TODAY article tomorrow (well, Friday)

There will be an article in tomorrow's (Friday's) TODAY. This article will be about what is essentially a complaint to the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Law Society, the Singapore Academy of Law, and the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association, insinuating that my actions in relation to the AWARE EGM had breached the Legal Profession Act.

I gave some comments to TODAY, and I only want to reproduce the following in point form:

• I hope that this complaint is not part of the ongoing organised campaign targeting me.


• I am confident that my actions did not breach the relevant provision of the LPA. My conscience is clear and I sincerely believe the law is on my side.


• I am currently considering whether to write to these 4 groups, to clarify my position.

It's been a long day and it's late. So I'm going to sleep on this tonight, before deciding what/whether I will do anything else. Much as I want to move on with life, it seems that some folks simply cannot put what happened with AWARE behind them.

Observations of a lapsed citizen

Someone forwarded this to me, and I thought it was well-written and well-thought-through. The writer describes herself as a "lapsed citizen" -- not that she had let her citizenship lapse, but that she has ceased to be active in civil society. She was quite active in the late 90s and early 00s, but I had not heard from her for many years, until she sent me these observations last week.

Also, unless another significant event takes place that I want to write about, this will be my last post on what happened with AWARE.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many lessons to draw from the AWARE episode. While areas like steeplejacking or religious versus secular space in NGO are pertinent but I see also other more interesting aspects from my perspective of a "lapsed citizen"'.

2 worlds of Singaporeans collided at the Aware EGM. Not religious versus secular but 2 types of citizenry and their differences were so glaring it was blinding.

Legitimacy and authority

Josie, TSM, and their supporters were clearly more deferential to authority and hierarchical in their approach in life. Josie and the exco first expected to be shown this deference by their official position and by their credentials (as opposed to their passion, conviction or clarity of their own views whatever those are). I have read some comments by others that this is a miscalculation on their part. I dont think its a miscalculation, They may genuinely think their credentials alone would remove any doubts on their capabilities and were caught off guard when it did not resonate with the crowd. Some of the original AWARE members have equally impressive credentials but I dont think that is how they define themselves.

Josie and co are certainly not alone in this view of what gives them legitimacy. Verifiable or otherwise, it is widely accepted that Singapore society values academic excellence as a proxy for intelligence, success, wealth and therefore a higher right to rule and to lead over others.

Josie and co assumed their official postions allowed them to dictate how the meeting will be conducted without taking into account the original impetus for the mtg - that more than half of the original April AWARE membership had petitioned for their removal and that was the nature of the EGM they were presiding over. The underlying arrogance resulted in a team that was clearly unprepared to manage the meeting, mount their own offense/defense or even plan for an unfavourable voting outcome.

When their legitimacy was not accepted by the crowd (exasperated by their own mismanagement early in the mtg), they clearly crumbled and did not know how to regain any semblance of control of the EGM - the task of controlling the crowd ceded to the petitioners who ended up stepping into a void and took over to try to marshall and calm the crowd from the floor.

TSM make a similar mistake as Josie and her team, perhaps only amplified by the higher expectations on her given her self outed role as the puppetmaster.

They were very Singaporean in their view of how they thought the world should work and where is their rightful place in the world. It was just that there are apparently more than one definition of being Singaporean.

Submissiveness and (overly) respectful of hierarchy

While impassioned speakers come to the mic one after another and spoke their mind, Josie and the exco repeatedly asked for the "right of reply, coz its only fair" instead of just taking the mic time they had to actually reply! They were strangely waiting for the crowd to give an ok signal for them to start replying. I was amazed - it was perversely submissive behaviour. None of Josie's exco look or behaved like they were comfortable leading in any environment other than in a hierarchical manner where they can govern by official authority or within clear structural framework.

They spent more mic time asking for the right of reply than actually seizing the opportunity to respond to any of the criticism leveled at them. Not hearing a reasonable defence from them is probably the anticlimax of the whole afternoon.

