The AWARE saga certainly deserves some commentary since it is a turning point in Singapore’s civil society.
As much as I feel that there is (finally) some slow emergence of civil society in our (un)democratic country through this, the fiasco is, arguably, unwarranted. In fact, the raucity of it is incited very much by the media. Was it necessary to stoke all these fervour for what besets the situation – an institutional shift in power?
The issue was about power struggle, much of it, if not all. It was about the unrelenting grips of the old guard on its position and the new guard’s lack of tactfulness and unorthodox ways of dealing with the media, their disregard for diplomacy perpetuated the initially ‘domestic’ issue into a national one. It’s a case of washing your dirty laundry in public.
Don’t be mistaken, I am not against women rights. Neither am I oblivious to the justifications each side put forth. The EXCO wanted to change the direction of AWARE, therefore taking up leadership responsibility – that’s what they say. The veterans felt unjustified in their forced relinquishment of power, arguing that their direction was inclusive, had never strayed and just merely changing with times. What baffles me is that, ostensibly, the EXCO took weeks to explain their reason for their actions and the old guard made it a point to highlight to the media on what began as an internal strife. The argument that the new guard made later, attacking the veterans for having sidetrack from AWARE’s rightful direction, was ostentatiously and blatantly weak.
Definitely, through the media we gained insights to this issue. And this exemplifies what a democratic country should be; where there’s civilian power. We do, and should have a say in these policies and be a watchdog for NGOs, and the media in turn, assumes the position of an overseer of civil society. What was glossed over was that this is an internal bickering, a case of mishandling of politics and differences of ideas within an organization. The media’s reporting, despite its pros, had done collateral damage. Its apparent bias reporting is one, newsworthy nonetheless. The spicing up of an internal struggle is second.
Well, I shouldn’t be so critical of the media, given that it was through it that some democracy has emerged in an undemocratic country. But this taste of ‘new democracy’ should not be overly emphasized. What really makes a society democratic is when civil society has the power to decide matters of the state – which we have little of. This AWARE saga has soberly reminded us that democracy is important and as Singaporeans, we should be empowered with our rights. The democracy that has emerged today is merely the tip of an iceberg.
In the aftermath of this upheaval, I am glad that the new guard has stated its stand on an ‘all-inclusive’ approach to women affairs. With the media spotlight now on AWARE, we can expect greater things, if anything at all.
Tng Ying Hui
——-
A point to begin with, on the unwarranted slur on the character of plenty of young Singaporeans that Thio Su Mien made at her now infamous press conference. She was extremely concerned that somehow, that the moral fibre of young Singaporeans would be weakened if they come to believe that being gay, or supporting gay marriage ( civil partnership etc) is acceptable.
This is a terrible slur on everyone ( myself included) whose moral position starts off from the principle that we should reduce human suffering as far as possible, and that human freedom to act should be extended to the extent that it does not cause harm or suffering to others. To those who hold this view, homosexual relationships between consenting adults are considered to be less of a moral crisis than say, the continued existence of domestic violence or the many people who live in poverty in Singapore. Obviously, Thio Su Mien’s moral position is inspired by the writ of a holy text ( which considers homosexuality an abomination and a sin), and she’s perfectly entitled to her own views on this matter.
But of course it was not enough to slur everyone who does not adopt the same moral position as she does on homosexuality as being somewhat of lesser moral character. It was necessary to silence them.
It may be justifiable sometimes to take drastic action to silence strongly held moral views of your opponents. For example, we might say that on balance, it would be justified to stop virulent racists from speaking out at public rallies, when it is known that they advocate violence against a targeted minority. However, no matter of life or death was at issue here. Neither was there a real threat to the common social fabric that binds Singaporeans as a nation and as a community. If nothing else, this episode has demonstrated one devout religious group’s ability to divide the very diverse peoples that make up Singapore.
Therein lies the heart of the AWARE saga, and why so many Singaporeans ( young and old) have come forward to oppose the new Exco. It is because the new Exco represents the silencing of opposing viewpoints. That is the practical effect of taking over the best resourced women’s Non-Government Organisation in Singapore. And these people know it.
Finally should the vote of no confidence be successful, no one should pay heed to claims that the views of “social conservatives” have been somehow “silenced”. As far as I’m aware ( pun not intended), they will continue to be free to openly promote their socially conservative agenda. And they always have been. They will continue to peddle the line that secular organisations have been thoroughly infiltrated by the homosexual agenda; failing in part of course to recognise that it has been the very vocal opposition of social conservatives in Singapore that at least in part, has meant that homosexuals are unable to register their own societies with the Registrar of Societies to formally and openly represent their interests.
