First off, I've been busy trying to reorganise and launch a new blog to replace this one. I've registered a couple of domains, and am playing around with a trial account on Squarespace; I'm pretty impressed with what they offer so far, since I'm a web design idiot and lazy to boot. When it's done, I'll let you lot know the new location.
The AWARE saga is over, but the activities continue. I'm involved in a volunteer capacity to help them sort out a few things, and there are a lot of work to be done in the coming months, much of which I can't really talk about, but it's pretty exciting, sometimes frustrating, but hopefully, ultimately fulfilling. I will also be covering their upcoming press conference, to be held on July 6th at 12.30pm at the AWARE Centre. To be more precise, I will be tweeting live from the event, together with @mizhalle, so if you guys have any questions for the AWARE Exco, please send them to me via Twitter, and we'll see if we get to ask a question or two. We also have a new website up at we-are-aware.sg, and are continually populating content like interview videos, news on RSS feeds, etc, so do pop by and let us know what you think.
Another piece of good news is that I passed all three exams for my diploma this semester. I have one more year to go, if everything goes smoothly, before I graduate with a diploma, so wish me luck.
That's all I guess, I got more posts to write, and hopefully post them before I return to work on Sunday night. TTFN.
]]>As a product of the Singaporean education system, I am fully supportive of the MOE’s suspension of the highly irresponsible position taken by AWARE in their stance towards sexual education. Moreover, it is absolutely nauseating that after being chided by the MOE, the response has been one of resistance to change and compromise with the MOE, who represents the interest of the majority of the singaporean students , their parents and families. As for Leon’s open letter, I am afraid to say that the majority of Singaporeans will not be able to grasp let alone understand the point Leon is trying to make.
I find it hard to believe Leon is a law undergraduate, and if he continues writing like that, I am afraid he may never graduate.
Mr Ang, have you actually gone through the CSE yourself? Do you know that all sexuality education programs by all external vendors have been suspended, and not only AWARE's? And what "irresponsible position" has AWARE taken?
The only irresponsible position that is taken is the one by MOE. The suspension of sexuality education programs again mean that the students, who are the ones who benefit from the knowledge gleaned, have nowhere to turn to but the internet. While the information they can find are not easily verifiable, nor do they have the advantage of experienced trainers who will guide them in this potential minefield of confusion.
I do not believe MOE represent the interest of the majority of the Singaporean students, because if they do, then the suspension of the programs, which up until the suspension, have not received negative feedback from participants or their parents, is an action that goes against the practices of the scientific method, which is a cornerstone of a modern education and critical thinking.
An approach that advocates burying your head in the sand regarding any subject is detrimental to the development of our future minds and leaders. And this is where MOE, and where criticism aimed at the CSEs, especially from non-participants, have failed.
I also find your statement about the "majority of Singaporeans will not be able to grasp let alone understand the point" very interesting. Most Singaporeans are, as you said, a "product of the Singaporean education system". Even myself. But if this majority is assumed to not understand Leon's letter, then MOE has already failed generations of Singaporeans. That is a bigger issue than the CSEs, do you not think so?
As for your fear that "he may never graduate", I think we can all rest assured that if Leon can write such a letter, he is more than adequately equipped to do well in his field of study. More interestingly, your comment seemed to indicate a deference to authority without questioning, almost like the MOE is dogma. I believe that to be yet another failure of the MOE and our society in failing to produce students who can critically and objectively assess different issues and scenarios, taking into account the context.
I will not assume that your mindset is what I can expect from the majority of Singaporeans. But if it is, then the education system has failed in its most fundamental requirements. This country deserves, and needs, better than that.
I have to thank Lisa for writing this note. This is written from the perspective of a teacher, with first-hand knowledge, in touch with her students. This is a valuable contribution from a person who is on the ground, doing the work that others have the luxury to criticise but not the gumption to perform. And yet, MOE forced her to remove that post after they received a complaint letter from an anonymous source.11 May 2009
I TEACH GENERAL PAPER, NOT HOMOSEXUALITY
Lisa LiWith all due respect to the well-meaning "concerned parents" out there, this is starting to sound like a dodgy GP essay to me.
Apparently, because my students and I "discuss topics such as the legalisation of gay marriage and parents of the same sex forming families through adoption" in class, I am guilty of promoting homosexuality.*
Right.
But never mind. MOE has already come to the rescue with their statement that "GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking" and GP teachers "should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society".*
Oh yes, apparently one can facilitate critical thinking, that is, the reasoned questioning of assumptions, norms and values AND fully reinforce and adhere to social norms at the same time.
