Joyce has asked me to stop obssessing over the AWARE saga.  "Never see catfight before, is it ?" sums up her dismissive view of the entire episode.  Be that as it may, I find the entire drama quite riveting, and therefore feel compelled to pen my further thoughts on it.  (Read some of the latest news and comments here).

This is getting quite dumb.

By the admission of the old guard, homosexual issues figured only minimally in AWARE’s overall programmes.  Yet homosexual issues, and wild allegations that the new guard will design anti-homosexual AWARE programmes henceforth, dominate the debate on why the new guard is unacceptable.

This is getting about as intelligent as US elections for president or senators or house representatives, where candidates stand or fall depending on single issues to the exclusion of all the other positive contributions they can make to the electorate, such as : pro-gay or anti-gay, pro-life or pro-choice, or pro-stem cell research or anti-stem cell research.

Some bloggers have suggested that the online debate has demonstrated the maturity of the internet community (interestingly maturity in that case was reflected in bloggers objecting to offensive comments against gays, nothing said about calling Christians names such as the "Christian Taliban"). 

I think defining the debate, and supporting the new or old EXCO, based on single issues only demonstrates a lack of intelligence.  Regardless of who forms the EXCO after the AWARE EOGM, AWARE will emerge poorer if EXCO members are selected not because voters had carefully considered what positive contributions they can make to women in Singapore, apart from homosexual issues in and of itself.

Josh has recently found a new way to amuse himself.  By playing in our walk-in wardrobe.

Jed is quite creative and sometimes creates quite interesting objects with his toy blocks.  Perhaps he has a future as an architect …

The truth is out and I stand corrected.  The change of guard at AWARE was more orchestrated than I had imagined.

Joyce stands corrected.  AWARE was not just a feminist group at the fringes.  If Thio Su Mien to be believed, AWARE was running sexuality education programmes in schools which teach values which I imagine many parents (including myself) would not be comfortable with, such as the acceptability of experimenting sexually with one another.

Against the backdrop of this new revelation, the old guard and its supporters have accused the new EXCO as being moral vigilantes, and one of the arguments is that the new EXCO as ordinary AWARE members (before they were elected into office) should have raised their concerns with the previous EXCO instead of seizing power, or that they should have set up their own organisation.

This is the first time I’ve heard a (previous) Government complain that the opposition which formed the new Government should have engaged it in dialogue instead of challenging it during the elections.

But what really surprises me is the number of people on the Internet who say that they support the old EXCO, perhaps for no other reason than that they find the manner in which the new EXCO obtained power objectionable, and / or that they believe AWARE should be a gay-neutral organisation.  (For one of the rare blogs which disagree with this general view, read this - note that I don’t necessarily agree with everything said there).

My two questions in response to the old AWARE supporters are as follows :

(1)  Assuming the new EXCO is successfully booted out, have they carefully considered what will take its place ?  Will it be simply the old guard (with its less than satisfactory programmes) ?  Or will it be the old guard plus (its apparently pro-gay supporters) ?  If it is the latter, as mentioned in my previous post, what has the old guard traded for this return to power ?  What is the old guard expected to return for this favour ?

(2)  What exactly does gay-neutral mean ? 

Does gay-neutral mean encouraging students to speak openly about homosexuality without imparting any guidance on its appropriateness (other than apparently, its "ok"), which is what I believe the old AWARE stands for ?  And what happens if, during a sexuality education session, a student comes out strongly to say that she thinks lesbianism is morally wrong ?  Would the facilitator then, because of old AWARE’s neutral and non-judgemental approach to gay issues, simply say "that’s cool girl, I hear what you say, let’s move on" ? 

Does gay-neutral mean providing counselling to a troubled woman notwithstanding her disclosure that she is a lesbian ?  Does it mean counselling students not to taunt or bully a lesbian classmate during a sexuality education programme ?  I think the answer to these questions are yes, and I don’t think the new EXCO is refusing to do these.

