Hi all,
I thought this post was up almost half a week ago. I reloaded my page after posting and everything was fine. But I've only just discovered that it's not up. So I'm trying again.
I think it's timely for an alternative voice on the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality to be heard. I have become remarkably disturbed by a very small minority of very vocal Christians presenting a highly distorted view of homosexuals in the press lately. In so doing, not only have these people been responsible for fanning the flames of hatred and fear against homosexuals, they have also done a tremendous disservice to many Christians for whom homosexuality is not an abomination or an issue.
So I present here today a letter to a Christian written by a lesbian woman who is "a follower of Christ who has chosen not to be a Christian". In this letter, she tells you why she has chosen this unusual position.
I'll let the letter speak for itself.
__________________________________
Preface -- The Context to this Letter
This letter was written almost 5 years ago in reply to “Jane”, a friend of my wife’s. Jane happens to be a Christian of a more fundamentalist persuasion. This lady and “Naomi”, my wife, have been friends for 30 years.
When Jane found out that Naomi and I got married, she wrote to my wife to tell her to leave me. She has since done this twice in the last 5 years despite acknowledging that I look after my wife very well; something that demonstrates a remarkable lack of respect for our relationship in my opinion.
Naomi and I cannot get legally married since we are lesbian but we consider our commitment to each other to be as binding if not more so than any marriage than can be legally sanctioned since what counts to us is our promise to love and uphold and honour each other. My wife and I have known each other now for 20 years. We have been happily married now for 8 years – through surgery and illness, through relocation to different countries, through being geographically separated for a time because of work, through rejection from sometimes close friends.
We have also had the great joy of many friends – both heterosexual and homosexual, religious and non-religious – who have sustained and loved us, and honoured our marriage. You have entrusted us with the things that have mattered to you – your homes, your families, your friends, your children, your lives. For all this, we thank you.
I have chosen to release this letter publically because recently, we've heard people stand up in public and say that lesbian and gay people are broken and incapable of healthy relationships. And that we are trying to "spread" homosexuality to young people, as if homosexuality were a disease. If these people had bothered to even do the most basic reseach (proper research, not the stuff from religiously-affiliated front organisations), they will know that sexual orientation is not something that can changed simply because someone tells you about alternatives. But more importantly, I think that our detractors owe us the responsibility of telling us what is wrong with our lives as they are -- and not as they are distorted by the lies that are being spread about homosexual relationships as a series of orgies and one-night stands, purely sexual, without love or commitment.... Because that is _not_ my life and it is _not_ the life of many gay and lesbian men and women I know who strive to live lives of quiet dignity and exemplary love for their partners.
I have modified sections of this letter – added a paragraph to it here and there. But it remains in the main almost identical to the original letter I wrote to Jane. My reasons for making these modifications is to better address some of the issues that have been raised in our current discourse about homosexuality and to make more explicit certain issues.
I have also removed references to real names in this letter and inserted generic names because I have no wish for any party to come to harm as a result of this letter. I am going to refer to myself as “Ruth” and my wife as “Naomi” in this letter. And we shall call her friend “Jane”. Given the current sensibilities and the amount of polarization we have seen in the broader society on this issue, I believe this is wise. Please excuse me for this.
I want to say that I have since spoken to "Jane" and while she does not agree to our lifestyle as she terms it, she acknowledges that it was wrong for her to have told my wife to leave me and she has acknowledged that she cannot dispute the fact that we do have a loving stable relationship. She has said to me that Naomi's relationship with me has presented her with an unprecedented confrontation with homosexuals, who now have a face and who have lives that she knows. She has said that it is been painful and jarring and confusing. We struggle now to meet each other in a fragile peace, across misunderstanding and fear, but we have not stopped trying. For this, Jane deserves respect. So I want it known that we have moved beyond the bonds and emotions of this letter. However, I know many others who have not. This letter is for them.
___________________________________________________________
A Letter to a Christian friend “Jane” by a lesbian
Jane, I find it really interesting that of all the questions you asked my wife about her life with me, you never once asked her questions such as the following:
Does Ruth love you well?
Does Ruth honour you and support your integrity and self-development?
Is Ruth the sort of person who would tell you the hard truths about yourself?
Is Ruth honest with herself?
Is Ruth an honourable person?
Are the both of you a good team?
To put it a little bit more pointedly, you never once asked Naomi whether I lived with her and loved her in the way Jesus commanded us to live and love each other. You never asked her whether our love for each other reflected 1st Corinthians which I think is the definitive statement of what it means to love.
That’s interesting because I thought that the greatest commandmant Jesus gave was that we love one another and that we love God. I would have thought that that would have been most central to the people who are his followers. And yet I find in the letters you have written to Naomi and in your conversations with her that you have automatically assumed that homosexuals are incapable of healthy relationships and of a deep and authentic love. I’m not talking about just any sort of love [romantic love is easy], but of the deep, abiding, difficult love that is what enduring relationships are made of. And I find that you seem to have the idea that homosexuals are incapable of this love because homosexuals are ‘unclean’ and somehow ‘broken’.
The funny thing is that Jesus never made these assumptions when he was alive. He had enough humility to see and understand that prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, Samaritans, and all manner of ‘unclean’ and ‘broken’ people were all equally capable of loving in this deep and spiritual way. And he also understood that these ‘unclean’, ‘broken’ people were at times more capable of loving in this way because they had less pretentions about who and what they were, unlike the Saduccess and Pharisees [and dare I say modern Christians] who knew they were ‘saved’ and that they were ‘clean’ in the eyes of God. Was it not Jesus who said quite plainly that not every one who called him ‘Lord, Lord’ was worthy and that it might in fact be those who are thought to be least worthy and who are excluded by the ‘religiously pure’ who are his genuine followers?
Let me be quite clear here that I am not trying to convince you to turn away from your faith. Why should I dissuade someone from following a teacher I respect and honour? What I am interested in doing is to have a serious discussion about what exactly following Christ means. And I would also like to discuss whether it is possible for a homosexual to do that.
As far as I am concerned, I don’t see why a person can’t be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time. Jesus made a seminal comment which is repeated in quite a number of gospels. On the Sabbath, when his followers were hungry, they plucked heads of grain from the fields. When this was challenged by the Rabbis [teachers of the law], Jesus said quite explicitly that ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.’[Mark 2:27] This passage is then followed chronologically in the gospels by an episode in which Jesus acted against the law and heals a man on the Sabbath demonstrating that it is no longer the law or tradition that binds us but a higher command of love for man. In so acting, Jesus established that any law or action that does not concur with a fundamental love and compassion for humanity is not a valid law. He establishes also that any law which violates that concern for humanity and responsibility for our fellows cannot claim divine inspiration.