And wait, I see this again, in the debate on sexuality education and just what should be said about homosexuality:
1. Homosexuality is against the social norms and values of mainstream society.
2. Homosexuality is illegal and considered unnatural under Singapore law.The first thing any student of GP (or indeed, any human being who knows anything about world history) will realise, is that social norms change.
Secondly, if you insist on going by "mainstream" values and beliefs, you may like to follow 43% of Singaporeans and look to Buddhism, which views homosexuality on neutral grounds, as opposed to Christianity (15%) and Islam (15%).
In any case, the legal argument will only hold as long as homosexual acts are considered illegal in Singapore.... and judging from the force of change in the world, frankly my dear, you can't hold the dam for much longer.
Singapore's law criminalising homosexual acts is based on British law - which decriminalised this in 1967.
Other countries which have decriminalised homosexuality include France (1791), The Netherlands (1811), Brazil (1830), Ottoman Empire (1858), Germany (1871), Japan (1880), Italy (1889), USSR (1922), Denmark (1930), Iceland (1940), Switzerland (1942), Sweden (1944), Greece (1951), Thailand (1956), Israel (1963), Chad (1967), Canada (1969), Kosovo (1970), Australia (1981), South Africa (1994), China (1997) etc.
This shows an increasing acceptance that personal preferences that do not harm anyone else should not be governed (in this case, criminalised) by the state. As with the wearing away of all other forms of inequality, I believe this discrimination of homosexuals cannot last.
So what are we left with?
Are we justifying a brand of education with reasons that won't hold weight for much longer?
You may argue that making something legal doesn't make it right, and you have a point.
But then that would depend on what you consider "right", which really is a moral issue and one that concerns personal belief.So I have two points for you:
1. Personal beliefs - religious or otherwise - should not influence the laws of a secular society. The onus is on parents and preachers to educate their children in these beliefs. Say what you want at the pulpit, not in Parliament, and certainly, do not foist this responsibility onto your child's teachers in secular schools.
2. It is unfair, impractical and dangerous to insist that youths be given only the old rules when they live in a completely different world. Parents, if you insist on a black-and-white moral education for your children, you only drive them into secrecy when they need you most. If teachers cannot teach openly and factually, rest assured that the internet will.
As an educator and maybe future parent, I admit I am less concerned about whether my children are homosexual/transsexual/(fill in the blank) or not, and more concerned that they should always respect others and themselves, never discriminate, always critically examine issues, always feel free to share their thoughts with me without fear of condemnation, always love and always be loved no matter what.
This is my hope.
PS. If you think your children will rush to become homosexual/transsexual/(fill in the blank) because of my words, I THANK YOU for crediting me with such influence! By the way, your children are smarter than you think....
* Quoted from "AWARE sex guide suspended" (ST, 7 May 2009)
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_373422.html
I've wondered what a tweetup would be like. Would there be rows upon rows of iPhones adorning the table? Would it be a LAN party-like nerdfest, where one lame joke will get everyone reacting "Ive gotta tweet that!", feverishly punching the number pads of their phones or typing furiously on their MacBooks Pro? Thankfully, neither of those scenaros materialised. But given the diverse backgrounds, experiences, and eloquence of the people involved, most likely I worried for nothing.
Everyone knows the quality of beer goes up with the quality of the company, and without a doubt the company was top-notch. For me, Twitter is all about making real connections to people, not about making money on the web, nor about follower count, etc. And this tweetup just reinforces that. What is even more heartening is the way no one seemed ready to give up on the cause which brought us together in the first place. Discussion was earnest, plans were made, people were keen to be involved.
Did I enjoy myself? Hell yes. Will there be more? There better be. Though I might have to make herb lamb for a lot more people than I imagine. Was this the first ever organised tweetup in Singapore? Maybe, but that was never the point for me. It was always about being, and staying, united for something we believe in. And it definitely was the first Tweetup centred around AWARE. And that is good enough :)
Oh, and for those who say "pics or it didn't happen", here you go. I'll put it here when I get the owner's approval, so click on the link for now.
Edit: Edited the title so it's clearer.
Our dear @mizhalle finally put up her post here! I have to admit, her post is better than mine.
