Aware and Focus on Family set for collision course over new international guidelines on sex education

From our Correspondent

The debate which took Singapore by storm six months ago over women NGO Aware’s sex education programme in schools look set to be reignited again over a set of international guidelines on sex education.

An earlier draft of the  guidelines, due to be released next week by UNESCO, recommend discussions of homosexuality, describing sexual abstinence as “only one of a range of choices available to young people” – and suggesting a discussion of masturbation with children.

Its recommendations mark an uncanny similiarity to Aware’s Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) programme, which was suspended by the Ministry of Education (MOE) following an online petition started by a gruop of “concerned parents”.

Aware was earlier wrecked by an internal dispute which threatened to split the organization when a group of newcomers, six of whom belonged to the same Church of our Savior (COOS) seized control of its CEC during the annual Annual General Meeting (AGM) in March.

It later turned out that the six, including the President Josie Lau acted on the instructions of a self-proclaimed feminist mentor Thio Su Mien, who expressed her “aghast and disgust” against Aware’s CSE. She had wanted to introduce a more “family-oriented” sex education programme in schools through her proteges.

However, the Josie’s committee lasted only a month or so before it was ousted by supporters of the Aware Old Guards who voted in a new committee led by ex-President Dana Lam.

Ms Dana Lam felt UNESCO’s guidelines affirmed AWARE’s CSE. She said the UNESCO guidelines, which took an “evidence-informed and rights-based” approach, offered “a sound, comprehensive approach to sexuality education”.

The emphasis “on relationships, values, attitudes, culture, human development, sexual and reproductive health exactly matches the emphasis” in AWARE’s CSE programme, she added.

Focus on the Family’s senior vice-president, Mrs Chong Cheh Hoon, was opposed to the UNESCO guidelines. She found some of the content “highly inappropriate”, such as teaching children aged nine to 12 about basic contraception which was part of the Aware’s CSE.

Focus is an American evangelical organization founded in 1997 by James Dobson. A component of the American Christian right, it is active in promoting inter-denominational work towards its views on social conservative public policy. (source: Wikipedia) For some inexplicable reasons, Focus runs a weekly column on TODAY, a supposedly secular mainstream paper.

A MOE spokesperson said it is still “studying the revised guidelines to see how useful and relevant they are to the current review of Sexuality Education in our schools.”

The release of the revised guidelines is likely to trigger another round of intense lobbying by conservative groups to MOE.

Though international studies have shown that the teaching of contraceptive use is more effective than the message of abstinence alone to reduce the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases through unsafe sexual practices, some conservatives felt that it will promote pre-marital sex despite evidence on the contrary.

Ministry of Education Ng Eng Hen has stressed the importance of keeping Singapore schools secular, but he too, may have to give in to the demands of the lobbyists who form a powerful voting bloc and are becoming increasingly active and influential in Singapore.

 

Related articles:

>> Focusing on “Focus on the family”: an export of American-style Christian Nationalism by Dogemperor

>> Aftermath of Aware EGM: Time for some house-keeping by Eugene Yeo

>> The Aware saga: Time to draw a clear line between religion and secularism by Fang Zhi Yuan

BREAKING: MOE rebukes Dr Thio Su Mien’s claims about sexuality education in schools

From The Newsroom Team

The Ministry of Education has issued an official statement on its website today in reply to recent comments and claims about AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools.

The sexual education programme started in 2007 and has reached about 12 secondary schools, run for small groups of students selected by their teachers to attend. To date 500 students, mostly girls, have attended the workshop, which comprises two three-hour sessions. It was only recently offered to boys.

The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.

In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims. (read full release here)

Dr Thio revealed during a hastily-arranged interview by the new AWARE Exco last week that she was concerned about the neutral stance adopted by Aware’s comprehensive sexuality education programme (CSE) in schools towards homosexuality. (read article here)

This has led her to email fellow members of her Church and friends to join AWARE to change its direction:

“Aware is a woman’s organization which conducts comprehensive sexual programmes for girls and it runs this programme in some of the schools. They encourage girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls. It would be a good idea to join it and change its focus to other problems of women and families.” (read rest of email here)

In her conversations with parents, she insinuated that AWARE’s sex education programme may lead to the promotion of same-sex marriages as an acceptable social norm in Singapore:

‘I started thinking, ‘Hey, parents, you better know what’s happening,” she said.