Koh Jie Kai
——
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
“What really makes a society democratic is when civil society has the power to decide matters of the state – which we have little of.”
Agree, just try doing the same EGM to the PAP then.
EGM to PXX， courting death.. ha ha ha
ironically, ‘shut up and sit down’ defined thio & company’s `mandate. she failed to realise that this is no longer and children should be seen and not heard generation she hailed from.
looking at the power-women that day it is clear that this is a new wave of not only opinionated females but intelligent and highly-educated ones. it indeed says a lot about aware’s new representation.
I realise that my tenses are all over the place in that piece. Yikes!
Civil society is after all not elected representatives of the people. They should be given the freedom to lobby, influence and advocate change within a society. But they should not have the power to decde the matters of the state.
#5 Ravi Philemon
It’s a matter of time civil society will have to meet with matters of the state. Afterall, civil service is part of the state.
Civil society? From the jeers and boos that thrown all over during the EGM, from the brickbats and accusations thrown here in the forum (i personally have received my fair share from my colleagues here in this forum) it is anything but civil behaviour.
Sigh…
From the various reports and videos, the scene was very noisy and ugly. It was also very difficult for a young and inexperienced Exco to sit there and subject themselves to a vociferous crowd who are out in force to oust them. They were subjected to threats (before the EOGM), interruptions, shouting, jeers, boos, etc.. short of physical violence. Remember, they won in the last AGM fairly because the old guards were caught “sleeping” as they have grown very complacent. In fact, the old AWARE was fading until the new exco came.
Although the new exco have lost control of AWARE, all is not lost. Singaporeans are now more aware of AWARE. So AWARE should be more focus and responsible in the discharge of their work.
I also hope that there will be reconciliation amongst the ladies. They should learn from this experience and move on to greater things. There are more important things in life than resorting to bickerings and legal suits.
I wish all parties well.
xtrakm
Haha. Fat hope AWARE of old is anything new. They will do what is their liking promoting pro-family values with homosexuality in it.
Anyway, this saga has shown the ugly side of Singaporeans involve in the EGM at suntec for all singaporeans to see. It is bad behaviour that degraded members of AWARE. Posing victory posture and evil grin face on papers is no victory to me. Sadly, old AWARE is still basking in glory. Even in this forum are PBC (people behind computers) including myself traded “comments” about the whole saga in an unworthy manner. To what good it served? Even so TOC did not do their part in filtering out articles and PBC comments that incite anger and bring about more traded words between many PBCs.
Let this be a lesson learnt for all. I am a pro family guy and do not support homo/lesbian but do respect their right as a human being and a singaporean not as a homo/lesbian person, please get them right. A society that grows to support homo/lesbian to be able to get married, engage sexual acts as they like, adopt a child and have sex change has no place in this singapore society. Be warned. Singapore society can be tear apart easily over this issue. Can you afford it?
i would like to say that some of the comments by the supporters of the old guards were rather dissappointing, and rather then take sides AWARE should now focus on what is important and work together with the previous guard as i am sure they too do want to better for Women. BUT…
Dear SL, thanks for respecting the rights to homosexuals for males and females but what about “others”?
but then i wonder, do you not know that Singapore has have a history in gender change ops? but i digress, some of the things you commented has gotten me confused.
A) engage in sexual acts as they like? homosexuals/lesbians are like everyone we have our preferances and those acts (ones which i am think u mean as acts of a kinky nature) which you might consider as a danger to society, need i remind you that straight couples indulge in them as well… are just because straights so it so its normal and acceptable?
B) when we ask for marriage we are not going to make it more difficult for you to get married, or rather impose into your married life. rather we would want the rights to care and be involved in our partners life, we to have the ability to care and lvoe for someone like the way our parents care are love each other, in sickness and in health. gay marriage does not strip away anything from any other marriages.
C) adoption, to love a child is a gift, to be able to induge in that gift is a wonderous thing. but then it is society that would make gay adoptions difficult not the parents. so rather then say the child will have a hard life havin two daddys, the community should claim family love for all parents (it does not mean havin a gay family would result in more gays, if that fact was true then why are my partents non gay and i am?)
D) i think a society that supposrts the rights to all (within legal and reasonable limits) would be a community that would be united as a whole not as a community that makes bais comments on things they have only heard others speak from. i am not askin anyone to try gay sexuality but rather understand that we are all humans and everyone is the same just the perferances differs.
don’t think of homosexuals and lesbians as homosexuals or lesbians but ratehr think of us as people, we bleed, we cry, we sleep just like anyone else.
why treat us differently?