AWARE: Lessons from a fiasco
Monday, 4 May 2009
By Cherian George
The battle for control of Aware can be a learning experience for civil society activists and the wider public. There are at least three lessons to reflect on: the brand of secularism that works for Singapore; the type of representation that civil society organisations should offer; and the level of transparency and accountability that the public deserve from such groups.
Secularism
Some may view the outcome of the Aware showdown as a triumph over religious values and then – depending on their standpoint – either despair or gloat. But, this would be a wrong reading of events and only set the stage for more confrontational encounters.
The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.
Crucially, however, the state stays separate and equidistant from the different religions. Even more crucially, when there are disagreements over public matters, Singaporean secularism cannot recognise religious arguments as a trump card. One could allow one’s reading of God’s will to dictate how one runs one’s own household or faith-based community (and even then only within the limits of the law); but God’s word cannot be the final word on how collective decisions are made in the public sphere.
People of a particular faith must therefore be able to translate their values into secular terms to the satisfaction of fellow citizens who do not share those values, or else accept graciously that their desires are, for the moment, incompatible with what the wider society wants.
The Aware battle was not between the profane and the sacred, but between those who understand Singaporean secularism and those who apparently do not. The concerted steps they took to subvert a secular organisation and rid its leadership of its traditional diversity showed that the insurgents did not want merely to be part of a conversation; they wanted to be the only voice.
When intolerant – and considerably more violent – voices have surfaced in other religious communities, the moderate mainstream had to rise up to reclaim the microphone, to assure themselves and their fellow citizens that their faith was entirely compatible with peaceful co-existence in a multicultural and democratic society. Similarly, one of the most positive outcomes of the Aware saga is the strong assertion by Singaporeans of faith and their religious leaders: we are here, our faith makes us and our society stronger, but we will not impose our values on others.
Representation
The Aware old guard accused the insurgents of not reflecting Singapore’s cultural diversity. The insurgents retorted that, compared with the liberal old guard, their conservative values were more representative of Singapore’s majority. Who was right? Both, probably. But, neither diversity nor representativeness is a necessary or sufficient criterion when assessing a civil society group.
First, while the expectation that a civil society organisation (CSO) should represent the majority view is superficially seductive, it is in fact fundamentally flawed. CSOs are not political parties, which must appeal to the majority to win elections. One of the chief values of CSOs is precisely that they fill the gaps left by political parties (and by the private sector), by serving causes that the majority may not embrace.
For example, the majority of Singaporeans would probably not go out of their way to improve the lives of strangers with disabilities. When voluntary welfare organisations work passionately for the interests of disabled, it would be rather perverse if we criticised them for not representing the views of most Singaporeans.
Indeed, if crude democratic logic were applied to gender issues, there would have been no Aware in the first place: when it was set up, most Singaporeans – men and women – held sexist views about the proper place of women and the abuses that they should endure quietly. That many CSOs are not representative is a fact, and a healthy one.
Still, some may wonder if society should tolerate CSOs that embrace seemingly far-out views. Again, it is important not to confuse CSOs with political parties. Electoral politics is more or less a zero-sum game. The winning party controls the government, which in turn monopolises certain powers and resources – including the powers to tax and to command the armed forces.
Civil society space is quite different. CSOs can gain influence, but have no power to set national policy. Furthermore, multiple CSOs can work within the same space simultaneously. Since a CSO has no monopoly over its area of work, it has no moral obligation to be representative in its values – or, for that matter, in its racial or religious composition. If others are fundamentally opposed to its direction, they can set up their own organisation.
CSOs face an inherent tension. On the one hand, they require a certain solidarity and unity of purpose if they are to overcome challenges. On the other hand, internal diversity can be a key strength: a group’s problem-solving capacity is enhanced when it is able to look at situations from multiple angles.
While it may be unfair and unrealistic to expect each CSO to reflect all colours of the rainbow, a CSO that aims to have national impact should certainly be outward-looking. An internally homogeneous community-based CSO is not a problem in itself; it should be judged by the friends it has. It deserves to be viewed with skepticism if it is unable to work with groups representing other communities. Fortunately, several faith-based and ethnic-based groups in Singapore have excellent records of working side by side with other groups, regardless of race, language or religion.
Transparency
Setting aside the substantive disagreements, the Aware saga offers lessons about civil society governance and process. What alarmed many neutral observers was the way the insurgents went about their plans.