‘I talked to parents. I said: You better do something about this, otherwise your daughter will come back and say, ‘Mum, I want to marry my girlfriend.’

When pointed out that Aware’s programme was already in 30 schools, she said: ‘The suggestion is that in this programme, young girls from 12 to 18 are taught that it’s okay to experiment with each other.

‘And this is something which should concern parents in Singapore. Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?’

There is an obvious discrepancy between Dr Thio’s personal observation and the official release from MOE. If there are parents concerned about the programme, why didn’t MOE receive any complaints from them or Dr Thio in particular?

Senior Minister of State for Education S Iswaran also said there are guidelines in place for sexuality education programmes in schools and no parents have complained so far. (read article here)

He urged parties involved in the AWARE saga to get the facts right, before commenting on such programmes in schools. (read article here)

As a senior lawyer with many years of working experience, Dr Thio should have substantiated her claims before hurling unfounded accusations at the old AWARE exco for promoting a homosexual agenda.

Dr Thio’s original assertion about the CSE which prompted her to email fellow Church members to launch a takeover of AWARE is therefore both flawed and misinformed since no parents share the same sentiments as her.

We cannot have our school programmes being maligned and hijacked by scheming individuals to serve their own personal agenda which will undermine the public trust and confidence in Singapore’s education.

Dr Thio could have written to MOE to express her reservations about the programme if she is really troubled instead of airing her own personal views in public without concrete evidence to back them up.

MOE should consider taking appropriate legal actions against Dr Thio if she is unable or reluctant to produce a reasonable explanation for her words.

Did Josie Lau LIE? Contradictions in earlier DBS statement and her revelation on CNA ‘Talking Point’ that she has no plans to run for AWARE President

From Wayang Party:

Is this a freudian slip or an outright lie?

In a press statement released on 17 April 2009, DBS revealed that Josie Lau had informed them of her decision to run for AWARE’s President:

“Josie informed the bank of her appointment as Aware Exco member on April 13, over two weeks after she was appointed on March 28. She had not sought prior approval for this appointment and thereby breached the staff code of conduct. Nevertheless, DBS made a concession and agreed to support her involvement as Exco member.

Early this week, Josie broached the subject of her intent to run for president of Aware. We reviewed her request and subsequently informed her that while the bank continues to support her involvement in Aware, we could not support her intent to run for president, given the demands associated with the top post of a leading advocacy group in Singapore.”

(Source: Straits Times)

However, in an interview with CNA “Talking point” 2 days later on 19 April 2009, Josie Lau painted a different picture:

“There were 5 of us, we went around the table and none wanted to take up the position (of President). I was the last woman standing. And I felt that I had to pick up the baton, to run and to continue to lead this organisation that has been marred in controversies in the last one, two weeks.”

(Watch the interview on Singapore Enquirer)

This gave one the impression that she had no intention to run for AWARE’s President in the first place and was “forced” to accept the position because nobody in the new exco wanted it which is in direct contradiction to DBS’s earlier statement.

The issue was brought up by a journalist during the new exco’s press conference at Raffles Town Club on 23 April 2009.

Surprisingly, Josie chose to evade the question and threw a smokescreen to obsfuscate the truth on the grounds that she is duty-bound to DBS not to reveal details as to what exactly happened.

Read an excerpt of the interview below:

Journalist:

Ok, can I ask 2 questions please. Fong Meng, from Today. Question No. 1, at the point when people were asking, was there an agenda, had the new exco come out even before the AGM or even immediately after the AGM to clarify matters, the integrity of the new exco would not be called into question now.  So do you think you could have done something to at least to allay these concerns? The other question, Josie, is about DBS becos DBS has said that the afternoon of the mtg before you were elected as president, you had indicated you planned to stand for election as president. But later on at the Talking Pt programme, you said that you were the “last woman standing”. Can you clarify this?

Josie Lau:

Ya, I’ll clarify that second part first. Okay. I’m bound by my employment contract not to say anything between me and DBS, so I hope you’ll respect that.

Now, the Constitution is such that when the president resigns, you can only elect from one of the six ordinary Exco members and I’m one of them. And there is always a possibility that I could be, I don’t know.

