Civil society is the check

AWARE SAGA

Observers welcome DPM Wong’s comments, Govt’s restraint in the matter

Alicia Wong, alicia@mediacorp.com.sg

BEYOND being a case that reaffirmed the OB markers between politics and faith, what impressed some watchers was how civil society had jumped into action, when it seemed that religion was involved in the takeover of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).

And equally admirable was that the State held back from intervening for as long as it did. To protest the election of the New Guard to the executive committee, “civil society acted and threw them out”, said political scientist Bilveer Singh.

He was commenting on Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng’s remarks on the need to keep religion and politics separate — which observers found reassuring — and how the Government had been careful in its comments before the decisive May 2 EGM.

Other than proving the maturing of Singapore’s society, said Dr Singh, these events showed that “the State is beginning to have faith in civil society, something which they have been suspicious of all this while”. “And it shows our (citizens’) own OB markers — that religion is out-of-bounds,” he added.

Another academic was “glad the Government held back”. “If they had charged in ... it would have done neither the Old or New Guard any good and reduced the space for civil society,” added the don, who did not want to be named.

Did the previous Aware Exco, in the first place, cross the line by bringing religion into the fray?

Former Exco member Jenica Chua is adamant that they did not. She maintains that none of them had spoken on religion at the March 28 AGM, media reports of which had sparked off the whole controversy.

“The question that bears answering is, who put in the religious slant?” said Ms Chua, who spoke to Today in her personal capacity.

She felt Mr Wong “hit the nail on the head” when he said the media coverage was insufficiently balanced. The reports, she said, “polarised” the election as “that of a secular versus religious tussle”.

She also defended Church of our Sa viourpastor Derek Hong, who had rallied support for those in the Exco team who were part of his congregation; he later apologised for using the pulpit in this saga.

Ms Chua clarified that he had asked for support for them through this stressful time, when they were worried about death threats and job security. “He did not say, ‘go and join as members of Aware and vote for us’,” said Ms Chua.

Mr Wong warned against religious groups using the pulpit to mobilise followers to pressure the Government, as this would lead to trouble.

Netizens at Reach’s forum applauded Mr Wong’s views overall, and especially felt the media should have been more factual.

Dr Singh agreed the coverage was excessively negative against the New Guard, but judging by “coffeeshop talk”, it only reflected the majority view out there which was unsettled by the intrusion of religion into a secular organisation.

While religious undertones did “come across in the media”, said sociology professor Tan Ern Ser, “the key issue could easily be conveyed as one involving differences in values, even secular values”.

What he would take away from the Aware saga: When two value standpoints are diametrically different, compromise can be a “tall order” and robust debates may not always win an argument — “it may end up being decided by strength in numbers, volume and eloquence”.

From TODAY-Weekend, News – 16/17-May-2009