Civil society groups that want influence and respect should be transparent in their dealings and be ready to account for themselves. It would be an understatement to say that the insurgents were unprepared for the intense public scrutiny they attracted.
They were secretive in their plan to take over Aware and coy about their intentions. Based on their public statements, it is still unclear how much they were motivated by a single issue: their opposition to Aware’s liberal stand on homosexuality. If this was their target all along, it does not speak well for them that they did not state it plainly and publicly at the outset.
If this was not their primary concern, then an even more troubling concern arises. Their allegations at the height of the dispute, that Aware had been promoting homosexuality to children and teens, smack of a cynical (but, sadly, historically effective) political ploy: win support from the masses by turning a marginalised minority into an object of fear.
In many societies, the tactic would have worked. Governments lacking in moral courage are known to side with intolerant forces when they whip up mass sentiment against minorities. Fortunately, it did not work here. The Ministry of Education’s measured and rational response took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents and exposed them as scaremongers.
The Government is not known to be sympathetic to the progressive agenda of Aware’s liberals. Perhaps the insurgents had hoped that dragging the school sexuality programme into the debate would prod the Government to take its side. If so, they miscalculated. If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.
No doubt, the weekend’s events would have made the insurgents feel utterly misunderstood and underappreciated, as losing factions are wont to. They have nobody to blame but themselves. No matter how pure their intentions, their words and actions were patently out of place in Singaporean civil society.
Cherian George is an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information and a member of Maruah, the Singapore Working Committee for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. Email: cherian@ntu.edu.sg.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.90
Monday, May 4, 2009
AWARE FOUNDER MEMBER CHARGED
Former NUS lecturer accused of IT contract fraud in Hong Kong
By Channel NewsAsia's Hong Kong Bureau Chief Roland Lim | Posted: 04 May 2009 2243 hrs
 | ||||||
 City University of Hong Kong - taken from official website | ||||||
| |
HONG KONG: An academic who used to teach at the National University of Singapore (NUS) is among four people charged with conspiracy to defraud Hong Kong's City University.
Dr Vivienne Wee is an associate professor at City University. The 57-year-old used to lecture at the NUS Sociology Department and was a founding member of the Singapore women's group, AWARE.
Dr Wee and her brother, Gregory Wee, are accused of conspiring to defraud Hong Kong's City University, in relation to a US$128,000 information technology contract.
Hong Kong's anti-graft body, the ICAC, said she hid the fact that there was a conflict of interest with the service provider, Sparkland Production, which was awarded the IT contract.
The siblings are said to have conspired to win the contract for Sparkland. But as the company did not have the expertise, it is alleged that the job would have been done by her sister-in-law's firm, Locus Interactive.
The other two people charged in the case are the owner of Sparkland and Dr Wee's sister-in-law.
Bail for all parties is set at US$2,500 each and they have to give two days' notice before they leave Hong Kong.
The case is adjourned to May 22.
- CNA/so
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28425.1
AWARE : One Saga, Many Lessons...
AWARE : One Saga, Many Lessons...
This one is not about whether being gay is morally correct or wrong but on how to further your own cause. Suppose I'm a fundamentalist right wing religious person who believes that God has spoken to me as he did to Noah - how do I go about to do what I believe is right and rid the world of sin. The answer I believe is in the movie Evan Almighty...the lesser sequel to Bruce Almighty. God spoke to Evan one day and told him about an impending flood. He tried his best to warn the people but all they do was laugh at him - it was a waste of time. Even his family couldn't believe and thought he was mad. He was only able to redeem himself when the flood came and he saved a group of people who actually turned up at his ark to mock him. If you want to bring people to your worthy cause who don't share your faith, you can only convince them with evidence. When the evidence is compelling like the flood in the movie your harshiest critics will become your biggest supporters. Regardless of how much you believe something is right and how much faith you have - the rest of the world needs evidence. The more you try to push your ideas without evidence, the more people will push back and they will laugh at you.....
.
Lesson 1: There are very few people who can call themselves MENTOR without being laugh at. As one participant of the EOGM put it, respect is earned. You can't force people to respect you. You can make them fear you by force but respect has to be given. You can't make yourself mentor something just because you think you're somebody who deserves respect. The title "mentor" something is given when there is clear consensus about your status otherwise there will be some people laughing at you all the time.
.