 Okay. And that night, the truth of the matter was as we went round the table, we asked everybody: If somebody before me said that she would take it, I would have gladly given it to her because I did not come into Aware to be president, I was just joining Aware to help out with fund-raising and marketing.

 So when I spoke to my bosses about me being an Exco member because there were already press articles on the 10th of April, which was a Good Friday, and I had to tell my boss that “Oh, I’m an Exco member” and that was it. And then subsequently when it became apparent that it could be one of the six, any of the six and I said I might as well put it in in an application form.

But anyway, this is part of my employment, I don’t want to talk about it and please, it’s off the record. So that night when we had the meeting, even before the meeting started, there were already press outside waiting.

Can you imagine if we had walked out and no president elected, the press will say, “Look, this new Exco has no leadership, no one is willing to take over the baton and everything.” And that night I had to bite the bullet and go. We went round the meeting, I was the sixth person to be asked. From the No. 1 to the 5th, nobody wanted.

Journalist:

No, you said that there were six names and you felt that there was a possibility and you informed the facts. So did you tell DBS that you are running for President? This is a matter of clarification because there’s one rumour that’s going round that you had lied. Josie, could you clarify that on record, please?

Josie Lau:

I hope you understand I’m in a very difficult position. I’m not allowed to say anything that happened that night.

Journalist:

Can I just clarify what we have here? So Josie, you did tell the bank that there’s a possibility that by evening you would become president but on Talking Point when you said that there was no plan, you were the last woman standing and you gave in.

That was because you were bound by the conditions set by your bank, you can’t talk about it? I mean they’re trying to understand, it’s because they’re writing the story and this could go several places, they just need to get the points clarified. Thanks.

Josie Lau:

Okay, this will be the last question because I’ve just received the latest update. This thing has grown out of proportion.

Okay, the police are there right now at Aware Centre and Shultz Lee, our centre manager is raving and is shouting and just refusing to let the vendor replace the security locks. And the Old Guards, many of the Old Guards are on their way there.

I believe there’s going to be a fight. So I think, I’m so sorry, I think we have to call, make an end to the press conference.

[The press conference ended without Josie Lau giving us a clear, direct and concise answer if she had informed DBS of her intention to run for president]

Source: Help Save AWARE

Transcript of new AWARE exco’s press conference last night at Raffles Town Club led by Josie Lau with Thio Su Mien expressing outrage at the turn of events

Ripped from Help Save Aware, editing by Wayang Party

Chairperson:

Good evening, members of the media. We apologise for this late notice in calling this briefing but I appreciate everybody’s attendance. And we call this meeting in haste because we feel that we shud not delay any more in disclosing something very serious to the public about Aware.

In tonight’s briefing we will talk about exco experience with Old Guard, what is Aware today, what does this exco aim to do and interactions with the media. Before we move forward, I’d like to introduce the members at this table: Josie Lau, our president. She does not need further introduction. To her right is Maureen Ong, who’s the honorary treasurer. To my right is Jenica Chua. She’s the honorary secretary. And at the right of the table is Dr Thio Su Mien. Dr Thio is a supporter of families. So I’d like to start right now by our President addressing exco’s experience with the Old Guard for the last 3 and a half weeks.

Josie Lau:

Friends of the media, thank you for coming at such late last minute notice. I had said in my first & last interview after being appointed as President of Aware that I did not get involved in Aware to be engaged in controversies. And so far I’ve kept a very stoic and dignified silence. But with the recent happenings of events, I’ve no choice, it left me no choice to break this silence and come out publicly to say what’s been happening.

This is actually something that could have been resolved internally btwn the Old Guard & the New Guard in a very polite and civil way. But that has not happened. I’ll tell you so far I’ve only been appointed President for about a week & I’ve only been an exco member for about 3 weeks. But to date I’ve only been met with hostility, intimidation.

I felt so bullied I tell you. I will tell you what’s happening. My family received death threats and it’s now a police case. Each day I fear for the physical safety of my children, my family. There’s even a blog site detailing my children’s names and which school they go to. I don’t understand what has sparked this irrational fear of us, the new exco members, and what hatred. If you’re a parent you will understand how I feel.

I feel so indignant. All I wanted to do is to serve the community & be a member of this Aware, to push for the cause of women. Do I deserve this? Death threat? What has Singapore become? Is this what we want in Spore? And I’ll tell you as President I have an official president@aware.org.sg email. Guess what? The secretariat has locked me out. I have confronted the secretariat. The secretariat has been fired, okay.

