Awareness

This was written by a fellow brother in Christ (Joel) in my church in Singapore.

Awareness:

A group of women in Singapore recently sparked off an electrifying episode in a civil society that has not known much sensation. The team led by Ms Josie Lau has been voted out in an apparent defeat hailed as a victory for "what is right".

But what exactly transpired in these 35 days? What evil have Ms Lau and her team committed to deserve this avalanche?

They came as a large group to the AGM on 28th March, voted in numerical superiority to oust the Old Guard, and took over as the New Exco. They justified this with accusations at the Old Guard for promoting homosexuality and for losing sight of the Organisation's raison d'etre. The Old Guard, mad and furious at being thrown out of power, used their connections with the national media to make their dethronement a headlines story. It was a coup! they cried. And then, for every single day after, the press, especially The Straits Times, voraciously fed off this rare occurrence of a scandalous story, playing up two irrelevant things: that the New Exco used numbers to vote (who doesn't?) and that the New Exco was mainly Christian (why should that matter in a secular organisation?). In the end, an EOGM was held and a vote of 2-1 brought an end to the saga with the Old Guard brought back to office.

And while I disagree with many things Ms Josie Lau and Team did, especially choosing to take-over instead of to communicate, and their mishandling of opportunities to engage and express clearly their plans and intentions, there are many issues that have been largely ignored by The Straits Times (which single-handedly rose this story to national level):

1.

The take-over by the New Exco was legal

Though it may not have been the most productive option, the take-over by Ms Josie Lau and her team was completely legal and in adherence to Aware's constitution, regardless of the extraordinary circumstances under which they occurred. Just because it was planned and successfully undertaken does not make it a "coup" which, by definition, is unconstitutional. The Strait Times not only ignored this oversight, they blatantly used the word "coup" on all its coverage of the story to describe the take-over.Anyone knows that numbers matter in a vote, so why should coming in full force to vote for something you believe in be condemned?

2.

Erroneous notation of "secular"

The Straits Times also insisted on sending an equally wrong message with the word "secular".Singapore is a multi-religious secular country. That it can even be defined as such shows that "religion" and "secularism" are not incompatible. "Secular" does not mean atheism or "no religion"; it simply means "not religion-conscious", i.e., the individual's competency should not be judged by his religion.So in a secular organisation like Aware, why should Exco members' religious affiliations matter? But The Straits Times disregarded this and emphasised daily for the 35 days, that 6 (and not even all!) Exco members attend the same church. Try emphasising the religion/race of a particular cabinet minister and see what happens to you in this country where an ISA code is in effect.As a result, a group of women concerned enough to attempt righting a wrong, came to be portrayed as extremists in a country where the media is trained to be as gospel.

3.

Homosexuality

Under the slogan of "inclusiveness", gay rights groups have promoted the belief that accepting homosexuality as a normal alternative lifestyle is "open-mindedness", and that insisting it is abnormal (as opposed to "normal") is "narrow-mindedness" (and, if the person is Christian, "Fundamentalist").But this is a secular country. The Christian/Muslim/irreligious stand that homosexuality is wrong should be equally accepted and respected. A group that insists that homosexuality is "normal" is NOT more inclusive than a group that insists homosexuality is "abnormal" because the former group effectively excludes the beliefs of the latter group.So a truly inclusive group is one that says "some believe that homosexuality is normal, and some believe that it's abnormal; we leave this issue open to debate and do not make a stand on its normality". And that is what the Old Guard was NOT! It was pursuing its non-inclusive pro-homosexual (intolerant of the "homosexuality is not normal" view) agenda uncontrolled.

4.

Playing up of the $90,000 spent

Does anyone think that amid the storm of controversy, the New Exco was enjoying little holidays in exclusive resorts, and purchasing golden toilet bowls for the office? Playing up the amount without thinking about the facts is tantamount to implying this.Aware's constitutional clause for allowing no more than $20,000 to be spent in a month was written in the light of a consistent membership that never exceeded 300. In the last 5 weeks, this number soared to 3,000. Logically, the amount the Exco be allowed to spend should have been raised in proportion with this, but obviously, there has been no opportunity to address such issues. The EOGM itself (which could have been unnecessary) cost Ms Lau's Exco $19,000 to be held at Suntec Convention Centre (the venue the police insisted on). The Aware website was hijacked by the Old Guard, and in order to facilitate new membership registration (which were coming at a dizzying rate), new bandwidth infrastructure had to be fixed. Legal advice, given the death threats, personal attacks, and public posting of sensitive private information, was legitimate and understandable.Besides, the registration fee from the almost 3,000 new members meant that there was a windfall exceeding $90,000 in Aware's coffer funds.

5.

Failure of Old Guard to completely answer all accusations

This whole embroilment stemmed from one thing - the accusations and queries brought up against the Old Guard's practises. Surprisingly, disproportionately little coverage has been given to these issues in The Straits Times.Till now, the Old Guard has failed to completely answer all the accusations, especially on the sexual education program in schools. That the CSE teaches students as young as 12 years old that anal sex is "healthy", homosexuality is "normal", and pre-marital sex is "not negative", it is not surprising that a group of Singaporeans, known to be generally conservative, decided to step in and intervene. Regardless of religious affiliations, or the lack thereof, many parents in Singapore are against such slants in sexual education.

