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
Saturday, April 25, 2009
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)