I’ll tell you I’ve my fellow committee members here who’ll share with you their own experience, how they’ve been subjected to hostility & uncooperative staff members in the last 3 weeks, and all we wanted is to push & start work & get going with our work. But will they allow us? No. They’ve just been pushing & pushing us, badgering us all the time.

Chairperson: Jenica, do you want to share your experience?

Jenica Chua:

I want to put it forth that I came to join Aware because I felt that when I reach a certain age it’s impt to contribute to society, to Singapore to help other women. And we’re in a difficult economic situation. So I went to Aware. I’ve been Aware member for over 2 yrs now. I went for the executive committee position. And to my utter horror, after I was elected there were a lot of allegations about my link to 377A.

I don’t know why it came out in the press. But because of, I’ve written many things to the press. I’ve written about technology index & other areas, but the only thing that came out on the 10th affer the exco was elected was the fact I wrote to 377A and there was a homosexual slant to it. The next day I recd a death threat. They threatened to harm my loved ones. The person said that he has now joined a jihadist. He’s anti-Christian & he will find ways to harm my family, my loved ones. And all I did was to join a women’s association. It’s a women’s association to help women.

I felt very intimidated. Why did this happen? I’m a normal Sporean like any other of you. Why shud this happen to me? And it never stopped. Three days ago my company’s corporate communications person called me. Somebody wrote an e-mail to my company to say that because of my involvement in Aware it’s bad for the company’s reputation & urged the company to take action against me. So now it’s evolved to a threat. And because of that I couldn’t sleep for many nights. I felt very harassed. And all I did, the only thing I did was to join Aware. I don’t understand this. I thought I joined a women’s association to help women.

Throughout this difficult period we had a lot of wrestles becos the previous president kept changing the timing for the exco to meet. It went to & fro, to & fro, and I was like stuck in btwn as the secretary. I don’t understand.

Josie Lau: I think Loi  you may have some experience too.

Lois Ng: Members of the press, suddenly I feel that it’s a crime to be a Christian & to hold an exco position. I’m a Christian. I’ve made no bones about it. It’s been reported in the paper & it’s also reported in my website. But I’m now on the hit list of this operation level. I’ve been termed a leper. And this blogger has gone online to garner support to boycott my business. 

I run a business for people with disabilities. They include the autistic, ppl with below average IQ, ppl with physical disability. And we make a living by producing creative & quality gifts for the corporate & tourist mkt. This person has gone online & extracted info from the ST and listed my working address, which is at High Point in Geylang and also my customers, their tel nos & their addresses & he’s asked ppl to boycott my biz & to even make verbal & written complaints to my clients to stop buying from me. And he says this is to teach me a lesson for joining Aware because I’m a Christian.

I’m shocked. Spore is a multiracial society. We embrace diversity in religion. My religion is a pte matter. It’s got nothing to do with my work in Aware. And I joined Aware becos I’ve been asked to help Aware start up a social enterprise, to create employment for women, esp women with, singles with children, unmarried women & women who are lowly educated. And I come in to create employment for them. I did not expect to be on their hit list and my life and my staff’s lives are also in danger. What is happening to our society right now? What is happening? Can someone explain this irrational & dangerous move by some small group of people?

Josie Lau: Maureen has something to add too.

Maureen Ong: Mine is not as bad as theirs. But really we’ve been trying very hard to get on with the work and we hv been hampered from doing so. We’ve recd numerous complaints from people who are trying to register as members. Either they cannot get into the website or they get replies from the website saying that…women are registered as students.

In the first place there’s no category called student membership. You’re either an ordinary member who can vote, or you’re an associate member who cannot vote. So we really don’t know what’s happening. And when we asked the website host company for further info, we’re told that we cannot ask them for info becos they only will communicate with either Constance Singam or Tanli(??) who is no longer with Aware, or Joanna Wong which is the PR asst. So there’s no recognition of us, either the President, the VP, or any of the new exco members.

There’s also an issue of the bandwidth. When we checked further why there was difficulty in accessing the website, we were told that the bandwidth was only 5 gigabytes. And that’s quite ridiculous for an association like Aware. And becos of that, the website was down from 18 Apr to 19 Apr. And then the website, the bandwidth was increased. So these are some of the instances when we try very hard to do our work & yet we’re hampered from doing so. Thank you.

