AWARE Saga: A New Militancy Emerges

The Straits Times ran this article on 25 April 2009:

Aware saga: A new militancy emerges
Tolerance is critical in the public sphere in a multi-religious society
By Chua Mui Hoong

THE battle lines have been drawn. And it is not just between Aware's
new executive committee and its old guard.

The leading women's advocacy group saw a stunning leadership change
when newcomers captured nine of 12 executive committee posts at the
group's annual general meeting on March 28. Older members questioned
their motives as well as the sudden influx of new members who joined
Aware just months before the AGM.

Four members of the new exco held a press conference on Thursday
evening. At the same time as the press conference was proceeding at
Raffles Town Club, an exco meeting was called at Aware's Dover Road
premises. The new team sacked the Aware centre's manager, a paid
employee, changed the locks at the Aware office and had a stand-off
with old guard members who turned up later.

Some see this episode as a 'catfight' among ambitious women. Others
see it as a tussle for control of a prominent women's advocacy group,
three of whose presidents have served as Nominated Members of
Parliament.

With four of the new exco members attending the same church - and
having the same 'feminist mentor' in the shape of lawyer Thio Su Mien
- and all espousing 'pro-family', anti-gay sentiments, some are
calling this a fight between the Christian Right and the Gay Lobby.

There is also an intra-Christian element here. For even within the
Christian community, there is concern about religious zeal spilling
over into the public sphere and giving Christianity an unduly
aggressive image in peaceful, multi-religious Singapore.

Some of the new exco members have been reportedly threatened, with one
receiving a death threat. Even if that were the act of an eccentric,
threats of violence against activists should never be condoned and
Singaporeans must be firm in denouncing such behaviour.

There is such a cauldron of emotions swirling over this issue that it
is hard to take a cool look at it. But that is precisely what is
needed - a hard-headed look at why this issue has roiled so many people.

At the risk of stating the obvious, religion mixed with socio-
political controversies is always a combustible combination.
Especially when faiths are interpreted in a fundamentalist way.

Tolerance and accommodation are critical attitudes for people of
different faiths to adopt towards one another in the public sphere.
Religion can be divisive, especially when it insists on a religiously-
informed view on any particular social, moral or cultural issue.

Secular, multi-religious societies must draw a line between what is
acceptable and what is not in the public domain. There is nothing
objectionable about zeal for one's faith per se. But action aimed at
invalidating or challenging other religions or enforcing a particular
religious view on everyone can have harmful social and political
consequences in a multi-religious society.

It is especially troublesome when people go beyond spreading their
religious beliefs to attempting to legislate their preferred moral
practices. For example, they may believe that the moral values their
church subscribes to should govern civil law. So if their church says
homosexuality and abortion are grievous sins, then the laws of the
land should outlaw such practices, even if many other people do not
agree.

The so-called Christian Right has made its presence felt in recent
years: in opposing the setting up of casinos, and in lobbying against
a motion to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises
sex between males.

While other religions too have been vocal on these issues, they have
adopted a live-and-let-live attitude, preferring to preach to their
own flock than convert others. The Christian Right is more organised,
vocal about claiming public space for debate, and savvy in using
constitutional means to advance its causes.

Concern over just where religious and social zeal will lead the new
Aware leadership is the reason many have reacted strongly to news of
its grab for power. Many are concerned that this group has established
a benchmark for religiously inspired activism that may well be
emulated by people of other faiths.

It would have been different if the group and its mentor Dr Thio had
been upfront about their association. It would have been even better
if they had formed their own organisation to propagate their social
plans.

But their decision, from the looks of it, to use Aware as a convenient
organisation to launch their cause has raised eyebrows. While the new
group was properly elected, its method has sown mistrust. They were
not a model of transparent organisation.

In recent years, much attention, for good reason, has been focused on
Islamic fundamentalism, given the violence of militant groups claiming
Islam as their inspiration. But religious fundamentalism of all kinds
can do harm - not necessarily to the physical body but certainly to
the body politic of a multi-faith society - if it invalidates others'
faiths and seeks to use the law to suppress the practices of minority
groups.

Singapore has long guarded its public sphere and common space
zealously to keep it free from religious strife. We should be no less
vigilant in guarding against new forms of militancy that may harm the
body politic.