Isn't the old guard using a similar ploy?

Isn't the old guard using a similar ploy?

MUCH has been said about the questions raised by the conduct and composition of Aware's new executive committee (exco). I have questions about the conduct of the old guard too, such as:

# How representative was the old Aware? Much has been made about the need to represent all beliefs in a multi- faith, multiracial society.

Was this wide representation a feature of the old Aware? If it is important, why is it not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution of Aware, or indeed in the Constitutions of all non-governmental organisations in Singapore?

# How does the old guard justify the dwindling membership of Aware in recent years? Could it be that the old guard leaders were more concerned with their pet projects, instead of reaching out to the people of diverse interests they are now appealing to for support?

At least the new exco, in swelling the numbers of Aware members, did something that the old exco seemed incapable of.

# Is religion or race a factor in the membership of Aware? I was under the impression that the only criterion for membership was gender. If race or religion is truly irrelevant, let us stop harping on the religious affiliations of the new exco. The views of the new exco on certain issues are not exclusively held by Christians.

# In rallying people to join at the last minute to vote for a no-confidence motion against the new exco at tomorrow's extraordinary general meeting, are not the old guard and its supporters using the same tactics they accuse the new exco of using at the annual general meeting?

Boey Shee Lye (Ms)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.226