Chairperson: Members of the press, we’ve given you brief statements of experiences working with Aware for the last 3 and a half weeks. And the next point, what we want to do is that Josie will address to tell you more about what is Aware today.

Josie Lau:

Now what’s with Aware today? What does it stand for? Frankly not many people know. Because it’s been kept to such a small group of people. As of end of last Dec it was only about some 260 plus people. Now you’re wondering why Dr Thio Su Mien is here today. I think I will leave it to her to tell you her perspective of what’s going on with Aware.

Thio Su Mien:

Good evening. I’m here as feminist mentor to women in the workplace. In the last 10 yrs I’ve been encouraging(??) women so that they become, released into society, to contribute to society. And it’s not an easy task to get women because of the work balance to contribute. Having found this group of women, quite disparate group, becos I teach all over Singapore & I counsel all over Spore & training people.

 I’m absolutely outraged that very group of women take time off to contribute to society they get this kind of ferocious attack. I don’t understand. I don’t understand what has come of our ppl.

Aware was formed 26 years ago by my friends, my contemporaries. And it’s done great work in so many areas. And in 1998(??), membership was about 700 odd, which was very well. Suddenly in 2006 it sort of declined; 2007, it declined to 200 odd ppl. And in 2008 there was an AGM where they sought to introduce to give men the vote in a women’s orgn where the objective is to represent all the women of Spore & not a small proportion of women.

You know that women form about 50% of our population. So we must focus our attention on promotion of the rights of women. To my horror I found that they want to introduce men into a women’s society. And the very strange thing was that at that meeting there were only 25(??) members who turned up at that meeting – AGM 2008. So I started looking into the affairs of Aware to see what’s happening to this organization which my friends have set up. And not only have they set it up and my name is here, one of the women we honoured, becos I was a pioneer feminist.

I was first law dean. Subsequent years, probably a female, a woman who runs one of the largest law firms in Spore. But I sit on the boards of many public listed companies. I was also at one time a member of the Asian Deveolpment Board tribunal. And I was also judge of the World Bank. I served it for 8 yrs and retired as senior VP of the World Bank administrative tribunal…with some standing to speak about this because in Cedaw this is this thing about promoting women into positions of leadership. And under…there is this 30 to 35% rule which I thought, wow, we have a legal document whereby we can promote the cause of women, bring all the young women into leadership positions. But with the economic crisis there’s also this desire to help those who are disadvantaged.

When women & men are retrenched, we want to make sure that not women are retrenched. There needs to be an even hand in this. So there are many many issues that we need to look to. And I find to my dismay that Aware seems to be only very interested on…and the advancement of homosexuality, which is a man’s issue and how it came under Aware is quite covert. …when Aware sponsored the film Spider Lilies. Spider Lilies is a film by 2 lesbians who fell in love. One is a tattooist and the only one is a virtual sex worker.

When a parent saw this film… He wrote to Today and he asked why is Aware showing this film becos he’s got a teenage daughter. I think it really troubled him. And lo and behold…is that this is part of a comprehensive sexual education. So then it became kind of impt that they shud know what is in this prog. And this prog is already in schools, 30 schools whereby they are using this prog. But from what she said, the suggestion is that in this programme, young girls from 12 to 18 are taught that it’s ok to experiment with each other. And this is something which…parents in Spore. Are we going to have an entire…of lesbians? I have nothing against lesbians or homosexuals personally. On a personal front, I’ve given ministered, I’ve counselled them. So you need to understand I’m not talking about… They are in pain. And very often…where you have abusive fathers, they do things with their daughters and the daughters revolt, rebel against society. We understand this is what it’s all about. It’s the people, the pain of people…

It’s the people, the pain of people, the woundedness(??) of people and all this is not, you know, it brings out a reach(??). So if you need proof that Aware has actually moved to…you have this male sexual programmes and workshops which was inducted under the auspices of Aware in 2008 by a Finnish activist and he was talking about the sensitivity, how…about sensitivity, sexual…and so on. Now, Finland has a law. I think you need to know this…law is now…should we have state-funded artificial insemination for women… So this is under discussion, I do not know whether they passed this into law. So these are issues, are you for or not, for homosexualism and… The only question is what are we talking about? Are we talking about same-sex marriage?

