I have been following the happenings over at AWARE recently, which is kind of weird for me, since I am normally a most apathetic person when it comes to stuff like this. I suspect the hinted-at involvement of Christian fundamentalism in the whole affair is the main reason why I am sitting up and taking notice, for once.
For the uninitiated, there was a recent "coup" during the AGM of a Singapore women issues advocacy group Association of Women for Action and REsearch (or AWARE), where a group of unknown new comers with unfamiliar backgrounds managed to take over the key committee positions and kicked out most of the old guards. In addition, the newly elected president, Ms Claire Nazar, quit after 11 days into her term and would not say why. Reports today indicated that all sub-committee leaders have been replaced. The entire saga was compounded by continued silence on the part of the newly elected committee regarding their motives behind their actions and their plans for the group.
As I mentioned, I would have had no interest in the hows, whys and wherefores of the entire saga, since I am unapologetically (probably politically incorrectly too) uninterested in the causes of AWARE. Despite advocating important women's issues, somehow there is no immediate and direct, and most importantly, negative impact of what they do and stand for, on me.
However, the papers pointed out several facts that made me take notice this time:
1) Several of the new committee members, including the successor of Ms Claire Nazar, Ms Josie Lau, happens to attend the same church.
2) Said church takes a strong stand against homosexuality.
3) Some of the new committee members and their supporters have written to the Straits Times previously against homosexuality and homosexual behaviour.
4) Several of the new committee members hold strong beliefs about gender roles in the family which are rooted in particular religious beliefs.
This has led to much speculation that the new committee intends to lead the all-inclusive, anti-discrimination group towards a more conservative, right wing path, which is more in line with their own religious beliefs.
And this is where I become uncomfortable. It is not that I am a flaming liberal, or pro-homosexual, or anti-family etc etc. The thing is, I don't like extremist viewpoints, whether conservative or liberal, because the world doesn't exist in black and white. Also, having had a typical Singaporean education, I am trained to look at both sides of the coin (remember those GP essays where we had to act as devil's advocate?). I am pro-choice, and my choice can either lean towards the conservative or the liberal, it doesn't matter. I believe that only I can decide how best to live my life, of course, on the premise that the way I do it takes nothing from the society and the people around me.
If viewpoints remain viewpoints, so be it, we can all agree to disagree, and each be better off for the discussion and exposure. It is only when people who hold such extreme viewpoints tries to impose it on others who do not think and feel the same way, through actions such as what is being implied as happening in AWARE, that I am vehemently against it.
While only an advocacy group, AWARE is reasonably established and possess sufficient lobbying clout to affect policy making in the upper echelons to a certain extent. As a modern, single career woman in Singapore (and likely to remain that way, it seems), I am not sure if I want a group of pro-life, pro-family women affecting decisions that will have major impact on the available choices that I will have to live what I deem a quality life. Homosexual issues aside, the papers have hinted at anti-abortion issues, gender equality issues etc. Doesn't sound very promising.
Of course, this is all speculation at this point, and probably will be for some time, until someone from the new committee deigns to come forth with some concrete facts and intentions. More importantly, only time and real actions on the part of the new committee will show whether we have anything to fear. Since I wish to continue my apathetic, politically incorrect existence, I can only hope that all this is but a storm in the teacup.
Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You seem to position yourself to be on the fence. Firstly, I want to say that there is nothing wrong with being anti-homosexual (the act but not the person), anti-abortion, pro-life, etc. If Christians belive that these are acts of sin, the society should accept Christians for their beliefs. This is the same as asking the society to accept gays/lesbians for who they are.
Nevertheless, the label given to Christians as conservative is wrong and I strongly feel insulted by this. This clearly position Christians as conservatives and those who are pro-homosexuals are liberals or progressives. Who has a right to make such labels that put Christians in an unfavourable position in the eyes of the society? OF course, most people want to be liberals because they are viewed as progressive and as such, cool. And Christians are viewed as the opposite.
Christians are neither conservative or liberals because these labels are not used correctly. And the society must not be influence to pigeon hole Christians in the "unfavourable" category. This is injustice. In fact, the early Christians are extremely progressive with the science and practices which they introduced. Just because they refuse to accept certain views, they are then labeled as conservative. This is the greatest deception that they world is being led into!
Hi Anon,
A few points to address your comments:
My post has nothing to do with whether anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, pro-life viewpoints are correct or wrong. In fact, I don't think there is any definitive answer for that. That is a different argument altogether and not what I am objecting to in my post. Like I mention in my post, if viewpoints remain viewpoints, we can all agree to disagree. I have not said that I do not accept Christians for their beliefs. I do believe they have a right to believe in what they want, even though I may not agree or like it.
But like I mentioned in my post, I do not like having these beliefs imposed on me through certain actions, and definitely not if my life choices will be affected due to the beliefs of certain people. This is what I am objecting to in the case of the AWARE situation.
I concede your point on the use of the "conservative" label, but there was really no insult intended in that. I will admit to holding some other beliefs myself that may be labelled "conservative" by the general society as well.
Regarding the whole AWARE issue, I have not made up my mind yet, because the new committee has not shown their hands and it is too early to tell. My post was just to articulate my worries on the direction the group will be taking, but I have also mentioned that I will reserve judgement until something definite happens.
I apologise if I have given the impression that I was trying to attack or put Christians in an unfavourable position in my post. That was certainly not my intention.
Post a Comment