6.

Actions and behavior of the Old Guard

Hijacking Aware's website, issuing death threats and publicly releasing sensitive private information are all shameless deeds. And in rallying people to swing votes, they did the very thing they accused Ms Josie Lau's team of. And did this EOGM vote represent the view of local women, known to be conservative? Or were these voters mere sheep, excited by the rare occurrence of a sensational event in their country, conforming to the national media's biased point of view? I know only 1 of the original 300 members of Aware, and she voted for the Exco led by Ms Lau because she knew what the Old Guard had been doing, and the New Exco's plans and interests. The gay community is known to be outspoken and very passionate about their cause. Were the men who gave a loud voice in support of the Old Guard really doing this for women's rights or for their own vested interest that is out of the scope of the Organisation? What do they know about the Feminist Movement?

7.

Christians standing up against Christians.

It is a sad day when these words of Jesus came to represent His own body: A house divided against itself cannot stand. That a self-professed "Bible-believing" Christian, Gwee Li Sui, would make public his opposition to the take-over by Ms Josie Lau disappoints me. Of course we should not support Christians when they are doing the wrong thing. But we should never oppose them because we fear for our own safety, popularity or interests, in compromise of what is right. The Church's stand in Nazi Germany is a good example of Christians taking the wrong stand, to devastating effect.The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality (no, not homosexuals) in many places and not once condones it.James 4:17 says that anyone who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. That a Christian would stand up publicly in opposition to fellow Christians who are doing what they believe is the right thing to do - taking over Aware through a legal vote to stop it from promoting (and teaching in schools) its non-inclusive pro-homosexual stand - in itself sends across a message that compromises what your beliefs on homosexuality are.Gay rights groups have made it seem like it's simply "inclusive" to accept homosexuality as a normal alternative lifestyle. But this is not true. In accepting this stand, Christians are tricked into effectively renouncing their own Christian (and not just Christian, but Muslim and also irreligious) stand that homosexuality is wrong. "Wrong" and "normal" are mutually exclusive. A Christian has to decide whether he believes in what the Bible says, that homosexual deeds are sin, or to believe what the world is preaching, that it is just a normal alternative lifestyle.That a secular group (secular meaning it ought to represent all faiths, not atheism in particular) was promoting an anti-Christian/Muslim/irreligious agenda by promoting and teaching children that homosexuality is "normal" means that it was going off its own secular course - it was not representing ALL views on this topic. The Old Aware was dictating their pro-homosexual stand (which excludes the Christian belief) and teaching it to young children. They were, in effect, teaching Christian and Muslim children that their religion is wrong! This is the line Pastor Hong of COOS identified as the boundary we should not let our country cross. This is the reason why Ms Lau and her team decided to intervene. But they were cut off before they could prove their worth.Ms Josie Lau and her team were not about forcing everyone to believe that homosexuality is wrong, in accordance with Christian values and beliefs. They have reiterated that they would support lesbians who are being discriminated. But the media and online community would hear none of this. What her team attempted to do, and was stopped by a majority of 2-1, was to halt the Old Guard's pro-homosexual agenda, to stop them from teaching children that it is normal to be gay - because this is in conflict with at least what a majority of the national population believes in. Were Christians part of the 2-1 majority? What were they intending to achieve?As Christians, what are we doing about this issue? Are we sitting back in comfort, denouncing the take-over as "extremist" simply because it's dramatic and has angered many, in hopes that we may be seen as "moderates"? Or are we investigating this issue, looking into accusations from both sides, and thinking before making a conclusion about the correct stand to take? I lament the present state of our country and, consequently, the Body of Christ in Singapore, that we have been found to be unable to make up our minds on what is TRULY right, choosing instead to conveniently side whatever is easy, consequently giving anti-Christians fodder to attack us. Indeed, deep down, beneath the dissent, we all know that all this unhappiness stem from the fact that Ms Lau's team is Christian.This is what should have been done instead: dismantling lies such as the one that says Christianity is about hating gay people. Christians should have been proactive in explaining what the Christian stand on homosexuality is: that homosexuality is wrong, but not wrong-er than all other sins, and that we're all guilty of sin anyway, so that makes us Christians "equal" to the most debaucherous homosexual, not more righteous on our own, so there is nothing to hate or discriminate about. This would have been so much more productive than simply saying "I OPPOSE these Christians who have taken over Aware, even though I'm Christian myself!". What benefit does that do?

Conclusion of the matter

All that said, I give credit where credit is due: to the Old Guard for their many years of good work in promoting women's rights. I also express my disappointment with Ms Lau's team for mishandling opportunities for engagement and clear expressing of their plans and intentions. This could have turned out so differently!But in all, I exhort all Singaporeans not to lose sight of the big picture. Secularism and inclusiveness must not lose their true meaning in a country as multi-racial, diverse, and yet secular as Singapore. Perhaps the only "victory" this episode has brought about is the Awareness it has raised in this country of the non-inclusive sexual education program in schools.