By Andy Ho, Senior Writer
THE crux of the reports about the ongoing Aware saga seems to be that its new leaders attend church - by virtue of which they must therefore be dead set against gay rights.
Though these alleged facts have not yet been proven, they have led some to deem it unacceptable that the new group has won control of Aware. It was by a 'dawn raid' at Aware's AGM that the new guard seized control, having brought along a substantial number of new members to vote for them.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Let's stay civil, minus the nannies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Although that membership was legitimately secured, the new leaders have not been forthcoming about what they want to do with Aware. This lack of transparency is disturbing but surely not 'dangerous', as some have farcically said, suggesting the authorities 'might need to step in and knock heads together'. Such a proposal utterly ignores civil society's raison d'etre: to buffer the individual from the state - and also, one might add, from markets.
As long as Aware's activities remain licit, this government is not going to interfere. Markets may be less wise, though. DBS Bank has publicly castigated Ms Josie Lau, claiming that her appointment as Aware president would interfere with her job as a vice-president of the bank. Somehow, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, a managing director at DBS, can find time to serve as an MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC.
Historically, it was Aristotle who first identified a public domain where citizens with different ideas could come together to forge a working notion of the good life. Aristotle's vision, however, had to wait until the late mediaeval period to flower in Europe.
Beside traditional clan and religious associations, people began associating with others based on their interests. Guilds of artisans, trade associations and so on were formed. Together, they comprised what was termed civil society. Civil society came to be seen as a space open to a plurality of views.
It was John Locke who first recognised that civil society could protect the individual from an overweening state. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, the English philosopher argued that it was conscience that dictated which deity one chose to believe and with whom one chose to worship that deity. By extension, one should be free to choose whom to associate with to carry out activities to promote whatever other interests one might have.
People enter the marketplace of ideas as free individuals and relate to others as equals. As people with divergent opinions become acquainted with one another, they will engage with one another and, together, forge better formulations of their opinions. Such opinions can gain a measure of authority. For example, it is Aware that makes regular country reports on Singapore to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Informal ties within such small collectivities can help people build different facets of their identities. People can link themselves to a larger meaning - like feminism, say - and yet not be overwhelmed by it. Human solidarity and social cohesion are realised more readily within small civic groups than at the nation-state level or the dog-eat-dog corporate level. The free associations of civil society help to stabilise society.
They also provide a sphere of self-governance where members can exercise independent thought and propound minority perspectives. They give people a measure of real power to shape their environment and thus enable social change - apart from the state and market. Thus it was the churches that led the fight to end communism in eastern Europe in the second half of the 20th century - and the slave trade earlier in the 19th century.
The institutions of civil society come in myriad forms to serve artistic, artisanal, philanthropic or philosophical interests but also faith-based ones. It is this institutional variety that makes civil society robust. Today, there are diverse and contending conceptions of civil society, so its debates tend to be more rancorous. But this is no reason to exclude faith-based groups from civil society.
In fact, in a democratic society, there cannot be any tests for entry into public debate. Religionists contribute to public life through interlocution with others to construct cultural self-understanding. Excluding them only impoverishes our public life. Any disagreement with religionists ought to be part of the public debate, not excluded from it.
No religionists have sought to deny gays a voice here; they are free to join Aware, say, and run for office. If they win, they can take it in the direction of their choice. But they need to step up to the plate, debate and convince others, not demonise or calumniate them.
Better yet, those unhappy with the way things have transpired in Aware, should, if they win, exemplify the transparency that Aware's new guard has blatantly refused to offer with any urgency.
What is important is to participate in those associations whose vision we agree with or which we think we can improve. The key is to discourse and deliberate in a civil manner. But let us do so as adults - without nannies, whether in the form of the state or corporations.
andyho@sph.com.sg
Post a Comment