SingapuraKini: Apr 20, 2009

Monday, April 20, 2009

Which country would the Minister like to govern?

Which country would the Minister like to govern?

Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, said the Public Order Act seeks to optimally balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety, security and stability. He said in Parliament:

“Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?"

Before Singaporeans answer these questions, perhaps the Minister would like to answer this - which country in our region would he like to govern?

Which nationality can tolerate shortsighted policies such as the highly punitive 'Stop at two' population containment program that caused its fertility to fall below replacement level?

Which nationality has to put up with controversial population growth policies like the 'Have three or more, if you can afford it' program that came with a eugenic 'Graduate Mother Scheme' to improve the quality of its breed as well?

Which nationality has suffered silently under the highly discriminatory 'Education Streaming' policy that subjected many of its young children to unnecessary stress at a tender age and possibly a lifetime stigma of being classified as underachievers?

Which nationality has allowed its government to quietly discontinued half-baked policies with no apology tendered?

So which country would the Minister like to govern? I am sure the Minister’s answer to my question would be Singapore. Where else in this world can the Minister find such a supportive and 'easy' group of people to govern and be paid handsomely in the process as well?

And which country would I rather be in? My answer to the Minister’s questions is the same. This is probably the only thing we can agree on.

So back to the question of have we gotten the balance between political freedom and public order right? For being a responsible, supportive, and constructive electorate all these years, the answer to this question is an emphatic no.

Do Singaporeans deserve to be treated like children? Do we deserve to have our rights as citizens restricted further though we had never shut down the airport, paralyzed the city or even endangered the lives of our politicians and fellow citizens since we became a nation in 1965?

I believe the political marriage of convenience between Singaporeans and the PAP is no longer mutually beneficial. Over the past 44 years of nationhood, the party has eroded the power of people bit by bit. Today we are a nation paralyzed with fear, real and imaginary.

This paranoid government must grow up and recognise that nation building requires mutual respect of the highest degree between the citizens and the elected authority. So far, Singaporeans have given the government all the respect it had craved for. The Public Order Act is not the kind of respect the citizens expects in return.

The people of Singapore must remind the government to show better respect at the next poll.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27540.1

Thirsting After Greed

Thirsting After Greed

After the Marcos family fled Malacañang Palace, Imelda was found to have left behind 15 mink coats, 508 gowns, 888 handbags and 1060 pairs of shoes. Okay, maybe she collects stuff, like some people hoard Starwars figurines. Some mitigate her spendthrift habits as a compensation for a childhood of absolute poverty.

But why would a monk have need of 9 credit cards? Of course there are those who live on credit, paying off one credit card bill with another bank’s card. Like a one-man Ponzi scheme, with the scammer and victim being same. Or there are those insecure types, using a wallet full of cards to compensate for poor self esteem. Neither stereotype seems to fit Ming Yi, until recently, the highly paid CEO of Ren Ci Hospital Charity. He disabused public perception that Buddhist monks should be garbed in torn clothes, remain in the temple and not “go anywhere”. Latter kind of explains his choice of hotels like St Regis, The Regent, Four Seasons and Banyan Tree.

When MP Lily Neo prepared for her maiden voyage into politics, she hired an old Honda Accord to drive to the HDB heartlands for the election hustings. One of the rare politicians whose personal wealth has no need of the seduction of the MP allowance, she knew her husband’s sports cars or her own Europe makes would be an insensitive choice of transportation. And her empathy was consistent in her work for her constituents, fighting tooth and nail with Vivian Balakrishnan (”How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?”) for $30 extra in welfare support so that they may afford 3 full meals. Humility is from the heart.

Ming Yi’s explanation for his lifestyle, “I think we are living in a modern world,” brings to mind the old quarrel of Ho Ching with then boss and chairman of ST Technologies, Yeo Ning Hong. Latter had taken her to task for paying a million dollar bonus to one of her staff. Subsequently father-in-law castigated Yeo in parliament for being “out of touch with the private sector”, she got her job back, and “ended up in a higher tax bracket.”

Shin Buddhism, or the teachings of Shinran (1173-1262), teaches humility as the most important universal virtue. Many people think that the ultimate goal in Buddhism as well as human life is to become good. But according to Shinran, it is to become humble. Humility is timeless, only greed grows with time.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27426.1

Josie Lau’s first television interview

Josie Lau’s first television interview

Monday, 20 April 2009

In an exclusive interview with Channel NewsAsia’s Talking Point on Saturday, the recently appointed president of AWARE, Josie Lau, spoke on why she chose to run for her post.

