More thoughts on the AWARE fallout

The EGM may have been over, and the conclusion delivered with a kind of certainty not unlike death and taxes, but the online debate rages on. More posts and opinions defending the Josie Lau EXCO has emerged, and with them, the same old, tired, rehashed, and misinformed arguments. Most of these are from the perspectives of people who did not even attend the EGM, nor were they appraised of the facts and context of this event. In other words, it's unsubstantiated, speculated fluff. Take this one for example.

This post is my response to the points raised in that note. I have a feeling I will be preaching to the choir, but I feel that these points should be addressed, so that people who choose to be in the know can do so, while those who choose to exhibit blind loyalty, be it to deities of their choice or to misplaced moral superiority, can continue on their merry way.

But first, a disclaimer: I am not an appointed spokesperson of AWARE. The views expressed in this post are purely that of my own, and may not be taken to represent AWARE. I am however an associate member of AWARE, and a volunteer. That said, let's get on with it.

1. The take-over by the Josie Lau-led EXCO was legal

No one disputes the legality of the takeover. However, the author fails to recognise one thing: civic leaders not only need legal legitimacy, they also need moral legitimacy. The actions of the Josie Lau EXCO may satisfy the former, but fails utterly in the latter. Their actions were planned and orchestrated in secret, and executed ruthlessly. This may be corporate practice, but it is not the actions that lends credibility to an advocacy group such as AWARE; in fact it is just the opposite.

The very fact that a small group of individuals like that planned to hijack a longstanding, credible association instead of starting another association, or even to voice out their concerns in a more civil manner, removed any moral legitimacy they might have garnered, which also contributed to the "uncivil" proceedings at the EGM.

2. Erroneous notation of "secular"

The author raised the question "So in a secular organisation like Aware, why should Exco members' religious affiliations matter?", accusing the Straits Times of emphasising this, and that they wouldn't dare to if they're faced with Cabinet ministers. It is either a very nice attempt to redirect or he's not getting the point.

While I'm not a fan of the ST, religious affiliations did matter in this case. The reasons they provided was that AWARE had a pro-homosexual agenda, which is false. They also used church connections to get new members who voted them in, as well as harness church connections for more support at the EGM. Add to that Dr Thio Su Mien's confessions and Pastor Derek Hong's misuse of the pulpit, it would be delusional to even suggest that their religious affiliations did not matter.

'Secular' means 'not specifically religious' according to Wikitionary. What that means is that views stemming from religious belief, from any religion, should not influence a secular organisation.

3. Homosexuality

This entire section of the author's post is misguided. If anything, it was the Old Guard who espoused that ALL WOMEN, regardless of sexual orientation, should be respected and are entitled to the same equality enjoyed by others. That is true inclusiveness. The New Guard were the ones who appeared hell-bent on making the Old Guard look like pro-homosexual advocates with unsubstantiated claims; how does that signify inclusiveness?

Make no mistake, this is not a simple matter of homosexuals vs heterosexuals, as I've talked about in my previous post. But to be inclusive means you also fight for equality for those whose lifestyles you may or may not agree with. The Josie Lau EXCO showed zero signs of doing that, further eroding their moral legitimacy to lead AWARE.

4. Playing up of the $90,000 spent

AWARE's constitutional restriction of spending no more than S$20,000 is not "written in the light of a consistent membership that never exceeded 300". This is a blind assumption of the part of the author. A little knowledge of NGOs like AWARE will show that fund-raising is no small matter, and they rely on the generosity of benefactors and donors. In turn, they have an obligation to them and the members to spend that money wisely, and effectively. Having once served in a voluntary organisation, I know how difficult it is to continually raise funds and keep costs down.

How does spending S$90,000 in about 5 weeks spell effectiveness or prudence? It merely magnifies the inexperience of the Josie Lau EXCO. They could've coordinated the EGM with the Old Guard, but they turned down that opportunity. They could have asked for pro-bono legal advice, like the Old Guard did with NMP Siew Kum Hong, but they chose to splurge on (admittedly great and even-handed) legal counsel by Gregory Vijayendran from Raja and Tahn.

In short, the gulf in mentality between the New and Old Guard was great, and the former failed when their corporatist mentality were scrutinised. It is not about how much was earned; it is, quite literally, about how much was spent, and how it was spent.

