-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Aware Ambushed & they had no clue
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
Ah I was wondering when someone was going to talk about this power grab kerfuffle amongst the local X chromos...Harry must be tickled pink by this oldest trick in the book...my poor dear old Claire must have got a rude shock hence her quickie resignation after a week, new group probably ganged up against her
whats going on here? any official article?
Apr 10, 2009
Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls: Caught off-guard by big turnout, longtime members lose to fresh faces
Singaopre's best-known women's group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), has seen a dramatic changing of the guard - which some members are describing as nothing short of a leadership grab.
When Aware held its annual general meeting on March 28, everyone expected the usual: No more than 30 or 40 members would turn up at its Dover Crescent centre, and a prepared slate of candidates would be voted into office easily.
Instead, more than 100 people came, the majority of whom had joined Aware only in recent months.
And when the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by new faces, who won by wide majorities.
In the end, nine out of 12 executive committee spots went to the newcomers.
One older member who won without a contest was Mrs Claire Nazar, a former corporate counsel nominated to be president by outgoing Aware chief Constance Singam.
But barely a week into her new term, and before making her first statement as president, Mrs Nazar quit suddenly this week.
She confirmed that she had resigned, but declined to say any more when reached by The Straits Times.
It is not known who will now become president.
Longtime members took two other positions: Chew I-Jin as assistant honorary treasurer and Caris Lim Chai Leng was elected a committee member.
The election results have left longtime Aware members in shock.
Former president Tan Joo Hymn, 38, told The Straits Times the big turnout at the AGM surprised her.
'I arrived at the meeting late and found out that I was No. 100 on the attendance list. I've been a member for 10 years, and never before has there been such a turnout,' said the former lawyer who is now a full-time mother.
Another former president, writer Dana Lam, 57, said: 'There were many faces I had not seen before, and I found that very strange.
'In previous years, even if there were new members, they would be known to one or more of the older members.'
The first indication that something was afoot came when Ms Chew, an Aware veteran, was challenged and defeated handsomely by new member Charlotte Wong Hock Soon for the post of vice-president.
Ms Chew was later elected unopposed as assistant honorary treasurer.
'It was alarming,' said Ms Lam. 'How could a new member who had just joined for a couple of months, and whom we knew nothing about, be picked over someone who has been with Aware for more than 15 years?'
Some of the older members immediately began checking the attendance list.
Ms Tan said: 'We found that about 80 of the 102 who turned up were new members who joined between January and March this year.'
Aware, a feminist group that has prided itself on being 'all inclusive', has never vetted the people who apply to be members.
Men can join too, as associate members.
As it dawned on them that a leadership grab was imminent, some older members at the AGM tried asking the newcomers who they were, what they stood for, and why they wanted to be in charge.
They got only the briefest answers, they said.
Ms Lam said she tried suggesting that new members serve a stint on Aware's various sub-committees before standing for election to leadership positions.
But such suggestions went unheeded as the election proceeded, with more newcomers winning executive committee positions by landslide margins.
Ironically, the old guard at Aware had been working towards changing their Constitution to make it a rule that only those who have been members for at least a year would be eligible to join the ex-co.
There is currently no rule to bar a brand new member from seeking office, and that was what happened at the AGM.
Ms Tan said: 'We were simply outnumbered. Technically, they got in legitimately.'
She added that the way the election proceeded was so unusual, it was hard to imagine that the takeover was not a planned effort.
'It could not be pure coincidence,' she said.
But little is known of Aware's new leaders, aside from the fact that they include women from the corporate sector, lawyers, company directors and academics.
Older members said the newcomers spoke well but would not elaborate on their plans for Aware.
'When asked if they believed in equality, they kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them,' Ms Lam said.
Older members were keen to know if the newcomers shared Aware's vision and values, including equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality.
But one outspoken new member from the floor, who identified herself as Angela Thiang, said questions about the new office bearers' religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant.
Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, a two-term president of Aware, told The Straits Times that she, like many other members, was concerned.
'If you are keen to serve, you don't challenge every position. We do not know who they are,' said the former journalist who is now in Bangkok doing consultancy work for international women's group Unifem.
'It is very troubling, more so because I've heard the new president has resigned.'
Almost a fortnight into their new roles, the new leaders of Aware were not entertaining calls from the media this week.
New honorary secretary Jenica Chua Chor Ping told The Straits Times a press release would be issued 'in a few days' and added that until then, the committee would not answer any questions.
