| Yawning
Bread. 21 April 2009 Pirates ahoy! Gay netizens and the AWARE hijacking
|
|
|
|
Each time I saw those comments, I chuckled. The truth is quite the opposite. Just last year, Constance Singam, then President of AWARE, gave a talk about feminism to a full house of lesbian and bisexual women. It must have been one of the most difficult audiences she ever faced. The women machine-gunned her with questions expressing their grievances -– that in over twenty years of its existence, AWARE had paid virtually no attention to lesbian and bisexual women's issues; that AWARE had never spoken up for them. Singam explained the various factors that might have figured in that history, not least among which was the "off-the-record" warnings from the authorities (Registrar of Societies?) to AWARE not to support gay equality. Despite her best efforts, I had the sense, watching from the back row, that the audience was largely unconvinced. That said, a distinction should be made between AWARE's track record and the values held by many of AWARE's old guard -– Constance Singam, Dana Lam, Braema Mathi, Lena Lim, Tan Joo Hymn, and others. As so eloquently put by Singam to the media recently, "Our values are based on the fundamental rights and responsibilities of women as women. These include being treated as informed individuals capable of choice, being deserving of opportunities equal to those of men in education, marriage and employment; and being able to control their own bodies, particularly with regard to sexual and reproductive health." [1] Braema Mathi told Channel NewsAsia: "AWARE is simply an organisation that will always, I hope, stand up for any form of anti-discrimination - whether you are heterosexual, homosexual, transgender, transvestite, divorced or a single mum." [2] In 2007, AWARE broke its silence on a gay issue, to my knowledge for the first time, when it said it supported the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. This was when the government was proposing to revise the Penal Code, yet retaining Section 377A which made male-male sex an offence. Although the law referred only to men, I believe AWARE's view was that the state's perpetuation of stigma and prejudice against gay men indirectly impacted gay women. This, in addition to their stance that any discrimination, against anyone, is wrong in itself. I doubt very much, however, if many gay men or women even knew that AWARE had taken this stand over Section 377A, certainly fewer than those who knew that the Law Society also called for the repeal of 377A. Thus, to imagine that the gay community saw old AWARE as a gay-rights campaigner would be far off the mark. * * * * * If I have to use an analogy, it'll be like this: Old AWARE and the various LGBT groups were like ships sailing on the high seas. The LGBT ships were sailing towards one destination; AWARE was sailing towards its own destination. Then suddenly we see pirates seizing the AWARE ship, pirates whom we suspect would be gunning for us next, given their track record (anti-gay letters to the press). Wouldn't raising the alarm be the natural thing to do? * * * * *
|
||
|
Frankly, I have nothing against Christianity per se. For heaven's sake, there's even a gay-affirmative Christian church here in Singapore, and Reverend Yap Kim Hao, the former head of the Methodist Church, has been outspoken in his support for gay equality. What I am disgusted with is unchristian behaviour by those who claim to be Christian: the promotion of prejudice and discrimination and the use of stealth, just like pirates. I also stand firm, like the great majority of Singaporeans, against any attempt to mix religion with politics, which agenda partly explains why the new guard at AWARE have to resort to stealth. * * * * * From the beginning it was belied by the fact that the new guard leaders and their supporters joined within the same three-month period. They had not been active in AWARE before. If ever they had spoken up publicly, it was not on women's issues. It was -– always -– on homosexuality, where the same anti-gay stance, informed by fundamentalist Christianity, was preached. [Addendum 1] The blog alicecheong pointed out that:
Now, the Church of our Saviour (COOS) is not a particularly large church. Its notoriety exceeds its size because it is the home of Choices –- the ministry that promotes the shibboleth that homosexuals can change to become heterosexuals, an idea long debunked by professional psychologists. The leader of the rabidly anti-gay Focus on the Family is also a member of COOS.
|
|
|
|
In her first interview with Channel NewsAsia, Talking Point, 18 April 2009, Josie Lau came very close to denying that she even knew Maureen Ong, the treasurer, prior to being elected into the executive committee (exco) of AWARE.
