Serve Aware, not undermine it

Straits Times - April 21, 2009

DISTRUST between Aware's long-time members and the newly arrived leadership could undermine the standing of a respected entity in the growing civic movement. Women of either camp who state grandly that they are there to advance the cause of family, gender equity and pertinent social issues must ask themselves whether an inability to play to one another's strengths is not damaging the vehicle for their mission. All week, they have been sniping at each other.

Alarm had first spread among older members over the manner in which the group of unknowns had captured Aware's executive machinery. Nothing has transpired since the time of the elections on March 28 to dispel impressions that this had been a well planned and executed operation. What has not been explained is the new team's plans for Aware and specific goals in social policy. New activists in public-interest advocacy would be courting the media to publicise their mission to gather public support. This has not been the case. It is unhelpful to the new leadership to have its reticence give rise to conjecture and accusations.

Their objectives in taking over the organisation have been questioned by the old guard, who plainly were caught unawares by the leadership manoeuvre. The compliment was quickly returned by the new president, Ms Josie Lau, who asked them to disclose their 'motives and objectives fully and honestly'. This bit of cheekiness will not endear her to the established members. The new team will find invaluable their institutional knowledge of issues and their counsel in getting things done.

Ms Lau passed up another opportunity in a television interview on Sunday to explain her action agenda, saying the time was not yet right. The public could regard as odd such a dereliction, as the team would have sought office with defined goals in mind. The longer the newcomers keep silent, the worse will be the inferences drawn, no matter how unfair. As an example, questions are asked about the new office bearers' known Christian affiliation. By itself, this is of no concern. But any hint that a religious colouring will be attached to future Aware programmes can be injurious. Aware has been effective as it has steered well clear of religious and race considerations in campaigning for social progress.

Civil society needs people with ideas and passion, as a prod for official accountability and to assist in communitarian growth. It is actually growing well. The biodata show that Aware's new executive team comprises women of accomplishment. It would be a setback to citizen activism if as iconic a civic player as this one were to be laid low by distrust and internal warfare.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Review/Editorial/STIStory_366180.html

Dangerous turns in domestic dispute

Straits Times - April 20, 2009

Dangerous turns in domestic dispute
Both sides in Aware saga share the blame for current situation
By Paul Jacob

I THINK the time has come for some heads to be knocked together.

It is an old remedy to knock some sense into people who have been having a go at each other for well on three weeks now.

What essentially started out as a domestic dispute over who is in charge of the household has spilled out into the corridors.

Family and friends have joined in the fray, an employer too, and the neighbourhood is abuzz with residents out on their balconies watching on with bemusement.

When the dust settles, as it must, those who had no clue as to what the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) stood for, and more importantly, what it has achieved since its establishment in 1985, will remember it for the wrong reasons.

By marketing this dispute to the public and being prepared to air dirty linen, the protagonists and supporters on both sides of the dispute are sullying the name of the organisation that they claim to be in the best position to represent.

The danger is that whoever emerges the 'victor' in this catfight will have alienated those who stand firmly in support of the other side. And Aware, like it or not, will be in real danger of losing its effectiveness because there will surely be a counter-group sniping at its every pronouncement.

Sadly, that appears to have already happened.

It is regrettable that the team ousted from power has been so swift to suggest that Aware, under new management, will stray from its ideological moorings.

This after digging up and citing statements that some in the new team made publicly and in their personal capacity about issues such as homosexuality.

Their supporters have further suggested that the new group is of an extremely conservative bent, that the leading women's advocacy group here has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists - and that all these will have a significant bearing on Aware's secular nature and its advocacy and programmes, some of which are carried out in schools.

I think that what is worrying, and dangerous, is that this camp has chosen to throw down and play the religious card.

It is one thing to portray a group as conservatives. In fact, if the former incumbents or their supporters need any reminding, it is that the bulk of society here is just that - conservative.

They don't make a song and dance about it, but just ask any Member of Parliament about the make-up of his or her constituency, and you will get a clear idea of just what values are prevalent in the heartlands.

Unfortunately, the label that I have heard some people apply to the new crowd at Aware is not just a simple 'conservative' tag. It is 'Christian conservative' or 'fundamentalist'.

On the Internet, there are even worse tags. Among them: 'Christian Taleban'.

I think that when people start throwing out such descriptions to involve religion and drag in the church - as if the church sent these women out on a 'crusade' (another description I have come across online) - then someone is playing with fire.

One writer asked if the Registrar of Societies should step in if it is found that the organisation is being used for 'a quasi-religious agenda'.

Religion and an alleged anti-gay agenda have become the central themes colouring this debate, taking it in a wholly new, different and potentially explosive direction.

Having said all that, I also think that it is equally regrettable that the newly elected team was slow to outline their position and to respond, when asked straight up at the annual general meeting and afterwards, just what they stood for.

Their reticence, inability or unwillingness to do so when opportunities first arose behind the closed doors of the March 28 meeting where they were elected has contributed to this state of affairs, and the predicament that Aware now finds itself in.

Like it or not, they owe it to the membership and the organisation they seek to represent.

Now, because of that inaction on their part, they need to make their positions crystal clear - or risk adding fuel to the fire that others have started.

How about us bystanders?

I believe we are also owed some form of explanation. This is because we risk being burnt by the fallout from what was essentially a domestic dispute that has escalated and may well threaten the neighbourhood.

The responsibility rests with both camps to put their house in order. And soon.

Otherwise, somebody might need to step in and knock some heads together.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Prime%2BNews/Story/STIStory_365884.html