A check showed that some of those at the AGM and on the new committee have appeared in The Straits Times Forum Page.
Ms Chua, Ms Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, a male member of Aware who attended the AGM and supported the newcomers, all wrote letters to this newspaper between August and October 2007.
In a letter on Oct 17 that year, Ms Chua said NMP Siew Kum Hong had overstepped his non-partisan role and advanced the homosexual cause by tabling a petition in Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual sex between consenting men.
In another letter on Oct 25, she took issue with a Straits Times report which said NMP Thio Li-Ann had been 'visibly distraught' when she opposed Mr Siew's petition vigorously.
Ms Chua said Ms Thio had dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and passion.
Dr Chin and Ms Thiang both wrote letters to caution against the risks of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.
Meanwhile, news of Aware's AGM has spread among older members who did not attend the meeting, as well as civil society groups.
The most frequently-asked questions: Who are the new women in charge, why do they want the leadership, and what are their plans for Aware?
Ms Mathi said: 'The building of an institution takes many years; building its value system is even harder.
'Why can't they come in and be part of the process, and build it together and in a more evolutionary manner? That way, the comfort level will be high for everyone.'
Former newspaper editor and media consultant Peter Lim, a longtime associate member of Aware, said he was very surprised to learn what had taken place.
Asked why he thought a group of newcomers would want to take control, he said he did not know if it was an orchestrated effort.
But he thought Aware would be attractive to those seeking to be in charge of an established institution. Setting up a new outfit would take too much time and trouble.
'Aware has built up its credentials over the years and achieved more than a few things,' he said.
Three former Aware presidents - Ms Claire Chiang, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Ms Mathi - have served as NMPs.
'Aware is a brand name and most people regard it as the leading voice of the feminists and modern women in Singapore,' said Mr Lim.
Reported by Wong Kim Hoh, Straits Times.
Though I felt that Constance Singam, Kanwaljit Soin, Braema Mathi etc have done well as individuals representing Aware on some of the issues, Aware itself did not move forward.
The anti-gay gang should have the decency to have formed their own group and carry out their agenda rather than hijack an organisation that is not releated to the gay issue in the main. Alan Chin must be laughing for hijacking an women's organisation. They probably contemplated the SPCA but must have found Deidre Moss a handful.
I am sure, next year's AGM will see a complete return and I won't be surprised that a record numbers of new members many of whom are well known personalities joining for the first time. This episode might be the catalyst that AWARE to bring Singaporean women together and a good kickstart to their movement.
The anti-gay gang should have the decency to have formed their own group and carry out their agenda rather than hijack an organisation that is not releated to the gay issue in the main. Alan Chin must be laughing for hijacking an women's organisation. They probably contemplated the SPCA but must have found Deidre Moss a handful.
I am sure, next year's AGM will see a complete return and I won't be surprised that a record numbers of new members many of whom are well known personalities joining for the first time. This episode might be the catalyst that AWARE to bring Singaporean women together and a good kickstart to their movement.
Ah I was wondering when someone was going to talk about this power grab kerfuffle amongst the local X chromos...Harry must be tickled pink by this oldest trick in the book...my poor dear old Claire must have got a rude shock hence her quickie resignation after a week, new group probably ganged up against her
Looks to me a pretty rude bunch for not answering any questions when they took over such an organisation. Its not that they took over the local tai chi class. Obviously they have not thought through as their interest and AWARE role is out of kilter not matter how they they attempt to put square pegs in round holes.
No class and no manners seems to be slogan.
AWARE was caught UNAWARE.
The group was there for the picking and was owned. It was a coup. Serves LKY's ball lickers right. A change for the better I would say.
The group was there for the picking and was owned. It was a coup. Serves LKY's ball lickers right. A change for the better I would say.
They probably hijacked their war-chest of funds too, given that 9/12 of the Exco was booted out. Any idea how much $$ did AWARE have before the hijack? Would be interesting...
Cheers,
Trout
I guess the upstarts began off with a putsch surpise attack strategy with no follow up. Can't wait to see the next act
Hehehe...nice one Bro...but AWARE does seem to have the pull of say NCC, CHC or the likes of Prince, Kong Hee and the fallen Durai or Goh Kah Heng:p
I am not sure it is about $$. I recognised some of the new red guards. They are not poor. I believe it is more than that. Something major must be afoot for them to take over an institution such as AWARE in this manner. They might be poring over the records of AWARE as we are surfing the net now.