Homosexuals have been lynched by Christians in the name of Christ. Many have been forced into suicide because they are told that God will never ever accept them. Many have turned away from God because Christians have rejected them as their daughters, sons, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and friends. I do not believe that this is divinely inspired. I do not see the face of Jesus in these actions or in this teaching. I do not believe that Christ will ever reject persons who share a lifetime of honest concern, care, protection and honouring of each other in monogamous committed relationships which many homosexuals do. I do not believe God will deny those who strive to live lives filled with a love that does not see biology as a limitation and who love despite oppression, misunderstanding and danger. I do not believe that Jesus will ever judge that biology and convention are more important than an honest and enduring love.
There are biblically two main sources of the prohibition against homosexuality – one from Leviticus and the other from Paul. With respect to both but particularly the one from Leviticus, it is clear that we are no longer bound by mitzvot (or laws) of the old testament for Jesus has said explicitly that he has liberated us from that. And besides if you really want to say that you are still bound by those laws, then if you eat pork and shell fish [Leviticus 11: 7 & 10, Deuteronomy 14: 8 & 10], cut the hair from the sides of your head [Leviticus 19:27] and wear clothes made of mixed fibre (e.g. 20% polyester, 80% cotton) or charge interest on a loan [Deuteronomy 23:19], you’re a sinner my friend. Also, since my homosexual spouse, “Naomi", is a widow, technically her late husband’s brother would have been obliged to marry her when her husband died. Nobody saw that take place – that polygamy is not legally sanctioned is not sufficient excuse for since when did human laws take precedence over those of God according to your church right? My wife was also technically obliged under the law of Deuteronomy to call her late husband’s brother up before the council of elders and in the last resort take off his sandal and spit in his face if he refused to marry her [Deuteronomy 25:5-10]. Slavery is acceptable [Leviticus 25:44-54], so is having concubines [Solomon had a thousand] and so is genocide as long as God tells you to do it [Deuteronomy 7: 1-2].
Christians who wish to insist on the validity of the prohibition against homosexuality on the basis of Leviticus or Deuteronomy or any of the books of the law need to explain why these other prohibitions can be disregarded at their convenience. What I am asking for is called a requirement of consistency in thinking. If we want to follow the bible, we can’t pick and chose the sections that we want at our convenience and ignore those that conflict with our everyday lives. Otherwise, other persons can say that we don’t really take our claim to follow the bible seriously, or that we are inconsistent, or that we are hypocrites.
We have moved beyond these parochial time-bound and culture-bound traditions. But more importantly, Jesus offered us a criterion by which we are to decide which traditions or laws/mitzvot are worthy of keeping and which aren’t [both for those in the old testament and those in the new]. And the criterion is this -- all those laws that are consistent with virtue, with goodness, with deep sense of love and compassion for humanity are those that we keep. Everything else is to be discarded. This point is again made later in the gospels when Jesus had a discussion with the priests about the nature of ritual cleanliness [Matthew Chapter 15]—which in effect is a discussion about what it means to sin. In that passage you will find that he accuses the priests of hypocrisy; of being more concerned to hold on to human traditions more than to divine commands, to the point where divine law is subverted to cater to human tradition.
‘Jesus said, ‘And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? … Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.’’ [Matthew 15: 3 & 6]
And again later, he states:
‘These people honour me with their lips
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ [Matthew 15: 8-9]
He states here that what really matters is what the Jews have called ‘kavanot’, which means the right direction of the heart. In modern terms, we call this ‘right intention’. What matters according to Jesus is not external forces [what we eat, with whom we eat with and whether we go through the process of washing our hands] for nothing from the outside pollutes us. It is the things that come from our heart [from within] which can pollute us. Spiritual pollution comes from preferring our comfortable prejudices to uncomfortable truths, from envy, from setting ourselves above others, from desiring that which is not ours, from hatred.
‘Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean’. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man unclean….’ [Matthew 15:17-20]
You are under no obligation to agree with my relationship with my wife. Disagreement is a reflection of the diversity of human individuals and of life experiences. And the ability to deal with disagreement is a reflection of personal maturity. However, your avowed acceptance of a Christian life puts you under obligations not to slander persons, not to bear false witness, to fearlessly pursue the truth and to abstain from hypocrisy. By refusing to actually bother to learn the truth about what homosexuals, the lives that they lead and the sorts of relationships they have, and repeating instead the inaccuracies and myths that are perpetuated about homosexuals and their lives, many Christians are guilty of precisely of the faults that Jesus did explicitly condemn.
You have hurt my wife and I deeply in attempting to break up our marriage. You have slandered my wife in suggesting that she has lost her morals simply because she has become involved in a lesbian relationship. She has more integrity and has lived her life with greater compassion, love and grace than many people I have met in my life. You have treated me like the bubonic plague, not even having the grace to invite me into your home or to even meet with us as a couple. You talk to my wife as if I am invisible, a non-person. Are you afraid I will infect you with my homosexuality? In case you didn’t know, that’s not possible. And I wouldn’t want to do that even if I could; I wouldn’t wish you a life of being rejected by your best friends, of being treated like a leper and of being discriminated against because you have chosen to love a good person who happens – just unfortunately happens – to be the same sex as you. I am fortunate in my life to have been strong enough to not let this faze me. I am fortunate in my life to have the conviction that love will triumph, and that my wife and I will continue to love each other well. I thank God for that strength.
No every homosexual man or woman has been as fortunate as I have been to have been comfortable with a life of unconventionality. For some of these homosexuals, the cost has been paid in lives that they have ended themselves because of the unbearable pain of your rejection and the rejection of others like you. If homosexuals are “broken”, they are “broken” because of the discrimination, rejection, vilification and hatred they experience when they own their most intimate identities as gay and lesbian people. And you need to ask yourself whether the falsehoods that certain religious institutions perpetuate against them in the name of “love” contributes to them being discriminated against and rejected like this. Gay and lesbian people are not “broken” because of their homosexuality. They are “broken” by you and others like you who chose to follow doctrine without thought, who chose to remain silent when you know that hatred is being preached in the guise of love, who value obedience to preaching more than responding with humanity, sincerity and fair-mindedness to another human being. They are “broken” because your “love” for them requires them to change for you, to reject a part of their essential selves for you.
