the inevitable AWARE blogpost

Well, it had to happen sometime, so it might as well be now, at 3.30am on the morning of Labour Day. This AWARE thang. Sigh.

1) Can I just say that I'm writing this as a Bible-believing Christian who also believes that Singapore, being a secular society, needs to be run in a way that treats all legitimate religious groups in the same way. "Regardless of race, language or religion" - our schoolchildren recite this during assembly every morning - but it seems such pledges are easily forgotten in the heat of debate over emotional issues.

2) I wish that the new Exco would come up with a single, coherent statement detailing their version of tthe chronology of events to date (including the preliminaries to the March 28 AGM), as well as their vision for AWARE in future. It does not help their case that people have to piece together their story from a hodgepodge of media reports, all of which may or may not be biased (who knows?), and none of which has the full story.

The Old Guard has made their case clearly and plainly at this website:
http://we-are-aware.sg/statements

If the new Exco could do the same, they would be doing much to clarify the muddied waters of this media-hyped debate - and goodness knows we could all do with some clarity in this.

3) I also want to say that this debacle is not about whether or not people approve of homosexual behaviour. It is about civil society, and what the ground rules for engagement ought to be in a secular society like Singapore. If what has been reported is true, it would appear that the new Exco, despite acting within the bounds of what is allowed by AWARE's constitution, were not acting in a way that was ethically fair and above board. In other words, they seem to have used the letter of the law to go against the spirit of the law. This is not the way to effect change in civil society here in Singapore. If people have a grievance with the way things are done in a particular civil society group, they should simply give their feedback to the existing leaders. And if these leaders do not take their suggestions on board, and if what the organisation is doing is not against the law, the grievance-holders are free to start another rival organisation. The free market of civil society can then be allowed to work in deciding which organisation has the better, more workable action plan.

There. I've had my say.

...
...