Lesson 2; Think ahead & do basic planning. Step 1 was takeover Aware....hmmm step 2?? Step 3? A Christian group taking over a secular organisation will definitely result in national scrutiny in Singapore. People will want to know why you're doing this...what is your justification and it better be compelling. They didn't even think of the immediate consequences of their act and look totally lost when the spotlight shone on them. When you do something like this you better have a dossier of solid evidence to justify it otherwise you end up getting condemned by the media and your opponents.
.
Lesson 3: Start with the end. Before you do something, ask yourself what you're out to achieve. Then you try to get there with the least effort. Stripping away all the baseless accusations and suspicions, the main grouse was that Aware ran a CSE programme that has contents they didn't like. The easiest way to do get it fixed was to collectively complain that the contents were unsuitable and insensitive to people of their religion. You can be very sure the MOE will move to revise the content and Aware would be put on the defensive for having controversial contents in its CSE. No need to takeover Aware to get this done.
.
Lesson 4: Know your opponents. The women in Aware were not the type to walk away quietly from a fight - they fought for a long time to set up the organisation and that required tremendous commitment. They have links to the media and allies in positions of power. They have helped thousands over the years and these people are looking for a way to pay them back.
.
Lesson 5: Perception is important. No matter how they tried they cannot change the perception that this is whole thing was about a Christian group taking over a secular organisation to impose its own values on others. Its a case of "it looks like a rat, smells like a rat....".
.
Lesson 6: Understand everyone's interests. Otherwise you will find yourself the enemy of many. When the CSE programme was dragged into the spotlight, MOE was forced to step in to explain and deny what was said hurting the credibility of the Aware exco and their mentor. National Council of Churches had to say that it did not support the use of the pulpit for social causes[Link] as religious harmony is one of its . That was a rebuke for the pastor who asked his flock to lend their support.
.
Lesson 7 : Actions must reflect intent. Saying you're also inclusive but have members from the same small group is not convincing. Saying you're for feminist causes then sacking feminists in the organisation is not credible. Saying you're not anti-gay but having given speeches and written letters to public forums against gays makes it look like you're not telling the truth and cannot be trusted.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.382
This one is not about whether being gay is morally correct or wrong but on how to further your own cause. Suppose I'm a fundamentalist right wing religious person who believes that God has spoken to me as he did to Noah - how do I go about to do what I believe is right and rid the world of sin. The answer I believe is in the movie Evan Almighty...the lesser sequel to Bruce Almighty. God spoke to Evan one day and told him about an impending flood. He tried his best to warn the people but all they do was laugh at him - it was a waste of time. Even his family couldn't believe and thought he was mad. He was only able to redeem himself when the flood came and he saved a group of people who actually turned up at his ark to mock him. If you want to bring people to your worthy cause who don't share your faith, you can only convince them with evidence. When the evidence is compelling like the flood in the movie your harshiest critics will become your biggest supporters. Regardless of how much you believe something is right and how much faith you have - the rest of the world needs evidence. The more you try to push your ideas without evidence, the more people will push back and they will laugh at you.....
.
Lesson 1: There are very few people who can call themselves MENTOR without being laugh at. As one participant of the EOGM put it, respect is earned. You can't force people to respect you. You can make them fear you by force but respect has to be given. You can't make yourself mentor something just because you think you're somebody who deserves respect. The title "mentor" something is given when there is clear consensus about your status otherwise there will be some people laughing at you all the time.
.
Lesson 2; Think ahead & do basic planning. Step 1 was takeover Aware....hmmm step 2?? Step 3? A Christian group taking over a secular organisation will definitely result in national scrutiny in Singapore. People will want to know why you're doing this...what is your justification and it better be compelling. They didn't even think of the immediate consequences of their act and look totally lost when the spotlight shone on them. When you do something like this you better have a dossier of solid evidence to justify it otherwise you end up getting condemned by the media and your opponents.
.
Lesson 3: Start with the end. Before you do something, ask yourself what you're out to achieve. Then you try to get there with the least effort. Stripping away all the baseless accusations and suspicions, the main grouse was that Aware ran a CSE programme that has contents they didn't like. The easiest way to do get it fixed was to collectively complain that the contents were unsuitable and insensitive to people of their religion. You can be very sure the MOE will move to revise the content and Aware would be put on the defensive for having controversial contents in its CSE. No need to takeover Aware to get this done.
.