No one disputes the legality of the takeover. However, the author fails to recognise one thing: civic leaders not only need legal legitimacy, they also need moral legitimacy. The actions of the Josie Lau EXCO may satisfy the former, but fails utterly in the latter. Their actions were planned and orchestrated in secret, and executed ruthlessly. This may be corporate practice, but it is not the actions that lends credibility to an advocacy group such as AWARE; in fact it is just the opposite.
The very fact that a small group of individuals like that planned to hijack a longstanding, credible association instead of starting another association, or even to voice out their concerns in a more civil manner, removed any moral legitimacy they might have garnered, which also contributed to the "uncivil" proceedings at the EGM.
2. Erroneous notation of "secular"
The author raised the question "So in a secular organisation like Aware, why should Exco members' religious affiliations matter?", accusing the Straits Times of emphasising this, and that they wouldn't dare to if they're faced with Cabinet ministers. It is either a very nice attempt to redirect or he's not getting the point.
While I'm not a fan of the ST, religious affiliations did matter in this case. The reasons they provided was that AWARE had a pro-homosexual agenda, which is false. They also used church connections to get new members who voted them in, as well as harness church connections for more support at the EGM. Add to that Dr Thio Su Mien's confessions and Pastor Derek Hong's misuse of the pulpit, it would be delusional to even suggest that their religious affiliations did not matter.
'Secular' means 'not specifically religious' according to Wikitionary. What that means is that views stemming from religious belief, from any religion, should not influence a secular organisation.
3. Homosexuality
This entire section of the author's post is misguided. If anything, it was the Old Guard who espoused that ALL WOMEN, regardless of sexual orientation, should be respected and are entitled to the same equality enjoyed by others. That is true inclusiveness. The New Guard were the ones who appeared hell-bent on making the Old Guard look like pro-homosexual advocates with unsubstantiated claims; how does that signify inclusiveness?
Make no mistake, this is not a simple matter of homosexuals vs heterosexuals, as I've talked about in my previous post. But to be inclusive means you also fight for equality for those whose lifestyles you may or may not agree with. The Josie Lau EXCO showed zero signs of doing that, further eroding their moral legitimacy to lead AWARE.
4. Playing up of the $90,000 spent
AWARE's constitutional restriction of spending no more than S$20,000 is not "written in the light of a consistent membership that never exceeded 300". This is a blind assumption of the part of the author. A little knowledge of NGOs like AWARE will show that fund-raising is no small matter, and they rely on the generosity of benefactors and donors. In turn, they have an obligation to them and the members to spend that money wisely, and effectively. Having once served in a voluntary organisation, I know how difficult it is to continually raise funds and keep costs down.
How does spending S$90,000 in about 5 weeks spell effectiveness or prudence? It merely magnifies the inexperience of the Josie Lau EXCO. They could've coordinated the EGM with the Old Guard, but they turned down that opportunity. They could have asked for pro-bono legal advice, like the Old Guard did with NMP Siew Kum Hong, but they chose to splurge on (admittedly great and even-handed) legal counsel by Gregory Vijayendran from Raja and Tahn.
In short, the gulf in mentality between the New and Old Guard was great, and the former failed when their corporatist mentality were scrutinised. It is not about how much was earned; it is, quite literally, about how much was spent, and how it was spent.
5. Failure of Old Guard to completely answer all accusations
The author was particularly scathing about AWARE's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) program. It is worth noting that the "offending" material was only available in the instructors' manuals, and was meant to let instructors know how to respond to touchy questions brought up by the students. No complaints were received by MOE from any students or parents prior to the fear-mogering lies spread by Dr Thio and company.
To our knowledge, the ST have also not mentioned the important information covered in the CSE, such as the role-play to teach students to say no to sex, or the information regarding STDs. If the author thinks giving the information to the students is a bad thing, then by deduction the "stick our heads in the sand" approach is perhaps a good thing. That does not benefit the students at all.
And parents, I'm talking to you here: If you are really so concerned about what your kids are taught in school, be involved in their education. Lead and guide them. Don't just complain and panic when you hear rumours. If you can't even be bothered to verify the rumours, then I don't think you're that concerned about the kids' education. You're just looking for a scapegoat for your failure as parents. Your actions speak louder than words, and your children will follow your actions, not your words.
6. Actions and behavior of the Old Guard
This allegation of the Old Guard "Hijacking Aware's website, issuing death threats and publicly releasing sensitive private information are all shameless deeds" is a serious one. And one that is filled with assumption and misinformation. To use the author's own words, would he dare to use the same allegations on a Cabinet Minister? I doubt it.