AWARE new President Ms Josie Lau first interview - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSUrW-rxss

AWARE new President Ms Josie Lau first interview - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjUgzMaN6cY

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27422.1

For much is at stake

Monday, 20 April 2009

The government’s feeble justifications for passing the Public Order Act (POA) have been roundly and rightly denounced by the Opposition parties and netizens, and I shan’t repeat their indictments here. It is important that you read their responses closely.[provide weblinks to various relevant speeches and statements]

Take heed: the POA is not just about maintaining our racial and religious ‘harmony’. Harmony can be maintained, if it must, with the existing laws, as they always have been maintained, with a grip so ironical that one wonders if our vaunted ‘harmony’ even exists.

The POA is also not just about the impending APEC meetings or Youth Olympics and the protesters that accompany these events, for the POA is here to stay.

The POA is about preserving the dominance of the PAP. For this reason, the POA is about us, the citizens.

With the Internet, citizens have managed to reclaim some of their voices, and they are starting to speak and be heard. Nary a week now goes by without the government’s mis-steps being exposed and scrutinized by netizens, and the mainstream media’s chicanery continually unmasked. Now, the PAP’s pedigree no longer appears so distinguished and its record no longer that sterling, and the mainstream media little more than a lackey of the government. That is, a government whose largely fabricated aura, abetted by the media propagandists’ daily worship, has been diminished exponentially.

And right that it has. Our government is just like any good government there is elsewhere – filled with fallible men, prone to err. And like any government there is elsewhere, its natural impulses are to power and tyranny.

This is why democracy, and the structures that uphold it must be built, must prevail. Democracy is vital, it is neither a distant promise nor a compromise. It starts with having free and fair elections, that will give rise to a strong Opposition, and it ends with a freer people. Currently, all three elude us.

With the Internet, awakened and enlightened citizens who can now see the government for what it really is, might be galvanized to action, and threaten the PAP’s hold on power. This is why the POA is enacted, to contain dissent, to suppress action, to shackle the citizen.

But this absolute ease of tyranny – see how the POA was like an edict read out in parliament to overwhelming ‘ayes’, rather than being the contentious piece of legislation that must be deliberated and debated over – did not emerge overnight. The government’s successive legislations and insidious tweakings over the last four decades – on public order, on defamation rulings, on the GRCs, the plethora of licensing and restrictive laws governing the broadcast and print media, ‘public entertainment’ and civil society, not to mention the enormous discretionary powers the government has behind those laws – have gradually but surely strengthened the PAP’s grip on the country, entrenched its power in- and outside parliament, weakened the key institutions of the state, and silenced the citizen. In that sense, we have already been muzzled long ago. Taken together, they create for better and worse, the Singapore that we live in today.

It is this absolute ease of tyranny that manifests itself in the stark but facile choice (or is it a playful taunt?) posed to us by the law minister: “Well, ask yourself two questions: in our region, which country would you rather be in? And among the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 1960s, which country would you rather be in?”

You would rather live in Singapore, wouldn’t you? Anyway, where else can you go?

There are those who simply cannot leave, there are those who truly want to remain. But to remain is to perpetually duel, conscience with cowardice, conscience with contentment. To be made to sing its cadaveric songs of nationalism. To remain is to live in oppression. This is sad, and this is wrong.

From the law minister once more, as reported by TODAY: it boils down to how much Singaporeans trust the Government – bearing in mind the limitations and geo-political challenge that a small country faces.[1]

This is not pleading trust. This is delivering a thin-veiled threat, once more playing the vulnerability game, and inciting the siege mentality created by them – trust us, or else.

For you would rather live in Singapore, wouldn’t you? Anyway, where else can you go?

Trust them, or live in oppression. What a generous choice. What a mockery of trust it makes. And what does it make of us?

Rather, it is the government itself who does not trust its people. From our NRICs to our health records on public computers, from racial profiling to academic streaming, from NS disciplining to scholarship bondage, from HDB flat allocation and CPF lock-ups, to the neighbours’ constant gaze through grilled-windows from the opposite block, to how to love our lovers so as to propagate the state’s ideal family structure, to 24/7 surveillance online and offline, all with the threat of the ISA and the knocking in the night a recurring spectre in our minds. All culminating in this country’s pervasive, undignified, climate of fear, every step a landmine of a legislation, every step the high wall of state condescension, every step once more into the inescapable arms of the government.

This is not about trust. It is about the regime’s ability to exert and collect power. Power undergirded by a politics of deep mistrust, subjecting citizens to living in a prosperous state of constant intimidation and surveil. While they pry into all our personal affairs and indiscretions that everyone has, threatening to expose them, incarcerating you for them. Everyone a potential hostage, while their own infractions are placed above their panoptical power, beyond scrutiny. While they gently cajole: Trust us, or else.