Lesson 4: Know your opponents. The women in Aware were not the type to walk away quietly from a fight - they fought for a long time to set up the organisation and that required tremendous commitment. They have links to the media and allies in positions of power. They have helped thousands over the years and these people are looking for a way to pay them back.
.
Lesson 5: Perception is important. No matter how they tried they cannot change the perception that this is whole thing was about a Christian group taking over a secular organisation to impose its own values on others. Its a case of "it looks like a rat, smells like a rat....".
.
Lesson 6: Understand everyone's interests. Otherwise you will find yourself the enemy of many. When the CSE programme was dragged into the spotlight, MOE was forced to step in to explain and deny what was said hurting the credibility of the Aware exco and their mentor. National Council of Churches had to say that it did not support the use of the pulpit for social causes[Link] as religious harmony is one of its . That was a rebuke for the pastor who asked his flock to lend their support.
.
Lesson 7 : Actions must reflect intent. Saying you're also inclusive but have members from the same small group is not convincing. Saying you're for feminist causes then sacking feminists in the organisation is not credible. Saying you're not anti-gay but having given speeches and written letters to public forums against gays makes it look like you're not telling the truth and cannot be trusted.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.382
Moving on from EOGM
Moving on from EOGM
The EOGM is over, and reins of AWARE has been handed back to the old guards. However, the AWARE affair is far from over.
A number of issues are in hand.
1) The $90k spent in 5 weeks by the ousted exco is over the $20k upper limit of what the exco is authorised to spend in a month. This issue will have to be solved and accounted for. In NGO, every cents count.
2) The influx of roughly 3k new members, where some are unfamiliar with AWARE. How are these 3k new members going to be integrated into AWARE? Many have abilities, and are willing to contribute. How is AWARE going to tap into their expertise?
3) There is 761 members who voted against the old guards. How is AWARE going to engage them? Will them lay hibernating, and perhaps strike again in future? Will they actively makes life difficult for AWARE to carried out activities? Or will they contribute in their own way to AWARE?
With the take-over and ousting, trust was lost. and 2 camps are formed, where each camp is united. The old guards got back their association, and perhaps the other camp can consider setting up their own association too. The 2 camps obviously have different ideas on association management, public relations, democracy, and target group of people their will like to assist.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28274.114
The EOGM is over, and reins of AWARE has been handed back to the old guards. However, the AWARE affair is far from over.
A number of issues are in hand.
1) The $90k spent in 5 weeks by the ousted exco is over the $20k upper limit of what the exco is authorised to spend in a month. This issue will have to be solved and accounted for. In NGO, every cents count.
2) The influx of roughly 3k new members, where some are unfamiliar with AWARE. How are these 3k new members going to be integrated into AWARE? Many have abilities, and are willing to contribute. How is AWARE going to tap into their expertise?
3) There is 761 members who voted against the old guards. How is AWARE going to engage them? Will them lay hibernating, and perhaps strike again in future? Will they actively makes life difficult for AWARE to carried out activities? Or will they contribute in their own way to AWARE?
With the take-over and ousting, trust was lost. and 2 camps are formed, where each camp is united. The old guards got back their association, and perhaps the other camp can consider setting up their own association too. The 2 camps obviously have different ideas on association management, public relations, democracy, and target group of people their will like to assist.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28274.114
Aware: Process, pluralism, protection
Process, pluralism, protection
Straits Times, 04 May 2009
By Janadas Devan, Review Editor
‘THE Aware Saga’ has come to an end. What lessons does the episode hold for civil society? There are undoubtedly many, but here is a preliminary set of what I believe are the chief lessons:
# Lesson No. 1: Ends and means
The group that captured Aware on March 28 presented themselves as exceedingly moral beings. The group’s inspirator extraordinaire Thio Su Mien - lawyer, self-styled ‘feminist mentor’ and, by the looks of it, the world’s foremost expert on homosexuality - described her mentees as just a group of women who wanted to contribute to society.
There is no reason not to accept at face value this characterisation. It is impossible to believe this group woke up one day and consciously decided to do ill by taking over Aware, as the caricature on the other side would have it. Which is precisely why one wonders about the methods they chose to employ.
The means used in pursuit of any cause ought to be commensurate with the ends proposed. Bad means cannot encompass good ends. If your goals are fairness, justice and goodwill, you cannot achieve them by employing surreptitious, opaque and divisive means. The moral universe does have a balance sheet: You cannot be in the red on means and expect to be in the clear on ends
Dr Thio’s team got this equation wrong. Whatever one might have thought of their ends - and there are good people on both sides of that argument - it was difficult not to notice that their means did not measure up.