The Old Guard did NOT hijack AWARE's website; the new one was set up by a volunteer. And without evidence to back up the allegations of death threats, this can be easily construed as grounds for a libel lawsuit. As for releasing sensitive private information, which I will have to assume refers to the emails of Dr Thio since there were no other information provided by the author, the email addresses were modified to preserve privacy. This information is pertinent to unravel the clandestine nature of the takeover, without which members will not be able to decide the rights and wrongs.
Equally puzzling is the author not addressing the releasing of confidential, instructors-only information of the CSE. If you want to point to one, be sure to point to the other; otherwise, this note is as biased as the author alleges the articles in ST to be.
7. Christians standing up against Christians
This is the biggest section in the author's post. The section where he says "As Christians, what are we doing about this issue? Are we sitting back in comfort, denouncing the take-over as "extremist" simply in hopes that we may be seen as "moderates" even though we share their same views on homosexuality? Are we slamming them quickly simply because they embarrass us?" is indicative of his stand, and why he thinks the way he does.
Because he believes he is morally superior to others. There was another post out there that asked for Christians to not be caught in such "set-pieces" again, which I cannot find because my Google-fu is weak. This is similar to what the author is saying, and shares the same weakness: they mistake consequence for cause.
They think the cause of their loss is due to Christians standing up against Christians, and that they are caught in well-orchestrated set-pieces designed to trap them. What they missed is that the only ones getting caught in these "traps" are the same ones who deem themselves morally superior, that deem the way of Christ is the only way. That is the cause. The Christians who are more open-minded do not fall into that trap. No one ever wonders why that is.
I wonder if they will ever get it.
On the "barbaric" happenings at the EGM
A lot of people have called the heckling and shouting at the EGM many unsavoury names, including "unfeminine", "barbaric", "the law of the jungle", "mob rules" etc. Most of these labels are used by people who did not attend the EGM, did not know the context from which they happened, or worse yet, just assumed the worse.
Would this have happened had Josie Lau's EXCO left the microphones on ? Or just left Mr Siew Kum Hong alone? Or addressed the members without "talking down" to them? Or not using security to silence or remove members from the EGM? Or answered the questions themselves without resorting to deflecting or deferring to their legal counsel? Or not spoke as if they're responsible for the success of AWARE for the past 24 years? Or changed the locks and installed CCTV cameras at the AWARE office? Or produce a PDF file of misinformation instead of engaging the members?
We will never know. But given the context, did anyone expect the attempts to control the crowd via uncivil means to be met with calm reponses? I certainly did not. Those who do have a very misguided view of due process and democracy. Their efforts to silence and control failed because silencing and controlling is not engagement; it is as simple as that.
Credits
I realised that I failed to thank some people in my last post. My tweets on the EGM, and subsequent involvement with AWARE, would not be possible without @missbossy. Also to @Cathelon, who continued to update me on the happenings at the meeting. And the company of @GrowlyBear and @hanifn during the long and hard wait for the vote counting was absolutely vital to me keeping my last vestiges of sanity. I'd have ripped my hair out if it wasn't for them.
And to all the men and women who were involved that day, be it as a volunteer or voting member, in any capacity: thank you for making May 2nd a memorable day, and for touching each others' lives.
The proceedings are well covered by the local Twitterati, so I won't go into that here. You can see the well-written posts from Janet and her busband, Jason, Joan, and Miss Hallelujah on their experiences at or around the EGM. Even Alex Au, Cherian George and Mr Wang threw in their views, and their pieces are well worth reading, and with more eloquence than I can manage. This one here is also worth reading.
For me personally, this was never about putting up convenient labels and stereotypes. The issues at hand is more complex than a simple matter of liberals vs conservatives, homosexuals vs heterosexuals, Christians vs non-Christians; if I had to choose one word that represented the stakes, it would be "equality". While Josie and her EXCO were busy circulating unsubstantiated claims of a pro-homosexual agenda of the Old Guard, the latter were busy stressing the importance of diverse, inclusive views in a secular advocacy society. They understood what was at stake; a womens' rights advocacy group needs to ensure that they are fighting for equality for all women, regardless of race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, or class. The makeup of that EXCO, consisting of Christian Chinese women, is taken to be a sign that exclusivity is present, and that they cannot adequately represent Singaporean women. This is just one of the views echoed at the EGM.