I don't the funds are much. They were never big on numbers but more on raising profile and they did have a stage.
I am utterly shocked. AWARE at best can be called gay-inclusive (if even that!), it has never ever been a group that makes a strong position on the gay issue. The closest it ever got to being gay friendly was when one of the ex-President of AWARE has a gay son.
Yet, the coup was staged by a whole bunch of known anti-gay Christians. These people always like to accuse of anyone who empathise with homosexuals of having a gay agenda. Looks like they are the ones who have an agenda!
You are right, they should have the decency to launch their agenda via a new organization or hijack other Christian fundie organizations (e.g. Focus on the Family).
Can't wait for developments from this group. They might even vote Alan Chin as Pseudo Women of the Year. I wonder what Alan Chin response going to be when associates and friends ask him why choose AWARE to push to the anti-gay drum. Would love to see his face when he attempts a reply.
I agree with your take on this entirely, especially your last para. People here who see AWARE as a PAP tool are entirely and ridiculously off the mark. Don't they remember how Kanwaljit Soin was humiliated in Parliament when she tabled the Family Violence Bill? There has not been a single woman from AWARE who has been co-opted into the ruling party, so obviously the association is not a path to power.
As to those who laugh at it for being "unaware" about the takeover, I guess this only shows that the women at AWARE are not your Machiavellian-type characters--which gives the lie to the usual stereotype of feminists as being power-hungry, militant ball crushers, doesn't it?
Those who have now taken it over are indeed the militant ones, and let's not make the mistake that they are feminists. Notice how they refused to directly answer the question of whether they stood for equal rights? They are patriarchal women serving the christian patriarchy, and these women are the ones who fit all the stereotypical epithets usually and terribly mistakenly hurled at feminists.
First of all, looking at things from an observer point of view, it could only mean one thing, most AWARE members are not very committed to this organization at all, most probably taking it as just another social club.
Else, how could they be overwhelmed by newcomers? Many of the AWARE members did not even attend the AGM!
Who to blame for their own apathy towards their own NGO? When you join any society or NGO or even a political party, you must take ownership of it and be responsible for its growth and selection of leadership.
Most political parties here in Singapore, including both WP and PAP, have two-tier membership. Normal membership and Cadre (or Congress) membership. Only these members have voting rights during AGM. There are pros and cons in having such a system because most of the time, the appointment of Cadre membership is not transparent and it lies in the hands of the few persons in the CEC. This would actually allow those in CEC to consolidate their political position indefinitely by appointing only those who supported them as cadre members.
Nevertheless, whichever system or modified system the organization takes, the members themselves must be responsible enough to attend the AGM if the opportunity or rights are entitled to them.
While my stand on sexuality is accommodating one and I do not see value in those anti-gay or anti-lesbian organization to stomp a NGO like AWARE just to make their point, but I still feels that this incident actually provides a valuable experience for all social activists that they should take charge of their organization destiny.
Crying over spill soup while one stands on the neglect, is really pathetic.
Goh Meng Seng
Else, how could they be overwhelmed by newcomers? Many of the AWARE members did not even attend the AGM!
Who to blame for their own apathy towards their own NGO? When you join any society or NGO or even a political party, you must take ownership of it and be responsible for its growth and selection of leadership.
Most political parties here in Singapore, including both WP and PAP, have two-tier membership. Normal membership and Cadre (or Congress) membership. Only these members have voting rights during AGM. There are pros and cons in having such a system because most of the time, the appointment of Cadre membership is not transparent and it lies in the hands of the few persons in the CEC. This would actually allow those in CEC to consolidate their political position indefinitely by appointing only those who supported them as cadre members.
Nevertheless, whichever system or modified system the organization takes, the members themselves must be responsible enough to attend the AGM if the opportunity or rights are entitled to them.
While my stand on sexuality is accommodating one and I do not see value in those anti-gay or anti-lesbian organization to stomp a NGO like AWARE just to make their point, but I still feels that this incident actually provides a valuable experience for all social activists that they should take charge of their organization destiny.
Crying over spill soup while one stands on the neglect, is really pathetic.
Goh Meng Seng
I think alot of people was not "aware" that AWARE actually had a small delegation giving support to Sylvia Lim in the last GE, even attending the rallies in the rain and m&d.