They did not declare openly who they were - until they were pressed to do so; they were not transparent about their policy aims - until their aims became apparent despite themselves; they did not answer questions - until it was too late to dispel doubts.
We know process matters in the law and politics. The Aware Saga has taught us it matters in civil society too, which tends to attract passionate, committed and often self-righteous people.
It is precisely because the self-righteous have so often in history cited their ends to justify whatever means they employed that democracies have learnt to insist on transparent and open processes.
# Lesson No. 2: Pluralism matters
There is nothing wrong with religious people involving themselves in secular groups - as individuals. The vast majority of Singaporeans are religious. We would have hardly anyone in politics, Government or civil society if we were to insist people checked in their religious beliefs before entering these secular realms.
But that does not mean that the spiritual and the secular, the church and the state, should be confused. It does not mean that the faithful of any religion can impose their views on others. And it most certainly does not mean that the religious should organise themselves in groups to pursue secular agendas. It is actually against the law in Singapore to have a Buddhist Action Party or a Christian Reform Party or a United Muslim Front.
There is no reason to doubt the assurances of Dr Thio’s group that they were not acting on behalf of any particular religion. The clear statement on Thursday by Dr John Chew, president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore, that the NCCS did not condone any church getting involved in Aware’s leadership tussle, set the record straight.
It was nevertheless daft - no more appropriate word comes to mind - for six people from the same church to have attempted this takeover at Aware. What were they thinking of?
That people wouldn’t learn they came from the same church? That people wouldn’t mind a secular organisation being taken over by a group clearly identified with a particular church in a particular denomination of a particular religion? And if they had won last Saturday’s vote of confidence, having depended on support solely from their co-religionists, that they could have continued credibly as leaders of a secular organisation?
If they had prevailed, Dr Thio’s group would have established, inadvertently perhaps, a new benchmark for social activism among the religiously-inspired. It’s hardly credible that Buddhists and Taoists - who together constitute close to half the population - or Roman Catholics, Muslims and Hindus, would have, in response, left the field uncontested to Protestants.
Everyone realised that would not be good for Singapore. Thus Dr Chew’s statement and the strong support it received from other religious leaders. It was good that they combined spontaneously to draw a firm line.
# Lesson No. 3: OB markers matter
As controversies go, The Aware Saga was minor. It did not permanently alter the body politic. Socially, it was the equivalent of a group of women, setting off on what they assumed would be a diverting walk, falling into a ditch. But it could have been worse - and that is precisely the point.
There were moments when things got uncomfortable. Ms Josie Lau, the erstwhile Aware president, received a death threat. The pastor of her church, Mr Derek Hong, spoke in terms that he later regretted. There was loose talk of Christians versus the rest.
The so-called ‘liberals’ in Aware have won. I am personally glad they did. But here is something that some ‘liberals’ may not be comfortable with: This episode proves why we need many ‘illiberal’ laws - including the Religious Harmony Act, Group Representation Constituencies, HDB racial quotas, etc.
Religious and racial harmony here are not givens. You have got to work at maintaining them. The Aware Saga shows we still have some work left to do.
janadas@sph.com.sg
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.374
Straits Times, 04 May 2009
By Janadas Devan, Review Editor
‘THE Aware Saga’ has come to an end. What lessons does the episode hold for civil society? There are undoubtedly many, but here is a preliminary set of what I believe are the chief lessons:
# Lesson No. 1: Ends and means
The group that captured Aware on March 28 presented themselves as exceedingly moral beings. The group’s inspirator extraordinaire Thio Su Mien - lawyer, self-styled ‘feminist mentor’ and, by the looks of it, the world’s foremost expert on homosexuality - described her mentees as just a group of women who wanted to contribute to society.
There is no reason not to accept at face value this characterisation. It is impossible to believe this group woke up one day and consciously decided to do ill by taking over Aware, as the caricature on the other side would have it. Which is precisely why one wonders about the methods they chose to employ.
The means used in pursuit of any cause ought to be commensurate with the ends proposed. Bad means cannot encompass good ends. If your goals are fairness, justice and goodwill, you cannot achieve them by employing surreptitious, opaque and divisive means. The moral universe does have a balance sheet: You cannot be in the red on means and expect to be in the clear on ends
Dr Thio’s team got this equation wrong. Whatever one might have thought of their ends - and there are good people on both sides of that argument - it was difficult not to notice that their means did not measure up.
