Others
The Aware controversy – The Real Casualty
The following is a letter regarding the Aware saga, that I had sent to the Forum Editor of the Straits Times, but that was not published. You can see how keenly I’m following the controversy which, with its many implications for the social and moral life of our society, has clearly gone beyond a mere fight for power among women.
After the new Exco of Aware was overwhelmingly given a vote of no confidence at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 2 May, the president announced that they would ‘graciously’ step down.
Graciousness, alas, was the biggest casualty in the long-drawn out Aware controversy. Both the old and the new leaderships of Aware had missed the opportunity to rise above petty politics to demonstrate this attribute which, with its concomitants of courtesy, respect, goodwill and, above all, tolerance, is the one thing which our society most needs at this stage in its development.
The missed opportunities:
when the old leaders simply could not accept the change of leadership at the Annual General Meeting on 28 March. It was clearly a Machiavellian plot, but since it was done constitutionally and democratically, the old leaders could have responded with a dignified and gracious exit, instead of going on a rampage of shock, anger and accusations.
When the new exco behaved with appalling arrogance during their brief period of control. They openly showed disrespect for the old Aware stalwarts, peremptorily dismissed staff, changed the locks in the Aware premises, etc., when graciousness called instead for a reaching out to the opponents to forget past issues and work together.
When the new exco ignored calls from the government and the heads of religious bodies, to keep religious and secular matters separate. A gracious bowing out, especially after the pastor of their church had publicly apologized for having encouraged them in their anti-homosexuality stand, would have earned public respect even at this late stage in the saga.
When at the EGM on Saturday, both sides gave full vent to their emotions in acrimonious exchanges, heckling, barracking, etc, ending with noisy triumphalism on the part of the victor and sullen shock on the part of the defeated. By the time the meeting ended, it was clear that the gap between the two sides had widened to make reconciliation in the near future improbable, and the rainbow coalition that a minister had suggested, virtually impossible.
In our multiracial, multireligious society with its many potentialities for division, polarization and rancour, the mechanisms and processes of democracy are not enough for the achievement of harmony, and need the softening, ameliorative power of this best of human attributes, graciousness. Unfortunately, it took a severe beating in the Aware debacle.
May 7th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Dear Ms Lim, with all due respect, is it not time to bury this topic before it became more “chao sng”?
KAM (Switzerland)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Dear Ms Lim,
Focus on the ‘why’ question – why did they stage the coup, why the Old Guards were furious etc., and you’d come to a deeper conclusion.
The issue is not about graciousness. When you build a house and open your door only to have someone else ‘legally’ take over it and change furnishings and the locks, you do not give it up without a fight. What is at stake is what’s right and what’s wrong. In any case, the Old Guards reclaimed their house legally too.
I think your analyses in this AWARE saga have been way off the mark.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Agree. I also think that Catherine’s analyses on this matter is off the mark.
The issue is more about ethics and morality. Graciousness can take a back stage when ethics and morality are not addressed first.
Graciousness is “good to have” but ethics and morality are “MUST Have”.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I agree with you Catherine. I wonder if men would have reacted the same way. Well…lesson learnt : never get into a cat fight with women
May 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
To Nicole:
Ever seen the behaviour of politicians in the parliaments of South Korea, Japan or Taiwan? Or even Westminister?
Men or women, your passion will be kindled when what you hold dear is threatened.
PS. Like the saying goes, when a man makes his point forcefully, he is being assertive. When a woman does the same, she is being aggressive.
May 9th, 2009 at 9:50 am
This is my sincere view. They should have asked the brotherhood to come in to arbitrate and mediate over this matter.
Usually when both sides fight in the gaming world that is what we do. And when they come in, they will usually impose a ceasefire. Of course, it is never for free. As they are quite greedy people, but usually the results are good and everyone is most satisfied.
The main problem with the old guard is they got that publicity narcissist Siew Kum Hong to represent Mrs Singam, Dana and Ji ilin. He only seems to be blowing his own trumpet. now with the MOE pulling out from all aware’s previous innitaitives. You tell me how does it look on aware?
The joke is delusional people like Siew Kum Hong is still insisting this is a new dawn for democracy, transparency and heralds a new golden age for civil society.
Some people I think need to be comfortable with their own skin. If only that is possible Cat
May 12th, 2009 at 12:06 am
I agree very much with your analysis.
The parties involved lost sight of AWARE’s interests. Because of the media spotlight, they had to dig into their positions and lost sight of the fact that there are many possible solutions to resolve both parties’ interests.
The least both sides could have done was to agree to disagree, and had a civil EGM.
I would have recommended mediation and even now, I hope that they will consider mediation in resolving any leftover issues.