I’m sorry. I don’t recognize this as love. And I don’t believe this is “Christian”.
This letter is a personal letter but it is also scholarly letter. I am not an expert of religion but I am however trained to read texts and to understand their construction and interpretation. The interest I have in biblical texts is no small one. Many new-style fundamentalist Christians, rather paradoxically, do not consider learning an advantage to faith: somehow they seem to think that a person needs to discard his mind and his intellect and become some sort of unthinking uncritical subservient doormat in order to become a Christian. They will say that this letter contains a lot of scholarship but that it is too scholarly, too rational to be godly. They will say that it is written from a deluded and clouded mind that seeks to justify its own homosexual fornication. However, there is one decisive question to be asked here and only one: How do we decide which individual’s mind is the one who is clouded? What makes the other person’s interpretation of the bible more valid than mine if we cannot appeal to scholarship, to discernment and to the pursuit of truth and wisdom that the Proverbs of Solomon tell us to acquire because it is of God [Proverbs chapter 2]?
Jesus interestingly answered this question for us: He said that a house cannot be divided against itself [Matthew 12:25-26] meaning that a system of teaching cannot contradict itself. If you read both the new testament and the old carefully enough, you will find that the commandment to love God reads ‘Love the Lord our God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ [Mark 12;30] Jesus was explicit over the fact that we may have to be prepared to lose everything to follow him; wealth, status, fame, family, even life. But despite him being so explicit about all these things, he never once said we have to lose our minds to follow him. That’s important. Deciding to believe in the teaching of leaders and in the conventions of men without reflection and discernment is not a spiritual virtue; Jesus [and Isaiah] had this to say about it.
You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
You will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
They hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts
And turn, and I would heal them. [Matthew 13:14]
It is a great misfortune that many reflective and thinking persons [both homosexual and heterosexual], having witnessed the unfounded prejudices of Christian organizations and individuals concerning homosexuals and others, have turned away from Christ. They do so because they think that Jesus’ message is a message of bigotry, of hatred and of insolent self-righteousness. For, many of these individuals do take seriously the message of Jesus that ‘a tree is recognized by its fruit.’ [Matthew 12:33]. Many of these people judge Christianity by the integrity of their disciples and unfortunately, they are not leaving with a very good impression. This is particularly true of new-style churches which emphasize emotion over discernment and doctrine over humanity; which sell Jesus like a commodity that secures wealth, perpetual health and here’s the best one – guaranteed salvation without having to work for it. This is a tragic state of affairs and it is regrettable that outsiders [and increasing numbers of insiders within the church] have this impression of Christ and of Christians. It ought never to have been this way. And it should trouble all conscientious followers of Christ that it is turning out increasingly this way.
I have said my peace. As I said, you are under no obligation to agree with our relationship but you should know exactly what it is you are opposing and attempting to destroy. You are under no obligation to believe anything that I have said. It is not my intention to persuade, merely to inform. I think it might be useful for you to see for yourself at least one version of a homosexual marriage and how homosexuals see themselves vis-à-vis some wide-spread fundamentalist Christian ideas. I will be happy to speak to you or to have a correspondence with you should you find that interesting or helpful. I leave that to your discretion.
And unfortunately [for you that is], you are going to have to give us slightly better reasons than the ones you have been giving my wife if you want her to walk away from our marriage. Because, you see, we have done what you suggested – we have tested our consciences. Our consciences tell us that if we were to write our lives in a book and not mention our gender, most people would say that we have a loving, honourable and precisely Christian marriage. We see no reason why our gender should change that judgment. Our consciences tell us that what is borne of a healthy and loving union cannot be wrong in the eyes of God although it may be unacceptable in the eyes of man. We are at peace with God who is very real to us and we strive every day to live up to his commandment to love each other and humanity, not more [although that is important] but better. Speaking for myself, my conscience tells me that I could never follow a God who thought and decreed otherwise.
Jane, you were one of my wife’s friends whom I enjoyed very much. You had a sense of personal decency, you were sincere, you cared and you were loyal to your friends. And I strongly would like to encourage you and Naomi to keep your friendship. It is unfortunate that my love with Naomi has been caused something of a hiccup in this friendship but I would hope that the eventual outcome is one in which the both of you take this as an opportunity to grow both in self-understanding and in understanding the things that are most valuable to you.
My wife will never lack a partner, a defender and a friend in life in our marriage. She will never lack in our home a desire for the good, for virtue, for peace. This I promise you. I suspect that this is probably not enough for you because there is this thing called salvation that you care about deeply. But then, what does salvation mean if not that we are saved from the blindnesses and weaknesses and faults within us all? I know of no salvation that does not include a place for a genuine love.
With love,
From a follower of Christ who has chosen not to be a Christian,
Ruth.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
I salute the wonderful women and men of Singapore for standing up for AWARE.
This week, I can finally say that I am proud to be Singaporean.
For years now, Singaporeans have struggled with the perception that we are a bunch of spineless, apathetic cowards who have nothing to contribute to civic society. The thousands of you who turned up at the AWARE EGM to voice your opinions -- both in favour of and also against the "Old Guard" of AWARE - proved our detractors wrong. You cared enough about civic society to turn up and to make your presence count. Thank you.
I am also deeply heartened by the overwhelming vindication of my belief that Singaporeans still retain a sense of decency and fair-play. I am heartened that we are prepared to stand up against those who employ corporate bullying tactics against a bunch of trusting women. I am heartened that we will speak out against those who try to steal and distort the achievements of quiet women who have worked tirelessly to improve the lives of many Singaporeans. I am moved that you will act to protect the neutrality and independence of counselling and social work services that exist to help those of us most in need. Your moral compass is switched on. And you were prepared to act on your consciences.
Thank you.
Don't ever let anyone tell you to:
"Shut up and sit down"
And please please let Dr Thio Su Mein know whenever you bump into her in Singapore that she is not and will never be our "feminist mentor".
I salute the wonderful women and men of Singapore from all walks of life who made a difference on Saturday. You are feminists and mentors to us all. This post is for you.