Does gay-neutral go further to include some of the old AWARE’s programmes, such as selecting a lesbian movie for a charity screening or encouraging students to speak openly about homosexuality without imparting any guidance on its appropriateness (other than apparently, its "ok") ?  I would hesitate to say that these are also gay-neutral.  These appear to be more pro-gay to me.

The "old guard" of AWARE (and / or its supporters) have launched a website — We Are Aware — in its campaign for support to oust the new Executive Committee (EXCO) and return to power.

I asked a colleague yesterday what he thought about the whole incident.  His short reply summed up he thought (or did not think) of the matter.

"Do you know how long the old lady has been in control of AWARE ?"

I asked Joyce what she thought, and she felt that the whole matter had been blown out of proportion.  Regardless of who was in control, AWARE was not going to make a significant difference to her life / our lives.  And to the extent that AWARE advocated fringe or extreme positions on feminism or other issues, people would not take it seriously.

Personally, the We Are Aware campaign only cements my impression that the "old guard" is desperate to return to power, and that in doing so it is prepared to play the (anti-)religion and pro-gay cards to pull in supporters from those quarters, namely : we have been taken over by Christian fundamentalists, and these fundamentalists are going to transform AWARE into an anti-gay movement.  If my understanding of the old guard’s strategy is correct, then what has it traded for this support ?  If the old guard returns to power, what is it expected to give to its supporters, in return for this support ?

On the other hand, the new EXCO appears pretty much tactless (seeing how it offended so many people in such a short time, and was unable to manage the Internet and traditional media spin on its Christian credentials) and clueless (because individual members apparently were able to say much about what they wanted to achieve through AWARE).

So whether the outcome of the upcoming no-confidence vote at the AWARE extraordinary general meeting is the retention of the new EXCO, or reinstallation of the old EXCO, my only wish is that neither group will ever run the Government.

Pun fully intended.

Indignant is what I feel as a Christian, because I fail to see why the change of management at AWARE, allegedly by a group of women attending the same church, should cause the fuss that it has generated in the Internet and mainstream media.  In particular, although I note that several of the new EXCO members had previously spoken / written against gays, I fail to see why the entire issue should be transformed into a gay vs Christian debate.

I have reproduced here the comments of several prominent (and not-so-prominent) writers / thinkers in Singapore, and why I think all this fuss is premature if not a spin to promote their personal agendas -

Constance Singam writes : "The AWARE Constitution states that the immediate past president shall be on the EXCO as an adviser. Members of the 2009 EXCO referred to me as a ‘rock’ and ‘the foundation’, and a source of continuity and point of reference to AWARE’s history and culture. But at the first two meetings of the 2009 EXCO, when I offered my advice on a number of issues it was ignored. 

I was particularly unhappy that my advice on the subcommittee chairs was totally disregarded. When the EXCO proposed to replace all subcommittee chairs with EXCO members, I protested and said it was AWARE’s long-standing practice to give more women, especially young women, the opportunity to acquire leadership skills and empowering them through experiences in sub-committee work.  I reminded them that the coordinators have been working on these issues for some time and that summarily replacing them would be disrespectful and counter-productive.  But EXCO ignored my advice.

The removal of the chair of the CEDAW Committee, Braema Mathi, is especially disturbing as Braema is the Singapore expert on CEDAW. Her work on CEDAW is respected internationally and there is arguably no better person in Singapore to lead the effort to produce the CEDAW shadow report. Yet, she was dismissed summarily without any stated reasons or even a simple thank you."

I say : With all due respect, I think Constance just sounds sore.  The new EXCO could have been more polite, or maybe even respectful, towards Constance, but to demand that the new EXCO regard her as a ‘rock’ or ‘foundation’, or that it listen to her every advice, just sounds too much like she was living in the past.

Constance Singam writes : "I am also very concerned about the possible ideological opposition of many members of the 2009 Executive Committee to AWARE’s historic fundamental values. The possible opposition to these values, or at least a lack of understanding of them, was obvious at the AGM when these new members failed to affirm Aware’s values.  Several times those who were standing for election were asked to declare their understanding of feminism and the objectives of AWARE. The responses were, at best, non-committal."