They did not declare openly who they were - until they were pressed to do so; they were not transparent about their policy aims - until their aims became apparent despite themselves; they did not answer questions - until it was too late to dispel doubts.
We know process matters in the law and politics. The Aware Saga has taught us it matters in civil society too, which tends to attract passionate, committed and often self-righteous people.
It is precisely because the self-righteous have so often in history cited their ends to justify whatever means they employed that democracies have learnt to insist on transparent and open processes.
# Lesson No. 2: Pluralism matters
There is nothing wrong with religious people involving themselves in secular groups - as individuals. The vast majority of Singaporeans are religious. We would have hardly anyone in politics, Government or civil society if we were to insist people checked in their religious beliefs before entering these secular realms.
But that does not mean that the spiritual and the secular, the church and the state, should be confused. It does not mean that the faithful of any religion can impose their views on others. And it most certainly does not mean that the religious should organise themselves in groups to pursue secular agendas. It is actually against the law in Singapore to have a Buddhist Action Party or a Christian Reform Party or a United Muslim Front.
There is no reason to doubt the assurances of Dr Thio’s group that they were not acting on behalf of any particular religion. The clear statement on Thursday by Dr John Chew, president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore, that the NCCS did not condone any church getting involved in Aware’s leadership tussle, set the record straight.
It was nevertheless daft - no more appropriate word comes to mind - for six people from the same church to have attempted this takeover at Aware. What were they thinking of?
That people wouldn’t learn they came from the same church? That people wouldn’t mind a secular organisation being taken over by a group clearly identified with a particular church in a particular denomination of a particular religion? And if they had won last Saturday’s vote of confidence, having depended on support solely from their co-religionists, that they could have continued credibly as leaders of a secular organisation?
If they had prevailed, Dr Thio’s group would have established, inadvertently perhaps, a new benchmark for social activism among the religiously-inspired. It’s hardly credible that Buddhists and Taoists - who together constitute close to half the population - or Roman Catholics, Muslims and Hindus, would have, in response, left the field uncontested to Protestants.
Everyone realised that would not be good for Singapore. Thus Dr Chew’s statement and the strong support it received from other religious leaders. It was good that they combined spontaneously to draw a firm line.
# Lesson No. 3: OB markers matter
As controversies go, The Aware Saga was minor. It did not permanently alter the body politic. Socially, it was the equivalent of a group of women, setting off on what they assumed would be a diverting walk, falling into a ditch. But it could have been worse - and that is precisely the point.
There were moments when things got uncomfortable. Ms Josie Lau, the erstwhile Aware president, received a death threat. The pastor of her church, Mr Derek Hong, spoke in terms that he later regretted. There was loose talk of Christians versus the rest.
The so-called ‘liberals’ in Aware have won. I am personally glad they did. But here is something that some ‘liberals’ may not be comfortable with: This episode proves why we need many ‘illiberal’ laws - including the Religious Harmony Act, Group Representation Constituencies, HDB racial quotas, etc.
Religious and racial harmony here are not givens. You have got to work at maintaining them. The Aware Saga shows we still have some work left to do.
janadas@sph.com.sg
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.374
New Aware president Dana Lam’s first message to members
New Aware president Dana Lam’s first message to members
Monday, 4 May 2009
Dear Members
This is my first day in office. I just want to quickly convey my gratitude for your forbearance in the past weeks and for your tremendous support at last Saturday’s EGM.
Your statements, your actions of support have changed the face of civil society in Singapore and we at AWARE can now stand even taller and braver than ever before.
Our membership has surged and women and men, young and old, now feel empowered by your exemplary voices.
These have been an extraordinary time. In the furore and, the trauma, we have experienced affirmation and renewal: old friends have reconnected, new friends made. An immediate task for us is to reach out and connect with all new members, to bridge differences and, to invite their participation in the work of AWARE.
I would also like to thank you for the vote and to say that it is a real privilege to be in office at this momentous time. I’m sorry this has to be short for now. You will hear again from me very soon. The Exco join me in thanking you for your vote of confidence in us.
Warmest Regards,
Dana Lam
President
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.373
Monday, 4 May 2009
Dear Members
This is my first day in office. I just want to quickly convey my gratitude for your forbearance in the past weeks and for your tremendous support at last Saturday’s EGM.