For years now, Singaporeans have struggled with the perception that we are a bunch of spineless, apathetic cowards who have nothing to contribute to civic society. The thousands of you who turned up at the AWARE EGM to voice your opinions -- both in favour of and also against the "Old Guard" of AWARE - proved our detractors wrong. You cared enough about civic society to turn up and to make your presence count. Thank you.
I am also deeply heartened by the overwhelming vindication of my belief that Singaporeans still retain a sense of decency and fair-play. I am heartened that we are prepared to stand up against those who employ corporate bullying tactics against a bunch of trusting women. I am heartened that we will speak out against those who try to steal and distort the achievements of quiet women who have worked tirelessly to improve the lives of many Singaporeans. I am moved that you will act to protect the neutrality and independence of counselling and social work services that exist to help those of us most in need. Your moral compass is switched on. And you were prepared to act on your consciences.
Thank you.
Don't ever let anyone tell you to:
"Shut up and sit down"
And please please let Dr Thio Su Mein know whenever you bump into her in Singapore that she is not and will never be our "feminist mentor".
I salute the wonderful women and men of Singapore from all walks of life who made a difference on Saturday. You are feminists and mentors to us all. This post is for you.
Friday, May 1, 2009
AWARE - Women, make up your minds
INTERVIEWS
This is an interview with Dana Lim; a former president of AWARE (one of the "old" guard).
I'll let her speak for herself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPF-cgJyOpI
This is an interview with Josie Lau; current president of AWARE (one of the "new" exco). This is the only interview she has granted since becoming president of AWARE to the best of my knowledge. I'd be happy to correct myself if I'm wrong. This interview is from Channel NewsAsia. I'm sorry I couldn't get an interview that was solely with Josie. The interview is in two parts.
I'll let her speak for herself too.
Please see here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSUrW-rxss&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjUgzMaN6cY&feature=channel_page
PRESS RELEASES
By the new Executive Committee of AWARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzZd8LnVvqk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q4kQwNdiDk&feature=related
By the old Executive Committee of AWARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJ4JmqSgnk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMwbSr4HOE&feature=channel_page
These snippets are the first parts of the press releases of both sides of AWARE.
You can see the other parts of the press releases here:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=theonlinecitizen&view=videos
I believe that the women and men of Singapore have the ability to make up their minds about who they would like to lead us into the 21st century.
You have a brain and a conscience -- Use it.
You have a body -- Act on what your brain tells you.
Because if you don't act, you are colluding through your silence and your failure to whatever happens next.
Wishing you all wisdom and fortitude.
This is an interview with Dana Lim; a former president of AWARE (one of the "old" guard).
I'll let her speak for herself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPF-cgJyOpI
This is an interview with Josie Lau; current president of AWARE (one of the "new" exco). This is the only interview she has granted since becoming president of AWARE to the best of my knowledge. I'd be happy to correct myself if I'm wrong. This interview is from Channel NewsAsia. I'm sorry I couldn't get an interview that was solely with Josie. The interview is in two parts.
I'll let her speak for herself too.
Please see here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSUrW-rxss&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjUgzMaN6cY&feature=channel_page
PRESS RELEASES
By the new Executive Committee of AWARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzZd8LnVvqk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q4kQwNdiDk&feature=related
By the old Executive Committee of AWARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJ4JmqSgnk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMwbSr4HOE&feature=channel_page
These snippets are the first parts of the press releases of both sides of AWARE.
You can see the other parts of the press releases here:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=theonlinecitizen&view=videos
I believe that the women and men of Singapore have the ability to make up their minds about who they would like to lead us into the 21st century.
You have a brain and a conscience -- Use it.
You have a body -- Act on what your brain tells you.
Because if you don't act, you are colluding through your silence and your failure to whatever happens next.
Wishing you all wisdom and fortitude.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
An Ethicist Speaks out II -- AWARE’s Counselling and Social Service Arm: Why we need to care
Recent events at AWARE have raised serious concerns about the ethics of leadership change and about the nature of civic space and renewal in Singapore. Relatively little, however, has been said about the implications of the recent events on its social service and counselling arms.
AWARE has had a long history of providing social services and support for some of the most vulnerable members of society in Singapore - women who are struggling with abuse, with rape, living in fear for their lives. They run a helpline for women in distress and also a befrienders' service for women at risk where a trained counsellor escorts women under threat to the police, hospitals, courts and help centres.
One of the great virtues of AWARE was the professionalism of the counselling staff that worked there and the fact that AWARE invested heavily in training for all their volunteer helpliners and befrienders. There was a commitment to ensuring that the professional expertise and independence of their counselling and social work staff were respected.
In this context, I am deeply concerned about the recent change of leadership in AWARE and about the ability of AWARE’s counselling arm to continue providing professional help and support for women in need.
Any organisation providing mental health or social services is expected to uphold standards of neutrality, care and professionalism in line with internationally recognised standards for care. At minimum, this requires:
a) that counsellors and social workers need to adhere to standards for definition of mental illness and pathology as delineated by the relevant medical authorities and professional bodies, and not by religious institutions which are unqualified to make such assessments
b) that clients need to be assured of the neutrality, the impartiality of the care they will be given when they sign up for counselling services. As the Code of Professional Ethics for the Singapore Association of Social Workers states, social workers in Singapore are obliged to “avoid discrimination and prejudice, respect individual differences and accept that professional responsibility must take precedence over personal aims and views” and that “Social workers affirm the right to client self determination” and that their role is to “provide all relevant information that would allow the client to make an informed decision.”
c) that counsellors and social workers have a fundamental obligation to safeguard the rights of their clients and their confidentiality
Because women seeking help are fragile, psychologically vulnerable and in need, particular care needs to be exercised to ensure that their sense of self and effective agency is protected and respected by those who counsel and support them. AWARE has had a long track record of upholding these standards of care in their counselling and befrienders’ services. This type of non-judgmental care cannot be provided by individuals with beliefs that lead them to condemn particular forms of life (homosexuality) as sinful and deviant, and certain practices (abortion, safe sex) as fundamentally mistaken.
Rather unfortunately, it is clearly documented in the press that members of the new executive committee of AWARE do hold on to some of these views, and that they intend to enforce them on AWARE – indeed it is presented as the raison d’être for their recent takeover. For example, Dr Thio Su Mien explicitly stated that she was instrumental in bringing about the change in leadership in AWARE because she was motivated by concerns that in AWARE’s sexual education programme, “homosexuality is regarded as a neutral word, not a negative word.” Dr Thio makes it clear at various points in her interview that she regards homosexuality as an aberrant and deviant form of behaviour.
