If Civil society means promotion of Gay&Lez lifestyles...I rest my case!
SINGAPORE: AWARE’S extraordinary general meeting (EGM) last Saturday, which was attended by a 3,000-strong crowd of mainly women, was more than just a show of “girl power”.
It was a demonstration of how civil society, without the Government’s overt hand, can handle controversial debates on sensitive issues — and they do not come more explosive than the cocktail of religion and sexuality that dominated the saga.
Yes, the month-long public debate got ugly at times — there is absolutely no space for death threats — and the booing and heckling of speakers at the EGM were regrettable.
But as several observers pointed out, there were more positives than negatives - not least a coming of age for civil society.
The Aware saga dispelled the notion that some topics are taboo in Singapore — that differences are best discussed behind closed doors, in hushed tones, or worse, swept under the carpet.
Straits Times journalist Janadas Devan asserted in an article yesterday that the episode showed why OB (out-of-bounds) markers are necessary.
On the contrary, the women of Aware have shown that Singaporeans are capable of not only passionately fighting for their views, but also knowing when to back down. This was, perhaps, because the Government, to its credit, stayed largely out of the picture.
The last time homosexuality and religion took centrestage in public was in 2007 during the debate on Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual acts.
If the heated debate then was anything to go by, few would have been surprised if the Government had stepped in once religious overtones seeped into the Aware saga.
Yet, apart from a few gentle but firm reminders for the opposing camps not to push their views too aggressively, the Government’s most pointed comments came only on the eve of the EGM, with Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng stressing the “need for tolerance and restraint by all groups”.
Mr Wong’s comments came after the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a public statement distancing the churches from the saga and a public apology from pastor Derek Hong for using the pulpit to campaign for the erstwhile Exco.
Other than Mr Wong’s comments, the only other visible intervention by the Government was by the police advising Singapore Expo against allowing the EGM to be held there. With a large Christian conference taking place at the same time, it could have been an ugly affair.
Apart from the statement and apology, veteran journalist P N Balji pointed to at least one other development which may have helped stave off direct, and public, intervention by the Government: Dr Thio Su Mien going public over her role and the motivations of the Exco.
Still, Institute of South-east Asian Studies research fellow Terence Chong felt that the Government was always prepared to step in if the debate turned “too dangerous”.
In this case, he noted, the debate was framed more as a contest between the Old Guard’s inclusive approach and the New Guard’s “exclusive” stance towards homosexuals. “Maturity prevailed ... people were quite passionate but it didn’t boil over into an exclusively religious debate,” said the research fellow.
So, could the Aware saga prove to be a watershed for public discourse of taboo topics?
Said Dr Chong: “I hesitate to use the term ‘watershed’ — it was more of an evolutionary process of civil society.” - TODAY
SINGAPORE: AWARE’S extraordinary general meeting (EGM) last Saturday, which was attended by a 3,000-strong crowd of mainly women, was more than just a show of “girl power”.
It was a demonstration of how civil society, without the Government’s overt hand, can handle controversial debates on sensitive issues — and they do not come more explosive than the cocktail of religion and sexuality that dominated the saga.
Yes, the month-long public debate got ugly at times — there is absolutely no space for death threats — and the booing and heckling of speakers at the EGM were regrettable.
But as several observers pointed out, there were more positives than negatives - not least a coming of age for civil society.
The Aware saga dispelled the notion that some topics are taboo in Singapore — that differences are best discussed behind closed doors, in hushed tones, or worse, swept under the carpet.
Straits Times journalist Janadas Devan asserted in an article yesterday that the episode showed why OB (out-of-bounds) markers are necessary.
On the contrary, the women of Aware have shown that Singaporeans are capable of not only passionately fighting for their views, but also knowing when to back down. This was, perhaps, because the Government, to its credit, stayed largely out of the picture.
The last time homosexuality and religion took centrestage in public was in 2007 during the debate on Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual acts.
If the heated debate then was anything to go by, few would have been surprised if the Government had stepped in once religious overtones seeped into the Aware saga.
Yet, apart from a few gentle but firm reminders for the opposing camps not to push their views too aggressively, the Government’s most pointed comments came only on the eve of the EGM, with Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng stressing the “need for tolerance and restraint by all groups”.
Mr Wong’s comments came after the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a public statement distancing the churches from the saga and a public apology from pastor Derek Hong for using the pulpit to campaign for the erstwhile Exco.
Other than Mr Wong’s comments, the only other visible intervention by the Government was by the police advising Singapore Expo against allowing the EGM to be held there. With a large Christian conference taking place at the same time, it could have been an ugly affair.
Apart from the statement and apology, veteran journalist P N Balji pointed to at least one other development which may have helped stave off direct, and public, intervention by the Government: Dr Thio Su Mien going public over her role and the motivations of the Exco.
Still, Institute of South-east Asian Studies research fellow Terence Chong felt that the Government was always prepared to step in if the debate turned “too dangerous”.
In this case, he noted, the debate was framed more as a contest between the Old Guard’s inclusive approach and the New Guard’s “exclusive” stance towards homosexuals. “Maturity prevailed ... people were quite passionate but it didn’t boil over into an exclusively religious debate,” said the research fellow.
So, could the Aware saga prove to be a watershed for public discourse of taboo topics?
Said Dr Chong: “I hesitate to use the term ‘watershed’ — it was more of an evolutionary process of civil society.” - TODAY
