You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'lean' category.
its times when you worry
that you lose track of hope.
that we forget that faith is believing
even when we lose sight.
it’s fearful, and tiring
and it’s alright to slow down.
but know when you’ve got to take a break
I’m there at your pitstop.
If you read this, know you’re in my prayers. Know that you’re not alone, and won’t be on Dec 7th and the days that follow. Don’t choose to be alone, because we would be thankful to be there for you, just as you’ve been for us. To Jee.
You don’t visit this place, I think, but in any case, thank you. For your disapproval and ellipses enunciated, then retracted when you listened to me. For sitting by my table those days I came in gloom, which would be almost everyday. For rejoicing with me, finally.
To a friend, who I think has been a gift to my life. Through coffee and strange men, sideburns and balls that can’t be thrown over fences, postcards of Cambridge, love, life and lament.
You’re awesome.
A collective view of Aware Singapore’s recent saga from the takeover to the restoration of the old guards born from the hands of Gillian Tan of the ever-so-funkyMunkysuperstar Pictures, Tania Chew and Pat Law.
The women-
(left to right)
Lois Ng, Maureen Ong, Josie Lau, Charlotte Wong, Jenica Chua, Sally Ang
Just moments into Josie’s presidential speech, the hall erupted in mayhem as Aware members realised that the microphones offstage were off when people sought to raise questions about controversial points.
There were eight placed around the hall, “dummy mikes”, they were later called.
Braema Mathi, ex-CEDAW committee chairperson, tried to tell Josie that the old guards were there for one reason and one reason only, she found that other mikes were off.
She was later even offered a loudhailer from an old guard supporter but when she showed signs of wanting to use it to be heard, guards began approaching her, threatening to remove it.
As old guard supporters shouted for them to be turned on, first Sally, then Josie, called for the security guards present to escort them out.
An even greater uproar ensued as people shook fists, shouted angrily and questioned the call for the ‘manhandling’.
And then just moments later, Sally Ang told an old guard representative: “Shut up and sit down”, and the supporters went made people were overheard saying “how dare she tell anyone to shut up”.
Quickly, Josie apologised, twice, but it was not to be enough for the insulted people belowstage. They called for Sally to apologised, and she eventually barked into the microphone: “Accept my apologies but I hope you all can let the president finish her speech without interrupting.”
Amidst the riled crowd, old guard legal advisor, Siew Kum Hong, and Braema, gestured to remind members to remain calm and non-confrontational.
Minutes later, the microphones were turned on.
An old guard supporter who held the floor later said :”I didn’t expect to come to a grown-up organisation to be told to shut up and sit down. This is definitely not the time to shut up and sit down. It is the time to stand up and be heard.”
However, the microphones were later turned off intermittently, sometimes because “the floor is not yet open”, other times due to faulty PA systems, which allowed yet another avenue for the pack of old guard supporters a point to pick on – poor organisation.
Celebrity Irene Ang shouted:”Did you pay $40 for this kind of service?”, angry that the old guards were repeatedly cut off mid-sentence.
The crowd roared with approval as small groups of people, assumed to be new guard supporters, sat in stoic silence.
Finally, after much time spent in a shouting match, Poonam from the old guard called for the first point of order – that constitution (3) be moved to be voted on first.
It was approved, but not before Josie plead for the members to allow her to finish her speech.
Josie moved on to present the history of Aware.
“No need! What for? Hurry up and move on!” were heard all over the hall, as the majority present told her to begin the vote.
Josie flashed a graph showing how Aware had once only had 283 members but as of 30 April, the organisation had grown to 2,800 members.
“You think its because of you that membership grew? It’s not, it’s because the old guards have earned our respect, trust and loyalty!” shouted an old guard supporter when her turn at the microphone came.
As she tried to present the profiles of the new ( now old ) exco, there were jeers and anger around as they shouted for her to “stop wasting time”.
She was asked to flash through the slides, and she complied.
Just as she ended, Thio Su Mien stepped up to speak.
Introducing herself as the ‘first female law dean’, the hall was filled with shouts for her to stop talking.
The crowd looked like they were about to pounce on her with intent of attacking her, and the guards quickly closed in, worried for her safety.