Or else, the government can trust us for once, no? The docile, disciplined, depoliticized Singaporean, produced, processed, labeled and sorted, all for the benefit of Singapore Inc. And to whom does Singapore Inc. benefit?

If we bemoan our current state, it is also because we have ourselves to blame.

I have written before, impassioned thought is in itself activism, that political activism is neutered at its heart when individuals forget that change comes not just from the arena of parliament and street protests, but also from the sitting and thinking individual, that the personal is the political, that action originates from one’s thought, conscience, and consciousness.

But now to bring our thoughts, conscience, and consciousness to bear, and in our different ways, to serve one cause: honouring freedom. The POA and those who support it, dishonour it.

Freedom is not, unless you have bought into the government’s rhetoric, a lofty word – it is a basic need, without which citizens are bereft of dignity. The so-called politics of bread and butter is at one with the right to liberty: together, they constitute a proper, fuller life. One less, and it’s half a life. Why would dignity discriminate?

Albert Camus once observed: there are no two politics, there is only one, and it is the one that makes a commitment – the politics of honour. And indeed there can be no freedom without honour. Honour in words, honour in deed, honour in our hearts.

No heart, no honour. Not unlike those moneyed men in white.

Honour freedom. Today the government goes for them whom you think isn’t about you. (Where were we when the Opposition members were intimidated and bankrupted?) As if it’s none of your business, as if oppression is just fine. Tomorrow they’ll come for you, and you alone. They will, simply because they can, and they will, because you had let them.

Remember the saying: a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves? See how quickly the laws are amended and passed. This is our parliament of men in white, representing not the people but themselves. See how swiftly your basic rights have disappeared.

And why? Because we blind ourselves to the fact that the numerous laws passed ostensibly to maintain peace and prosperity, also invariably constrain the Opposition, crush dissent, and ensure the continued dominance of the PAP. Because you have been trained to disdain freedom, and because you have been encouraged to love your own servitude and bondage. This is the most powerful form of control, indoctrination at its best.

If we bemoan our current state, it is also because we have ourselves to blame.

The Opposition is weak because we kept silent, and so we kept them weak. Taunting them, we bluffed ourselves, feeling secure in our hypocrisy and timidity. Serves them right, we chide. In the end, this has not served us well. And now when we speak, if at all, we speak the language of disappointment, of anger, of disillusionment, of despair.

Each law that is passed is a gag and a tightening of the noose around your necks. The POA is only one of many examples, and no doubt many more will come, cumulatively, oppressively.

Forty years of independence, and we’re as dependent as ever if not more. Our nation-building efforts built a tyrannical regime instead. This is what happens when you remain silent. You will be silenced, and you will be defenceless.

The Opposition has spoken out against the POA – they always have. Go with the Opposition, that’s a start. Honour those who honour freedom, their strength lies in your hands.

Honour your own freedom too, for much is at stake. To be able to walk free and be heard, with fervour without fear.

Because freedom is not a lofty word.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27421.1

Public call to join AWARE may backfire

Public call to join AWARE may backfire

Right, this is the situation. Claire Nazar, the person endorsed by Constance Singam as president, appointed 6 new members into EXCO. It was also reported that after she joined AWARE, she had been encouraging new members to join the association. Here are excerpts of the report from ST:
Claire Nazar: Why I quit as Aware president

The irony was that Mrs Nazar had nominated six of the current remaining 11 exco members. This came about after Mrs Singam advised her to include fresh blood among the exco members who could then work with older members to ensure continuity…...

She picked them based on their credentials and 'the merit of their previous experience'. Besides, she added, 'they had expressed keen interest, and I thought they were people I could work with'.

At Mrs Nazar's urging, Ms Lau joined Aware at the start of the year. Mrs Nazar said that since joining Aware, she had made it a habit of asking women to sign up…

Before long, the new members ousted the old EXCO members and she now finds herself surrounded by the new team.

The old team now launches a counter-attack, encouraging new members to join, to oust the new EXCO. As can be seen from this report:
Old guard supporters rallying the troops

But The Sunday Times understands that more than 100 people have since signed up. Old members of Aware estimate membership to be over 600 now.

A Facebook group was even set up to canvass for new members. As of last night, 591 people have joined this group, but not all may join Aware.

An extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) has since been sought, to vote on a no-confidence motion.

In a letter to the media last Friday, new president Josie Lau noted that of the 160 signatories who asked for an EOGM, some 120 'appear to have been recruited just after the AGM in time to swell support for the requisition'.

These ladies haven’t learned a thing, have they?