Your statements, your actions of support have changed the face of civil society in Singapore and we at AWARE can now stand even taller and braver than ever before.
Our membership has surged and women and men, young and old, now feel empowered by your exemplary voices.
These have been an extraordinary time. In the furore and, the trauma, we have experienced affirmation and renewal: old friends have reconnected, new friends made. An immediate task for us is to reach out and connect with all new members, to bridge differences and, to invite their participation in the work of AWARE.
I would also like to thank you for the vote and to say that it is a real privilege to be in office at this momentous time. I’m sorry this has to be short for now. You will hear again from me very soon. The Exco join me in thanking you for your vote of confidence in us.
Warmest Regards,
Dana Lam
President
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.373
Political parallels of the AWARE saga
Political parallels of the AWARE saga
Monday, 04 May 2009
Singapore Democrats
Whatever is said about the recent saga of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), it cannot be denied that the episode concluded in an open and democratic, if not entirely amicable, manner.
It was an intriguing event in a country where citizens have been conditioned to shun politics. The fight between the "old" and "new" guards broke new ground as the teams vied for control of the organisation, energising members of society in the process.
This, in essence, is what politics is all about.
The participants congregated at the Extraordinary General Meeting at the Suntec City last Saturday to contend with a motion of no-confidence against the new executive committee led by Ms Josie Lau.
Members turned up in the thousands, the majority of whom joined the organisation only days before the EOGM specifically to vote at the meeting.
In a heated conference where passions ran high – participants jeered and drowned out the speakers from the new executive committee on several occasions – supporters of the old guard were out in force to vent their anger at Ms Lau and her team.
After the heated rhetoric, those who showed up did what they came to do: Vote. The new leadership was defeated by a margin of 2 to 1. The joy of the veterans was manifest. Reports indicated that Ms Lau's team members comported themselves with grace and dignity.
The episode was democratically resolved. In the main, supporters of both sides had the chance to put forward their views (the old guard members and their supporters were evidently the more strident ones) and the voters were given the final say.
Despite the acrimony, the event took place in the spirit of an open political contest. In this sense, Aware is the stronger and richer for it.
The trick now is for the organisation, under the leadership of its president Ms Dana Lam, not to clean house and silence those who were defeated. This is not what democracy is about.
Instead a bigger tent must be erected to accommodate the diverse views. Winston Churchill once said: “In defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity.” Sure there will be contention in such a set-up, but it is only in despotic societies that dissent is obliterated, is it not? A leadership capable of winning a vote must also be capable of handling opposing views.
Women show leadership. PAP?
What happened on Saturday is what democracy is about. It is also what is tragically lacking in Singapore.
Our national politics is as far from the passion demonstrated at Aware's EOGM as Earth is from Pluto. Of course there were boos and jeers during the meeting, but that's what passion is all about – it comes with what one strongly believes in. But even when they were angry, the hecklers seemed to have a sense of composure about them.
If Singaporeans cannot feel strongly about Singapore and be passionate about what we want for our country, what do we have?
Unfortunately, any minute demonstration of political emotion by citizens is denounced as blasphemy and unerringly stamped out by the PAP Government.
Now imagine if the new executive committee, after taking over the reins of Aware, had quickly amended the organisation's constitution, ordered the arrest of Constance Singam et al, threatened to fix all those who did not support it, and at the meeting forcibly shut dissenters up, the EOGM would have proceeded quietly and uneventfully, and the outcome of the vote would have been forgone.
Would this have been good for the organisation and its leaders, both veterans and novices?
As it was, Ms Josie Lau and colleagues respected the rules, convened the meeting and accepted the majority decision.
The thousands who turned up at Suntec City last Saturday demonstrably nailed the lie that the ruling party so eagerly mongers: That politics, if left unattended by the heavy hand of autocracy, degenerates into anarchy. Singaporeans are an educated lot, and they know that civility and passion can mix, often to good effect.
Which leads us to another important subject: Now that the old guard has resumed control of the organisation, it is hoped that Aware will look beyond what is immediately in front of it. As much as it has benefited from the practice of democracy, it must now also work towards democracy for the country.
Civil society, by its very definition, cannot operate effectively in the absence of free speech and freedom to assemble. If supporters of the veterans could not gather and speak as they did last Saturday, the old Aware would have been consigned to history.
