Certain supporters of the AWARE old guard, in their obsession with taking down the current / new EXCO, are picking every issue that they possibly can with the new EXCO, no matter how frivolous.  I call it a take no quarter approach.

The latest issue which they have objected to is the fact that Gregory Vijayendran has been appointed by AWARE (as led by the current EXCO) to advise on EOGM procedures : click here and here for some examples.  Their objection arises from the fact that Gregory is, apparently, a devout Christian who is passionately involved in Advocates International.  They demand the appointment of a "neutral" lawyer instead.

Nevermind that Gregory is a distinguished lawyer of many years standing with a top law firm in Singapore.

And what is meant by "neutral" ?  Does it mean someone from another religion ?  Or an atheist or agnostic ?  Or a gay or lesbian ?  Or a woman ?

I suppose a rabbit or some other animal would qualify.

And then there are objections to the possibility that the AWARE EOGM will be conducted in accordance with the strict letter of the law, instead of its supposed spirit, in favour of the current EXCO of course.

Which is a totally short-sighted and infantile approach to this entire saga.

Surely the “letter of the law” must matter. It is the letter of the law (and voting which is carried out in accordance with AWARE’s constitution, whatever that is) which will confer authority on the EXCO to govern.

Take a hypothetical situation. Suppose in elections for a government, election officials wishing to act according to the “spirit” but not the “letter” of the law, decide to overlook a technicality in the voting rules so that a member of the opposition (or the entire opposition) is elected into office.  How can that be appropriate ?

Firstly, it opens the new office holders who assumed power to future challenge. Not only that, if the challenge is successful, whatever policies the new government might have implemented during their period in office will be void because they had no power make those decisions. Can you imagine the chaos arising from that ?

Secondly, it sets a very bad precedent. Today the opposition might assume office because election officials overlook a technicality. Who is to say that tomorrow, the same disregard for the law (or technicalities of the law) will not result, unfairly, in another party being voted in ?  Respect for the letter of the law will ensure that such situations will not result.

In today’s TODAY (article reproduced below) was a small and apparently innocuous article about how the Chen Su Lan Trust had fully subsidised the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme conducted by AWARE at several secondary schools.  The chair of the trust is the Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao, a remarkable man who has at various times spoken out in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) causes.  He is also pastoral advisor to the Free Community Church, which is known for its inclusive stand in regard to the LGBT community.

I respect the Rev Dr Yap’s ministry to the LGBT community, even if I do not agree with all of his views on LGBT causes.  Unfortunately, the fact that he is chair of the Chen Su Lan Trust, that he had "read" (whatever that means) and at least not objected to the "rough outline" of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme, and that he is sympathetic to LGBT causes raises to my mind the suspicion that the liberal slant in the programme which many parents are now concerned about did not creep in entirely by accident.

THE sex education workshops conducted by Aware at 11 secondary schools last year was fully subsidised, thanks to a donation from the Chen Su Lan Trust.

Each workshop cost between $500 and $600 but was free for the schools, which have not yet been named publicly.

Yesterday, former Aware president Constance Singam revealed to Today that $35,000 out of the $113,000 donated by the Chen Su Lan Trust last year was spent on the free Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) workshops at schools.

Asked if he was aware of the content of the CSE programme, Reverend Yap Kim Hao, the chairman of the Chen Su Lan Trust, said that he had been given a “rough outline” of the programme, but he had not seen the teaching materials. When Today showed him two pages of the CSE trainers’ manual, which stated that “anal sex can be healthy” and that “homosexuality is perfectly normal”, Rev Yap said that he “had no problems” with the content.

“I recognise there are dissenting views, but these have to be presented and it’s up to the student to make a decision so (the trainer) is not promoting one particular view,” said Rev Yap.

The 80-year-old is a retired Bishop of the Methodist Church here and currently pastoral adviser to the Free Community Church. According to the church’s website, it accepts same-sex relationships and welcomes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons.

— Postscript —

After further reflecting on the Rev Dr Yap’s statement that "it’s up to the student to make a decision" (second last paragraph above), I have to disagree.  Young minds are impressionable, and they must be guided instead of left to reach conclusions on their own.  If the Rev Dr Yap is right, we can dispense with movie and game classifications (otherwise known as censorship) which are aimed at protecting young minds from sex or violent scenes which are inappropriate for their age.

Tomorrow, Singapore will come to a standstill as AWARE members vote at its EOGM.  By the end of tomorrow, after the votes are counted, the world will come to an end as either ultraconservatives or gay sympathisers are struck with a decisive blow.  I outline the possible doomsday scenarios below.

Scenario A : Present EXCO remains in power

AWARE remains ineffective because of nagging public suspicions that it is managed by a group of ultraconservative Christians with an ultraconservative agenda

Every male who wants to put questions of his sexual orientation / preference to rest only needs to express vocal support for AWARE

Gay sympathisers and ultraconservative Christians continue to call each other names

Scenario B : Old guard voted into power

AWARE remains ineffective because of nagging public suspicions that it is managed by a group of ultraliberal women with a secret agenda of advancing gay causes

No male can ever express support for AWARE without being viewed suspiciously as a homosexual

Gay sympathisers and ultraconservative Christians continue to call each other names

Scenario C : Either camp takes power, and someone with swine flu attends the EOGM 

AWARE and everyone who attends the EOGM go out of action because they have to be quarantined until the Communicable Diseases Centre is certain that they are not infected with swine flu

There is a momentary period of peace as all the name-calling and shouting stops

Upon their discharge, gay sympathisers and ultraconservative Christians continue to call each other names

I think the foregoing demonstrates just how silly it is to define AWARE and the upcoming EOGM by the single issues of ultraconservative / fundamentalist Christianity and pro- / anti-gay issues.  I think that those who raised the alarm against the new AWARE by harping on these issues instead of undertaking a holistic review of whether the new EXCO is sufficiently competent to steer the organisation was unwise. 

And I think AWARE members regardless of which camp they support who have taken their cues from such persons are going to kill the organisation.

In fairness to both camps, see :

   AWARE homepage

   We Are Aware (includes old guard’s comments about the new AWARE)

   New AWARE’s comments about previous AWARE programmes