30 years ago, homosexuality was not a very well-accepted way of living in conservative Singapore. Our more traditional elders perceived homosexuality to be “unnatural” and maybe even “wrong”. This was due to many different factors, some of which include religious beliefs, and also the old-fashioned perception that families should be formed with a heterosexual man and woman to maintain the “balance”.
30 years from then in present times, homosexuality is widely accepted in a more liberal Singapore. This is again due to perception. As Singapore embraces the cultures of other countries, Singaporeans also mould their perceptions around these newly embraced cultures, such as accepting homosexuality as a possible way of life.
This then brings me to the topic of The Aware Saga. I must say that The Aware Saga was a pretty good example of a psychological perspective of communication. Before I begin, let me give you a brief summary of this case.
Josie Lau, DBS bank executive, was appointed head of women’s rights organization, AWARE, despite disapproval from her boss. It was later discovered that 5 other women from the same church also joined the new team leading AWARE. The drama was started when these women made statements that hinted at them being anti-gay, and also when Dr Thio Su Mien, senior lawyer and also another member of the same church, spoke up to say that she had been mentoring these women to “take over” AWARE so as to “re-direct” AWARE “back to its original cause. These discoveries sparked off much displeasure among both the homosexual community, and also people who felt that homosexuals had a place in our society and should not be discriminated in any way.
In the early stages of this saga, members of the public learnt about the case through the news. They then processed the information they received with their individual perspectives, and formed different conclusions about the case. This is when the psychological perspective took place, because whatever conclusions these people formed in their heads might not be the most accurate of conclusions, since they do not even know Lau and her croonies personally. The only information they received was passed through the media, which also might not be 100% accurate due to the media’s tendency to over-sensationalize trivialities.
Armed with all their different conclusions formed, people seek for both interactive and transactional ways of sharing their thoughts with the rest of little Singapore. Therefore they flood their thoughts on various forums on the Internet, and also share their thoughts with friends and family face to face. They either discuss or debate, and either influence or be swayed. All kinds of sentiments among Singaporeans were naturally induced what with all the hype generated.
The social constructionist perspective comes into place as these people communicate their opinions to one another. People who had no opinion about the saga initially, were gradually drawn into it as others with opinions communicated their ideas to them. For some of them, they even start to feel so strongly about it that they join other like-minded ones in voting for or against Josie Lau's exco during the EGM. These people turned from having no clue, to actually having a part! As the people who were influenced to be against Josie Lau was significantly more than those who supported her, her exco was naturally ousted out of place, where they lost drastically by 700 votes.
It is interesting to see how communication weaves its web via so many different means to form one great story. Another point to note is that if any of the participants in this great story had employed a slightly different form of communication to share their ideas, the whole situation might have turned out differently with a different ending.
I concur with your ending statement in that by using different methods of communication, this public spectacle could have had a very different outcome.
ReplyDeleteI say public spectacle because I believe the point of contention was blown way off course. Some would say the "tactical takeover" for the benefit of the children involved in the teachings was just another way to enforce the christian beliefs on non-believers. Some would say the infamous "old guard" had way too much balls to enforce modern way-of-thinking and habits to a still very much conservative singapore.
Either way, our flamboyant and "kiasu" nature reared its ugly head, resulting in weeks-long entertainment for many of us.
It really is time for us to be more open-minded, accomodating to newer ways of communication.
Anonymous
it was entertaining to have been on the sidelines observing all the action resulting from this saga, but it must be noted that this IS also a watershed event in regards to how civic society groups are to be led and managed.
ReplyDeleteat the end of the day, these groups are meant to serve the gaps in society, and not for the pursuit of any single religious or ideological goal. and it was clear what the public consensus (at least at the EOGM) was - that there is no place in Aware for such thinking nor high-handedness behaviour that we all saw from the Josie Lau-led Ex-Co.
i respect what the old guard of Aware have done, and I support how they won their organisation back.
if something that was yours could not be defended, then it was never yours to begin with. the old guard showed that Aware was indeed the labour of their lives' work.
hell yeah.
Hi aye kaye,
ReplyDeleteindeed I agree with you that Josie Lau's guard did not deserve to gain leadership over AWARE in the first place. They did not know what they were doing and did not have solid answers to the questions from the public and the old guard. The only thing that they were most "aware" about is probably their "need to prevent the nation from crossing the line in terms of sexuality decisions." This is an example of one of Francis Bacon's theories, Idols of the Cave, whereby people make their decisions based on a special allegiance to a special theory or discipline, in this case, the special allegiance being Church of Our Saviour Christ.
The "religious takeover" in AWARE highlights a grave and dire situation that seemingly innocuous people can actually conceal such a fearsome agenda. This mirrors the tragedy in America where Barack Obama, a proverbial figure head, is actually controlled by the financial bigwigs of Wall Street under the alias of the Bildernburg Group and has infested his entire cabinet with members from that group. In a nutshell, every cabinet minister is affiliated to the Bildernburg group and it is in fact a shadow government masquerading as a legitimate democratic power with the country's vested interests to establish a corporate New World Order.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue which is omnipresent in the AWARE saga is "blind leading the blind" mentality of Singaporeans. From what numbered mere hundreds of supports ballooned into the thousands on the say of the EOGM. It proves the stereotype that has plagued Singaporeans for decades that we are a nation full of ignorant people. Most of the extra supporters have no clue whatsoever to what was indeed the issue of contention and just wanted to be seen participating but in reality just pawns in a public catfight. Credit to the leaders of aware using the media to dramatize the situation and capitalize on the state of affairs.
I just find it gratifying that Singaporean citizens are more willing to stand out and make a stand for what they believe in.
ReplyDeleteCommenting on how people having been following the issue unfold seek means to "share their thoughts with the rest of little Singapore" where they "flood their thoughts on various forums on the Internet", I would like to share my take on such online forums.
ReplyDeleteFirstly forums as an Interactive Model of communication allows for an effective discussion as it transcend the limitations of time and space. Anyone at their own leisure is able to share their opinions and respond to others. People are able to think through their responses and take measures to express themselves clearly.
On the flipside, most online forums where members hold opposing views and after both sides air their opinions, most often than not the forum will degenerate as ultimately people will take the discussions personally and will start making irresponsible remarks online. As such, the forums are not able to go forward and break new grounds with the discussions unless a neutral regulator is present.
wondertramp is absolutely right in suggesting the discretionary presence of an unaffected regulator. yesterday's straits times featured a forum article on a related issue on certain NMPs' connection to AWARE. the source commented on the recent online flaming of these NMPs, and how it could rouse up public response and retaliation. more importantly, the views of the contributors were identified to probably belong to the minority of the population, and not at all an accurate representation of a general consensus. certain control measures have to be implemented to avoid the possibility of a 'cauldron of emotions', where things get stirred up and rapidly turn ugly.
ReplyDeleteHi wondertramp,indeed forums are not exactly the best place to have healthy and constructive debates on matters of importance. They are often polluted with flighty and, like you said, irresponsible random thoughts of netizens who most of the time have nothing better to do. For me, I feel that debating face to face with someone who has kept up with the news is better than debating with an anonymous person online. Because when a person has his identity known to another, he/she naturally feels the responsibility to give responsible comments in order not to look stupid in front of the other.
ReplyDelete