Political parallels of the AWARE saga

Monday, 04 May 2009

Singapore Democrats

Whatever is said about the recent saga of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), it cannot be denied that the episode concluded in an open and democratic, if not entirely amicable, manner.

It was an intriguing event in a country where citizens have been conditioned to shun politics. The fight between the "old" and "new" guards broke new ground as the teams vied for control of the organisation, energising members of society in the process.

This, in essence, is what politics is all about.

The participants congregated at the Extraordinary General Meeting at the Suntec City last Saturday to contend with a motion of no-confidence against the new executive committee led by Ms Josie Lau.

Members turned up in the thousands, the majority of whom joined the organisation only days before the EOGM specifically to vote at the meeting.

In a heated conference where passions ran high – participants jeered and drowned out the speakers from the new executive committee on several occasions – supporters of the old guard were out in force to vent their anger at Ms Lau and her team.

After the rhetoric (that went back and forth for several hours) ceased, those who showed up did what they came to do: Vote. The new leadership was defeated by a margin of 2 to 1. The joy of the veterans was manifest. Reports indicated that Ms Lau's team members comported themselves with grace and dignity.

The episode was democratically resolved. In the main, supporters of both sides had the chance to put forward their views (the old guard members and their supporters were evidently the more strident ones) and the voters were given the final say.

Despite the acrimony, the event took place in the spirit of an open political contest. In this sense, Aware is the stronger and richer for it.

The trick now is for the organisation, under the leadership of its president Ms Dana Lam, not to clean house and silence those who were defeated. This is not what democracy is about.

Instead a bigger tent must be erected to accommodate the diverse views. Winston Churchill once said: “In defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity.” Sure there will be contention in such a set-up, but it is only in despotic societies that dissent is obliterated, is it not? A leadership capable of winning a vote must also be capable of handling opposing views.

Women show leadership. PAP?

What happened on Saturday is what democracy is about. It is also what is tragically lacking in Singapore.

Our national politics is as far from the passion demonstrated at Aware's EOGM as Earth is from Pluto. Of course there were boos and jeers during the meeting, but that's what passion is all about – it comes with what one strongly believes in. But even when they were angry, the hecklers seemed to have a sense of composure about them.

If Singaporeans cannot feel strongly about Singapore and be passionate about what we want for our country, what do we have?

Unfortunately, any minute demonstration of political emotion by citizens is denounced as blasphemy and unerringly stamped out by the PAP Government.

Now imagine if the new executive committee, after taking over the reins of Aware, had quickly amended the organisation's constitution, ordered the arrest of Constance Singam et al, threatened to fix all those who did not support it, and at the meeting forcibly shut dissenters up, the EOGM would have proceeded quietly and uneventfully, and the outcome of the vote would have been forgone.

Would this have been good for the organisation and its leaders, both veterans and novices?

As it was, Ms Josie Lau and colleagues respected the rules, convened the meeting and accepted the majority decision.

The thousands who turned up at Suntec City last Saturday demonstrably nailed the lie that the ruling party so eagerly mongers: That politics, if left unattended by the heavy hand of autocracy, degenerates into anarchy. Singaporeans are an educated lot, and they know that civility and passion can mix, often to good effect.

Which leads us to another important subject: Now that the old guard has resumed control of the organisation, it is hoped that Aware will look beyond what is immediately in front of it. As much as it has benefited from the practice of democracy, it must now also work towards democracy for the country.

Civil society, by its very definition, cannot operate effectively in the absence of free speech and freedom to assemble. If supporters of the veterans could not gather and speak as they did last Saturday, the old Aware would have been consigned to history.

As an NGO, Aware's obligations must also be to society-at-large and to the nation, not just women -- not when democracy is in a strait-jacket.

While Aware has come alive with its new members taking a keen interest in the organisation, Singapore and Singaporeans continue to languish under a system designed to extract every ounce of economic effort but stamp out every bit of political passion and zeal.

As a cold and soulless people would surely not have been good for Aware, it cannot also be good for our nation.

Share this article:

Comments (14)

Tue 05 May 2009 4:25 PM | AnnA - Additional Comment

This historical event in our modern society simply [b][u]proves MM LKY's paranoia WRONG[/u][/b] at one point.

[b]PROTEST DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE WILL BE VIOLENCE!!!!![/b]

Now anyone can just point it as an example at AWARE's meeting.

:)

Tue 05 May 2009 4:53 PM | Tan Tai Wei

Except that the artificial injecting of new members, both by the "new" and "old" "guards", in order to vote in the new, and to reinstate the old, smacks too much like the PAP's bringing in droves of new Singapore "citizens", who will no doubt vote the PAP, either because they feel beholden, or they know not enough to vote any party else.

Wed 06 May 2009 6:16 PM | Robox

[color=black]No, SDP, I didn't abandon ship. I was too involved in my own advocacy in the AWARE controversy.

I'm delighted that your party is commenting on a matter of the public interest as any political party should.

[color=black]Re: [color=black][color=black][color=red]"Of course there were boos and jeers during the meeting, but that's what passion is all about – it comes with what one strongly believes in. But even when they were angry, the hecklers seemed to have a sense of composure about them."[/color][/color]

[color=red][color=black]In my opinion, even the boos, cheers, anger, and heckles constitute important political information; it communicated the widespread displeasure and disappproval for the defeated exco.

I hope the easily alarmist and reactionary PAP doesn't use this as 'proof' that ALL of democracy is as noisy as this and therefore must be done away with because it is 'unproductive'; this tends to happen in only in those issues that are very controversial.[/color][/color]
Re: [color=red]"As it was, Ms Josie Lau and colleagues respected the rules, convened the meeting and accepted the majority decision."[/color]

[/color]
Yes, if there is something that the now-old exco has finally earned it is my respect.