By their behaviour, they strangely deferred to the crowd which became the more dominant force in the room. Josie and team effectively bowed to authority and waited for permission to speak, a permission that never came. They were meek as sheep in spite of their daring coup de'tat that culminated in the need for an EGM.

I doubt many of the people who spoke or were in the crowd would have quietly sat there if the roles were reversed. We would have fought back instead of being cowed.

They were meek like what Singaporeans were supposed to be. Again, the Singaporeans on the floor provided the contrast that not all Singaporeans are meek.

Individuals and the Independent Spirit

The supporters of the petitioners were boisterious and of independent spirit. The original petitioners thru We Are Aware had sent information ahead of time requesting that supporters let the petitioners lead and raise topics at the EGM. I read that as they were asking us to refrain from going to the mic and give the mic time to the official petitioners.

I recall having an instinctive resistance to the idea of anyone telling me not to speak or presuming to speak on my behalf. From the queue of people going to the mic, I was glad to see that many other people at the meeting were ignoring that suggestion.

I queued for about an hour and 45 mins to get into the hall. I also had my queue broken up once and had to rejoin another part of the queue before finally making it into the room. People came singly or in groups of about 2 to 3. Anecdotally, most do not seem to know any of the original AWARE members. They were individuals.

They supported the original AWARE's position on the vote but they did not necessarily deferred to their authority either. They cheered when they hear familiar names (and then strained their necks to see the faces coz they dont seem to be able to recognize the familiar AWARE faces) but were not about to sit quietly and only let the "old" AWARE speak on their behalf. They had something to say and they were making a beeline to queue for the one open mic on the floor.

For those of us who had hosted and sat through countless meetings/conferences where we beseeched people to ask questions at the mic, it was remarkable how the queue of people who wanted a turn at the mic never seem to end. They queued, spoke their mind and were more eloquent than anyone could have hoped or expected.

For civil society to continue to develop, our citizens need to participate in a contest of ideas and be willing to (re)imagine what is the society they want to live in and that they wish their children to inherit. The ability and willingness to step forward to express themselves as individual citizens who have a collective stake is key for ideas to surface and to persuade others to coalesce around a definition of society acceptable to all. I was reminded by sharp contrast public figures and politicians in Singapore who could not articulate their views or form arguments with clarity, passion or conviction, let alone persuade and inspire citizens.

Individual citizens rising beyond the concerns of daily bread and butter issues to bother about something that does not hit the pockets directly. I was reminded of the energy you find in schools, energy and passion we are often expected to lose as we graduate to adult life and hunker down to focus on earning a living.

The lapsed citizen in me always believed such Singaporeans exist in sufficient quantities because it is in the human spirit, I just never experienced an occasion of physical gathering of such scale (campus society, hall meetings and electionns not withstanding).

AWARE has been handed a great gift - the gift of potential renewal if they can harness the energy of these new members.

The lessons though I think are all political. In the larger political sphere, where they are not just women but Singapore citizens, what do they care about, who represents and leads these citizens and who can represent and lead them?

Something that may be making the rounds

This was forwarded to me by an acquaintance. I have partially anonymised the only name that appears in this email.

In particular, it appears that I am now being singled out for targeting. I will only make these 3 points:

• As I said at the EGM, I have been an AWARE member since last year, pre-dating most or all of the Josie Lau exco. I got involved because I wanted to restore the society to the values that I supported when I joined, and I was involved in my personal capacity, as an associate member of AWARE, and not as an NMP. At no time did I mention or seek to rely on my position as an NMP.



• The sheer hyperbole used to describe the day's events are astonishing. "Disorder and mayhem"? I've never seen a queue forming, in the scenes of "disorder and mayhem" that I've seen (on TV). Repeating an exaggeration does not make it true.



• The rules at a meeting of a society are open for determination by the members in a general meeting. The exco has no right to dictate the rules for the EGM, in the face of expressed disagreement from the majority of members present. I think many members did express their disagreement with the house rules that Josie Lau and Lois Ng tried to impose, at least with respect to whether I was allowed to sit with the original members. It does seem that some people, who keep harping on this point, simply do not wish to accept the reality of the law and practice of meetings.