For a club that is seem more of doing charity and a tai-tai chat club, I was rather surprised by the latest turn of events, as if suddenly, the members ( new ones it seems) have become more "aware" of their organisation and wanted to have more say and responsiblity.
let see how the whole event will turn out to be. This could be the biggest "bitch" fight we will be witnessing for the development of woman history in Singapore.
Some gay rights activists are fighting back. This is turning interesting. As I mentioned earlier, they are taking on the Rightist to fight this gay rights war. Poor AWARE is damn suay to be the victim.
http://www.glass-castle.org/issue20editorial.html
Background
At the end of March, AWARE held an AGM attended by a large bloc of new members, many of whom had not previously been especially active in the organisation (according to the Straits Times, a large majority of them had only joined the organisation in the preceding 3 months). They proceeded to elect a new executive committee dominated by anti-gay activists. The new President (who has since, bizarrely, resigned), Claire Nazar, has publicly said that in her interpretation of her religion, Christianity, homosexuality is an ‘abomination’ and ‘the [result] of sin and flouting of God’s moral order’. The new honorary secretary, Jenica Chua, has previously criticised NMP Siew Kum Hong for his support for the legalisation of gay sex by referring to ‘the homosexual agenda’ and ‘the homosexual interest group’, language which originates from Christian fundamentalist movements in America.
Their supporters at the meeting included more individuals with clear connections to anti-gay Christian fundamentalist activism. Among these was Angela Thiang, who works in a company headed by infamous anti-gay Christian NMP Thio Li Ann, and who has publicly spoken in favour of Section 377A and in opposition to abortion rights. There was also Dr Alan Chin, who has used the language of American Christian fundamentalists by referring disapprovingly to ‘the gay lifestyle’.
Many of the members who voted for this new executive committee had only joined recently and were not well-known to active existing members of AWARE – suggesting that they were a new faction, rather than representing and reflecting the existing values of the group. In other words, the organisation appears to now be run not by secular feminists but by sectarian fundamentalists. It is likely that they will use it to push through a new agenda, promoting visions of gender, sexuality and women’s rights which are contrary to what AWARE previously stood for.
This has severe implications for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, and civic society at large. Even if you consider yourself wholly indifferent to feminism or LGBTQ rights, please sit up and pay attention. They could come for you next.
Dirty Tactics
This takeover was effected by people who signed up as members of AWARE but who were not known for being particularly central or active in AWARE before (although Claire Lazar had been a committee member even prior to this AGM). In other words, people who had not participated prominently in AWARE’s existing activities, and who had values which were in opposition to AWARE’s existing values, decided they wanted to run the organisation.
Why did they do that, rather than simply forming their own organisation? This is a deeply unethical tactic. It is a group of people with one particular ethos and vision, disrupting the legitimate activities of an organisation with a different ethos and vision, and seeking to co-opt the brand name and credibility that was built up with the old ethos and vision, in order to promote something else entirely. They do not seem to consider it sufficient to have their own groups and their own platforms to voice their perspectives: instead, they interfered with a group and a platform which voiced opposing perspectives.
This mode of activism is deeply hostile to diversity, to different groups in different spaces doing different things. If you have any interest in civic society at all, you should be deeply worried. In fact, unless you are yourself a fundamentalist within this coterie, you should be worried. It could be your group next. I’ll explain some of the ramifications of this further on.
Women’s Rights, Aside from Queer Issues
This is a huge blow. The old AWARE was flawed, insufficiently robust on gay rights and came across as rather elitist, but it did some good work – on bride trafficking, on sex education, on body image, on domestic violence. The infrastructure and kudos that the organisation lent to that work will need to be rebuilt in a new form. It is a major loss for feminism in Singapore.
In the meantime, it is probable the new AWARE will use the perception of AWARE as an organisation that speaks for women’s interests, so as to lobby for programmes that are directly contrary to women’s interests. They could well support substantial restrictions on abortion rights. They might also change AWARE’s existing comprehensive sex education programmes and favour abstinence-only ones which condemn sex between women. And I will be entirely unsurprised if they preach traditional gender roles, and the idea of women and men being two opposite and complementary flavours, instead of promoting equality, diversity and individualism in gender identities.
