Questions the new AWARE exco must tackle before the EOGM and lessons we can learn

Questions the new AWARE exco must tackle before the EOGM and lessons we can learn

SINGAPORE - The plot surrounding the new AWARE executive committee members’ takeover plans has further unfolded with their mentor, Dr Thio Su Mien coming out of the darkness into the broad daylight. Following their rise to the leadership, events came and went at a dizzy speed. As of now, all eyes will be focused on the 2nd May EOGM, which is a showdown between AWARE’s old guards and the new exco members. That being said, there are certain questions that the new AWARE exco must tackle. The benefits of pondering over such questions is that they allow us to reflect on their implications on our society.

Question 1: If it is the intention of the new AWARE exco to pursue the said agenda (as highlighted by Dr Thio) of presenting the negative side of homosexuality in a revised AWARE sexuality program, how will they achieve this without going against the national educational curriculum objectives of developing attributes such as objectivity, inquisitiveness and integrity in our students? In short, how can the new AWARE exco achieve this agenda of theirs using a pedagogically sound approach without affecting the students’ development as independent enquirers?

Lessons we can learn: In a bid to instill reforms within our education system, our Ministry of Education has taken positive steps to reform the science syllabus at lower secondary level. Thus, in grappling with any biological phenomenon such as sexual preferences for example, the student has to pursue this like any other typical scientist do in making use of core skills involved in scientific research with the correct attributes as mentioned above. The student must be inquisitive, researching on the subject at as many levels as possible, from genes to anatomy and finally at a social level. The student must be objective in assessing whatever findings they have collected. And the student must practise integrity, they cannot be selectively including data which justify their bias and excluding others, which may be relevant and have an impact on their findings. Data manipulation to justify bias should be shut out at all costs. Furthermore, they should be making only conclusions based on the indication of their findings, and not make exaggerated ones beyond the limits of their experiment. An example would be a single observation of a seed’s failure to germinate at a temperature of 18 degrees celcius leading to an exaggerated conclusion that this seed cannot germinate under all temperatures.

Question 2: If there are current AWARE members who are lesbians and/or are supportive of homosexuality, how would their interests by represented?

Question 3: What form of governance does the new AWARE exco prefer?

Lessons we can learn from questions 2 and 3: There are many forms of governance, ranging from theocracy to autocracy and finally democracy. To elaborate further on specific democratic practices, I will only focus on two different aspects of voting - “first past the post” (FPTP) voting system and proportional representation. In the FPTP voting system, it’s a case of winner-takes-all for the majority. The main criticism against the majority winning FPTP system is that the interests of voters, who supported a different proposition from the majority, will never be represented. Proportional representation counters the disadvantages of the FPTP voting system in which the polling outcome is based on the percentage of votes received for each entity. For example, an outcome of an election based on proportional representation practices is that the proportion of seats allocated is based on the proportion of votes received. Thus, if AWARE members are to vote on the issue of homosexuality for instance, much depends on the voting system in place. If it is FPTP, the majority voters win out, but if it is proportional representation, the outcome is completely different. Our Parliamentry Elections system practises FPTP, but it doesn’t mean that civil societies are bound to follow suit.

Question 4: How independent will be AWARE under their stewardship?

Question 5 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Is this AWARE takeover a slippery slope that can encourage other institutions (governmental and non-governmental) to indirectly control civil societies?

Lessons we can learn from questions 4 and 5: It is possible to exploit legal loopholes to launch a takeover of any organization, let alone a civil society. And such can happen if the entity launching the takeover aims to use the civil society to fulfill its own agenda. During such a takeover, the fact that the leadership positions are filled with those who hail from the same organization will inevitably lead to questions regarding the independence of the invaded civil society. Thus, the events at AWARE as a watershed within the civil society scene, albeit a negative one, because it is one on a slippery slope that may lead to more of such attempts to launch “takeover bids”. The good thing about this episode is that it can send out a clear signal to existing civil societies out there to be more savvy with their drafting of constitution to deter such takeover bids. This point has been elaborated on tenuously by my fellow writer, Azfar. For instance, in the case of AWARE, they can be more stringent with their qualifying criterias to vote like the clocking of a certain minimum hours of volunteering experience or membership spanning a minimum period of time.

Question 6 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Are we on a slippery slope that can lead towards the pursuit of religious agendas on a national level, e.g. the potential introduction of creationism within our science curriculum?

Lessons we can learn from question 6: Currently, attempts have been made to influence sexuality education in schools (30 of them to be specific), especially with regards to shifting towards a negative bias against homosexuality. There is no doubt of the religious influence behind the move. Today, we are at the slippery slope with concerted attempts to reform certain aspects of our education in line with the agenda of certain religious groups. What goes tomorrow? Religious-based movements getting their call in reforming our science education curriculum by removing evolution and introducing creationism? The efforts of religious movements in attempting to reform the respective science syllabi according to their agenda has been ongoing in the US. In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science syllabus by removing any references to the evolutionary theory. Could that happen to us too? If that really happens, our science education standards will take a backseat.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27963.1