5. Failure of Old Guard to completely answer all accusations

The author was particularly scathing about AWARE's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) program. It is worth noting that the "offending" material was only available in the instructors' manuals, and was meant to let instructors know how to respond to touchy questions brought up by the students. No complaints were received by MOE from any students or parents prior to the fear-mogering lies spread by Dr Thio and company.

To our knowledge, the ST have also not mentioned the important information covered in the CSE, such as the role-play to teach students to say no to sex, or the information regarding STDs. If the author thinks giving the information to the students is a bad thing, then by deduction the "stick our heads in the sand" approach is perhaps a good thing. That does not benefit the students at all.

And parents, I'm talking to you here: If you are really so concerned about what your kids are taught in school, be involved in their education. Lead and guide them. Don't just complain and panic when you hear rumours. If you can't even be bothered to verify the rumours, then I don't think you're that concerned about the kids' education. You're just looking for a scapegoat for your failure as parents. Your actions speak louder than words, and your children will follow your actions, not your words.

6. Actions and behavior of the Old Guard

This allegation of the Old Guard "Hijacking Aware's website, issuing death threats and publicly releasing sensitive private information are all shameless deeds" is a serious one. And one that is filled with assumption and misinformation. To use the author's own words, would he dare to use the same allegations on a Cabinet Minister? I doubt it.

The Old Guard did NOT hijack AWARE's website; the new one was set up by a volunteer. And without evidence to back up the allegations of death threats, this can be easily construed as grounds for a libel lawsuit. As for releasing sensitive private information, which I will have to assume refers to the emails of Dr Thio since there were no other information provided by the author, the email addresses were modified to preserve privacy. This information is pertinent to unravel the clandestine nature of the takeover, without which members will not be able to decide the rights and wrongs.

Equally puzzling is the author not addressing the releasing of confidential, instructors-only information of the CSE. If you want to point to one, be sure to point to the other; otherwise, this note is as biased as the author alleges the articles in ST to be.

7. Christians standing up against Christians

This is the biggest section in the author's post. The section where he says "As Christians, what are we doing about this issue? Are we sitting back in comfort, denouncing the take-over as "extremist" simply in hopes that we may be seen as "moderates" even though we share their same views on homosexuality? Are we slamming them quickly simply because they embarrass us?" is indicative of his stand, and why he thinks the way he does.

Because he believes he is morally superior to others. There was another post out there that asked for Christians to not be caught in such "set-pieces" again, which I cannot find because my Google-fu is weak. This is similar to what the author is saying, and shares the same weakness: they mistake consequence for cause.

They think the cause of their loss is due to Christians standing up against Christians, and that they are caught in well-orchestrated set-pieces designed to trap them. What they missed is that the only ones getting caught in these "traps" are the same ones who deem themselves morally superior, that deem the way of Christ is the only way. That is the cause. The Christians who are more open-minded do not fall into that trap. No one ever wonders why that is.

I wonder if they will ever get it.

On the "barbaric" happenings at the EGM

A lot of people have called the heckling and shouting at the EGM many unsavoury names, including "unfeminine", "barbaric", "the law of the jungle", "mob rules" etc. Most of these labels are used by people who did not attend the EGM, did not know the context from which they happened, or worse yet, just assumed the worse.

Would this have happened had Josie Lau's EXCO left the microphones on ? Or just left Mr Siew Kum Hong alone? Or addressed the members without "talking down" to them? Or not using security to silence or remove members from the EGM? Or answered the questions themselves without resorting to deflecting or deferring to their legal counsel? Or not spoke as if they're responsible for the success of AWARE for the past 24 years? Or changed the locks and installed CCTV cameras at the AWARE office? Or produce a PDF file of misinformation instead of engaging the members?

We will never know. But given the context, did anyone expect the attempts to control the crowd via uncivil means to be met with calm reponses? I certainly did not. Those who do have a very misguided view of due process and democracy. Their efforts to silence and control failed because silencing and controlling is not engagement; it is as simple as that.

Credits

I realised that I failed to thank some people in my last post. My tweets on the EGM, and subsequent involvement with AWARE, would not be possible without @missbossy. Also to @Cathelon, who continued to update me on the happenings at the meeting. And the company of @GrowlyBear and @hanifn during the long and hard wait for the vote counting was absolutely vital to me keeping my last vestiges of sanity. I'd have ripped my hair out if it wasn't for them.

And to all the men and women who were involved that day, be it as a volunteer or voting member, in any capacity: thank you for making May 2nd a memorable day, and for touching each others' lives.

Posted via email from trapper's posterous