There are already groups that do all this, but their backgrounds and positions are known to be those of Christian fundamentalists. Focus on the Family (and their No Apologies programme) and Liberty League, for instance, as well as Exodus International. By taking over AWARE, people with the same Christian fundamentalist ethos could confuse others into believing that these agendas are supported by an organisation which is concerned with women’s best interests from a feminist and humanist point of view, rather than a Christian fundamentalist point of view. So we need to shout it from the rooftops: if these people are in a position to dominate AWARE, then the new AWARE will behave as a group of sectarian fundamentalists, not a group of secular feminists. AWARE will not stand for gender equality; it will stand for a particular vision of Christian morality. Know who you’re dealing with when you hear them speak.
It is sad that it should come to this, but Constance Singam and the rest of the AWARE ‘old guard’ should take heart: there is a way forward. Disassociate publicly from the new AWARE. Set up a new organisation. State clearly, without hedging, and without obfuscation, what you stand for: secular feminism, including abortion rights, equality for LGBTQ people, and freedom from oppressive gender roles. Put it in your constitution this time, and make it a habit to stand up for what you believe in, in the loudest, clearest, most principled possible terms, whenever the opportunity arises. Be transparent about your values, and accountable – including, yes, to queer women (more on this below). Learn from this mistake and it won’t happen again. It might even be better this time.
Queer Issues – Women and Men Both
Everything that was said about women’s rights here applies to queer issues as well. The new AWARE could well use the guise of women’s rights to attack lesbians and bisexual women’s interests, and they could do it in terms that attack gay men as well. Again, it is vitally important that everyone knows they are doing this as sectarian fundamentalists, not as secular feminists.
Why does this matter? It’s not that secular feminists are a particularly influential group whose invocation will cast some kind of spell upon all. Rather, making the facts clear will destroy any illusion that broadbased, autonomous agreement on a homophobic agenda has arisen from both the different philosophies of Christian fundamentalism and secular feminism. It will reaffirm that what looks like multiple homophobic voices in civic society are by and large part of the same one movement, the same one community, with distinctly Christian fundamentalist, American-influenced origins. The response to Repeal377a.com dramatically revealed the character of the main organised opposition to gay rights. They must not be allowed to use this opportunity to dress themselves up as something else.
http://www.glass-castle.org/issue20editorial.html
Background
At the end of March, AWARE held an AGM attended by a large bloc of new members, many of whom had not previously been especially active in the organisation (according to the Straits Times, a large majority of them had only joined the organisation in the preceding 3 months). They proceeded to elect a new executive committee dominated by anti-gay activists. The new President (who has since, bizarrely, resigned), Claire Nazar, has publicly said that in her interpretation of her religion, Christianity, homosexuality is an ‘abomination’ and ‘the [result] of sin and flouting of God’s moral order’. The new honorary secretary, Jenica Chua, has previously criticised NMP Siew Kum Hong for his support for the legalisation of gay sex by referring to ‘the homosexual agenda’ and ‘the homosexual interest group’, language which originates from Christian fundamentalist movements in America.
Their supporters at the meeting included more individuals with clear connections to anti-gay Christian fundamentalist activism. Among these was Angela Thiang, who works in a company headed by infamous anti-gay Christian NMP Thio Li Ann, and who has publicly spoken in favour of Section 377A and in opposition to abortion rights. There was also Dr Alan Chin, who has used the language of American Christian fundamentalists by referring disapprovingly to ‘the gay lifestyle’.
Many of the members who voted for this new executive committee had only joined recently and were not well-known to active existing members of AWARE – suggesting that they were a new faction, rather than representing and reflecting the existing values of the group. In other words, the organisation appears to now be run not by secular feminists but by sectarian fundamentalists. It is likely that they will use it to push through a new agenda, promoting visions of gender, sexuality and women’s rights which are contrary to what AWARE previously stood for.
This has severe implications for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, and civic society at large. Even if you consider yourself wholly indifferent to feminism or LGBTQ rights, please sit up and pay attention. They could come for you next.
Dirty Tactics
This takeover was effected by people who signed up as members of AWARE but who were not known for being particularly central or active in AWARE before (although Claire Lazar had been a committee member even prior to this AGM). In other words, people who had not participated prominently in AWARE’s existing activities, and who had values which were in opposition to AWARE’s existing values, decided they wanted to run the organisation.