Apart from the above points, I have no further comment on this email, and will leave readers to form their own opinions. This also means that I will not respond to any comments made (and to pre-empt any trolls, my non-response does not mean any admission or agreement to any comments that may be made).

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

I was at the AWARE EGM and it was rude shock to me that such bully and hooliganism behavior from the old guard and their supporters could be allowed in such a civilised society like Singapore. Below I attach a letter from Ms XX written to the prime minister on the incident. Many of you who were there witnessed it with your own eyes also. I heard this was the biggest gathering of lesbians and gays at the EGM of a civic society in Spore.

We want to complain to the govt that an NMP Siew Kum Hong was not only openly taking sides in this internal affair of a secular organisation, but was part of the orchestrated disorder and mayhem on that day. He showed no regard for protocols until challenged by a member from the floor.

We also want the govt to know that Straits Times has been blatantly stroking the religious flame and deceiving all their readers when the real issue was about homosexualism and not about a religious `takeover' of a secular association. For the record, I have since cancelled my subscription to the newspaper. Why should I pay to be told half-truths and be insidously `persuaded' to their point of views?

I urge all those who were there that day to write to our PM, to MHA, REACH and ISD to tell them what you witnessed on that day. Let your voice be heard before it is taken away one day right before your eyes!

PS: The PM's email address is: lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

It is indeed time for concerned individuals to play their part in shaping the future of our nation.

Below, I attach a letter I have sent to the PMO.

Cheryl XX

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing as a concerned Singaporean and a mother to request official scrutiny into press reporting of the AWARE saga.

I'll share my first-person observations at the AWARE EGM in relation to Straits Times coverage of the event.

1) My 18-year-old daughter and I went to the AWARE EGM on Saturday, 2 May 2009, to observe the proceedings of a civil organisation but the progression of events left us with much disquiet.

a) We noticed a large contingent of men upon entering the meeting hall as we were directed to the 'overflow area' in Hall 403 where we sat in the front portion (we were among the last 200 to enter at 2.50pm after queuing from 1.30pm). The men formed about a quarter of the meeting, occupying seats in the back half of the 'overflow'. My daughter observed that this was a meeting for a women's association and was surprised at the substantial male turn-out. I reserved my comments.

b) We were accosted by ear-deafening 'boos' and jeers as we passed the section, but realised that they were not directed at us as much as at the speaker onstage. We were quite unable to hear the opening speech being given by Ms Josie Lau, then President of AWARE, as the heckling went on unabated in tenor and base. In fact, the aggression was so vehement that my daughter was in tears from the sense of intimidation and oppression, even though the hooliganism was not directed at us.

c) It could be clearly observed that a number of men in the front of the section were attired in white 'We are AWARE' t-shirts or pink tops.

d) There were also more than 20 foreign men and women in their midst.

e) Then as the meeting progressed, more than half of them moved to stand with and around the 'old guard' of AWARE, and at the floor speakers' area, continuing to disrupt the proceedings despite calls for order.

e) What really flabbergasted us was that soon some of these associate members with no voting rights took the stand to proudly declare their homosexual status to loud applause from the 'old guard' camp as they spoke in support of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme. In fact, it was impossible for ordinary members like me to try to ask any questions on the floor (as I tried to queue up to do so) as the 'old guard' with half of them men effectively 'barricading' the area and monopolising the microphones in a raucous commotion.

We came away from the whole event rather disillusioned by AWARE and what it professed to stand for. They may still be helping women, marginalised or needy, but they are also involved in the political agenda of some minority groups, even with covert foreign interference.