After saying her piece, she went back to her seat, but her presence had increased the level of tension.
Even as the voting began, the old guard called for their own scrutineers to be permitted, which was met with the usual “let us consult our legal council”, which was done once too many, that the audience began to scoff at the new guard’s behavior – ‘legal tactics’, it was called.
In addition to the scrutineer company – Deloites – employed, representatives of the Boardroom who went around collecting the votes of no confidence were also watched with hawk eyes by an old guard scrutineer.
As the votes were being counted, Aware members wishing to speak into the microphone formed a straight line to wait.
A speaker went to the microphone to voice an observation: “How can I be confident that you will fight for equal women’s rights when you don’t treat us equally? ”
And when the question of why Constance Singam was asked to step out of the room at an exco meeting though she was to be their advisor, Josie said: “I asked Constance Singam to step out because we had to discuss sensitive issues.”
A question, earlier raised by an old guard member, was also rehashed.
“Even if you cannot give us a precise amount, at least give us an estimate of how much you have spent in the one month you have been in office.”
And after much hemming and hawwing, Maureen said: “…a rough estimate would be about 90 thousand,” to which there were shouts of appall at the amount that had been spent on the EGM.
Ms Tay, old guard supporter and volunteer said: “How could they spend that amount? Do you know how long it takes to raise $90,000 anot!”
And when a member of the new guard announced that since the new membership of Aware had brought in $120,000, and therefore the ‘net profit’ would be $30,000, there was even more anger at their audacity.
One man, who introduced himself as a Muslim father with three daughters, said to the crowd when his turn came: “I support the sexuality education programme conducted by Aware.”
To this, as well as many other pro-old guard speakers who spoke with passion and fervour, the hall would burst into deafening applause, cheering and ‘We are aware’ flag waving.
Points in the Constitution were raised disallowing leaders of Aware from spending more than 20k without seeking approval from its members, as there was continued discussio
Several speakers later, Su Mien reappeared and wrestled the sole microphone from an Aware member who has waited in line with tens of others for his turn to speak.
She lifted a book she had been holding, and people started asking “Is she carrying a Bible?”.
Jabbing her finger at the book, which turned out to be <Small Steps, Giant Leaps: A History of AWARE and the Women’s Movement in Singapore>, she said: “I am in this book, on page 73.”
Old guard supporters jumped to their feet, shouting at her to join the queue and wait for her turn.
Opening the book, she shouted at the crowd: “I am very proud you put me in this. Since you put me in this book, I think you should tear it up!”
Su Mien was later told by one of the old guard supporters: “You call yourself the feminist mentor. But I know for sure I don’t want you to be my mentor.”
And for most part of the conference, as the votes were being counted, women, and men who were there to be heard, made themselves heard.
Some came with the introduction “I am very nervous”, while others attacked the actions of the new guards with carefully thought-out arguments. Some spoke with full confidence, a few broke down in tears while speaking about their beliefs.
But the scene was one that saw an audience, more lively than at the Singapore elections, as was quipped by many. The emotions were charged and raw, the passion all real, and the people were there to move – they did.
In Aware, I now have restored faith that all women and minorities will be represented and protected.
Motion to remove new AWARE exco from office and elect new president has been passed. Ms Josie Lau and her exco have stepped down. Former President Dana Lam has been elected President.
THE RESULTS
3(a) The Exco has lost mandate/confidence of the members of the Society because it has not acted or is acting in the best interest of the society.
Number of Votes IN FAVOUR = 1411 Number of Votes AGAINST = 761
3(b) The Exco has lost mandate/confidence of the members of the Society because they do not appreciate or share the values of the society.
Number of Votes IN FAVOUR = 1412 Number of Votes AGAINST = 762
3(c) The Exco has lost mandate/confidence of the members of the Society because they does not have requisite experience of carrying out the society’s work or is otherwise inadequate to further the society’s objectives.