Why did they do that, rather than simply forming their own organisation? This is a deeply unethical tactic. It is a group of people with one particular ethos and vision, disrupting the legitimate activities of an organisation with a different ethos and vision, and seeking to co-opt the brand name and credibility that was built up with the old ethos and vision, in order to promote something else entirely. They do not seem to consider it sufficient to have their own groups and their own platforms to voice their perspectives: instead, they interfered with a group and a platform which voiced opposing perspectives.
This mode of activism is deeply hostile to diversity, to different groups in different spaces doing different things. If you have any interest in civic society at all, you should be deeply worried. In fact, unless you are yourself a fundamentalist within this coterie, you should be worried. It could be your group next. I’ll explain some of the ramifications of this further on.
Women’s Rights, Aside from Queer Issues
This is a huge blow. The old AWARE was flawed, insufficiently robust on gay rights and came across as rather elitist, but it did some good work – on bride trafficking, on sex education, on body image, on domestic violence. The infrastructure and kudos that the organisation lent to that work will need to be rebuilt in a new form. It is a major loss for feminism in Singapore.
In the meantime, it is probable the new AWARE will use the perception of AWARE as an organisation that speaks for women’s interests, so as to lobby for programmes that are directly contrary to women’s interests. They could well support substantial restrictions on abortion rights. They might also change AWARE’s existing comprehensive sex education programmes and favour abstinence-only ones which condemn sex between women. And I will be entirely unsurprised if they preach traditional gender roles, and the idea of women and men being two opposite and complementary flavours, instead of promoting equality, diversity and individualism in gender identities.
There are already groups that do all this, but their backgrounds and positions are known to be those of Christian fundamentalists. Focus on the Family (and their No Apologies programme) and Liberty League, for instance, as well as Exodus International. By taking over AWARE, people with the same Christian fundamentalist ethos could confuse others into believing that these agendas are supported by an organisation which is concerned with women’s best interests from a feminist and humanist point of view, rather than a Christian fundamentalist point of view. So we need to shout it from the rooftops: if these people are in a position to dominate AWARE, then the new AWARE will behave as a group of sectarian fundamentalists, not a group of secular feminists. AWARE will not stand for gender equality; it will stand for a particular vision of Christian morality. Know who you’re dealing with when you hear them speak.
It is sad that it should come to this, but Constance Singam and the rest of the AWARE ‘old guard’ should take heart: there is a way forward. Disassociate publicly from the new AWARE. Set up a new organisation. State clearly, without hedging, and without obfuscation, what you stand for: secular feminism, including abortion rights, equality for LGBTQ people, and freedom from oppressive gender roles. Put it in your constitution this time, and make it a habit to stand up for what you believe in, in the loudest, clearest, most principled possible terms, whenever the opportunity arises. Be transparent about your values, and accountable – including, yes, to queer women (more on this below). Learn from this mistake and it won’t happen again. It might even be better this time.
Queer Issues – Women and Men Both
Everything that was said about women’s rights here applies to queer issues as well. The new AWARE could well use the guise of women’s rights to attack lesbians and bisexual women’s interests, and they could do it in terms that attack gay men as well. Again, it is vitally important that everyone knows they are doing this as sectarian fundamentalists, not as secular feminists.
Why does this matter? It’s not that secular feminists are a particularly influential group whose invocation will cast some kind of spell upon all. Rather, making the facts clear will destroy any illusion that broadbased, autonomous agreement on a homophobic agenda has arisen from both the different philosophies of Christian fundamentalism and secular feminism. It will reaffirm that what looks like multiple homophobic voices in civic society are by and large part of the same one movement, the same one community, with distinctly Christian fundamentalist, American-influenced origins. The response to Repeal377a.com dramatically revealed the character of the main organised opposition to gay rights. They must not be allowed to use this opportunity to dress themselves up as something else.
It’s All Connected: We Must Unite
If you desire an equal, secular society, you have to unite with others who share that desire. And you have to make a commitment to it: a commitment backed up by more than just private feeling. You have to speak openly about what you believe in, and you have to stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity when people other than you are threatened. Christian fundamentalists in Singapore are phenomenally well-organised, and if we remain fragmented – too afraid or selfish or apathetic to take stances in support of others – we will not have the numbers or resources to withstand these tactics if and when they come for us. Consider yourself warned.
An example is right before us. Queer women appealed to the old AWARE to represent their interests, to show active solidarity rather than passive tolerance, and AWARE fobbed them off. If they had been engaged more closely, if they had been persuaded to see AWARE as a space in which they had ownership and which reflected their values and interests, the AGM might naturally have had a higher turnout of queer women. No guarantees, but it was more likely. They might have been able to block the election of the new committee. Everything might have been different.
