An issue of tolerance or inclusiveness?

I was out the whole day and have just rushed through the news. And Aware is still hogging the limelight as if nothing else matters anymore. And I must say that this saga is getting more interesting with more exciting angles coming into focus. We are now seeing the apathetic and disinterested Singaporeans coming forward to say, hey look, this is not the Singapore that we want and we want to change that. We do not want to see the social mores of this island going down into the gutters. Is this good or bad? One angle is that we do not want any particular interest group, be it racial or religious, to come out and impose its values on the general population. Are the activists in the new Exco of Aware pushing such an agenda or moving into such a direction? For the time being they are not. The govt is beginnng to show its concern with this development. So far it is only commenting on tolerance and be respectful of other people's views and choices. Nothing alarming yet and it does not see Aware presenting itself as a moral authority to replace the govt. As long as the contentious issues are kept within the association, the govt may just want to leave it alone to tackle its own problems. But should the govt detect anything more serious in nature than some individuals wanting to exert their influences in a social club, it may be forced to take a stand. We are seeing membership shooting to a level never seen before. Alarm signals will be raised the moment the govt sees its role in maintaining religious harmony and an authority on social behaviour being compromised. Andthe uneasiness will come forth once the membership each party could muster reaches a dangerous level. For the time being it is just a show and nothing serious. And the govt will be seriously in trouble should it see any interest group trying to usurp the govt's role in establishing certain decent social behavious. When a group like Aware starts to take on a bigger role, we can expect fireworks.


Jaunty Jabber said...

Will anyone agree to let a trainer from AWARE for sex education to go to the schools & libraries to give talks to the young, telling them that being faithful in a relationship is a fallacy? As the trainer emphasized that being faithful do not protect one from getting HIV/STD, however using a simple protection (condoms) is more reliable than being faithful?

How would the teenagers react if they found out that their sex education trainer depends on the use condoms to prevent HIV & STD RATHER THAN to protect oneself based on basic human moral & ethic? Will parents respect AWARE if this is the case?

It is a let down that the old AWARE contain such a member.

DL said...

只要一颗老鼠屎,就能坏掉整锅汤. > A single bit of mouse's dung shall spoil the whole pot of good soup.

It need only 1 single member's unethical behaviour to destroy the whole organization's credibility. Old team has not done well to regulate its members who has responsibilities to influence the young.

Old team allowed member with loose woman's behaviour to conduct sex ed to the young, or they have been too complacent for not filtering their trainers/members carefully.

redbean said...

hi DL, welcome to the blog.

what are the important issues in this catfight? is it the way the exco was taken over by new members? or is it about moral values?

many innocent and naive people are being dragged into the fight because someone who is their friend asked them to. would these members educate themselves on the issues at stake or because they are friends of so and so?

i have also heard that politicians are happy that as long as the members deal with the issues constitutionally, peacefully, it is acceptable.

what about the moral issues? read in the media that the schools have already allowed this new trend of thought, a new liberalism, to be used to educate the children.

what's happening?

Anonymous said...

It is quite unbelievable that such an insignificant NGO can aroused the interests of so many men(gender).

Interest in the opposite sex is natural, it is interest in the same sex that is causing the furore.

And the GREATEST CAUSE of the problems(in Aware) is Singaporeans are incapable of managing their own personal life. Incapable(unable to survive) of independence just like the land they(Singaporeans) live in.


Jaunty Jabber said...

In the modern society, I do agree that there are things and behavior that were archaic and did no good to the human kind, thus shall be discarded. However, this shall nto include basic human morals and ethics.

If a member from the old AWARE assume that liberty is to challenge the human moral & ethics, then to me she is the 老鼠屎 of the whole team.

redbean said...

hi Bystander, welcome to the blog.

to know that it was an association of less than 200 members, i think including associate members who are male, and it was taken so seriously that an NMP will have to come from Aware speaks very highly of the association or the people who perceived it as such.

now that the members are being inflated to 1000 or more, maybe they should deserve two NMP seats in parliament.

if someone would to set up a male body, say MAS, Male Association of Sin, and has 200 or 300 members, and claim to represent the interests of Sin males, would they deserve a seat in parliament in the form of an NMP?

Plinth said...

The issue is not just on tolerances or inclusiveness.

The old committee did not re-write the Constitution and now only realise their own folly for sitting pretty complacent.

The new committee read the signals and took over Constitionally. There were no wrong done here. Everything is OK insofar.

Then the drum-roll over being displaced and allegations that these new guard are religious-slant.

I am sure there were feather ruffled before this saga took place. The old committee have themselves to blame. While bathed in limelight, they had not understood the ground swells over their liberal views.

With years horned in their experience skills and knowledge, the old committee can easily re-start and re-couped. They only lost a name-sake and their fire is not extinguished.

My guess is more woman will support the new committee. We need to give the new committee time. I am sure they meant well.

Move ON... old committee. Re-start the fire.

redbean said...

hi Plinth, welcome to the blog.

the old committee must be kicking themselves silly for not fixing the constitution and rules to enshrined their position in Aware. it can be easily done.

yes, now that the new committee has taken over, constitutionally, they should accept the fact and move on. they are not going to behave like the yellow shirts and undemocratically try to remove the new committe. for them to be able to do so, they need a very powerful kingmaker as their backer.

if they are worth their salt and did not like to be voted out, yes, just start another association and bring their supporters along.

then we can have two competing groups and more NMPs in parliament representing the women.

Jaunty Jabber said...

On surface and officially, the trainer cannot deliver AWARE curriculum that contain anything too bold or having elements that speaks against human values/moral and the legal system, when they deliver their talks to schools or any other public held seminars.

At the end of the talks/seminars, the trainer could leave behind some personal e-mail address, msn-address, facebook account, blog address, websites or other kind of links to the audience/trainees (mainly students), or when some friendly audience may care to obtain contact details from trainer for future references. In this case, trainer and trainees gets alternate channels to remain in contact and/or, obtain alternate modes for sharing of beliefs on personal basis.

In those personal platforms, trainer with special ideas/agenda shares their point of views. Trainees who click on to their blogs or any other links shall be exposed to their trainer’s special beliefs.

This is going to be very influencing as trainees look upon the trainer as their mentor or role model.

Again, herewith I emphasize: we are not saying that anyone with special beliefs are wrong or unethical, we are just stating that there are channels that are beyond the official context and boundaries that people could share among themselves.

We are not saying that the old AWARE have hidden curriculum or special intent, but we are concerned of any person who may make use of AWARE to reach out to spread their beliefs, and if the beliefs are those which were not endorsed by the legal system or are challenging basic human morals, then it is dangerous.

With such concern, it is important that AWARE or any other social organization regulate their members' code of behaviors up to the levels of the personal lives.