The AWARE saga: Time for government to respond to its ramifications to draw a clear demarcation between secularism and religion

The AWARE saga: Time for government to respond to its ramifications to draw a clear demarcation between secularism and religion

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister of Community, Youth and Sports had finally broken his silence on the AWARE fiasco.

Speaking on the sidelines of his visit to Nee Soon South on 26 April 2009, he said:

“There will always be some issues where you cannot get everybody to agree. We need to be able to learn to live and let live, to agree to disagree, and to do so agreeably. But don’t let these single issues polarise or divide us and become the be-all and end-all of your social activism or your organisation.” (read article here)

The minister also emphasised that it is important for all Singaporeans to remember and also remain sensitive to the fact that they are living in a multi-racial and multi-religious society.

While I concur with Dr Vivian’s views and applaud the government’s decision not to intervene in the AWARE saga, I hope Dr Vivian and his ministry will study the ramifications of this unfortunate episode and respond accordingly to it.

Though the controversy which AWARE found itself embroiled in is purely an internal matter to be resolved by its members, we cannot ignore its implications for the larger civil society.

There is no denial that the present exco of AWARE was voted in legitimately during the March AGM in accordance to the rules set under its Constitution. However, whether they have acquired the moral legitimacy to lead the organization is another matter.

From the press conference called by the new AWARE exco, it appeared that the takeover was orchestrated behind the scenes by Senior lawyer Dr Thio Su Mien who was “disappointed” with the direction AWARE is heading under the old committee.

She had allegedly written an email to her friends a few months earlier urging them “to join it and change its focus to other problems of women and families.” (read article here)

Several new faces turned up at the AGM and voted their representatives into the exco six of whom are members of the Church of Our Savior (COOS).

In a sermon delivered on 25 April 2009, an influential pastor from COOS said:

“We are in a season where things are being shaken. As a church, we believe in what the ladies are doing and Alan (husband of Josie Lau) of course is part of the process as well and so we want to just lift them up for what the Devil is trying to do, God will turn it in the glory of its name.” (watch the video on SG Gutter Press here)

I am curious to know the identity of this “Devil”. Is the pastor referring to the AWARE old guards or anybody who refuses to endorse their uncompromising stance on homosexuality?

It is obvious that the COOS is aware of the “constitutional coup” launched by some of its members to take over AWARE and has given them its blessings and support.

There is a difference between members from the same Church participating in the AWARE elections in their own individual capacities and a group hatching a well-thought and organized plan beforehand with the sole aim of seizing control of the organization.

Will this unprincipled takeover of a secular organization by a faith-based group to “correct” perceived indiscretions on the part of the ex-office holders set a precedent for similiar “intervention” by religious organizations to extend its influence to the wider society via proxies which are secular in name only?

We are moving down a slippery slope here. A Pandora’s box has been opened in this instance which will have a detrimental impact on the secular nature of our society if the perpetuators are allowed to get away with their actions.

Worshipping of “idols” is mentioned in the same breath together with homosexuality as “sinners” by the COOS paster to his congregation.

Will our national institutions and NGOs be infiltrated and even taken over like AWARE one day by such moral vigilantes in order for them to push their agenda to a wider audience?

Religious organizations are free to set up their own NGOs to promote their own teachings, but while its members should be permitted to hold leadership positions in secular groups, a clear demarcation must be drawn between what is permitted and what is not.

I would like to pose the following questions to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan:

1. Should the COOS’s views on homosexuality be allowed to spread beyond the confines of the Church under the guise of secularism?

2. Is it acceptable for a faith-based group to hijack a secular group which it finds disagreeable?

If Dr Vivian’s answers to the above two questions are “no”, it is time for the government to send a strong message across that such actions are not to be encouraged, tolerated or promoted.

I am disturbed that the other Churches and religions have been keeping surprisingly quiet so far. Does silence imply that they acquiesce in the takeover of AWARE by a faith-based group?

They should step forward to clarify their stance on the matter. Will they follow the example of COOS members should they find a NGO promoting a cause which seems contrarian to their teachings?

In multiracial and multicultural Singapore, there is no place for religion in civil society. Let us continue to keep them in their own separate domains for it has served Singapore well since independence.

No group or religion should be allowed to impose their value systems on another. Everybody should be allowed to have their voices heard and a space which they call their own in an inclusive society where nobody is marginalized or discriminated against because of their beliefs, values or sexual orientation.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27958.2