Why this AWARE cat fight is good for civil society in Singapore

Why this AWARE cat fight is good for civil society in Singapore

It hardly requires any elaboration; people should try to resolve their differences peacefully.

Only one problem; I don’t agree completely with what I have just said above.

The way I see it some disputes could well do with a slug out in the open; as its conceivable one reason why the unexpected turn of events transpired in the way it did with AWARE when a group from nowhere came along and suddenly swapped out the old could well be a by product of what usually happens when contentious subjects are given perfunctory treatment instead of being argued out thoroughly – they usually find sneaky ways to muscle their way in.

You could even say it stands the test of reason; when contentious issues such as Christian versus liberal gay rights are treated as sensitive and out of bounds; people don’t just pack their bags and go back home to their board games - these points of contention don’t just go into some dark corner and die – they find alternative means of expressions which are usually sinister and underhanded – that’s the problem when we fear open conflict to such an extent everyone is so busy pretending to play happy families instead of trying to hammer out their differences in a robust and spirited manner – politics is pushed into half light of the preamble.

The problem with avoiding conflict at all cost is the latent fault lines shows up in the practice it inspires. For one they are crumbly as they have never been forcefully dragged out and given a thorough and robust examination. For example: a politics that brackets (excludes from discussion) morality and religion too completely soon generates its own disenchantment – as not only does it produce a type of discourse that is shallow but it also lacks moral resonance and frequently creates missing blanks instead of facilitating deep spirited understanding. Result: they find undesirable and even sneaky outlets for expression.

Anyone who is concerned over the fate of civil society and where it’s heading in Singapore should take a deeper and longer look at the AWARE saga – as what we may actually be witnessing isn’t nearly the polished sheen of civil society that we usually associate with the Western model - where it is reliably able to contain under conditions of peace if not civility, a remarkable range of moral, ideological, and religious conflicts. What we have instead in the guise of the AWARE impasse is something closer to a Darwinian primordial soup system of civil society that is still very much in its infancy as it struggles to find its footing to successfully articulate how it should deal with these contentious topics without running the real risk of imploding into a thousand pieces.

Despite the challenges; there is much to be gained from the ongoing medley in AWARE as this can only mean the various factions will have to sooner or latter hammer out that happy middle ground where they are able to compromise on what radically divides them, if they are to remain effective – at stake is not only women’s welfare, the role of religion versus secularism but the broader narrative of how is Singaporean civil society going to be able to pursue their competing ends without having to threaten the means by imperiling the stability and legitimacy of the system?

For both sides; the emerging challenges remains daunting as not only isn’t there any road maps to guide the various actors how they should rightly pursue these differing interest - but given that most of the moral, ideological, and religious conflicts remain so polarized the real challenge for these factions in AWARE may be to find a way where despite their differences, they may still be able to share a common platform with people (and maybe even have enough space to accommodate the lunatic fringe) whose views they disagree and despise.

If AWARE can find that mythical happy common ground – it could be said, despite their set backs, it would still be a resounding success for the whole idea of Singapore civil society – as “agreeing to disagree” can only stand as a worthy testament that despite the glaring differences which may prevent both sides from seeing eye to eye on a broad range of issues – it also means: the cohesion of our society is still stronger than its divisions – and that will certainly be source of hope and inspiration for many who may hold differences to do the same – find peace.

I wish them luck. Carry on please!

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27241.1