My Message to the Old EXCO of Aware -

Isn’t recruiting new members YOU DO NOT KNOW, the real reason for the old EXCO’s downfall?

So by encouraging the public to join the AWARE to “oust the new team”, how do you know that the surge of new members are not affiliated, or sympathetic towards the new team?

Has not the old team been kicked in the butt by signing up new members once? Why are you repeating the same mistake?

As it is, I believe that AWARE has about 500 members or so, even before the latest surge of sign-ups. The new team depended on only about 100 members or so to be elected into office. Can’t the old team use their CURRENT MEMBERS who are not pro-new EXCO, which number about 400 plus to oust the new EXCO?

That goes about to show that the old EXCO could not even garner the support of their current members, isn’t’ it? If that is the case, then I say heck, the old team deserves to be ousted!

My message to all self-proclaimed pro-feminists (men included) –

This portion is directed to all other feminists (and pro-feminists, men included), who think they are doing the old EXCO of AWARE a favour by publicly encouraging women from all walks of life to join the coming EOGM on 2 May 2009.

Be aware (sorry for pun) that you really do not know who these Tom, Dick and Harry, or should I say, Tina, Daisy, and Harriet are. They seem so eager to join AWARE, don’t they?

My question is, by publicly encouraging them to join, how do you know that these people are not from the very groups whom you hope to oust?

I hate to say this. But in your eagerness to “save” AWARE from the doldrums, you may well be facilitating its downfall.

Are you not advertising for your adversaries as well? Isn’t it better to call your own known affiliates to join, to be sure they will support your cause, rather than calling anyone at random?

Sometimes you need to be tactical when you fight a battle. Looks like these ladies don’t know how to do it.

Ladies, like Claire Nazar who rounded up new members without doing a background check, your sites which calls upon women to join AWARE means they will join without being vetted either.

The big question is – do your really know who they are?

Why are you repeating the same disastrous mistake Claire made?

Your battle cry for more troops may well backfire.

The worst case scenario is that your opposing camp gets more than enough members to join, to the point it is enough for them to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION such that it locks them into power for a long, long time.

Is that what you want? If not, isn’t it better to just stick to your known affiliates and encourage them to join, rather than encouraging anybody you do not know from the streets?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27420.3

Facebook: We believe that recent events at AWARE concerns us all

We believe that recent events at AWARE concerns us all

Global

Basic Info

Type:

Common Interest - Beliefs & Causes

Description:

If you are female, or care about the people around you who are female, i.e: your mothers, wives, sisters or daughters, please join us and help spread the word.

Currently, a group of unknowns have taken over AWARE, the leading advocacy group for gender equality in Singapore. We have reason to believe that they do not act in the best interest of all women. They definitely have an agenda, or they would not have executed such a despicable and underhanded act of staging a coup.

If they want to push their agenda, let them form their own organisation.

If they truly care so much about women's rights, they should work WITH AWARE, not against them.

If there is nothing sinister about their actions, they should stop their silence and explain to us why they did what they did and what are their plans for the future.

If they do not have anything to hide, they could have simply said "We will continue to do the good work that AWARE has been doing and improve on it."

Instead, they have simply said "No comment"

As long as they continue to keep silent, we will continue to believe that their agenda differs from the current AWARE mission and we need to work together to get these group of people out of AWARE's ex-co.

In order to help ensure that AWARE maintains in safe hands, a group of people are gathering women to sign up as members of AWARE. If you are a woman in Singapore and are keen to help maintain the mission statement of AWARE, please turn up during the coming EOGM to cast your vote.

Membership is at $40 per year and if you are a student below 25, you can purchase it at just $5.

Sign up at www.aware.org.sg

Contact Info

Email:
Office:	http://www.aware.org.sg

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=72296674515&ref=mf

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27420.2

Aware chief wants to heal rift with upset members

Aware chief wants to heal rift with upset members

By Wong Kim Hoh, Senior Writer from Straits Times

AS ITS new president, Ms Josie Lau says her priority is to reconcile members of the Association of Women And Research (Aware) following the controversial leadership change on March 28.

She hopes that an extraordinary general meeting to be held soon will provide an opportunity for an open discussion.

‘The team has clearly fissured. I want to operate such that my members can support me, and we can all disagree in an agreeable environment,’ she said.

Ms Lau and Aware’s new honorary treasurer Maureen Ong appeared on Channel News Asia’s half-hour Talking Point programme aired last night.

They said they could not understand why the Aware old guard had been unhappy with the change, when the exco’s new faces had merely responded to calls to serve women.

Asked if their takeover was a planned coup, Ms Lau said: ‘No.’ She and Ms Ong claimed they had only just got to know each other.

They were short on details about their plans, saying it was too soon.

