Aware saga 10 years on: Scars and tensions remain
Dramatic culmination of a clash had left religious and cultural fault lines exposed
‹‹
1 of 2
Aware president Margaret Thomas (right) and executive director Corinna Lim at the group's premises in Dover Crescent. Aware has seen changes, such as measures to prevent any future hostile takeovers by members, following the 2009 saga which sparked a nationwide debate on issues such as the place of religion in civil society.PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
2 of 2
The extraordinary general meeting held in May 2009 at Suntec City, where two-thirds of about 2,000 Aware members voted for a no-confidence motion on the new leadership spearheaded by Ms Josie Lau. It was the dramatic culmination of a clash between a group of religious individuals and members of the women's rights group.ST FILE PHOTO ST
››
Yuen Sin
May 08, 2019
About two months ago, Ms Margaret Thomas, president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), dug up the e-mail addresses of some former members.
She sent cordial messages to the association's former president Josie Lau, former vice-president Charlotte Wong and former honorary treasurer Maureen Ong, as well as Dr Thio Su Mien, a former law dean at the National University of Singapore.
These were almost all met with silence. Only Dr Thio responded, politely rejecting Ms Thomas' request for an interview for an archival project to record - from all perspectives - what happened 10 years ago.
Clearly, a decade on, old scars remain.
On May 2, 2009, a showdown was staged at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) in a conference hall at Suntec City, where two-thirds of about 2,000 Aware members voted for a no-confidence motion on the new leadership spearheaded by Ms Lau.
It was the dramatic culmination of a clash between a group of religious individuals and members of the now 34-year-old women's rights group.
Ms Lau's team, mainly members of the Church of Our Saviour (COOS), had earlier infiltrated Aware and ousted seasoned members to win nine of 12 positions on the executive committee.
Led by Dr Thio, who called herself the "feminist mentor", the new guard later revealed that they were motivated by disapproval of what they felt to be Aware's endorsement of homosexuality. They were also unhappy with the sex education programme it ran in schools, and thus sought to take over the organisation and challenge Aware's alleged attempts to redefine marriage and families.
The saga sparked a nationwide debate on issues ranging from the place of religion in civil society to gay rights to citizen mobilisation to the activist role of the media, said Iseas - Yusof Ishak Institute sociologist Terence Chong. "Never before had a single event ushered so many issues into the public sphere," he wrote in a book in 2011.
It prompted senior government leaders to weigh in as well. At the National Day Rally that year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the Aware saga risked a broader spillover into relations between different religions.
Tensions remain till today.
Dr Thio and Ms Lau declined to be interviewed when contacted by The Sunday Times.
REGROUPING
(After the saga), we had to ask ourselves - what's the difference between us and the other group who tried to take over and who also seemed that they did want to help women? And so things like human rights were an important part of it.
MS CORINNA LIM, executive director of Aware, who was struck by how its members rose to the occasion during the saga.
ACCEPTANCE
We're comfortable with what the Government has decided regarding the issues surrounding the (homosexual) lifestyle. We don't want to give any impression that this is like a war, or we are against some people or anything.
MR DEREK HONG, former senior pastor of Church of Our Saviour, who had expressed regret over his use of the pulpit to rally support for the new guard team at the time.
Former COOS senior pastor Derek Hong, who had expressed regret over his use of the pulpit to rally support for the new guard team, said: "It's all (water) under the bridge now."
He left COOS in 2011 and is now with City Missions Church.
Yesterday, Aware held a private screening of the full eight-hour video of the EGM, followed by speeches from those who played prominent roles then.
IT WAS 'DAMN GOOD FOR AWARE'
Though traumatic, the saga turned out to be "damn good for Aware", said Ms Thomas.
It injected Aware with renewed vigour and the mostly volunteer-run non-governmental organisation (NGO) professionalised its operations, such as by hiring an executive director. The executive committee then became a governance board.
Then lawyer Corinna Lim was so struck by how the members rose to the occasion that she applied to be Aware's first executive director. She remains at the helm of the association till this day.