Number of Votes IN FAVOUR = 1419 Number of Votes AGAINST = 755
THE NEWLY ELECTED EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (ON 2 MAY 2009)
President………………………….Dana Lam
Vice President……………………Chew I-Jin
Honorary Secretary……………..Yap Ching Wi
Assisitant Honorary Secretary….Corinna Lim
Honorary Treasurer……………..Tan Joo Hymn
Assistant Honorary Treasurer…..Lim Seow Yuin
Committee Member……………..Margaret Thomas
Committee Member……………..Hafizah Osman
Committee Member……………..Nancy Griffiths
Committee Member……………..Nicole Tan
Committee Member……………..Joanna D’ Cruz
Committee Member……………..Martha Lee
1. Open letter by Tan Joo Hymn (past president and new Honorary Treasurer): The euphoria and the reality (3 May, 2:49a.m.)
We barely planned for Plan A. Honestly, we rehearsed and went through Plans B to Z, but barely spent time on Plan A. And then we won. Civil society won. It was almost beyond our imagination, especially by such a large margin of 2 to 1. One thousand four hundred votes in favour of Old AWARE!
Perhaps the statement from the National Council of Churches and the apology from Pastor Derek Hong ensured that bus loads did not arrive. With 4 Ministers and 3 Ministers of State speaking out on this issue, the writing was on the wall I suppose.
Amidst the euphoria, one thing troubled me. The men who spoke (the non-supporters of We-Are-Aware). A few were obviously from “their” camp, and a few were unknowns. They talked about such frivolous and irrelevant things, when a long queue of people were waiting patiently to make their point. Their remarks showed that they thought so little of women and women’s issues, trivialising the whole meeting even. Patronising and condescending.
That is why AWARE still has so much work to do.
On the flip side, oh, the women who spoke up. It appeared that many had not spoken in front of an audience, much less one this big. But they spoke with such conviction, such passion. It has been said that some fear public speaking more than death. Well, these women did it, to a crowd of over two thousand. Fueled solely by their sense of justice and conviction.
To paraphrase what Lotte said, we shouted and jeered and clapped because we are passionate, passionate about the issues, passionate about AWARE. Do you see passion in the faces of the new (well, now ex) Exco members?
The energy, the passion, and conviction of every person in that audience. People who left children and elderly at home, who sacrificed time away from work or their precious Saturday. Civil society really won big time today.
So perhaps we have to thank Josie and her gang, and their “Feminist Mentos” after all… They have galvanised previously apathetic people to turn out in force, brought long-time but lapsed members back into AWARE, so many passionate intelligent courageous new members to AWARE and ensured that truly, everybody in Singapore must now be aware of AWARE! And highlighted the potential fault lines in our multi-religious multi-ethnic society.
After the euphoria, we face reality today, and I confess I’m not looking forward to it. The big clean-up that we have to do, after just one month. The damage that some people can wreak in such a short time.
For now, For all women, trust, choice and respect. And sleep.
2. Open letter by Tania Chew: I will NOT sit down & shut up (3 Mar, 3:14a.m.)
I’m privileged to have lived, breathed, whooped and hollered during a landmark piece of Singapore history and I’ve never felt prouder of my country and the people — both men and women from all walks of life — who stood up for the greater good than today. Yes, the AWARE EGM.
- Pride in the people who gave up a whole Saturday to show up and stand in line for ages to get in.
- Pride in those who willingly agreed to be interviewed on video.
- Pride in the passion, intelligence and eloquence in the people who stood up at the EGM and spoke up for what’s right (and I especially remember the Malay Muslim ex-law enforcement father of 3 teenage daughters).
- Pride in the decency that was shown despite the adversity.
- Pride in the media and our lawyers…and so much more.
Hours later I’m still buzzing from the events of the day…some infuriating, some funny…but the one thing that stands out is the solidarity and fervor that I saw in the majority who were fighting to preserve and further the mission and work of AWARE as an inclusive and secular organization.
I went in today hopeful but a little bit nervous, not knowing if it was going to turn into a bloodbath, but I came out of it high on the happiest vibe ever. It was obvious to me that supporters of the old guard knew exactly what they were there for and knew exactly what they wanted to say, backed by a passion that you don’t often see here in SG. And they were FAIR. Unfortunately, I can’t say much about the almost clown-like “speeches” of the new guard supporters, who showed up in bus-loads, didn’t have anything useful to contribute and started leaving after casting their vote.