Are we talking about…taxpayers’ monies abused…you could say a man and woman, they can go for…for whatever you call it, so what about us? So I think this whole thing we need to discuss it, bring it up openly and discuss in a different time. So I believe that…focus which is like…set up by my friends that they will go back to look after the majority, all women, all women of Singapore…all the women. So my…is that can we refocus on the excellent objectives of Aware? Go back to its original purpose for it…for it being an NGO? So I leave that because I think I’ve just raised a comment.

Chairperson: Okay. Thank you, Su Mien. We move to the third point: What this Aware Exco aim to do?

Josie Lau:

Again, in my last interview, I said Aware has lost its focus but I think I was being very polite when I said that. It has really not lost its focus but I think it has gone further than that, much, much further than that. It has now become a single-objective organisation. So that’s what the new team is here to do: we want to bring Aware back to its original very noble objective which is to represent all women, to advance their cause, all women whatever religion and race in areas such as professional development, their private life, their health and Singapore does have an Asian population. We need to look at the ageism, all the problems.

Look at women who have some slight diabetes the minute they hit certain age, their insurance premium no longer make any sense for them. So we should be pushing those cause and I think with almost 50 per cent of our population in Singapore being women we really have to refocus back on our bread and butter issue where everyday women on the street cares about. So, I think we want, we are really serious about getting started on our work but we haven’t been able to do so for the last three weeks and I hope from this press conference the new team can start to work seriously on how we could bring this association to a higher level of recognition amongst the Singaporean woman.

Chairperson:

Thank you, Josie. Right now, we’ll give 30 minutes to the media to ask more questions. You have answered some and then when you’re going to ask a question, please go to the mike and introduce yourself, your name and the paper or the media that you’re representing.

Source: Help Save AWARE

BREAKING: Leaked emails from COOS members showed that AWARE take-over was pre-planned in advance!!

From Wayang Party:

We just received a tip-off that the AWARE takeover was pre-planned months in advance.

The following emails exchange between COOS members documented clearly that the plan was hatched to prevent the “pro-gay” group from taking over AWARE.

The application form of AWARE was also attached and sent out to the members.

These emails can also be found on STOMP and Trevvy forums.

In a separate development, Thio Su Mein, the mother of NMP Thio Li Ann admitted in a press conference at Raffles Town Club last night that she had “emailed people she knew to point them to “what was happening” at Aware.” (read report here)

Read her email below and judge for yourself whether she is simply “pointing” out the happenings of AWARE or instigating them to take over the organization.

 

From: smthio@xxxxxxx.sg
To: stjh21@xxxxxx.sg, Undisclosed-Recipient:
Subject: Re Aware
Attachments AWARE_membership_mail-in_application_form.pdf concerned parents.1.do

Dear All

Please see Attachments on some recent developments in Aware. Aware is a woman’s organization which conducts comprehensive sexual programmes for girls and it runs this programme in some of the schools. They encourage girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls. It would be a good idea to join it and change its focus to other problems of women and families.

..Please ask your like-minded friends to join Aware so that you can give the vote to those who wish to be an agent of change for the Lord. They could also contribute to the activities of the oprganization as there is much to be done for women and families in this dowturn of the economy. Unfortunately, I cannot surface but shall be assisting in the background . I attach the Aware membership application form for your use. The Aware application form has a section as to who ( if any) told you about Aware. You can just leave it blank . Please let me know whether you can join and attend the AGM which will be towards the end of March 2009. The fee is $40/ and should be mailed to the Aware Office ( see application form).

Look forward to hearing from you. Please call me. May I have your phone no?

Blessings,
Su Mein

Supporters of AWARE old guards step up internet campaign against new exco

By The Singapore Enquirer

Supporters of AWARE old guards have stepped up their internet campaign to rally for support in a bid to oust the newly elected exco through the coming EGM on 2 May 2009 via a vote of non confidence.

Calling themselves “Save AWARE“, they mince no words in the introductory message on  their website here:

“The foundation of AWARE as an inclusive and secular society has been challenged. At the AGM on 28th March 2009, a group of women who were mostly entirely new to AWARE (generally, 2 – 5 months experience) orchestrated a takeover of AWARE to further their own agenda.