Laughter, for no apparent reason, led her not to complete her sentence. Yet, as comment #49 appended to the Youtube clippings of the interview on The Online Citizen pointed out:
Furthermore, in another part of the interview, Josie Lau spoke of a "we" in terms highly suggestive of a cabal with a pre-defined agenda "coming in" to pursue their aims. Referring to the values of the old guard versus the new guard, she said:
And what a slip it was. "Pro-family" is Christian fundie-speak for anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality. And there's more. At the AGM, Claire Nazar, who had been an AWARE member "for only a little over a year herself" [4] was the one who nominated Josie Lau for the exco. But Nazar soon became horrified at what she called the new guard's "Stormtrooper tactics" and quit within 11 days. [5] Reliable sources told me that at the meeting when she quit, the new guard accused her of not doing what she had promised to do. Over what, I'm not sure, but it may have to do with the mass sackings of all subcommittee chairs, something which Nazar later told the Straits Times she opposed. According to my sources, Josie Lau said to Nazar, "But you said you would support me." Does that expectation not suggest a prior conspiracy? * * * * * For example, during the interview, after Maureen Ong explained that according to the society's constitution, a vacant presidency had to be filled from among the non-office-bearing exco members,
|
|
|
|
One would get the impression that Josie Lau reluctantly became president by default. Yet her employer, DBS Bank had earlier said in a public statement that prior to the exco meeting of 15 April 2009,
Here's another contradiction: On TV, Josie Lau said,
Now, here's something the public does not yet know: The television station's original plan was for a member each of the old guard and the new guard to be in the interview. Josie Lau objected vehemently and insisted they would not share the interview room and program with anyone from the old guard. So much for reconciliation. There's also the extremely curt email (so much for reconciliation, again) they sent to Braema Mathi telling her she's been relieved of her position as chair of the subcommittee preparing AWARE's report to be submitted to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Without even a customary word of thanks, the email said:
I'm not even certain that the reason set out there -- that Braema's appointment ceased automatically with the AGM -- is fully accurate. The Sunday Times, reporting what Claire Nazar said to them [6], reported that a vote had to be taken:
* * * * *
Six seconds would pass as Josie Lau looked uncomfortable while gathering her thoughts, before she replied,
So far, all motherhood statements, though you'd notice that she hasn't come around to sexual orientation yet.
Firstly, it's an utterly incompetent reply. For three weeks, accusations of the new guard being a homophobic bunch hijacking AWARE to push their agenda have been circulating. Yet, they don't even have a spin-ready answer to this? I'm not expecting them to give us an answer we agree with; I'm saying that at the very least, they should have got their spin ready. Being tongue-tied for six seconds, almost shocked that Balji would ask such a question, is about the worst impression they can give of themselves. Secondly, unlike how easy it was for her to mention equality on the grounds of race, religion and male/female gender, she was stunningly incapable of saying the same of sexual orientation, describing it only as a "controversial topic". Please. Gay equality is only problematic if you don't believe in non-discrimination and equality. If you did, it would roll off your tongue as easily as race, religion, etc. That she tripped over this told us
everything we needed to know about the direction of AWARE under the new
leadership. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda
|
|
When lesbian and gay bloggers cried foul over the takeover of the
Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) at the end of March
2009 because some of the new leaders were known anti-gay campaigners,
other netizens wondered why the gay community was so invested in AWARE. A
few even wondered: Had AWARE under the old guard "lost its
focus" and become a campaigner for "gay rights"? Was that
why gay people were so upset -- that the supposedly women's organisation had
been snatched away from them?
Inevitably, some readers will think that
the pirate analogy is overblown. Here again, they may say, the militant
gays are suffering from a persecution complex imagining threats where none
exist. Give the benefit of the doubt to new AWARE. What's wrong with
Christians being part of civil society, etc, etc...