While Dr Thio and other members of the new Executive Committee are entitled to their opinions on homosexuality, there is a clear conflict of interest when they have said that they intend to use their new-found positions of influence to steer AWARE away from its existing position of protection and provision of care and support for all women regardless of their race, religion, sexuality or beliefs about more controversial issues, such as abortion. In so acting, they are endorsing positions running counter to the professional standards of internationally recognized mental health associations. For example, homosexuality is not listed as a disorder in the classic reference text for the delineation of mental disorders for psychiatrists -- the DSM-IV: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. This text is the standard reference for all mental health professionals working within the field and their position on homosexuality is one also endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Psychological Association, The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, The World Heath Organisation, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association amongst others. These professional mental health associations have clearly and unequivocally stated that homosexuality is not a pathology, nor an aberrant or deviant behavioural set.
This is not an argument in favour of or against homosexuality. It is purely an argument that social support services for women at risk must be run by professionals trained to do so and that their professional independence and neutrality must be ensured if they are to serve their clients with the conscientiousness their clients deserve.
Secondly, it is worth noting that neutrality and the provision of information with respect to a lifestyle is not equivalent to the endorsement or promotion of that lifestyle. If I attend a suicide awareness forum, it does not imply that the professionals speaking at the forum are thereby promoting suicide or endorsing it or encouraging the participants to kill themselves. Similarly, informing the public of the existence of homosexuals and of the very often traumatic prejudice they face when coming to terms with their sexuality is neither an endorsement nor promotion of homosexuality. AWARE is well within its ambit of educating the public concerning the substantial discrimination faced by a group of women in speaking of homosexuality. This is true also of the other issues old Aware has spoken of on behalf of other minorities, such as the discrimination faced by migrant workers, single unwed mothers, raped woman etc.
The new Executive Committee of AWARE does not appear to understand the ethical significance of the need to:
a) respect the capacities of women for self-determination,
b) respect the independence and neutrality of counsellors working at AWARE
c) maintain a separation of their personal convictions from the provision of public services for women.
I was deeply troubled to learn of events at AWARE’s centre at Dover Road on 23 April 2009 where burly locksmiths and security personnel attempted to force their way into AWARE’s premises and other male associates of the new executive committee turned up with recording devices. AWARE’s centre at Dover Road is supposed to be a safe haven for women – it is the place of last resort for women who have been threatened, abused, raped and who have, at times, turned up in distress in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic personal tragedy. Can you imagine what might have transpired had a woman needing crisis support and care turned up at AWARE’s premises on that day? Not only would she have felt threatened and afraid by the presence of so many men and by the conflictual nature of the interactions going on in the centre but she would have had serious and legitimate concerns as to whether her confidentiality and privacy would be respected in a place where male members of the association can turn up with recording devices and challenge existing staff with the comment that, “if you’ve got nothing to hide, why are you afraid of being recorded?”
The lifeblood of any organisation providing vital counselling and care services is trust – trust in the integrity of the organisation and the people leading it, trust in the professionalism and impartiality of the counsellors staffing it and trust that the rights of clients to self-determination and confidentiality will be protected. The women seeking help at AWARE are trusting their counsellors and befrienders sometimes with their lives. The conduct of the new Executive Committee of AWARE -- the fog of secrecy and duplicity concerning their religious affiliations and whether the takeover was orchestrated in advance, and the tactics they have employed in the takeover of AWARE and since coming into leadership -- have left many doubts in the minds of concerned observers as to their integrity, honour and good intentions. At heart, there are serious doubts about whether the new Executive Committee is a body we can trust to uphold the standards of care that women in distress need and deserve.
In writing this open letter, I hope to highlight these issues so as to:
a) provide some insulation from interference for counsellors and helpliners working at AWARE. Their professional integrity and independence need to be respected.
b) ensure that the new Executive Committee needs to understand that the public cares for the most vulnerable members of society who seek help at AWARE and that we will be monitoring developments in the counselling arm closely.
Alexandra Serrenti
Research specialisation – Ethics, Continental European Philosophy.
Email – alex.serrenti@gmail.com
AWARE has had a long history of providing social services and support for some of the most vulnerable members of society in Singapore - women who are struggling with abuse, with rape, living in fear for their lives. They run a helpline for women in distress and also a befrienders' service for women at risk where a trained counsellor escorts women under threat to the police, hospitals, courts and help centres.
One of the great virtues of AWARE was the professionalism of the counselling staff that worked there and the fact that AWARE invested heavily in training for all their volunteer helpliners and befrienders. There was a commitment to ensuring that the professional expertise and independence of their counselling and social work staff were respected.
In this context, I am deeply concerned about the recent change of leadership in AWARE and about the ability of AWARE’s counselling arm to continue providing professional help and support for women in need.
Any organisation providing mental health or social services is expected to uphold standards of neutrality, care and professionalism in line with internationally recognised standards for care. At minimum, this requires:
a) that counsellors and social workers need to adhere to standards for definition of mental illness and pathology as delineated by the relevant medical authorities and professional bodies, and not by religious institutions which are unqualified to make such assessments
b) that clients need to be assured of the neutrality, the impartiality of the care they will be given when they sign up for counselling services. As the Code of Professional Ethics for the Singapore Association of Social Workers states, social workers in Singapore are obliged to “avoid discrimination and prejudice, respect individual differences and accept that professional responsibility must take precedence over personal aims and views” and that “Social workers affirm the right to client self determination” and that their role is to “provide all relevant information that would allow the client to make an informed decision.”
c) that counsellors and social workers have a fundamental obligation to safeguard the rights of their clients and their confidentiality
Because women seeking help are fragile, psychologically vulnerable and in need, particular care needs to be exercised to ensure that their sense of self and effective agency is protected and respected by those who counsel and support them. AWARE has had a long track record of upholding these standards of care in their counselling and befrienders’ services. This type of non-judgmental care cannot be provided by individuals with beliefs that lead them to condemn particular forms of life (homosexuality) as sinful and deviant, and certain practices (abortion, safe sex) as fundamentally mistaken.