Aware also added measures to prevent any future hostile takeovers by members, said Ms Lim. Those who want to run for seats on the executive committee now have to be members for at least two years.
The group also came up with a statement that clearly defines its values, including acceptance of diversity and respect for the individual and her choices. This is made clear to new members when they sign up.
Candidates who wish to stand for election will have their applications screened by a nominations panel first. Interviews may also be conducted to ensure that they generally agree with Aware's values and approaches.
If these measures had been in place in 2009, Aware could have disqualified members of the new guard from standing for election.
"(After the saga), we had to ask ourselves - what's the difference between us and the other group who tried to take over and who also seemed that they did want to help women? And so things like human rights were an important part of it," said Ms Lim.
Other groups in Singapore took their cue from the episode. Within a few months, several moved to tighten their processes to prevent similar takeovers.
In June 2009, the Autism Resource Centre introduced a requirement for board candidates to have been committee or sub-committee members for 12 months within the past three years.
Human rights group Maruah began requiring members who wanted to stand for election into its executive committee to submit a notice of intention that will be scrutinised by the committee.
Chronology of the 2009 Aware saga
MARCH 28
The annual general meeting at Aware sees a surprisingly large turnout of more than 100 people, compared with the usual 30 to 40. Most of them are new members who had joined Aware only in recent months.
The newcomers win nine of 12 positions on the executive committee. Mrs Claire Nazar, nominated by outgoing president Constance Singam, is elected unopposed as president.
APRIL 8
Mrs Nazar resigns as president, saying later she "did not want the hassle" of working with the new executive committee (exco).
APRIL 14
60 veteran Aware members call for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), where they intend to table a vote of no confidence in the new exco.
APRIL 15
New exco appoints Ms Josie Lau as new Aware president.
APRIL 17
Ms Lau issues a statement saying that the new team is "pro-women, pro-family and pro-Singapore", and questions the agenda of those calling for an EGM.
The old guard says its motives have been fully visible for nearly 25 years in its policies and programmes.
APRIL 23
The new exco holds its first press conference. It introduces Dr Thio Su Mien as its "feminist mentor", and says that Aware had previously been hijacked to further the gay agenda.
Dr Thio also criticises Aware's sexuality education programme in schools for regarding homosexuality as a neutral word.
The new exco sacks Aware's centre manager Schutz Lee. It also changes locks at the Aware office in Dover Crescent.
APRIL 29
The Ministry of Education (MOE) responds to Dr Thio's claims about Aware's sexuality education programme, saying the schools that engaged Aware found the content and messages of the sessions conducted appropriate for their students.
MAY 1
MOE says it is investigating Aware's sexuality education programme after receiving complaints from parents.
MAY 2
The new guard is ousted after a dramatic EGM, with a no-confidence motion against the new exco passed by 1,414 to 761 votes.
MAY 6
MOE suspends Aware's sexuality education programme in schools.
SEX EDUCATION AS FAULT LINE
But while the Aware old guard succeeded in seizing back control of the group, it lost its remit to help shape young minds on the subject of sex, sexuality and relationships.
Before the saga, schools had the autonomy to hire external vendors to conduct sexuality education education programmes. Aware was a key player, offering its workshops in 11 schools.
The new guard felt that the association was endorsing homosexuality and premarital sex in its sexuality education materials.
An instructor's guide leaked online at the time stated that homosexuality should be viewed in "neutral" terms, as it is "perfectly normal". It also said "people might place premarital sex as negative, but it is really neutral".
Parents complained to the Ministry of Education (MOE), which suspended Aware's programme from schools. The ministry also tightened its vetting of vendors. Those approved had their course contents scrutinised by a committee to ensure that they followed "mainstream social norms".
Writer and artist Dana Lam, who was president of Aware right after the saga, said the MOE's move was "deeply regrettable".
Since then, Aware has not tried to apply to the MOE to re-offer its programme in schools.