We, concerned members of AWARE, are working with former AWARE Committee Members and Founder Members to petition for an EGM to consider a vote of no confidence in the New Exco.”

Considerable efforts and time have been spent in keeping the site as informative as possible with meticulous documentation of AWARE’s vision and mission, its achievements over the last 25 years and testimonies from women who were recipients of its assistance.

While the site is comprehensive in outlining their objectives and in giving a detailed account of what exactly happened, the tone of language used may sound emotional at times.

For example, under the section on “Myths debunked”, the new exco members were alluded to in a less than flattering manner:

“Do we want to be led by ruthless and shadowy persons who cannot speak for themselves, who dishonour and exclude other members, who are evasive and refuse to disclose their plans, aims and visions to the members they lead?”

The main point of contention lies not only in the continued reluctance of the new exco to communicate its plans and goals to its members, but in the disrespectful treatment which it has dished out to veteran members like ex-Presidents Braema Mathi and Constance Singam.

The site leaves no stones unturned in preparing a list of FAQs for visitors who have not been keeping themselves updated on the recent events.

Besides the website, the members have also set up two facegroups and make use of blogs to convey their message across.

The AWARE episode will be watched closely by political observers as it marked the first instance in which online civil activism is mobilized to fight for an offline cause.

BREAKING: Josie Lau Refused to Share CNA TV Interview with Old Aware Committee

Ripped from Yawning Bread:

On TV, Josie Lau said,

“My priority right now is to reconcile the team which clearly has fissured.”

Now, here’s something the public does not yet know: The television station’s original plan was for a member each of the old guard and the new guard to be in the interview. Josie Lau objected vehemently and insisted they would not share the interview room and program with anyone from the old guard. So much for reconciliation.

There’s also the extremely curt email (so much for reconciliation, again) they sent to Braema Mathi telling her she’s been relieved of her position as chair of the subcommittee preparing AWARE’s report to be submitted to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Without even a customary word of thanks, the email said:

Kindly note that your term of office as chairman of the CEDAW Committee has ceased at the date of the AGM on the 28 March 2009.

Kindly submit all the work in progess by Friday 17 April 2009 without fail. 

Regards
Sally Ang

 

Read full article on Yawning Bread

Who are the real winners and losers of the AWARE fiasco?

By Fang Zhi Yuan

When two groups of women slug it out with each other openly in public, who is the biggest winner?

Well, it appears that the SPH journalists and by extension the PAP government are the only real benefactors from the recent AWARE debacle.

Few Singaporeans were even aware of AWARE’s existence previously, but given the extensive coverage given by the media on the rampant mudslinging from both sides, AWARE has found itself in a limelight which it rather not be.

The fracas first broke out in the aftermath of AWARE’s tumultuous AGM a few weeks ago which saw a group of newcomers coming literally from nowhere to seize control of the organization.

The befuddled Old Guards who found themselves squeezed out of every position contested in the exco started questioning the motives of the new leaders who had remained tight-lipped over the agenda.

The ensuing confusion allowed the media to step in to take advantage and control of the situation to milk it for maximum publicity. The journalists had a field day depicting a “cat fight” involving various outstanding prominent women in the community.

Unfortunately, what should remain as a purely internal matter ended up with both sides hanging out their “dirty linen” in public to dry for all to see which the journalists gleefully obliged.

Not a single day passed without the AWARE fiasco being splashed on the headlines of most national papers be it some mumblings of discontent from a long-serving member or sensational revelation of the backgrounds of the new exco members.

More incredibly, DBS stoked the controversy further by issuing a rather curt public admonishment of its Vice-President Josie Lau through the media for “insubordination” in accepting the position of President at AWARE.

“AWARE” and “Josie Lau” collectively became one of the most searched words on Singapore’s search engines.

Even Singapore men who usually showed little interest in AWARE’s activities felt fit to jump into the fray with some writing to the ST Forum to express their support for the Old Guards.

Blogosphere wasted no time in hitching on the bandwagon with many blogs expressing their dismay and outrage at the “constitutional” coup launched by right-wing Christian conservatives to take over a supposedly secular, liberal and non-discriminatory NGO in order to further its own agenda.

Josie Lau thought she managed to secure a coup by clarifying the stance of her new exco on CNA “Talking Point”, but her non-committal responses to questions of sexuality left more doubts in the minds of viewers instead.