2) I'm also surprised and deeply troubled that the reporting in The Straits Times has not been honest in presenting the full picture to the public, especially concerned parents following the AWARE saga. There was a concerted effort by both the press and TV coverage not to mention the significant presence of the homosexual community. If I had not been there, I would never have known the truth.

a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story (Wong Kim Hoh) hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.

b) Some members of the press and TV were candidly jubilant as they celebrated the passing of the 'no confidence' vote by punching their fists in the air and hugging the 'old guard' they were standing with.

c) In the sweep of fervent support, the constitutional amendments were also made to allow men and foreign women full voting rights (in a local women's association that makes the CEDAW report on the state of women in Singapore). In the perspective that such an amendment was thrown out in the previous AGM, the motives may be called into question. The press made no mention of this important development.

I question the cover-up in the press.

In review of newspaper coverage of AWARE developments, I'm also beginning to think that press focus on the sensitive issue of religious involvement was but a calculated red herring thrown out to manipulate public sentiments.

Sir, I am pleading for the authorities to look into this matter as I am becoming increasingly alarmed that minority groups with a political agenda may not have just reached its grasp into a vulnerable women's group, and through it attempt to distort our children's views on sexuality, but has actually infiltrated the press to block out news and prevent the public from accessing the truth. I actually feel frightened that the press in Singapore can attempt to shape my views as it wishes by misinformation or partial information.

What I took away from 2 May

A lot has been said and written about the AWARE EGM last Saturday. And by now, I'm sure everyone has seen videos of the key moments on YouTube. So I'm not going to get into the familiar details of what happened that day.

Instead, I'm just going to post a few thoughts from the EGM, and also talk about some aspects that I have not seen mentioned.

Affirmation of values

First and foremost, I walked away from the EGM proud to be Singaporean. I saw the result as an affirmation of the values that we hold dear (openness, transparency, inclusiveness, diversity and secularism) and a rejection of those that, well, we should not (dishonesty, non-transparency, exclusiveness, intolerance, divisiveness and oppression/bullying).

While I do not see the EGM as a watershed or a pivotal moment signalling any sort of significant change in Singapore politics (as at least one journalist has tried to posit to me), it does stand as a milestone marking some sort of progress towards a more active and passionate civil society. The willingness of all these people to stand up and be counted, to invest all that time and effort for a cause that they believed in, gave me hope that Singaporeans are not as passive or apathetic as we are often said to be, and that it really takes the right cause to spark us into action.

Importance of passion

My second point relates to the fiery passion demonstrated by so many folks in the audience. Some have sought to portray this as a shameful lack of civility, as a disgusting show of rude bullying tactics, as a terrible indictment of the supporters of the so-called old guard (I prefer "original members"). I beg to differ.

To begin with, I question whether these critics (well, those who are not supporters of the ousted Exco) were even there at all, to see for themselves what had happened. Did they see the way that the ousted Exco had started the meeting? Did they understand the context that contributed to this atmosphere of anger?

It was clear from the outset that the ousted Exco was trying to create a tilted playing field. When I arrived just past 11am, and tried to take the escalator from the 3rd floor to the 4th floor, three of the ousted Exco's supporters blocked the escalator, claiming that I was not allowed to go up. I was a little taken aback, and proceeded only when a volunteer for the original members told them to let me pass because it was a public area and they had no right to block me. This came on the heels of another of their supporters, who had greeted me on the 3rd floor with a big plastic smile, and then furiously whispered "SKH! SKH!" into her radio as I passed her.

Was all this necessary? Was there a need to play these sort of games?

It did not get better when the meeting began. I was the lightning rod that first drew their ire. Jenica Chua had already been informed earlier that I was a legal advisor for the original members -- and yet, when a member of the audience (a VIP as designated by the Josie Lau exco, whom none of us recognised) specifically asked for me to move to the associate members' section, Josie Lau simply ordered me to move. She even directed security to escort me out of the ordinary members' section (either to the associate members' section or out of the hall, I can't remember which). My wife later told me that she was worried about the security guards forcibly manhandling me.

It only got worse, when the meeting got underway. The mics on the floor were not switched on. Whenever an original member got to a mic and tried to speak, the sound person would deliberately shut down that mic. It was no accident and not faulty sound -- it was a deliberate attempt to prevent us from speaking.