"It will be like flogging a dead horse," said Ms Thomas, given that Aware's stance on sexuality education differs from the ministry's current approach, which Aware feels is "too limited". Among other things, the ministry's programme states that "premarital sex is not desirable as there are inherent risks".
Aware said it believes an open, non-judgmental approach is key. "The kids are experimenting, we know this. The more you say 'don't do', the more they are curious. If that's the case, then we will have to talk about what happens, if you are going to experiment," said Ms Lim.
An MOE spokesman told The Sunday Times that no school has engaged external providers to conduct
supplementary sexuality education programmes in the past two years, though schools are allowed to do so.
"This is largely because schools feel that the MOE programme is able to meet the developmental needs of students," he said. The MOE programme is taught by trained MOE teachers.
Observers said that on this front, the new guard were the victors.
"It is clear that one of the objectives of the Aware takeover - striking the group off the MOE's list of sex education vendors - was met," said Dr Chong of Iseas-Yusof Ishak Institute.
Till today, sex education continues to be a fault line among NGOs, noted former Aware president Braema Mathi.
In 2017,
a coalition of about 60 NGOs working to submit a report on gender discrimination to a United Nations committee was split.
Some withdrew support because they did not agree with some points in the report, such as calls for a shift from abstinence-based sex education. These included the People's Association's Women's Integration Network Council and the NTUC Women and Family Unit.
"Whatever happened 10 years ago in a dramatic fashion continues to happen more subtly," said Ms Mathi, now president of Maruah.
TURNING POINT IN CULTURAL CLASH
The Aware saga was Singapore's first experience of "steeplejacking", said Dr Chong, referring to the term used in the United States to describe the takeover of progressive or mainstream churches by small groups of conservative Christians.
Some also saw the saga as an instructive episode to show that a clear line should be drawn between religion and secular groups.
"Many Singaporeans rejected the notion that any particular religious group could dictate and impose its religious views and value system on others in a secular society," former Aware president Constance Singam wrote on her blog last month.
But others call for a more nuanced take. Dr Adrian Heok, president of Think Centre, an NGO, said religious affiliation should not preclude active participation in civil society.
He said it was precisely due to the strong religious views of himself, a Christian, and Think Centre's three other executive committee members, who are Buddhist and Catholic, that they were motivated to work on human rights issues.
Most notably, the Aware saga marked a turning point in the cultural clashes between social conservatives and liberals in Singapore, say observers. The actions from conservatives may have consolidated gay activism in Singapore, noted Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan in a 2011 essay.
In May 2009, two weeks after the Aware EGM, Singapore saw its first edition of gay rights rally Pink Dot. There was "certainly a spillover effect" from the Aware saga that contributed to the rally's success then, said a Pink Dot SG spokesman.
The religious and cultural fault lines that were exposed during the saga may even have deepened over the past decade, said Professor Tan.
The Pink Dot movement, for instance, sparked a
"wear white" movement by some Christian and Muslim groups, while the "Penguingate" controversy of 2014 saw the
National Library Board removing certain books from the children's section over claims that they had homosexual themes.
"Negative tactics have also come into play, whether it's astroturfing, doxxing, or the like," said Prof Tan. Astroturfing refers to campaigns where the originators hide behind the scenes to give the impression that the campaigns are spontaneous, while doxxing refers to publishing identifiable information about a person to harass, cause violence or fear of violence to the person.
When asked about the Aware saga, Pastor Hong of City Missions Church said: "We're comfortable with what the Government has decided regarding the issues surrounding the (homosexual) lifestyle. We don't want to give any impression that this is like a war, or we are against some people or anything."
NO MORE BITTERNESS
When all is said and done, Ms Lim harbours no anger or bitterness about what happened a decade ago.
"In some ways, there is some respect for the fact that (the new guard) were activists. They felt strongly about something; they were prepared to risk it and make the effort to do what they thought was right," she said. "If we ever meet them, it wouldn't be to try to change their view about us, (but to) understand what motivated them."