But I will not dwell on that. Everything’s out in the news and online for the world to see (yes, our manic Twittering made #awaresg a top-trending topic for the day).
This is not a war so I won’t call the majority no-confidence vote a victory. I prefer to see it instead as a milestone marker that will hopefully be the start of much bigger and better things to come for AWARE.
To everyone who recently joined as a member (myself included), don’t let your passion end today because what lies ahead is when it really counts and starts to make a difference. Tell your friends about AWARE, volunteer your time and continue to do what you started doing when you showed up at SUNTEC.
Yes, the old guard has done a great job so far. Imagine how much more we can achieve if we all contribute.
I’d like to end with my fav funny quotes from today’s EGM:
- “Sit down and shut up”
- “I’m on page 73…show your elders some respect”
- “We’ll refer to legal counsel…”
- “I’m a man, don’t harass me”
- “Women are emotional and irrational”
- “I’d like to say to the CONGREGATION…”
- “We’ll help transsexuals according to what’s stated on their IC”
Credits to www.we-are-aware.sg
Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools
1 ) We refer to recent claims and comments about AWARE’s sexuality education programme in schools.
2 ) Sexuality education conducted in MOE schools is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.
3 ) Core programmes are delivered by teachers but schools do collaborate with other agencies in delivering additional modules. However, in doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are secular and sensitive to the multi-religious make-up of our society. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes.
4 ) Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.
5 ) AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.
6 ) 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 who attended the workshops and talks or their parents.
7 ) 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.
8 ) If parents and members of the public know of specific instances where guidelines have not been adhered to, they should report them directly to MOE to investigate. MOE recognises that sexuality education is sensitive. In conducting these programmes, the views of parents will be respected and values taught should not deviate from the social norms accepted by mainstream society in Singapore.
Source:
Ministry of Education, 28th April 2009. Retrieved from World Wide Web on 29th April 2009 at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/forum/2009/04/reply-to-recent-comments-and-c.php
<29th Apr ST Pg A5, Get facts right on sex education: Isawaran>
The article reads:
Last week, in giving her take on why some members of the group decided to mount a leadership takeover, senior lawyer Thio Su Mien – who described herself as “feminist mentor” of the new guard – said the Aware (sexuality education) programme encouraged lesbianism and homosexuality.
She said the programme taught young girls from the ages of 12 to 18 that it is okay to experiment with each other. She talked to some parents who were flabbergasted, she added.
This had galvanised the members of the new guard into action, she said.
Since the fundamental reason given for this leadership takeover has been removed, wherein lies the other even weaker, even more inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims to power.
<29th Apr ST Pg A2 EGM venue changed to Expo Hall 2>
The article reads in conclusion:
In a sermon posted on its website, Pastor Derek Hong urged the women in his clock to “be engaged” and support Ms Lau and “her sisters” at Aware. He said: “It’s not a crusade against the people but there’s a line that God has drawn for us, and we don’t want our nation crossing that line.”
Christianity draws no line to loving. In fact, all religions spread the same message of love. The nation has not, in this case, crossed any line, it is the church that has crossed the line. It illustrates a disrespect for others in civil society, for the organisation, and it is the new leaders that seem to be losing sight of what Aware is to stand for – womens’ rights. To be respected, first respect others, and as Christians are taught – Do unto others only as you would do unto yourself.
The contents of my posts reflect my personal opinion based on my knowledge of AWARE.
1 ) As a help organisation for women, there should be no boundary line of any kind drawn. Based on the spoken determination of the new guards to “re-focus …Aware to go back to the original purpose” after having been “hijacked to further the gay agenda”, an abused homosexual may not the new AWARE as an avenue of help open to him/her without judgement imposition.
1a ) Should an abused homosexual find courage to approach the new AWARE, and hear that the abuse is part of an initial error in choosing to fall for someone of the same sex, the focus of treatment may not heal the wound but carve out another. The judgement he/she may face from the new Aware may also be the final shove off the ledge for an abused homosexual.
2 ) The previous leaders of AWARE included Christians, Muslims and Sikhs. Of the current leaders, 6 of the 11 executive committee posts are filled by individuals who attend the same church – Church of our Savior. Five of which are the decision-making posts – President, Vice-president, Honorary secretary, Honorary treasurer and Assistant honorary secretary.