As an NGO, Aware's obligations must also be to society-at-large and to the nation, not just women -- not when democracy is in a strait-jacket.
While Aware has come alive with its new members taking a keen interest in the organisation, Singapore and Singaporeans continue to languish under a system designed to extract every ounce of economic effort but stamp out every bit of political passion and zeal.
A cold and soulless people would surely not have been good for Aware; it cannot be good for our nation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.30
Monday, 04 May 2009
Singapore Democrats
Whatever is said about the recent saga of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), it cannot be denied that the episode concluded in an open and democratic, if not entirely amicable, manner.
It was an intriguing event in a country where citizens have been conditioned to shun politics. The fight between the "old" and "new" guards broke new ground as the teams vied for control of the organisation, energising members of society in the process.
This, in essence, is what politics is all about.
The participants congregated at the Extraordinary General Meeting at the Suntec City last Saturday to contend with a motion of no-confidence against the new executive committee led by Ms Josie Lau.
Members turned up in the thousands, the majority of whom joined the organisation only days before the EOGM specifically to vote at the meeting.
In a heated conference where passions ran high – participants jeered and drowned out the speakers from the new executive committee on several occasions – supporters of the old guard were out in force to vent their anger at Ms Lau and her team.
After the heated rhetoric, those who showed up did what they came to do: Vote. The new leadership was defeated by a margin of 2 to 1. The joy of the veterans was manifest. Reports indicated that Ms Lau's team members comported themselves with grace and dignity.
The episode was democratically resolved. In the main, supporters of both sides had the chance to put forward their views (the old guard members and their supporters were evidently the more strident ones) and the voters were given the final say.
Despite the acrimony, the event took place in the spirit of an open political contest. In this sense, Aware is the stronger and richer for it.
The trick now is for the organisation, under the leadership of its president Ms Dana Lam, not to clean house and silence those who were defeated. This is not what democracy is about.
Instead a bigger tent must be erected to accommodate the diverse views. Winston Churchill once said: “In defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity.” Sure there will be contention in such a set-up, but it is only in despotic societies that dissent is obliterated, is it not? A leadership capable of winning a vote must also be capable of handling opposing views.
Women show leadership. PAP?
What happened on Saturday is what democracy is about. It is also what is tragically lacking in Singapore.
Our national politics is as far from the passion demonstrated at Aware's EOGM as Earth is from Pluto. Of course there were boos and jeers during the meeting, but that's what passion is all about – it comes with what one strongly believes in. But even when they were angry, the hecklers seemed to have a sense of composure about them.
If Singaporeans cannot feel strongly about Singapore and be passionate about what we want for our country, what do we have?
Unfortunately, any minute demonstration of political emotion by citizens is denounced as blasphemy and unerringly stamped out by the PAP Government.
Now imagine if the new executive committee, after taking over the reins of Aware, had quickly amended the organisation's constitution, ordered the arrest of Constance Singam et al, threatened to fix all those who did not support it, and at the meeting forcibly shut dissenters up, the EOGM would have proceeded quietly and uneventfully, and the outcome of the vote would have been forgone.
Would this have been good for the organisation and its leaders, both veterans and novices?
As it was, Ms Josie Lau and colleagues respected the rules, convened the meeting and accepted the majority decision.
The thousands who turned up at Suntec City last Saturday demonstrably nailed the lie that the ruling party so eagerly mongers: That politics, if left unattended by the heavy hand of autocracy, degenerates into anarchy. Singaporeans are an educated lot, and they know that civility and passion can mix, often to good effect.
Which leads us to another important subject: Now that the old guard has resumed control of the organisation, it is hoped that Aware will look beyond what is immediately in front of it. As much as it has benefited from the practice of democracy, it must now also work towards democracy for the country.
Civil society, by its very definition, cannot operate effectively in the absence of free speech and freedom to assemble. If supporters of the veterans could not gather and speak as they did last Saturday, the old Aware would have been consigned to history.
As an NGO, Aware's obligations must also be to society-at-large and to the nation, not just women -- not when democracy is in a strait-jacket.
While Aware has come alive with its new members taking a keen interest in the organisation, Singapore and Singaporeans continue to languish under a system designed to extract every ounce of economic effort but stamp out every bit of political passion and zeal.
A cold and soulless people would surely not have been good for Aware; it cannot be good for our nation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.30
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)