But Ms Lau said change was needed because Aware had lost its focus and diversified too much, going into too many different areas. The result was that it did not have enough depth.

‘Like any good corporation, if you have diversified too much, consolidate,’ she said. ‘And as with any new committee, we know that resources are always limited, (so) let’s take a look and review what is done in the past that is good, let’s keep that, and what new ideas we have, bring on.’

She said she hoped to start a mentoring scheme to groom younger women for leadership positions.

In fact, she already had a new programme called ‘Wind Beneath My Wings’ in mind, and said it would pair younger women with successful role models such as former Aware president Claire Chiang and Singapore Ambassador to the United States Chan Heng Chee.

The past three weeks have seen a series of stormy events at Aware after a large group of new members swarmed the annual general meeting and voted in an exco of mostly unknowns.

Mrs Claire Nazar was elected president, but quit after just 11 days.

She revealed in The Sunday Times yesterday that she gave up because of the aggressive tactics of the new office bearers, who seemed in a rush to replace sub-committee heads and disregarded input and advice from older Aware members.

Ms Lau filled the gap when she was appointed president last week, but immediately landed in trouble with her employer DBS Bank, which said it had advised her not to take up the top post.

Meanwhile, a group of 160 Aware members have called for an extraordinary general meeting to table a vote of no confidence in the new team.

Last night, Ms Lau said she and her team had remained silent because events had moved so fast.

As for her problem with her employer, she said it ‘has been resolved’, but was still under discussion.

Explaining why she took the post, she said: ‘I felt that I had to pick up the baton, to run and to continue to lead this organisation that had been mired in controversies in the last one, two weeks.’

Near the end of the programme Ms Lau was asked how her exco would respond to a woman facing discrimination at work because of her sexuality.

She replied: ‘Aware is a secular organisation. We are not there to push our personal religious beliefs. We do not discriminate against anyone of particular religion, whether you are a man or woman.

‘Talking about sexual discrimination, it is a very controversial topic, and the new exco will have to take a new look at this and see what is the role we want to take.’

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27420.1

NEA CEO’s open letter: Full of empty rhetoric and short of substance

NEA CEO’s open letter: Full of empty rhetoric and short of substance

I refer to the letter sent to the media by NEA Chief Executive Officer Andrew Tan which was published on 18 April 2009 by The Straits Times (read letter here)

While I applaud Mr Tan for his promise to step up NEA’s vigilance and enforce higher standards of public hygiene on all food outlets, there is no way we can move forward unless the mistakes unearthed by the Geylang Serai food poisoning outbreak are acknowledged and addressed.

Mr Tan’s lengthy article is full of empty rhetoric on NEA’s past efforts to maintain public hygiene in Singapore, but stop short of admitting culpability on the part of both the market’s management committee and NEA itself.

According to Mr Tan, the number of food poisoning cases in Singapore is “very low”. Over the last three years, there has been an “average of only four food poisoning incidents” a year.

I have serious doubts about the accuracy of the quoted figure. Food poisoning cases are hardly reported to the authorities by doctors unless there is suspicion of a major outbreak like the Geylang Serai case.

As we have no real figures on the number of actual cases of diarrhoea caused directly by poor food hygiene, it is inappropriate to use it as a measure of NEA’s track record in upholding public health and hygiene.

While Mr Tan has taken conscious efforts to explain NEA’s grading scheme of food hygiene in his letter, he had failed to allay public concerns about its effectiveness and the four month delay in handling out of the updated decals to the Geylang Serai market hawkers.

I am also bemused by Mr Tan’s clumsy attempts to exonerate the Geylang Serai market management committee from blame over its abject failure to maintain the cleanliness and hygiene of the market’s premises.

Mr Tan wrote that “despite the best of efforts put in by the Temporary Market Management Committee in implementing its cleaning regime and in tackling the rat infestation problem, the problem had persisted.”

I hope Mr Tan is not trying to sound sarcastic here. Contrary to Mr Tan’s erroneous belief, the management committee has been sitting on the problem since the market was set up in spite of numerous complaints from the stallholders themselves. What they could have easily done in three years was accomplished by a team of pest controllers in less than a week.

This is a perverse judgement coming from a public official paid by taxpayers. It is perverse because NEA should act in the interest of the public at all times instead of shielding the culpable parties from blame.

As an enforcement authority, NEA has the powers to identify the members of the management committee and prosecute them for lapses in food and environmental hygiene under the same law which they used to bring the Indian rojak stallholder to court.

Though NEA is not directly responsible for the food poisoning outbreak, lapses in its enforcement of public hygiene at the market have contributed to the tragedy.

