By Kelvin Teo ⋅ April 20, 2009
⋅ Print This Story ⋅ Email This Story ⋅ Share (Facebook) ⋅ Post a comment
SINGAPORE - The dramatic rise to AWARE’s leadership by a group of virtual unknowns kicked up a ruckus from within the organization itself all the way to cyberspace. What transpired was that 80 out of the 102 who turned up at the annual general meeting were new members who joined between January and March this year. Subsequently, the latter went on to elect many of their own peers into 9 out of 12 executive committee positions.
In the ensuing debates that followed, interesting information regarding the new executive committee members’ background surfaced. According to the older members, the newcomers were part of a Christian fundamentalist group that had the intention of taking over an existing organization in its entirety. The plot further thickens with revelations of the anti-homosexuality stand of the new Honorary Secretary and others in the new committee. It was revealed that they were prominent in writing against homosexuality in the Straits Times forum page, and this extended to their supporters too.
If fulfilling religious agenda is the motivation behind the takeover, AWARE could be facing the problem of a religious groupthink. Decisions will be based solely on the stands of such a group, and external ideas not conducive to the latter’s agenda will be rejected. For instance, would this group be in favor of pushing for the emancipation of a sexual minority group such as lesbians?
And would this religious groupthink result in AWARE losing the focus of its vision in achieving equality for all regardless of race, religion and sexuality? If the new members were to pursue their anti-homosexuality and anti-lesbian agenda in their capacity as AWARE members, it would be hard to see how they could be helping women achieving equality status. The bright side of this episode is that the public spotlight is now on the new members, and it appears from the public perspective, they seemed to be dissociating from their religious link.
read more here:
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=2614
⋅ Print This Story ⋅ Email This Story ⋅ Share (Facebook) ⋅ Post a comment
SINGAPORE - The dramatic rise to AWARE’s leadership by a group of virtual unknowns kicked up a ruckus from within the organization itself all the way to cyberspace. What transpired was that 80 out of the 102 who turned up at the annual general meeting were new members who joined between January and March this year. Subsequently, the latter went on to elect many of their own peers into 9 out of 12 executive committee positions.
In the ensuing debates that followed, interesting information regarding the new executive committee members’ background surfaced. According to the older members, the newcomers were part of a Christian fundamentalist group that had the intention of taking over an existing organization in its entirety. The plot further thickens with revelations of the anti-homosexuality stand of the new Honorary Secretary and others in the new committee. It was revealed that they were prominent in writing against homosexuality in the Straits Times forum page, and this extended to their supporters too.
If fulfilling religious agenda is the motivation behind the takeover, AWARE could be facing the problem of a religious groupthink. Decisions will be based solely on the stands of such a group, and external ideas not conducive to the latter’s agenda will be rejected. For instance, would this group be in favor of pushing for the emancipation of a sexual minority group such as lesbians?
And would this religious groupthink result in AWARE losing the focus of its vision in achieving equality for all regardless of race, religion and sexuality? If the new members were to pursue their anti-homosexuality and anti-lesbian agenda in their capacity as AWARE members, it would be hard to see how they could be helping women achieving equality status. The bright side of this episode is that the public spotlight is now on the new members, and it appears from the public perspective, they seemed to be dissociating from their religious link.
read more here:
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=2614
