Dominatio Per Malum

The hostile takeover at AWARE, and the resulting media drama that has unfolded provides some of the most exciting piece of entertainment around. Like the plot of a HK soap drama, it is filled with twists and turns, hidden agendas and shadowy masterminds. It also lays bare the tension between the secular and the religious space, and the role of civic society in Singapore.

I start with a basic proposition, which is that while the coup by AWARE’s new exco (”new guard”) is stealthy, underhand and dishonorable, it is nevertheless legitimate. It was done in accordance with the Constitution and the means with which this takeover has been carried out may be unethical, but it is not illegal. Now, some might argue that it was not a takeover, but a group of women who never knew each other but have serendipitously decided to join AWARE and coincidentally were encouraged by the same feminist mentor, and who attend the same church. But seriously, the weight of all the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.

While it may be a covert, hostile takeover, it is nevertheless something that is permitted. Part of the blame lies with the ease of joining AWARE and the ability to get voted in even if you have no experience whatsoever. The inclusiveness of the old AWARE was its greatest strength, but ironically also its fatal weakness. Nevertheless, despite my misgivings over the way they have taken over, they did get in on the strength of a democratic vote and that is something the old guard has to recognize. And that is the importance of democracy. Democracy works only when people exercise their right to vote. The complacent members allowed a new influx of members to radically change the agenda because they did not care enough to be at the first AGM. A democracy answers to the power of the individual vote, and the reality is that there will be times when the people vote in someone who is the very antithesis of the organization. There will be times when the people vote for those who are bigoted, fundamentalist or plain incompetent. The US voted in George Bush, Jr. Twice, i might add. So if you respect the idea of democracy, you also have to acknowledge that people can vote stupidly and elect really lousy leaders. As they say, Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty. But the true question is, do you believe in democracy? If you do then, then it is necessary to accept that the democratic process can vote in someone you vehemently disagree with. To then attempt to annul the results of the election would be to dismantle the foundations of democracy.

But what the old guard has chosen to do, is to call for an EGM. Presumably, a no-confidence vote will be tallied. That is also perfectly legitimate, and within the Constitution (i think, because i do not profess to be an expert in AWARE’s constitution). Even within the democratic process, there are ways to get rid of people you have voted in, and it acts as a sort of fail-safe in those instances when you really made a bad decision. Nixon resigned, but if he had not he would almost have been impeached over Watergate. Clinton was also nearly impeached but he managed to dodge the bullet. So yes, even within the democratic system there is a fail-safe that allows us the remedy our egregious mistakes.

AWARE’s EGM is thus the final showdown, the last stand as it were. So far, the old guards have done an admirable job of stating their positions and defending the ideals of diversity. Indeed, the coup seems to have galvanized the apathetic, the fence-sitters into action. And that is one good that has come out of it. It has revealed the undeniable presence of a concerted fundamentalist movement that wishes to maintain the discrimination against homosexuals and impose their conservative values upon society. They have every right to say what they believe, and to form their own church-affiliated organization to advance their cause, but to hijack another organization is dishonorable and speaks poorly of their integrity. In the days following their takeover, the new exco has been non-committal, evasive and have at times given contradicting stories. It was only recently that they revealed that Dr Thio Su Mien was the mastermind behind the takeover. Their acts, from firing long serving committee heads, AWARE staff, changing the locks and disparaging AWARE’s CSE programme simply because it treats homosexuality as a neutral term has only reduced my already low opinion of them.

At stake in AWARE’s EGM is the very values of society, whether we embrace true equality, diversity and inclusiveness, or we retreat into a dogmatic, religious-driven viewpoint. So yes, it is an issue of concern because it touches on the very social contract of our society. Thus far, the state has been able to establish a good divide between church and state, but with the AWARE saga that is being threatened. Vivian Balakrishnan calls for religion to be kept above the fray of politicking, but that is nigh impossible when religion is inextricably intertwined with the issues that are being ventilated.

While i definitely support the old guard, whom i feel has handled this crisis with grace, the end result of the EGM is still up in the air. Certainly the old guard has been rallying, especially online for support and i believe they have managed to galvanise supporters who have previously been apathetic. However, given their skill at orchestrating the first takeover, i think it would be foolish to underestimate the ability of the new exco to get new members and support. But whatever the result of the EGM, it represents a true example of democratic expression, a commodity that is increasingly endangered in Singapore. And if the old guard fails in their “impeachment” attempt, then perhaps it is time to let go. Still, a part of me hopes that reason, logic and fairness will prevail over fear mongering and intolerance.