They were indeed gracious in their exit and very dignified as well - my hats off to them.

They could definitely show the PAP a thing or two about dignified political conduct.

Re: [color=red]"As much as it has benefited from the practice of democracy, it must now also work towards democracy for the country."[/color]

I hope that the SDP, as the party of the future, may be in a position to work with in alliance with AWARE, and CEDAW in particular which has the goal of filling 30-35% of Parliament with women MPs - we have seen now what Singaporean women can really do.

In a recent blog in this website, you featured a picture of the women of SDP - I was very pleasantly surprised by the number of them.[/color]

Tue 05 May 2009 6:06 PM | | ngejay - Solidly well-written article

This is truly a well-written article that captures a broad-angle view of the AWARE saga from a political perspective.

Truly, the victory on May 2 could have been possible only because activists have campaigned -- and won -- greater democracy for our nation over these years.

In the midst of our joy, we should remember that without democracy, what happened on May 2 would have been impossible.

Thanks SDP for raising this perspective.

E-Jay

Tue 05 May 2009 7:56 PM | | seebeng - Aware saga good for PAP

From the Aware saga is it not clear that anything that doesn’t call for changing or reforming the authoritarian PAP is allowed to thrive without hindrance?

At the end of the day, whether it’s Ms Josie or Ms Dana, the PAP regime continues to remain secured.

The Aware activism in no way is affecting the political stranglehold of the PAP. In fact such overt display of passion by our women is good for the tyrannical regime to show to those within and outside Singapore that people in the country are free to express their views and that the mainstream media is free and fair in giving coverage to all sides involved, including religious groups.

But if the issues are one of questioning the astronomical salaries of our ministers, the huge losses suffered by GIC and Temasek under Ho Ching, we can be sure as the sun rises that the heavy hand of the dictatorial regime would have been seen. There will also be complete blackout in the so-called free and fair mainstream media.

Let’s not be disillusioned that the Aware episode is the beginning or indication of citizen activism in Singapore. The saga is widely reported in the controlled media because not an iota of PAP’s position is affected by it, let alone threatened. The autocratic regime is a mere spectator on the sideline and its iron grip on power continues - aware or no aware.

Wed 06 May 2009 6:56 AM | | ngejay - fantastic comment, Seebeng

Seebeng (comment number 5), that was so well put.

can I quote you on my blog?

E-Jay

Wed 06 May 2009 7:20 AM | Robox - To seebeng

Re: "From the Aware saga is it not clear that anything that doesn’t call for changing or reforming the authoritarian PAP is allowed to thrive without hindrance?"

I actually agree with the statement.

Political parties threaten the jobs, along with the million dollar salaries, of the PAP; AWARE doesn't.

This reinforces the already widely held view that the PAP is only a self-interested outfit.

Wed 06 May 2009 7:29 AM | Robox

I had written earlier that "[The Josie Lau exco] were indeed gracious in their exit and very dignified as well - my hats off to them."

I also described the PAP as most unlike this group.

The PAP is most undignified even when they are victorious - witness the defamation suits etc.

I wonder what they would be like in defeat?

I suppose we have an indication of this if we remember exactly what Lee Kuan Yew meant when he gave tacit approval to violence by the military as a way to reverse election results that are unfavourable to his party.

Wed 06 May 2009 9:20 AM | | seebeng - To ngejay

Yes, you can.

Wed 06 May 2009 6:16 PM | Robox

Writing in the Straightjacket Times, Janadas Devan has resorted to capitalizing on the AWARE episode to justify the GRC. Like all MSM journalists and editors, he’s just prostituting himself to the government in return for the monthly bribery that they call a salary.

The frequest citing of the late JB Jeyaratnam's electoral success to debunk the PAP government's arguments is disingenuous; JB Jeyaratnam’s success is more due to the fact of his brand name - he’s unrepresentative of all other Indians, Malays, and Eurasians.

In the first place, the GRC system breaches Article 12 (the legal equality clause) of the Constitution and is therefore UNLAWFUL. I won’t go into much detail about this here, but in a nutshell:

1. its implementation exploited the inequalities that existed between the PAP and all other political parties; and,

2. it continues to perpetuate those inequalities.

In other words, the GRC system discriminates against all non-PAP political parties.

However, as an Indian, I am also concerned about the representation of Indians, Malays, and Eurasians in Parliament. But the goal of the representation of these races can be achieved WITHOUT the GRC system.

There are other ways that the goal of minority representation can be achieved.

India reserves 30% of all seats in GEs for women; only women candidates can contest in those designated seats. (Of course, if you are a Ghandi woman who can take on any man, you don’t need to contest in any of those seats; the figure 30% is only a minimum.)

More recently in the province of Bristish Columbia, Canada, 10% of all seats were reserved for gays/lesbians and the disabled.

Minority representation can be achieved WITHOUT the monster that is the GRC system.

But as I said, the GRC system is illegal anyway.

Thu 14 May 2009 5:18 PM | BJP-Selamat - PAP not mere spectator

Hi Seebeng
Not mere spectator. They make sure no real talent emerges from the opposition ranks. And of course create lots of sham things like the approved opposition, speakers' corner, boat rockers/agent provocateurs in the opposition ranks etc etc...even as they love opposition members and their friends exposing themselves on sham soap boxes.

Thu 14 May 2009 5:54 PM | zah - Political parallels in Opposition

Hi Ng E-Jay,AnnA,Seebeng,Tai Wei,Selamat and friends

PAP does have some form of grooming new leaders. What does the oppostion have? Any new innovative fresh blood? Age doesn't matter, creative leaders are needed. Any? Why has E-Jay not written on such an important topic on his blog. Do we spend time only on anti PAP sniping and complaints? Is new blood not important?