03

I didn’t roll my eyes today when the copy of the national rag was delivered to my home. However, I did roll my eyes when The New Paper mused in its front page if Josie would be the new-old-new-old AWARE’s adviser. My disgust didn’t prevent me from reading the story, which came with flattering poses of the new-old-new-old exco celebrating in the Dover Road office.

“The air is fresh,” one of them commented. I was disappointed that not much has been reported about the new-old-new-old AWARE’s plans during their term but precious newspaper space was given to the air quality in the office. So what’s new? And for some of you who got a “love letter” from the new President, it shows that they’ve been fast and organised. Diplomatic, yes. But again, there wasn’t even a hint of what they plan to do or even a “laughing it off” phrase stating that there’s much work to be done (it wouldn’t be stretching it to believe that they have a lot of work on their hands, no?).

Now, semantics (of the said “love letter”):

“An immediate task for us is to reach out and connect with all new members, to bridge differences and, to invite their participation in the work of AWARE.”

After all that happened before Saturday and the fracas during the EGM, I wonder how the new-old-new-old AWARE aims to bridge differences. Truth be told, there’s a huge chasm, deeper than the ones at the Grand Canyon. There were a thousand new members who stayed away for whatever reasons. The new-old-new-old AWARE were voted in mainly from the support of the liberals but they do not form an overwhelming majority of the membership. The challenge will be to find a middle-ground, where both sides can participate in the work of AWARE. Looking at the fracas that was the EGM, the new-old-new-old AWARE exco has its work cut out in finding even a semblance of a middle ground.

“Our membership has surged and women and men, young and old, now feel empowered by your exemplary voices.”

Since “my england is not powderful”, I went on dictionary.com and checked on the word “exemplary”. This is what it really means – “worthy of imitation; commendable”. So to those who were there at the EGM, here is some food for thought: Was the conduct – or voices – of a majority of the members “worthy of imitation and commendable”?

Before you give this question a further thought, consider this:

“So yes, call me and my like-minded friends a hooligan if you must. Better hooliganism couched in those terms than narrow-minded, uninformed and cowardly.”

These are words from a young woman who attended the EGM. No prizes for guessing on which side of the fence she sat. She went on to say:

“Most of all, I think yesterday was a lesson in civil society… What it is, simply put and as I understand it, is a society where people care enough about issues to come together and form groups to work towards their common goals. Does that mean that one tramples on the rights and views of those with contrary opinions? Absolutely not. Does a common end allow means that deal in half-truths and false allegations? Resoundingly no. But does any group in a civil society sit back and allow others to hijack its resources and change the foundations of its cause without putting up a reasoned, non-violent and constitutional fight?”

Spot the irony (or ironies).

Her post was entitled “I’m a hooligan and proud of it” (http://triciaseow.livejournal.com/339835.html). Civil society? Enough said.

 On a very different note, this is what I found from a blog (Singapore Life and Times – http://singaporelifetimes.blogspot.com/2009/05/rip.html):

“I applaud the new old AWARE committee members, who were brave enough to take up a cause they believed in. Nobody can take that away from them. One may disagree vehemently with their way of going about the whole thing, but through it all, I think they succeeded in drawing much attention to the issue of homosexuality education in Singapore schools.”

Nail on head. Perhaps, a blessing in disguise.

Elsewhere, the infamous akikonomu (aka Operator Leper) gave thanks:

“Thank you, old media, for showing there are some principles that we can all agree to care about.” (http://akikonomu.blogspot.com/2009/05/issue-of-statements-i.html)

Ah, the old adage of “believing what you choose to believe”. Funny that under akikonomu’s profile, it says “Think critically”.

(Other interesting blogs:

To hope till Hope creates – http://xenoboysg.blogspot.com/2009/05/to-hope-till-hope-creates.html

How to win an EOGM and lotsa friends – http://groundnotes.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/how-to-win-an-eogm-and-lotsa-friends/)

Now, for the real beef. I went over to the Christian Post and read its article about “What the ‘Aware Saga’ really is (and what it is not)” (http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/editorial/453/11|19/1.htm).

The opening paragraph of the section “What we can do” says:

“After recognising that the Aware conflict is not one that is easily resolved because it involves two mutually-opposing worldviews, certain parties including the official press and Christian bodies need to avoid getting into the ‘fray’ as it were in an unhelpful way.”

Fine. We already know about the official press (by the way, what’s “unofficial press”?). But I’m a little perturbed when reading about its stance that Christian bodies need to avoid getting into the “fray”.

It goes on to say:

“The real issue at hand is not whether or not churches should be involved in the NGO – the crisis is that society cannot understand Christians and what it doesn’t understand it is apt to misunderstand and fear. To the multitudes of non-Christians of an anti-moral persuasion, churches should not get involved simply because Christians are ‘aggressive’ people with a ‘dangerous’ agenda to ‘impose’ their values and beliefs on the rest of the world.”

My eyebrows were raised. Then curious, I clicked on the “About us” link of the Christian Post:

“The Christian Post upholds the dictum found in John 8:32, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” In the midst of immensely secularized teachings of the gospel, The Christian Post partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ.”

Again, spot the irony (or ironies).

All of these set my mind thinking.

(a) How should Christians conduct themselves when serving as leaders in organisations in a secular nation?

(b) What is the definition of “secular” in our society?

(c) How should Christians react to this definition?

(d) How should Christians respond when a tenet of their beliefs is being disputed / threatened in a secular society?

I remember during my secondary school days, my biology teacher gave a disclaimer before we started on the lesson on evolution. I didn’t know much, then, about what this evolution fuss was and why she had to state in her disclaimer “I know that Christians and Catholics may think this is contrary to what will be taught, but this is part of the syllabus”.

Fact is I still remember what she said and how she said it. Suffice to say, she was a Catholic. Now, were such disclaimers made before the Comprehensive Sex Education session began?