Rather unfortunately, it is clearly documented in the press that members of the new executive committee of AWARE do hold on to some of these views, and that they intend to enforce them on AWARE – indeed it is presented as the raison d’être for their recent takeover. For example, Dr Thio Su Mien explicitly stated that she was instrumental in bringing about the change in leadership in AWARE because she was motivated by concerns that in AWARE’s sexual education programme, “homosexuality is regarded as a neutral word, not a negative word.” Dr Thio makes it clear at various points in her interview that she regards homosexuality as an aberrant and deviant form of behaviour.
While Dr Thio and other members of the new Executive Committee are entitled to their opinions on homosexuality, there is a clear conflict of interest when they have said that they intend to use their new-found positions of influence to steer AWARE away from its existing position of protection and provision of care and support for all women regardless of their race, religion, sexuality or beliefs about more controversial issues, such as abortion. In so acting, they are endorsing positions running counter to the professional standards of internationally recognized mental health associations. For example, homosexuality is not listed as a disorder in the classic reference text for the delineation of mental disorders for psychiatrists -- the DSM-IV: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. This text is the standard reference for all mental health professionals working within the field and their position on homosexuality is one also endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Psychological Association, The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, The World Heath Organisation, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association amongst others. These professional mental health associations have clearly and unequivocally stated that homosexuality is not a pathology, nor an aberrant or deviant behavioural set.
This is not an argument in favour of or against homosexuality. It is purely an argument that social support services for women at risk must be run by professionals trained to do so and that their professional independence and neutrality must be ensured if they are to serve their clients with the conscientiousness their clients deserve.
Secondly, it is worth noting that neutrality and the provision of information with respect to a lifestyle is not equivalent to the endorsement or promotion of that lifestyle. If I attend a suicide awareness forum, it does not imply that the professionals speaking at the forum are thereby promoting suicide or endorsing it or encouraging the participants to kill themselves. Similarly, informing the public of the existence of homosexuals and of the very often traumatic prejudice they face when coming to terms with their sexuality is neither an endorsement nor promotion of homosexuality. AWARE is well within its ambit of educating the public concerning the substantial discrimination faced by a group of women in speaking of homosexuality. This is true also of the other issues old Aware has spoken of on behalf of other minorities, such as the discrimination faced by migrant workers, single unwed mothers, raped woman etc.
The new Executive Committee of AWARE does not appear to understand the ethical significance of the need to:
a) respect the capacities of women for self-determination,
b) respect the independence and neutrality of counsellors working at AWARE
c) maintain a separation of their personal convictions from the provision of public services for women.
I was deeply troubled to learn of events at AWARE’s centre at Dover Road on 23 April 2009 where burly locksmiths and security personnel attempted to force their way into AWARE’s premises and other male associates of the new executive committee turned up with recording devices. AWARE’s centre at Dover Road is supposed to be a safe haven for women – it is the place of last resort for women who have been threatened, abused, raped and who have, at times, turned up in distress in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic personal tragedy. Can you imagine what might have transpired had a woman needing crisis support and care turned up at AWARE’s premises on that day? Not only would she have felt threatened and afraid by the presence of so many men and by the conflictual nature of the interactions going on in the centre but she would have had serious and legitimate concerns as to whether her confidentiality and privacy would be respected in a place where male members of the association can turn up with recording devices and challenge existing staff with the comment that, “if you’ve got nothing to hide, why are you afraid of being recorded?”
The lifeblood of any organisation providing vital counselling and care services is trust – trust in the integrity of the organisation and the people leading it, trust in the professionalism and impartiality of the counsellors staffing it and trust that the rights of clients to self-determination and confidentiality will be protected. The women seeking help at AWARE are trusting their counsellors and befrienders sometimes with their lives. The conduct of the new Executive Committee of AWARE -- the fog of secrecy and duplicity concerning their religious affiliations and whether the takeover was orchestrated in advance, and the tactics they have employed in the takeover of AWARE and since coming into leadership -- have left many doubts in the minds of concerned observers as to their integrity, honour and good intentions. At heart, there are serious doubts about whether the new Executive Committee is a body we can trust to uphold the standards of care that women in distress need and deserve.
In writing this open letter, I hope to highlight these issues so as to:
a) provide some insulation from interference for counsellors and helpliners working at AWARE. Their professional integrity and independence need to be respected.
b) ensure that the new Executive Committee needs to understand that the public cares for the most vulnerable members of society who seek help at AWARE and that we will be monitoring developments in the counselling arm closely.
Alexandra Serrenti
Research specialisation – Ethics, Continental European Philosophy.
Email – alex.serrenti@gmail.com
AWARE as an inclusive organisation
It is with great concern that I read the comments made by Dr Thio Su Mien reported in “Lawyer’s Key Role in Aware coup” (ST 23 April, 2009). Dr Thio has unequivocally dismissed the credibility of Aware under the previous executive committee on the grounds that it supported a lesbian agenda. She has reduced years of activism and hard work spanning a range of issues to a single sticking point - and that is Aware’s supposedly pro-gay stance. Aware has fought for gender equality and women’s rights, and the protection of battered women and other minorities such as domestic workers and trafficked women. It has worked for the legal recognition of marital rape and also advocated on behalf of single women. Do none of these endeavours count?
Dr Thio has condemned Aware’s old guard for promoting lesbianism and homosexuality, and in doing so, redefining marriage and family. However, the old team has merely brought to light the presence of alternative family structures already present in society. Such families include: families headed by unmarried mothers and divorced women, families with pregnant teens etc. These families were previously stigmatized and vilified, and have only now started to break free of prejudice because of the good work Aware has done to help the mainstream understand their plight.
Dr Thio claims that she and the other members of the new team acted out of concern and merely want to contribute to society. However, theirs is a simplified version of society, one that is a caricature rooted in the biologically constructed roles of men and women. In this version of society, there will be entire generations of lesbians thanks to Aware’s sexuality education programme. Dr Thio’s version of society is highly paternalistic and is one in which young women are seen as unable to think for themselves and easily influenced by others. Surely, our daughters, sisters, mothers, and friends have more brains than that?
She claims that all lesbians are women who have been abused by men, and are consequently rebelling as a result of this abuse. Such a view is highly one-dimensional and pathologises the entire process of a woman coming to terms with her sexual identity. It presents considered choices, no matter how well thought out, as inevitable products of a disordered mind. This demonstrates more clearly than anything else Dr Thio’s anti-feminist motivations.
Dr Thio’s decision to act stems from a belief that people are ignorant and need to be educated about the threat of homosexuality. Does she mean that anyone who does not share the same beliefs as her is ignorant and needs to be ‘taught’ what is ‘right’? Such a stand reeks of homophobia, condescension and arrogance. Such intolerance should not be condoned in Singapore.