Mr Tan should be gracious enough to admit the shortcomings of NEA and apologize to the public for failure to prevent the outbreak from occurring.

Singaporeans do not need any more empty words and promises from the authorities. What we want to see most is accountability, justice and transparency - accountabilty in taking responsibility for one’s missteps, justice in ensuring the culprits are punished and transparency in revealing the findings of the internal inquiry to the public.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27419.1

Letter from AWARE about EGM agenda

Letter from AWARE about EGM agenda

“With reference to the 24th AGM of the AWARE duly convened on 28th Mar 09, the members present and voting had, by majority vote, decided to discuss the Proposed Constitutional Amendments at an EGM to be convened by the duly elected ExCo 09/10″manager@aware.org.sg or call 67797137.“

The documents relevant to the above meeting will be sent seperately at a later date.

Agenda:

1. Confirmation of Minutes of the 24th AGM held on 28th Mar 09
2. Matters Arising
3. Requisition for EGM
4. Proposed Constitutional Amendments ( to be sent later)
5. AOB

Any member who wishes to place an item on the agenda should give notice to the Honorary Secretary no later than 22nd Apr 2009.

By Order of The Executive Committee

Jenica Chua (Ms)
Honorary Secretary
AWARE

Reference: Requisition for EGM

We the undersigned constituting at least 10% of the membership of AWARE hereby request that an EGM to be called to consider and pass the following resolutions:

1. That the current Executive Committee has lost the mandate and confidence of th mebers of the Society to continue as the Executive Committee of the Society on the basis that the Current Exco:

a. has not acted and is not acting in the best interest of the Society; and/or
b. does not appreciate or share the values of the Society; and/or
c. does not have the requisite experience of carrying out the Society’s work or is otherwise inadequate to further the Society’s objectives;

2. that all members of the Current Exco be and are hereby removed from their positions on the Executive Committee; and

3. that a replacement Executive Committee be elected to serve for the remainder of the current term

We request that the Notice to call the EGM be issued no later than 14 days from the date of this request.

Dated 14th Apr, undersigned by 160 members.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27416.1

Offer of olive branch by AWARE President Josie Lau Meng Lee failed to convince sceptics

Offer of olive branch by AWARE President Josie Lau Meng Lee failed to convince sceptics; Old Guards gathering troops to fight back

In spite holding out an olive branch to disgrunted AWARE members during her interview with CNA “Talking Point” last Saturday, many remained sceptical of the agenda of new AWARE President Josie Lau.

During the interview, Ms Josie Lau says her priority is to reconcile members of the Association of Women And Research (Aware) following the controversial leadership change on March 28. (read report here)

She hopes that an extraordinary general meeting to be held soon will provide an opportunity for an open discussion.

‘The team has clearly fissured. I want to operate such that my members can support me, and we can all disagree in an agreeable environment,’ she said.

Josie claimed that she knew her new exco members only lately though 6 out of 9 of them attend Anglican Church of Our Savior at Margaret Drive.

Josie also made use of the interview to criticize the old exco for failing to bring AWARE forward after 24 years by highlighting its dwindling membership under the stewardship of the previous presidents.

She said change was needed because Aware had lost its focus and diversified too much, going into too many different areas. The result was that it did not have enough depth.

‘Like any good corporation, if you have diversified too much, consolidate,’ she said. ‘And as with any new committee, we know that resources are always limited, (so) let’s take a look and review what is done in the past that is good, let’s keep that, and what new ideas we have, bring on.’

More ominously, Josie chose to skirt the question about her new exco’s stance on sexuality when she could be more forthcoming with an answer to allay lingering doubts about their anti-homosexuality agenda.

Near the end of the programme Ms Lau was asked how her exco would respond to a woman facing discrimination at work because of her sexuality.

She replied: ‘Aware is a secular organisation. We are not there to push our personal religious beliefs. We do not discriminate against anyone of particular religion, whether you are a man or woman.

‘Talking about sexual discrimination, it is a very controversial topic, and the new exco will have to take a new look at this and see what is the role we want to take.’

Unfortunately, the old guard may not give Josie and her new committee much time to discuss about the role they are going to take.

Emails have been circulated to the community urging Singaporeans to join AWARE to “make their votes count”.

A facegroup has been set up to draw public attention to their cause here
“If you are female, or care about the people around you who are female, i.e: your mothers, wives, sisters or daughters, please join us and help spread the word.
Currently, a group of unknowns have taken over AWARE, the leading advocacy group for gender equality in Singapore. We have reason to believe that they do not act in the best interest of all women. They definitely have an agenda, or they would not have executed such a despicable and underhanded act of staging a coup.

If they want to push their agenda, let them form their own organisation.