We have to build alliances, and in order to build them we have to earn mutual support. We have to care about a little bit more than ourselves and our personal pet causes. We are all in danger otherwise.
And don’t let them paint this position as a threat to religious freedom. It is the takeover of public life by fundamentalism which threatens religious freedom. In the first place, there are many religious people whose values are not those of these fundamentalists: there are Muslim feminists, gay-friendly Christian churches, Hindus who believe in the value of a secular society, and so forth. The whole point of secular society is to give everyone space to practice their own religious values in their private lives and through private associations of private people. A secular society values plurality and diverse groups.
The act of hijacking a private group which doesn’t share one’s values, so as to disrupt the group’s activities and use the group’s infrastructure to promote wholly different religious values, threatens that plurality and diversity. It threatens religious freedom.
To Infinity and Beyond
There is one group about which this piece has been utterly silent, and that is the PAP government. Have they a role in this?
Yes. This brand of Christian fundamentalism appeals to some Singaporeans precisely because of the stifling nature of the society the PAP has created. They clamped down on diversity and freedom; they sought to limit social imagination. Little wonder one of the most popular social movements that arose is one which is hostile to diversity and freedom, and which is wholly socially unimaginative.
There’s something else here, too. Political apathy has often been attributed to the PAP’s governing style. Political naïvete has the same source. If you have no experience of organising, how can you effectively oppose the activities and values of people who do? The PAP should be worried. There is a new power centre in society, and it is growing, and it is better at organising than anyone else is. It could even be better at organising than the PAP itself: the PAP could conceivably, in the future, be taken over by exactly the same dynamic that felled AWARE.
It’s time to wake up, folks. The stakes are too high.
If you desire an equal, secular society, you have to unite with others who share that desire. And you have to make a commitment to it: a commitment backed up by more than just private feeling. You have to speak openly about what you believe in, and you have to stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity when people other than you are threatened. Christian fundamentalists in Singapore are phenomenally well-organised, and if we remain fragmented – too afraid or selfish or apathetic to take stances in support of others – we will not have the numbers or resources to withstand these tactics if and when they come for us. Consider yourself warned.
An example is right before us. Queer women appealed to the old AWARE to represent their interests, to show active solidarity rather than passive tolerance, and AWARE fobbed them off. If they had been engaged more closely, if they had been persuaded to see AWARE as a space in which they had ownership and which reflected their values and interests, the AGM might naturally have had a higher turnout of queer women. No guarantees, but it was more likely. They might have been able to block the election of the new committee. Everything might have been different.
We have to build alliances, and in order to build them we have to earn mutual support. We have to care about a little bit more than ourselves and our personal pet causes. We are all in danger otherwise.
And don’t let them paint this position as a threat to religious freedom. It is the takeover of public life by fundamentalism which threatens religious freedom. In the first place, there are many religious people whose values are not those of these fundamentalists: there are Muslim feminists, gay-friendly Christian churches, Hindus who believe in the value of a secular society, and so forth. The whole point of secular society is to give everyone space to practice their own religious values in their private lives and through private associations of private people. A secular society values plurality and diverse groups.
The act of hijacking a private group which doesn’t share one’s values, so as to disrupt the group’s activities and use the group’s infrastructure to promote wholly different religious values, threatens that plurality and diversity. It threatens religious freedom.
To Infinity and Beyond
There is one group about which this piece has been utterly silent, and that is the PAP government. Have they a role in this?
Yes. This brand of Christian fundamentalism appeals to some Singaporeans precisely because of the stifling nature of the society the PAP has created. They clamped down on diversity and freedom; they sought to limit social imagination. Little wonder one of the most popular social movements that arose is one which is hostile to diversity and freedom, and which is wholly socially unimaginative.
There’s something else here, too. Political apathy has often been attributed to the PAP’s governing style. Political naïvete has the same source. If you have no experience of organising, how can you effectively oppose the activities and values of people who do? The PAP should be worried. There is a new power centre in society, and it is growing, and it is better at organising than anyone else is. It could even be better at organising than the PAP itself: the PAP could conceivably, in the future, be taken over by exactly the same dynamic that felled AWARE.
It’s time to wake up, folks. The stakes are too high.
Similar threads