Kamal Ramdas
This piece was submitted to the ST forums. Please feel free to circulate it if you endorse the writer's position.
Dr Thio has condemned Aware’s old guard for promoting lesbianism and homosexuality, and in doing so, redefining marriage and family. However, the old team has merely brought to light the presence of alternative family structures already present in society. Such families include: families headed by unmarried mothers and divorced women, families with pregnant teens etc. These families were previously stigmatized and vilified, and have only now started to break free of prejudice because of the good work Aware has done to help the mainstream understand their plight.
Dr Thio claims that she and the other members of the new team acted out of concern and merely want to contribute to society. However, theirs is a simplified version of society, one that is a caricature rooted in the biologically constructed roles of men and women. In this version of society, there will be entire generations of lesbians thanks to Aware’s sexuality education programme. Dr Thio’s version of society is highly paternalistic and is one in which young women are seen as unable to think for themselves and easily influenced by others. Surely, our daughters, sisters, mothers, and friends have more brains than that?
She claims that all lesbians are women who have been abused by men, and are consequently rebelling as a result of this abuse. Such a view is highly one-dimensional and pathologises the entire process of a woman coming to terms with her sexual identity. It presents considered choices, no matter how well thought out, as inevitable products of a disordered mind. This demonstrates more clearly than anything else Dr Thio’s anti-feminist motivations.
Dr Thio’s decision to act stems from a belief that people are ignorant and need to be educated about the threat of homosexuality. Does she mean that anyone who does not share the same beliefs as her is ignorant and needs to be ‘taught’ what is ‘right’? Such a stand reeks of homophobia, condescension and arrogance. Such intolerance should not be condoned in Singapore.
Kamal Ramdas
This piece was submitted to the ST forums. Please feel free to circulate it if you endorse the writer's position.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
AN OPEN LETTER ON AWARE, SINGAPORE
Dear All,
This is one of the few more formal posts to appear on this blog. Please take it with the seriousness it deserves. For the background to this post, see here: http://www.we-are-aware.sg/what-happened
AN OPEN LETTER ON AWARE, SINGAPORE
Having had the opportunity to work with AWARE on several previous initiatives, I would like to state for the public record, that I was deeply impressed with the seriousness, sincerity and depth of commitment of AWARE volunteers and counsellors that I have encountered over the years. AWARE, through the efforts of generations of long-term members, has made invaluable contributions to the protection of women, to supporting vulnerable members of the community, and to public education.
I was therefore deeply disturbed to learn of the events at AWARE's AGM in which there appeared to have been a concerted attempt at hijacking an organisation that has worked consistently and quietly in Singapore to protect and promote the interests of women. What is particularly objectionable is the lack of transparency of the new office bearers concerning their alternative vision for Singapore's oldest women's group. What is it about their new vision which is so threatening that they feel they are unable to communicate it publicly? If, on the other hand, as they say, they are not communicating their position because they are new office bearers and have not as yet gained an understanding of the organisation, then questions need to be raised concerning their suitability for office as it suggests that they are ill-prepared and ill- qualified to lead this organisation. This is especially true when you consider the wealth of experience and talent already existing in AWARE, from whom office-bearers could be drawn. The secrecy which has shrouded the new executive committee and also the manner in which the new leadership has come to power has left significant doubt in the minds of concerned observers as to their integrity, honour and good intentions.
The press has pointed to the religious affiliations of many members of the new Executive Committee of AWARE. I respect the rights of all persons to commit themselves to lives of conscience. However, the appropriate exercise of a life of conscience in civic society is to form one's own religiously-based advocacy group and to be clear about the fact that those religious values are the values that animate its services. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for such a group to engineer a take-over of an organisation with a clearly secular pedigree and in the process, disenfranchise and marginalise a group of women who have worked tremendously hard to be heard and taken seriously. The composition of the new executive committee is hardly representative of Singapore’s multi-religious, multi-racial heritage.
I wish to place on record, as a professional ethicist and philosopher, my deep reservations concerning the future impartiality and professionalism of AWARE's counselling and social education programmes in light of the religious affiliations of most of the members of the new Executive Committee. This is a point of particular concern given the fact that AWARE's counselling services are often the last resort for many women at risk who deserve our special protection and care. In particular, the religious affiliations of the executive committee appear to be such that they are unlikely to endorse the following:
a) that victims of familial abuse be given advice and support to leave their families and spouses where necessary if it is determined that they are at risk, given the "pro-family" stance of the executive committee.
b) that rape victims be given access and support to all options during their counselling sessions, including advice on abortion, given the "anti-abortion" stance of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.
c) that sexual education programmes will include information about the use of contraceptives in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, given the "pro-abstinence" positions of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.
d) that homosexual women seeking advice and help be supported in their struggles to come to terms with their identities in a supportive environment since it is clearly documented in previous letters to the press that members of the executive committee believe homosexuals are psychologically disturbed -- a position that is clearly and unequivocally at odds to the official positions of numerous professional bodies of psychiatrists and psychologists, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Psychological Association, The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, The World Heath Organisation, the Chinese Psychiatric Association amongst others.
I would be significantly reassured by the executive committee if they were to state unequivocally for the public record:
a) their exact positions on the points raised above pertaining to the social service programmes of AWARE so that clients may be better informed of the ethos and principles which govern the counselling they will be provided and may choose to go elsewhere if they do not agree that vision.
b) offer an assurance of non-interference in the professionalism, independence and impartiality of their counsellors to provide advice with courage and concern only for the welfare of the clients who seek them out.
This is not an issue of religious versus secular life, or of endorsement or condemnation of homosexuality, or of being anti or pro-abortion. It is an issue about transparency and honesty in the provision of social services and leadership so that women can make informed choices about the sorts of organisations they want to support and to have support them. Transparency and honesty, however, have been sadly lacking in the new executive committee of AWARE.
Alexandra Serrenti
________________________________________
ACTION PLAN FOR THE RECOVERY OF AWARE
If you would like to voice your principled dissent at this state of affairs, you may:
a) Educate yourself and others concerning the recent happenings at AWARE
b) Sign up as a member of AWARE and turn up at the EGM on the 2nd of May 2009 to help pass a vote of no confidence in the new executive committee so that fresh (and hopefully more representative) elections can be held. Should you choose to do this, I ask that you provide me (alex.serrenti@gmail.com) with the following information so that I can keep in touch with you if necessary. Rest assured that your contact and personal details will be held in the strictest confidence.
