Can society agree to disagree?

As I write this entry, about three thousand women (and some men) congregated at one of our downtown convention halls to get their voices heard pertaining to a women’s association, an association that has been around for 25 years helping women and fighting for the equal rights of women in Singapore. One of the issues to be discussed is an alleged siege staged by a group of women with a religious agenda. Being a woman and an inquisitive Singaporean, I’ve been following this saga daily via the tv, newspapers and online reporting. As I read the reports and comments, I observed how my opinions and moods have swerved back and forth towards both camps of women.

For the benefit of my friends who are not living in the lion city, here is a summarised account of what happened. Some time ago, a group of women quietly joined an association, turned up for its AGM one day, voted their counterparts into the executive committee (exco) through a majority head-count and seized control of the association. The old team was caught unawares, got eliminated and naturally got upset. When the new team took over the centre, they had a different set of ideas on what they wanted to do. They changed the locks, sacked long-serving staff and contributing volunteers. Accusations started flying…“it was all plotted; the new team is a religious group with a hidden agenda; they are anti-gay!” …“the old guards are only interested in promoting the advancement of homosexuality; girls in schools are taught it’s normal to experiment with each other.” What a scoop for the press. Sudden excitement for our otherwise boring society.

After reading the press conferences, interviews, reports, blogs, comments of people on both camps concerned with this saga, I think I should also blog about it. Hope I don’t get hate mails or death threats with this post ^_^lll. Anyway, this is my current point of view and it may not be permanent. Why? Because nothing is permanent. And why aren’t I participating at the EGM instead of writing this? Because I more or less know what the results will be at the EGM.

In all fairness, in my opinion (piak!…whack on the head…still in a daze @@), both camps of women are not wrong. Because I can see that their original intentions were good. The old guards wanted to promote an all-inclusive society (bravo to that) while the new guards hope to promote or reinforce corroding family values and protect their vulnerable off-springs (very concerned and responsible parents, nothing wrong with that too). So what went wrong? Well, I would think it’s because one side was inexperienced in such politicking, got personal, possessive and tried to shut the other side out totally. Then religion got dragged into the fight and that’s taboo in our secular society. Matters got worse when a pastor got involved, took sides and rallied his church to support their ‘sisters’. Tsk, tsk, tsk, shouldn’t he be advocating love for all sisters regardless of which camps they are from?

I believe the new exco of originally good-intentioned (and mostly motherly) women really thought they could contribute to society. Unfortunately, they knew and accepted only one truth. They had great faith in their religion but sadly, they had no faith in their fellow beings. Their failure to accept other truths, their unwillingness to support an all-inclusive society plus their ignorance of their roles in the organisation led to their predicament today.

As for the old team of well-respected, hardworking true-blue feminists whom had put their heart and soul into a cause they believe in for the last 25 years, perhaps this is a timely wake-up call for them. For these old guards, I think they too have to address and respect the needs of a certain minority, people whom are not as liberal as them. For change to take place in society, you have to give it time. I do advocate an all-inclusive society and the door of my heart is open to everyone. But I can’t force or drag people through my door, can I? As what many Singaporeans have mentioned, we must all learn to agree to disagree. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs and opinions. It would be more productive if we could put our focus on our similarities rather than the differences in order for the society to progress harmoniously.

At times like this, again Jiddu Krishnamurti’s great words “The truth is a pathless land” come to mind. Below is an extract of his teachings I posted a few years ago.

Full Heart, Empty Mind
There is no path to truth, it must come to you.
Truth can come to you only when your mind and heart are simple, clear, and there is love in your heart; not if your heart is filled with the things of the mind.
When there is love in your heart, you do not talk about organising for brotherhood; you do not talk about belief, you do not talk about division or the powers that create division, you need not seek reconciliation.
Then you are simply a human being without a label, without a country.
This means that you must strip yourself of all those things and allow truth to come into being; and it can come only when the mind is empty, when the mind ceases to create.
Then it will come without your invitation.
Then it will come as swiftly as the wind and unbeknown.
It comes obscurely, not when you are watching, wanting.
It is there as sudden as sunlight, as pure as the night; but to receive it, the heart must be full and the mind empty.
Now you have the mind full and your heart empty.

Time to empty our minds?

ps: At the time of this post, 1,414 members had voted in support of the ‘no confidence vote’, while 761 had voted against it. (as expected ^_^)