Those who are familiar with the law and practice of meetings will know that points of order have precedence, and whoever is speaking has to yield the floor to someone making a point of order. But with the mics switched off, it was impossible to raise a point of order properly. Even after the lawyer from Rajah & Tann said that the mics should be switched on, this was not done properly or consistently. When folks on the floor protested, the ousted Exco's first response was to threaten ejection from the hall, even though it is established law that the chairperson's right to eject members may be exercised only upon repeated, severe disorder, not as a first resort.

That was how the entire meeting started. What sort of note did these heavy-handed tactics adopted by the ousted Exco strike? One of the leading legal textbooks on meetings states that the effect of a fair chairperson is often under-estimated. I would certainly say that the ousted Exco was not interested in conducting a fair meeting in accordance with the rules governing meetings, but only a meeting on their terms.

Faced with this, with a hostile chairperson seeking to exercise her powers in an unfair manner, what was the floor to do? The floor's only weapon, only response, is its voice. And in this case, we used that weapon to full effect. To do otherwise, to be as meek as these critics seem to want us to be, would have played into the ousted Exco's hands.

Those who criticise the behaviour of our supporters miss the point. They overlook the nature of such EGMs, which are invariably contentious affairs with emotions running high. They buy into the myth of an orderly debate, which simply does not exist when the ground rules are unfair and stacked against one side. They ignore the important role of passion in advocacy, blindly emphasising rote obedience of rules while missing the positive aspects of passionate advocacy.

So no, I will not apologise for the behaviour of our supporters. Instead, I am proud of this rare display of passion in public discourse. Indeed, I only wish that we see more of such passion in future.

Planning, planning, planning

This article in The New Paper says it all: these unsung heroes provided the platform for all the speakers to shine. The amazing work of folks like Alex, Serena, Ching-Wi, Jolovan and Schutz made the result possible. I salute them.

Their planning was immaculate. Thanks to their immense efforts, we did not have to worry about logistics at all in the lead-up to and during the EGM. I also believe that the early arrival of our supporters paved the way for our success. We were able to occupy the seats nearest to the stage, which also turned out to be nearest to the only mic that was switched on throughout the entire EGM. This proximity to the stage and to the mic probably allowed us to neutralise Josie Lau's advantage as the chairperson.

Passion vs passiveness

I've already mentioned the passion exhibited by our supporters. In stark contrast, the supporters of the ousted Exco were surprisingly passive, preferring to clap furiously whenever the ousted Exco spoke (regardless of the substance of their comments) instead of taking to the mic. Few of their supporters spoke up, and of these, too many failed to make the most of their time on the mic. Some of the more bizarre speeches of the day came from their supporters.

More surprisingly, so many of their supporters seem to have left early. I cannot confirm this, but it felt like they had started leaving even before the results were announced. And when the members voted to remove the ousted Exco from office because it looked like they were not coming back, there were only two objections -- presumably because their other 700 supporters had left by then.

I cannot explain why, although Alex Au has speculated on this. But I did haer that their supporters arrived in buses, and did not seem to really know what was going on. So perhaps they had been bus-ed in, having been simply told to vote, without much more. If that was true, then no wonder they did not speak up.

Thank you

Finally, I want to thank the ladies who came to me for advice just after the AGM on 28 March. I got involved in all this because of them, and I am glad that I did. It gave me a ringside seat to everything that happened, and I would not have missed it for the world. I'm only happy to have had the chance to contribute to their success in some small way.

And of course, I have to thank every woman and man who turned up to be counted, for affirming those values that Singaporeans hold so dear. Without you, nothing would have happened. With you, everything becomes possible.

We won :)

As many of you may know by now, I have been advising the original members of AWARE in their (successful!) battle to remove the Exco headed by Josie Lau. So the past few weeks, especially this past week, has been crazy busy.

I have so many thoughts to share, but for now I only want to say that it has been a real honour and privilege to have been part of such a historic moment, and that I feel so heartened by the turnout and the way the voting went as well as public discourse in the past week as more facts came out -- it is such a strong affirmation by Singapore of the values that AWARE stands for: inclusiveness, diversity, openness and transparency. Today, I am so proud to be Singaporean.