I say : Are AWARE’s historic fundamental values entrenched in its Constitution ?  If it is not, is Constance right to demand that the EXCO abide by her views on its "historic fundamental values" ?  What about the new members which have allegedly signed up for the coming AGM, supposedly in support of Constance’s agenda — are they able to recite the "historical fundamental values" by heart ?

Constance Singam writes : "Our values, which are the essence of this organization, are based on the fundamental rights and responsibilities of women as women. These include being treated as informed individuals capable of choice; being deserving of opportunities equal to those of men in education, marriage and employment … News coming to light each day adds to my concern about the intentions and ability of the EXCO to lead AWARE. I was shocked to read the statements made by DBS in the last two days about the conduct of the new AWARE president, Josie Lau. DBS said -  ’We are disappointed that Josie knowingly disregarded DBS’ staff code of conduct twice. Such an attitude is not one that DBS, or any other organisation, can condone in a leader.’ AWARE certainly should not."

I say : I find Constance’s statement that AWARE is about women "being deserving of opportunities equal to those of men in … employment" inconsistent with her support of DBS’ public rebuke of Josie Lau, in which DBS said that "as a vice-president in DBS, [ Josie ] already has a challenging job with many responsibilities, and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy".  Josie would not be the first senior employee / officer of a company to assume more than one senior appointment in multiple companies / societies.  To support DBS’s suggestion that she would be incapable of assuming a second appointment because it "would demand too much of her time and energy", is suggesting that Josie would be incapable of performing as a woman Vice-President of a bank and President of AWARE, when she had barely started work on the latter.  Or does Constance have in mind, as future AWARE Presidents and role models for other women, women who might not be as successful as Josie in their professional life ?

Constance Singam writes : "I was even more concerned by the reports that Josie led the marketing team in DBS’s credit card campaign last year which supported the evangelical Christian organisation Focus on The Family. And this morning I discover in the media that Josie, Charlotte, Jenica, Maureen, Sally and Irene apparently attend the same church. AWARE is a secular organisation that embraces diversity of race, age, religion, culture and sexuality, and it must remain so.  I am not at all confident that the current EXCO intends to ensure this."

I say : Constance’s statement above alludes to the possibility that the new EXCO might not be supportive of the gay cause, or even anti-gay.  I am tired of all these insinuations that the new EXCO is anti-gay.  If Constance or anyone else is aware that the new EXCO had publicly announced an anti-gay position, or if the new EXCO had rolled out an initiative that demonstrates an anti-gay position, then Constance (or whoever else) should just come out and denounce the new EXCO for what it is.  I assume, however, that the new EXCO has not what the public have feared.  Therefore, why all this insinuation against the new EXCO ?  Is the unhappiness an objective disagreement with what the EXCO stands for, or a speculative and /  or emotional outburst against Christians or against Christians from a particular church ?

Now, suppose the new EXCO subsequently turns out to be anti-gay, would it be too late to disagree with the new EXCO then ?  Would it not be objectively more reasonable and fair to denounce the new EXCO as anti-gay at that time ?

Constance Singam writes : "Though I am resigning from the EXCO I remain committed to AWARE and its work, and I hope you will too. AWARE’s values and its work over the last 25 years are important for Singapore and we must do all we can to ensure it continues to be a voice for women in Singapore and a champion of diversity, tolerance and transparency."

I say : The funny thing about "diversity" and "tolerance" is that it can never accommodate the pro- and anti-gays at both ends of the spectrum.  And while I do not believe that it is right to be anti-gay, I find it ironic that anti-gays are always asked to accept (or at least tolerate) gays, while pro-gays are never asked to tolerate an anti-gay.

Yawning Bread writes : "AWARE has been invited as a (previously) secular organisation to give sexuality talks to schools.  You can expect the new AWARE will re-jig the talks to preach abstinence, to rail against condoms and abortion, besides homosexuality".