While supporters of both sides continue their shadow boxing over the internet, have anybody stopped and pondered over the real agenda of the media? Have we been unwittingly fooled and misled by the media again?

With due respect to AWARE, it has only 200 plus members and cannot claim to represent the interests of the majority of the female population in Singapore.

So why is the media kicking up a fuss about?

Is the media circus surrounding the AWARE saga another ploy to distract Singaporeans from more pressing issues at hand such as NEA’s role in the Geylang Serai food poisoning outbreak, GIC’s policy of giving out low-interest or interest free loans to its staff and the Public Order Act to further curtail our civil liberties?

Obviously the internal affairs of AWARE have been blown out of proportions by the media to lessen the heat on the PAP government whose various missteps were put under  intense public scrutiny of late.

Regardless of the outcome of the AWARE’s EGM on 2 May, there will be no winners, only losers. The battle can be fought and won over the elections, but the war has long been lost.

The brand name of AWARE which was built up painstakingly over the years was tarnished the moment its leaders chose to speak to the media instead of one another.

In a moment of folly, they have allowed the media to hijack their cause and set the agenda for their own vested interests.

Who are the real winners then?

The mainstream media which has seen a leap in their readership to reverse a declining trend and ultimately their political masters who must be relieved that the attention of Singaporeans remained focused on AWARE instead of themselves.

Braema Mathi tries to sound conciliatory to salvage AWARE’s battered image

From Wayang Party:

 

Following a series of damaging media reports which appear to pit the old guards of AWARE against its newly elected exco and less than flattering comments from some of the long-serving members, ex-AWARE President Braema Mathi sounded more conciliatory in her interview with CNA.

Despite the widespread public perception that the saga over AWARE’s leadership change is a fight and some would even call it a “cat-fight”, Braema Mathi was adamant that it was a “healthy debate”.

The old guard members also said they never wanted the matter to go to the media and they wanted to resolve it internally. But given the public interest in developments, coupled with the lack of communication from the newcomers, the old guards said they felt they had to respond.

Unfortunately, Braema Mathi had realized too late that the media has done nothing other than to add fuel to the raging fire so as to boost their dwindling readership.

Calling for an EGOM to cast a vote of no confidence against the new exco doesn’t strike many as being conciliatory or friendly.

Neither is it “healthy” for different blocs within AWARE to outdo each other by launching “constitutional coups” in a game of brinkmanship to seize control of the organization.

Perhaps the Old Guards really have little choice given the reticence and alleged high-handedness of the new exco. Both sides have made juvenile mistakes which allowed what should be an internal matter to snowball into one with intense public interest.

While it is heartening to hear both Braema Mathi and Josie Lau making calls for both sides to mend the rift between them, it may be inevitable that both sides are going in a head-on collision in the EGOM on 2 May to resolve the current impasse.

We expect more dirt to be dredged out then and the image of AWARE to be damaged further. In fact, AWARE will never be the same after going through this crisis.

In the interest of AWARE, we urge all parties concerned to stop their bickering and get back to the basics: communication.

VIDEO: AWARE new President Josie Lau was evasive on sensitive questions during interview with CNA “Talking Point” (Part 2)

Background:

The recent AWARE AGM ended with much controversy and acrimony between the old and new exco members who were accused of ‘hijacking’ the election to further their own personal cause. What exactly happened? Listen to the interview with AWARE new President Josie Lau to find out

Recorded from CNA “Talking Point”:

PART 2

EDITORS’ NOTE:

Josie Lau and Maureen Ong were quick and eager to defend the legitimacy of the new AWARE Exco throughout the interview while conveniently skirting sensitive questions.

Debra Ong and P N Balji were too diplomatic and should quiz them directly on their alleged connection as members from the same church.

In the closing minutes, Josie Lau chose to leave the question on her stance on sexuality unanswered which left us with lingering doubts about her real agenda.

The two Exco members could have been forthcoming in addressing the many speculations which had arisen in both the new and print media over their backgrounds and motives for taking over AWARE and the strained relationships with the Old Guard.

Unfortunately, while they have given Singaporeans a glimpse of their future direction for AWARE, they did not sound convincing in allaying concerns that their personal beliefs may become complicit in the work AWARE is doing.

Next Page »