ vote at the upcoming EGM, it seems that, in the process, their claim to only care about helping women in Singapore has suffered from a huge loss of credibility.

Indeed, I wonder if the majority of the public will now view the new Aware as simply an extension of a religious organisation? And if so, has this all been a huge waste of time and resources, as would it not have been simpler to just set up a women’s welfare group within the auspices of that organisation?