While one can argue that their being Christians may not necessarily mean they are not inclusive, it will mean that they live by the same teachings and will agree on the same messages being spread. The lack of diverse backgrounds make for a poor leadership as they will likely agree with one another and miss out on possible takes on things.
As even in HDB flats, the leadership should be made-up of people of all racial and religious walks of life. Only then can they sufficiently provide an understanding of the possible range of people they may help.
3 ) Dr Thio was reported in < TNP 24th Apr, Pg 2, Emotions overflow as women exchange barbs > as having said “We are a woman’s organisation…why don’t you form your own group to chase this cause?” The issue I have with this statement is that it is based on the belief that the old leaders of AWARE were chasing a cause different from the one the new leaders aim to chase. If so, why did the new leaders not form their own group to chase their cause?
4 ) It was pointed out that in celebrating Mother’s Day in 2006, AWARE had invited lesbian-friendly mothers and their lesbian daughters to share their experiences. Should one argue that this point is worth nothing, then I would like to ask if lesbian mothers and daughters are not identifiable as women, or perhaps in pointing out this issue, lesbian mothers and daughters do not have relationships worth noting, or do not deserve to celebrate Mother’s Day.
Also, do ponder upon the Mother’s Day celebrations between 2006 and now, were they not mentioned because no lesbian mothers or daughters were brought up?
5 ) With regards to the issue that the old leaders of AWARE sponsored the screening of Spider Lilies, it has been established that many other movies were also sponsored. That they were not mentioned does not mean that they were not.
6 ) When asked for other instances of the old AWARE’s alleged gay agenda, “the new exco revealed that the old exco has proposed giving voting rights to men, foreign women and teenagers”. I fail to see the link between the two.
Should the new AWARE propose to give voting rights to men, would it be seen as a heterosexual act? Are foreign women, not truly women? And does it mean that teenagers, or adults (male or female), cannot be interested in fighting for rights for women, in the sense of ensuring women are not discriminated against?
7 ) “Now we have a question for the media.”
What is the newspapers’ role in all all of this, she (Ms Lois Ng) asked. Why the unusually keen interest in the gay agenda?
Her question was met with silence.
And with that, the press conference ended.
And this is my answer: The keen interest is founded in the strong stand the COOS takes against homosexuality. It is stated on the church website.
“Homosexual practice is contrary to God’s Word. So we stand against that and the active and aggressive promotion of such behavior,” it states.
The church believes homosexuals can change, and has a programme to counsel and help those who want to give up ‘homosexual thoughts, tendencies and practices.’
Taking into consideration more than half of the exco subscribe to this belief in their personal lives, how can I be confident that an abused homosexual seeking help at AWARE can adequately contribute to the emotional healing of the individual without prejudice. The inherent religious bias in the exco does not instill confidence at all.
It is not so much a ‘keen interest in the gay agenda’, which of course was pointed out and verbalised by the new leaders, as a worry about whether a minority in society will find themselves further discriminated against by a rights group, the irony of it all.
8 ) Mr Michael Chick, a film-maker, was supposed to give a talk at a secondary school about parents and how to prevent sexual abuse in children. < TNP 24th Apr, Pg 7, No reason for termination >
He told The New Paper that he received a call from Aware on Tuesday afternoon saying that the talk was “off” and he was not needed. Did they feel it was no longer important to educate children on how to identify abuse?
I do not feel there can be a reasonable explanation for this, and till date, there has been none. Was it that he was a veteran Aware member, that he is male, or that the talk was on preventing sexual abuse in children? Either way, none are reasonable explanations as to why he should not be helping the organisation, or that his talk should be called “off”.
9 ) Finally, on the sexuality education programme conducted by AWARE in schools.
” Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Just like heterosexuality, it is simply the way you are. Homosexuals also form meaningful relationships, and face the same emotional issues that heterosexuals do.”
Point 1 – Homosexuality is perfectly normal. If there is contention with this statement, would it be accurate to say homosexuality is abnormal? How do you tell someone that something is abnormal, and expect them not to discriminate against what has been classified as an abnormality for them?