But the removal of the Josie Lau EXCO is not the end of the road. It is merely the start of a long journey. Now that Dana Lam and her EXCO are back in power, they have been making the right noises about harnessing the sharp increase in members, and as the handover is underway, it is crucial that they continue to keep the members motivated and driven to the cause. Many of us have already informed them of the ways we can help. Talk on Twitter has continued, and lots of ideas are still being exchanged at this time. T-shirts commemorating the EGM are also available, thanks to Vicki Lew, and with 70% of the profits will go to AWARE, it's just one of the ways the community can help. There was also talk of a book, and I'll be very interested in seeing how I can contribute to that effort.
One can only hope that the members who signed up for the EGM do not stop here; AWARE needs volunteers, and with an active roster of members, it can only go on and achieve great things. It is in our hands.
I am also concerned with how much certain individuals are still harping on about Dr Thio and her mentees. We must remember that the freedom we espouse also extends to them, and that there are no exclusions from that freedom. I don't expect that to stop, but I hope this won't distract us from what needs to be done. There are lots of work ahead for this organisation, and we cannot, and must not, stop here. The biggest errors we can make now is forgetting why this event happened, and to lapse into complacency and allowing it to happen again. That will not only be the responsibility of Dana and her EXCO, but also that of those who have made our voices heard so clearly on May 2nd that the whole world now knows the costly price of allowing religious fundamentalism to seep into a secular body.
Many have also expressed that the behaviour exhibited by the attendees of the EGM is not civil, and that shouting down the Josie Lau EXCO is not democracy, but barbarism. To these detractors, I say "democracy is not a polite tea party". Perhaps the locals are so used to the PAP brand of democracy, where you spend your days quietly and talk onlly when asked to, and vote when the time is given, that passionate discourse is regarded as barbaric. They should be reminded that democracy as a grand experiment barely started 300 years ago, and that the road to democracy and human rights is paved with the blood and sweat of our forebears. Unlike the US, our independence was not brought about by bloodshed, but it would be misleading to think that an inclusive civil society can happen without people who are passionate enough about their beliefs to stand up and speak out against those who are against those beliefs.
No matter what happens from now, the awareness, participation and activism generated by this event will have changed Singapore society for the better. It is heartening to see that passion in my fellow countrymen and women again. That passion will be the driving force of this country on its road to true democracy.
]]>And now, instead of a group of women committed to advocating gender equality in an inclusive and secular manner, we have a group of self-righteous homophobes forcing their way into power and ready to avocate a brand of equality that was so intimately explored by George Orwell in the classic "Animal Farm".
AWARE has always been about being inclusive. They know that arguing for equality is moot if they cannot even accept equality among women, and they're right. The "new guard" forced their way into power through clever maneuvering. There is nothing technically wrong, or illegal, about their coup. But there is a distinct lack of integrity and honour about it. If this had happened to a political party I would have applauded the deviously Machiavellian move, right out of a Hollywood movie. But a movie this isn't; we are talking about a group that has done a lot of good for Singaporean women. A group of women with integrity.
And that's what makes this affair even more disgusting. Nothing pisses me off more than a lack of integrity. It is indefensible, inexcusable, and unforgivable in my book.
Much has been said about how to protest this turn of events. Mr Wang has made an excellent suggestion here, which resonates with me because of how he views integrity. Since even DBS is distancing themselves from the antics of Josie Lau, it will hit them where it hurts most. I also encourage all Singaporean women who are concerned with this to register with AWARE and vote in the upcoming EGM on May 2nd. You can keep up with the latest news as well as find more information on We-Are-AWARE.sg.
And to do my part, I'm putting up my views on Facebook and Twitter, as well as making a public service announcement here. This came by way of @missybossy, and I hope that Singaporeans, not just the women, quickly understand what is at stake here.
"Hi all, www.we-are-aware.sg is a site set up by the old guards of AWARE.
There seems to be lot of support in cyberspace, but we dont know how many of those voices will be attending the EGM.It would be great if all of you who are intending to come to the EGM and supporting the old guards could register on www.we-are-aware.sg, so that we can keep you informed of what to expect at the EGM, dos and don'ts/ etc. It will also help us plan and organise the logistics for the day, and to make sure that the event goes as smoothly as can be expected under these circumstances.
From our viewpoint, what is really at stake is the space for a diversity of views in our cosmopolitan, pluralistic, multiracial, multireligious and multicultural society. The continuance of an all-inclusive and secular AWARE depends on YOUR VOTE.
We hope that you will make the time to attend the EGM and vote for the old Guards."