Name
Email
Handphone(for SMS updates)
Aware Referrer
Date that you signed up as AWARE member
Attending EGM on 2 May 2009? (Y/N)
Some persons have suggested that you need to register for the EGM before the 22nd of April before you are allowed to attend the EGM. The implication of this piece of information is that you will not be allowed entry should you have signed up after the 22nd of April. To the best of our knowledge and advice, entry to the EGM cannot be barred on the basis of a lack of registration.
When you turn up at the EGM, please remember to bring along a printed copy of your membership registration so that you cannot be turned away. And please make sure that you arrive EARLY so that you cannot be turned away for lack of space.
c) Visit an advocacy group for the protection of the original values and work of AWARE to see how you can further contribute. You can find them here:
http://www.we-are-aware.sg/
Thank you for your act of conscience.
This is one of the few more formal posts to appear on this blog. Please take it with the seriousness it deserves. For the background to this post, see here: http://www.we-are-aware.sg/what-happened
AN OPEN LETTER ON AWARE, SINGAPORE
Having had the opportunity to work with AWARE on several previous initiatives, I would like to state for the public record, that I was deeply impressed with the seriousness, sincerity and depth of commitment of AWARE volunteers and counsellors that I have encountered over the years. AWARE, through the efforts of generations of long-term members, has made invaluable contributions to the protection of women, to supporting vulnerable members of the community, and to public education.
I was therefore deeply disturbed to learn of the events at AWARE's AGM in which there appeared to have been a concerted attempt at hijacking an organisation that has worked consistently and quietly in Singapore to protect and promote the interests of women. What is particularly objectionable is the lack of transparency of the new office bearers concerning their alternative vision for Singapore's oldest women's group. What is it about their new vision which is so threatening that they feel they are unable to communicate it publicly? If, on the other hand, as they say, they are not communicating their position because they are new office bearers and have not as yet gained an understanding of the organisation, then questions need to be raised concerning their suitability for office as it suggests that they are ill-prepared and ill- qualified to lead this organisation. This is especially true when you consider the wealth of experience and talent already existing in AWARE, from whom office-bearers could be drawn. The secrecy which has shrouded the new executive committee and also the manner in which the new leadership has come to power has left significant doubt in the minds of concerned observers as to their integrity, honour and good intentions.
The press has pointed to the religious affiliations of many members of the new Executive Committee of AWARE. I respect the rights of all persons to commit themselves to lives of conscience. However, the appropriate exercise of a life of conscience in civic society is to form one's own religiously-based advocacy group and to be clear about the fact that those religious values are the values that animate its services. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for such a group to engineer a take-over of an organisation with a clearly secular pedigree and in the process, disenfranchise and marginalise a group of women who have worked tremendously hard to be heard and taken seriously. The composition of the new executive committee is hardly representative of Singapore’s multi-religious, multi-racial heritage.
I wish to place on record, as a professional ethicist and philosopher, my deep reservations concerning the future impartiality and professionalism of AWARE's counselling and social education programmes in light of the religious affiliations of most of the members of the new Executive Committee. This is a point of particular concern given the fact that AWARE's counselling services are often the last resort for many women at risk who deserve our special protection and care. In particular, the religious affiliations of the executive committee appear to be such that they are unlikely to endorse the following:
a) that victims of familial abuse be given advice and support to leave their families and spouses where necessary if it is determined that they are at risk, given the "pro-family" stance of the executive committee.
b) that rape victims be given access and support to all options during their counselling sessions, including advice on abortion, given the "anti-abortion" stance of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.
c) that sexual education programmes will include information about the use of contraceptives in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, given the "pro-abstinence" positions of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.
d) that homosexual women seeking advice and help be supported in their struggles to come to terms with their identities in a supportive environment since it is clearly documented in previous letters to the press that members of the executive committee believe homosexuals are psychologically disturbed -- a position that is clearly and unequivocally at odds to the official positions of numerous professional bodies of psychiatrists and psychologists, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Psychological Association, The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, The World Heath Organisation, the Chinese Psychiatric Association amongst others.
I would be significantly reassured by the executive committee if they were to state unequivocally for the public record:
a) their exact positions on the points raised above pertaining to the social service programmes of AWARE so that clients may be better informed of the ethos and principles which govern the counselling they will be provided and may choose to go elsewhere if they do not agree that vision.
b) offer an assurance of non-interference in the professionalism, independence and impartiality of their counsellors to provide advice with courage and concern only for the welfare of the clients who seek them out.
This is not an issue of religious versus secular life, or of endorsement or condemnation of homosexuality, or of being anti or pro-abortion. It is an issue about transparency and honesty in the provision of social services and leadership so that women can make informed choices about the sorts of organisations they want to support and to have support them. Transparency and honesty, however, have been sadly lacking in the new executive committee of AWARE.
Alexandra Serrenti
________________________________________
ACTION PLAN FOR THE RECOVERY OF AWARE
If you would like to voice your principled dissent at this state of affairs, you may:
a) Educate yourself and others concerning the recent happenings at AWARE
b) Sign up as a member of AWARE and turn up at the EGM on the 2nd of May 2009 to help pass a vote of no confidence in the new executive committee so that fresh (and hopefully more representative) elections can be held. Should you choose to do this, I ask that you provide me (alex.serrenti@gmail.com) with the following information so that I can keep in touch with you if necessary. Rest assured that your contact and personal details will be held in the strictest confidence.
Name
Handphone(for SMS updates)
Aware Referrer
Date that you signed up as AWARE member
Attending EGM on 2 May 2009? (Y/N)
Some persons have suggested that you need to register for the EGM before the 22nd of April before you are allowed to attend the EGM. The implication of this piece of information is that you will not be allowed entry should you have signed up after the 22nd of April. To the best of our knowledge and advice, entry to the EGM cannot be barred on the basis of a lack of registration.
When you turn up at the EGM, please remember to bring along a printed copy of your membership registration so that you cannot be turned away. And please make sure that you arrive EARLY so that you cannot be turned away for lack of space.
c) Visit an advocacy group for the protection of the original values and work of AWARE to see how you can further contribute. You can find them here:
http://www.we-are-aware.sg/
Thank you for your act of conscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)