We use politically correct terms for disabilities nowadays, e.g. visually-challenged, mentally-challenged. Would it be in any way more correct to say that homosexuals should be called sexuality-impaired people?
Point 2 – Just like heterosexuality, it is simply the way you are. Studies have shown enough of this. Stuck off as being a disease, if there are those who feel organisations such as the American Psychological Association did so under pressure, then surely it must mean you doubt their organisational strength and integrity. If so, then surely they should contribute their substantiated reasonings to this think tank of experts for surely they need all the help they can get.
Point 3 – Homosexuals also form meaningful relationships. Some last longer, some last shorter, as do heterosexual relationships. Should a person believe that homosexuals have easier-come, easier-go relationships than heterosexuals, might I remind you that divorce rates were 2.02 per 1000 people in 2007 , and today is 8.3 per 1000 people today.
- (Channel Newsasia, 2007. Retrieved from World Wide Web on 28th April 2009 at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/418231/1/.html )
- (Source: Singstat, 2009. Retrieved from World Wide Web on 28th April 2009 at: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html )
Homosexuals, too, face the same emotional issues that heterosexuals do. Sexuality barely, if it even does, has any bearing on emotions. If there is anything to be said, homosexuals face even more emotional issues than heterosexuals with potential rejection at home, at the workplace, at places of worship, and even in public.
I end with the details of the AWARE EGM.
Register to become an AWARE member to vote at the EGM at:
www.we-are-aware.sg
($40 for adults, $5 for full-time students. Only females above 18 are allowed to vote. Males can register for members and sit-in at the EGM as well.)
Details as follows:
Exhibition Hall 402
Suntec Singapore
International Convention & Exhibition Centre
1 Raffles Boulevard, Suntec City ,
Singapore 039593
Points To Note:
1) Admission and registration would be from 12 noon to 2 pm on Saturday, 2nd May 2009.
2) It is mandatory to show your NRIC for admission and registration.
3) Only FEMALE members who are Singaporean & PRs above 18 years old are allowed to vote.
4) For those who signed up online and did not receive their membership card, please print out your confirmation email and receipt and bring it along for the EGM.
5) For those who have failed to register online or need help in signing up, please email egm@aware.org.sg for details on alternative methods of signing up.
6) Please be there EARLY as we have reason to believe the place will be too crowded and there may not be enough seats for everyone. Those who arrive late may not be admitted for the EGM.
Leaders’ acts reveal exclusionary stance
I REFER to yesterday’s reports about the press conference by the new executive committee (exco) of Aware, ‘Lawyer’s key role in Aware coup’, ‘New exco members tell of death threats’, ‘Long-time member and new exco lock horns’ and ‘Locks at Aware offices changed’. My point is simple: Women who discriminate against other women should not lead an organisation meant to help all women. And it is clear that new Aware president Josie Lau and her fellow exco members discriminate against lesbians, women who choose premarital sex, and women who defend the right to have abortions, for a start. That they have accused Aware of becoming a gay rights group only reflects their own homophobia and severely diminishes the vast portfolio of Aware’s work in advancing the rights of all women. Their actions since the election are telling of their direction away from Aware’s spirit of inclusion – they have excluded committee member Chew I-Jin from an important press conference and excluded many more by changing the locks on the Aware centre without informing all members, causing confusion and forcing distressed women there for counselling to leave abruptly. It appears that building a fortress against an imaginary siege is more important for Ms Lau and her fellow exco members than ensuring the smooth day-to-day functions of Aware, which include counselling distressed women. I cannot see the new exco helping women who are retrenched from work or facing harassment as a result of their sexual orientation or their views on premarital sex and abortion. And that is just for a start. What other hidden discrimination do they harbour against other groups of women? Aware gives help to many women that not everyone supports or approves of. Aware’s gift to Singapore women is not that it toes the line of public consensus, but that it bravely pushes against the status quo to advance rights for all women. If Ms Lau and her like-minded exco members truly want to help other women within the ambit of their religious convictions, they are free to do so – from within their church. Singapore was founded on a creed of religious tolerance – but only so long as one group’s religious convictions are not imposed on others.
Dionne Sok Ling Thompson (Mrs)
Source: Straits Times Forum
Recent Comments