If they truly care so much about women’s rights, they should work WITH AWARE, not against them.

If there is nothing sinister about their actions, they should stop their silence and explain to us why they did what they did and what are their plans for the future.

If they do not have anything to hide, they could have simply said “We will continue to do the good work that AWARE has been doing and improve on it.”

Instead, they have simply said “No comment”

As long as they continue to keep silent, we will continue to believe that their agenda differs from the current AWARE mission and we need to work together to get these group of people out of AWARE’s ex-co.

In order to help ensure that AWARE maintains in safe hands, a group of people are gathering women to sign up as members of AWARE. If you are a woman in Singapore and are keen to help maintain the mission statement of AWARE, please turn up during the coming EOGM to cast your vote.

Ordinary members who were previously inactive now felt compelled to speak out against the “hostile takeover” of AWARE:

“If you’ve read the Straits Times, TODAY, or have been in contact with an AWARE member recently, you’ll be aware of what has happened to our organisation. 150 members have recently submitted a petition to the new ExCo for an Extraordinary General Meeting to ask the new team about their motives and plans for the organisation. So far they have already removed chairpeople from key AWARE committees.

We are concerned what they’ll do about key aware programmes that don’t align with their undisclosed agenda. The EGM has been scheduled by the new ExCo for Saturday, May 2.(Happens to be on a holiday weekend, so we’re worried people won’t be able to attend…) Please attend and support the old guard of AWARE. We may have a vote of no confidence so we need you there. Rally as many of your friends to join AWARE and come to the meeting. This is extremely important if you care about the future of women’s issues in this country.”

It appears that the new exco’s reticence on feminism and their plans for AWARE’s future continues to be its Achilles Heel as it struggles to win over disaffected members who are still reeling from shock over the controversy which the organization now find itself embroiled in.

Another member expressed doubts over the sudden increase in AWARE’s membership this year:

“From January - March of this year, AWARE’s membership increased by over 100 members. Many of the new members submitted applications on photocopied forms, suggesting they had been given out at a large meeting. These new members showed up en mass at AWARE’s Annual General Meeting on March 28 and voted themselves in nine of twelve Executive Committee positons. They now hold the majority and decision-making power.

None of these women had volunteered with AWARE before. When asked of their opinions on feminism their responses were noncommital. When asked about their plans for the future of AWARE, they also had little to say.

Several are members of a very anti-gay church and have been public about their hostility towards gays. Rumor has it that this takeover was stragetically planned because AWARE is an open and welcoming place for women, regardless of class, race, or sexuality.

In the little time these women have been in charge of AWARE, they have fired the highly respected chairs of several important subcommittees. These subcomms were conducting research for the United Nations and for Singapore, and now that research is in danger.”

Did the new exco win the election square and fair or is it a pre-mediated “constitutional coup” to seize control of Singapore’s leading women advocacy group?

Are the old guards hypocrites in employing the same method to oust their adversaries? Is this becoming a battle between the Christian conservatives and the secular liberals?

Regardless of the outcome, the acrimony resulting from the fallout will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those involved for a long time to come.

Nevertheless, it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for AWARE and Singapore civil society as previously apathetic members are galvanized and empowered to stake a claim to its ownership for their own beliefs and values.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27415.1

AWARE president says will not step down despite pressure

Photos

1 of 1

> " onclick="Next();" src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_next.gif" type="image" width="18" height="15">

Josie Lau (seated, front) helms AWARE's new executive committee, partly seen here

Sore Losers?

Sore Losers?

Ok. So I get that the new Exco of AWARE is radically different from the old Exco. But what I do not get is why a group that talks about democracy and wants there to be a flourishing civil society, would act contrary to their own cherished views. This Operation Leper seeks to basically make life difficult for those who do not belong to their camp.

I may not agree with the new leadership at AWARE, but to be honest they won fair and square. AWARE had no rules or by-laws that prevented new members from running. They also do not have a compulsory voting system. The new leadership just managed to get more of their supporters out than the old guard. So now the losers cry foul and say that there was an “outrageously illeberal, undemocratic, and unprincipled takeover of AWARE.”

This is the problem why I dislike bleeding heart liberals, but prefer the pragmatic left-center. Liberals are all for free speech and democracy until it turns out that you get to criticise them and oust them from office. Then suddenly its only free speech and democracy for “intelligent” (basically like-minded) people.

Yeah I’d like to know why the president-elect walked out, seeing as how she could have stayed and perhaps prevent the young turks from ruining the place. But I digress.