For All Women - Sign Up, Turn Up, Be Counted

AWARE EGM on 2 May now at SUNTEC CITY HALL 402

UPDATE: THE EGM VENUE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO SUNTEC CITY HALL 402!!


I received this announcement in my inbox earlier this afternoon (yes, I've been an AWARE member since last October or so, way before the AGM in March).


27th April 2009

To: AWARE Members

EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING
TO BE HELD ON 2ND MAY 2009

Notice is hereby given that:

1. The venue of the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) of the Association of Women for Action & Research (“AWARE”) to be held on Saturday, 2nd May 2009 , from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. is hereby changed as follows:

Singapore EXPO Hall 2
1 Expo Drive, #01-01
Singapore 486150

Admission and registration would be from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. on Saturday, 2nd May 2009.

It is mandatory to show your NRIC for admission and registration.

2. Messrs Rajah & Tann have been appointed to act as AWARE’s legal advisors to attend the EGM to be convened on 2nd May 2009 to address legal queries relating to, and raised during, the EGM including the matters intended to be transacted, AWARE’s constitution and meeting law and procedure.

By Order Of The Executive Committee

Jenica Chua
Honorary Secretary
Association of Women for Action & Research

MOE Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools

Hot off the press, from MOE. Please do circulate this far and wide. Most importantly, please circulate not just to those who already support the original members, but those who have expressed concern about the unsubstantiated allegations of the new exco and TSM. This needs to go outside of fellow travellers, to reach those who have a misunderstanding of what AWARE has been doing but are still willing to listen to reason.

Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools

1 We refer to recent claims and comments about AWARE’s sexuality education programme in schools.

2 Sexuality education conducted in MOE schools is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.

3 Core programmes are delivered by teachers but schools do collaborate with other agencies in delivering additional modules. However, in doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are secular and sensitive to the multi-religious make-up of our society. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes.

4 Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.

5 AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.

6 The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.

7 In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.

8 If parents and members of the public know of specific instances where guidelines have not been adhered to, they should report them directly to MOE to investigate. MOE recognises that sexuality education is sensitive. In conducting these programmes, the views of parents will be respected and values taught should not deviate from the social norms accepted by mainstream society in Singapore.

TWC Statement on AWARE: 27 April 2009

TWC2 is very concerned about the AWARE leadership takeover. AWARE has been an important important partner in our work to improve the welfare of migrant workers in Singapore and champion for their rights. AWARE has ensured that issues of discrimination against migrant domestic workers are not left out in the CEDAW report and has consulted us in preparing the shadow reports. We have also joined hands with AWARE through its White Ribbon Campaign to raise awareness of the issue of violence against migrant domestic workers. As an established organisation that runs an effective and structured helpline for women in distress, AWARE has been generous in sharing its expertise with nascent organisations such as TWC2. AWARE's social worker and volunteers have helped us in training our volunteers to staff our helpline service for migrant workers. In addition, AWARE has also taken on issues concerning the vulnerabilities of foreign brides in Singapore and the trafficking of women and children for cross-border sex trade.

The above examples, show that AWARE is far from being a single-issue organisation obsessed with promoting homosexual issues. AWARE is a dynamic organisation that has stayed true to its core mission of championing for the rights of women underpinned by values such as inclusiveness. By advocating the issues concerning migrant domestic workers, foreign brides and trafficked women and children, AWARE has shown that it understands the multiple forms in which discrimination and marginalisation of women can take place as Singapore becomes more globalised. This is largely attributed to a competent leadership that truly understands the multiplicities of gender inequality and the complex social processes that underpin gender discrimination. If AWARE's future stand to be shaped by a group of individuals that do not have a solid understanding of gender inequality and whose motivation is driven by a single-issue objective, we risk losing a valuable partner in our work. Singapore may also stand to lose as more than two decades of advocacy work that aim to tackle the roots of gender inequality may be lost because of a lack of vision.