PN Balji / Picture by Damien Chng

In a different time and under a different political leadership, the acrimonious public tussle for the leadership of Aware would have seen the knocking of some heads and the twisting of some arms.

Thank God that did not happen, though the ingredients for such a direct government intervention were all there: A well-planned plot to grab power at the 25-year-old women’s organisation, the new guard’s reluctance to engage the public fully about their intentions, the positioning of the debate as an issue between the pro- and anti-gay lobbies and finally the unfortunate use of the pulpit to influence last weekend’s fight-back for power by the old guard.

The government’s instincts must have been to step in, what with some media reports suggesting that such an intervention might be necessary.

Instead, we saw what I would call strategic intervention by government leaders, from DPM Teo Chee Hean downwards, drawing some kind of out-of-bound markers. Don’t push your views too hard, don’t forget we are a secular society and go for a “rainbow coalition” approach to settle issues.

Underpinning these statements — which the media took some pains to show were made at the sidelines of functions the ministers were attending or (at least in one case) in an email interview — was a clear signal to the warring parties not to get too worked up and unwittingly end up dividing Singapore.

Still, things could have gone all wrong — if these events had not taken place:

One, the coming out into the open of the new guard’s inspiration and motivator, Thio Su Mien. The timing is important here. Coming just nine days before the extraordinary general meeting that was called to seek a vote of no-confidence in her team and just one day before three ministers spoke on the issue, Ms Thio’s appearance at a quickly-arranged press conference addressed two missing links in the story: Who was really behind the move to capture power and what was the insurgents’ real agenda.

Miss Thio said clearly and forcefully that Aware had lost sight of its mission by focusing on lesbianism and homosexuality. She zeroed in on Aware’s sexuality programme in 30 schools and asked somewhat dramatically, like a lawyer would have done in arguing her case: Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?

The press conference must have eased the anxiety of a government that has made its stand clear on why those who want to provide leadership and mentorship for civil society groups must do so openly and declare their intentions explicitly. 

The Thio story is not over, though. With the Ministry of Education saying it will want to get more information from her on the feedback she claimed to have received from parents on Aware’s talks in schools, a fringe debate is on the cards.  

Two, the National Council of Churches of Singapore’s statement that churches should not get dragged into the affairs of other organisations, followed quickly by a “I stand corrected” apology by Pastor Derek Hong.

Pastor’s Hong’s use of the pulpit to campaign for the insurgents would have provided a good reason for direct government intervention. Instead, the council stepped in, rightly so, and gave the priest no wriggle room but to tell Singaporeans categorically that it was a grave mistake to politicise the pulpit.

Finally, the savvy move by the police to get the Singapore Expo not to say yes to the holding of the weekend meeting at its Changi venue. This was the closest the government came to intervention.

With a large Christian conference taking place at the same place and time, the police move avoided what could have turned out to be a very ugly affair sparking a government crackdown.

That would have set civil society and the country back many years. Thank God it didn’t turn out that way.         
—–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

AGC’s complaint on Lee Suet Fern is very disconcerting and should be itself be investigated: Lim Tean

Former National Solidarity Party (NSP) chief and the founder of People’s Voice…

尚穆根称《防假消息法》不阻碍言论自由

《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》于昨日国会进行二读时,内政兼律政部长尚穆根重申,当事人可以对政府所做的相关指示向法院提出上诉,启动上诉程序后,最快九个工作日,法庭就可以展开审讯。 据法案内容指出,只有影响了国家公共利益,政府才会采取行动。他也强调虽然部长是有更正与撤下不实信息的权利,但部长也必须对此提出理由。 而当事人若对政府的指示有所异议,可申请向部长提出撤销指示,而部长需在两日内日决定是否该撤销。若部长最终决定不撤销,上诉人也可向法庭提出上诉,由法官决定是否接受上诉。整个过程将尽速进行且前三日的上诉审讯无须支付。 部长尚穆根解释全球都在面临民主体系与公共机构被削弱的问题,其中以传统媒体与新媒体是部分原因之一,尤其是新媒体的功能更容易迅速散播及扩大假消息,为其带来严重后果。 例如在印度,人们因为错信在Whatsapp上传播的有关孩子被拐卖的假消息,引发私刑冲突,导致33人死亡,或是包括法国巴黎圣母院失火的视频,就被利用来推动反回教情绪法国 他认为一些有政治动机的机构,利用新媒体的便利误导民众,散播谣言以至于影响公共利益。 他表示,假消息无疑是制造民众与政府之间的不信任感。“假信息会破坏公众的信心,它被用来分化、极端化和撕裂社会凝聚力。民主对话、相互包容和寻求妥协将变得非常困难。”他持续说道。 他解释“言论自由不受这个法案的影响,我们这里谈论的是假信息,机器人写作程序、网络喷子、假帐号等,英国上诉法院的判决就提出,散播假信息不应获得基本人权保护民主社会的顺利运作,取决于社会民众是否能获得真实的消息而不是受到误导。” 部长逐一回应近期对法案提出的评论,包括法案对事实、个人看法、公共利益的定义,以及可能造成寒蝉效应,阻碍言论自由等。

DBSS – ‘Overpaid’ by 550 million dollars?

by: Leong Sze Hian/ with contributions from: Ravi Philemon/ The Ministry of…