I say : Again, this is highly speculative.  And what exactly will be in the content of the sessions on astinence, (non-)condom use and (anti-)abortion, that will be objectionable to Singaporeans ?  This is scaremongering through the use of labels without any objective basis / disclosure of any substantive content.  Somewhat unfairly, many people label gays as promicuous or perverts or paedophiles.  Why then does Alex Au — a gay himself — resort to the unfair use of labels against people he disagrees with ?

Alice Cheong writes : "Quoting the resource on the Angligcan Church of Our Saviour at Margaret Drive … Perhaps, we now have a good idea of what may be implemented by the new AWARE team, who attend [ the church ], which subscribed to the above values.  Let’s repeat after me … ‘a young woman is to do four things : (1) marry (2) bear children (3) guide the house (4) not be a reproach to her husband’."

I say : Again, this is intellectually dishonest, or at least intellectually sloppy, and another exercise in scaremongering.  While the resource does advocate the points (1) to (4) above, the resource also emphasises that the wife is not inferior to her husband, and that the wife does not live in servility.  Rather, it states that husband and wife have different roles in a marriage, that a husband is to love and protect his wife, and that as part of a marriage contract the wife gives up her independence and rights in exchange for other things of equal or greater value, such as the protection and support from her husband, family unity and adoration of the kids.  Anyway, what has the new EXCO done to lead to this wild speculation that it will adopt the Church of Our Saviour beliefs on women / family as its own ?

Now that the kids have grown a little older, they are starting to play together on their own.  "Together" is what we tell them to do, and hope that they don’t fight.  They still need supervision as Josh is still very young and accident-prone, but it looks like we’re slowly getting to a point where we can relax a little more.

Of all the Good Fridays in my life, I think yesterday was the least "Good Friday-ish" of them all.  We started Good Friday off by taking the kids to the Jacob Ballas Childrens’ Garden in the morning — which left us pretty tired out for the rest of the day — and ended with a 7 pm Good Friday service.

One thing I managed to squeeze in, between the morning and evening, was send an e-mail to my former and (until I sent the e-mail) prospective employer declining a job offer.  The reason, I said very truthfully, was not that the salary offered was unattractive, but that I had little confidence that the HR and senior management would treat its lawyers fairly over the long term.

"The fact that we are only having this discussion now, when I had been working for 8 years in first [ X ] and then [ Y ] for a fraction of what my counterparts (both in and outside of service) drew, indicates that it is all too easy to be taken for granted" were my exact words.

The reply to my e-mail which was sent about 2 hours later (yes, this is evidence that civil servants are hard at work even on a public holiday) started off with "today is Good Friday and your e-mail came at a time when Jesus died at the cross, taken for granted".

It was a remark which made me pause in at the end of the day (when I read the e-mail) to reflect that, yes, I have probably been taking Jesus for granted.  (Years ago such a remark would have also made me want to play Messiah and it still does pull at that heart string, but I think I’m a lot more cynical more and less easily moved by such remarks).

The other issue which occupied my mind for most of the day was that of being shortchanged, because that was primarily what my e-mail declining the job offer was about — that I had been shortchanged, and that I didn’t expect anything to change if I rejoined.  During service this prompted me to re-read a passage which I had read about a month ago, about the life of Jacob in Genesis 31 : 38 to 42 -

"I have been with you for twenty years now. Your sheep and goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten rams from your flocks.  I did not bring you animals torn by wild beasts; I bore the loss myself. And you demanded payment from me for whatever was stolen by day or night.  This was my situation: The heat consumed me in the daytime and the cold at night, and sleep fled from my eyes.  It was like this for the twenty years I was in your household.  I worked for you fourteen years for your two daughters and six years for your flocks, and you changed my wages ten times.  If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed.  But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hands, and last night he rebuked you."

Now I am not for a moment so deluded as to think that my life has been as tragic or difficult as that of Jacob’s.  Nor do I for a moment think that God is busy rebuking whoever might have treated me unjustly (there are some people, and shame on you).  Rather, this passage reminded me of God’s grace — that though I was not born into great wealth, and have neither great intellect nor political acumen, that though I have sometimes entered into bad bargains and made naive career choices, I have somehow attained reasonable success in life.  That I am where I am, can only be by the grace of God.