The main point is that the election was not undemocratic. Snouts were counted and the turks had more snouts than the old guard. I cannot see how it was unprincipled since there were no real rules with regards to who could run in AWARE. Illiberal, maybe. But then again I still don’t know what the leadership of AWARE will be doing. They can have personal views, but sometime as a body they may make decisions that may not reflect their personal beliefs.

I also do not get how this goes against the idea of a civil society. Wikipedia defines civil society as (taken from LSE):
“Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.”

I also don’t get what the problem is. If AWARE is meant to promote women’s views, then I think that there’s always going to be a bunch of views out there. Feminism is not a unified front, just like every other ideology. Also if the issue is over the issue of GLBTQ, then I think opposing the young turk exco makes no sense. While AWARE has previously been friendly towards the pro-GLBTQ position, it’s still not AWARE’s primary contituency. There are plenty of women issues to take care of, before worrying about sexual orientation.

So back to my main point. If people really respect democracy and due process down at AWARE, then all this yelling and shouting seems a little hypocritical to me. It’s not the fault of the young turks that they were better organised and got out the vote. The old guard got complacent. The members got complacent. They let those they disagree with in. But it was not a coup, and the ballots were not illegally stuffed. The young turks played by the rules and got the votes they needed to win.

In the end, I think that those who are saying that the election results somehow were wrong, fail to be true democrats and respect the fact that this happened because they were sleeping at the wheel. So in truth, perhaps these so called “civil” society advocates are really “uncivil.”

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27521.1

Aware: Too much shrieking, too little explaining

Exchange
THE BUZZ

Aware: Too much shrieking, too little explaining

By Tan Mae Lynn

April 20, 2009

I AM woman, hear my sisters shriek. Apologies to Helen Reddy, who in the '70s, sang the inspirational and empowering line: 'I am woman, hear me roar.'

TNP FILE PICTURE

Sadly, what has been happening at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) has been neither inspirational nor empowering.

It has been loud, yes, and shrill rather than resounding - with all the dignity and decorum of a cat fight.

Ladies, I am embarrassed.

And I say this of the actions of both the incoming team as well as the old guard.

It is doubtful if the events of the past couple of weeks, following the association's elections, reflect its founding goals of achieving social equality.

Both the power-grabbers and the old guard are to blame for how ugly things have become, and the less than glowing coverage Aware has attracted in the media.

First, how could the old guard not have suspected anything when their membership numbers spiked over the last few months?

Indeed, it appeared that they had not found anything amiss until one of their own was badly defeated in the election for vice-president.

It was only then that they checked and realised that an overwhelming majority of those who had turned up to vote were new members.

The old guard should reflect on whether they have been receptive to fresh ideas and open to thoughts of rejuvenating the organisation - and whether they were even (pardon the pun) aware of what was going on around them.

One cannot help but suspect they may have operated like an elitist 'old girls' club.

On the other side is a group that appears like a bunch of bullies in its bid for power.

Did they think they could grab power without having to deal with public scrutiny?

They certainly have some explaining to do, after having made such a move at a well-known, well-established organisation.

But they have said little. They haven't really opened up to queries and their two statements have not exactly cleared the air.

What they stand for

Surely, if they choose to take over such a high-profile organisation in such a dramatic fashion, they must be prepared to talk about who they are, what they stand for and how they plan to implement change.

As educated women, they should know that in any election regardless of scale, the candidates should make their views and commitment known.

In Aware's latest statement, its new president, Ms Josie Lau, asked: 'Why have some people cast aspersions on our good intentions?... Does the old guard harbour an alternative agenda? If so, they should disclose their motives and objectives fully and honestly.'

How ironic.

She and her team have not answered those questions themselves. The public have been kept in the dark about these 'good intentions'.

It would be naive to expect people to grant them full confidence without being fully informed.

I'm not a member of Aware and after this, I doubt I'll ever be one.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27414.2

Inconsistencies in Josie Lau’s Television Interview

Inconsistencies in Josie Lau’s Television Interview

SINGAPORE– Emerging from the recent saga of AWARE, new president Josie Lau appeared on Channel News Asia for her first ever televised interview. Anchoring the discussion on Talking Point were Debra Soon, Chief Editor for MediaCorp TV news, and P N Balji, an Editorial Consultant.

There are however, several possible inconsistencies surrounding the televised interview that seemed to contradict the understood state of affairs concerning the recent unexpected takeover of AWARE by the new exco.

Firstly, Ms. Lau had defended her ascension to the Presidency of AWARE against allegations that it was an premeditated power grab by individuals who had known each other through a common church. According to the interview, it was suggested that the position of Presidency of AWARE was thrust in her direction on the night of 15th April only after everybody else rejected it, as she was the “last woman standing”, and therefore had to “pick up the baton, to run and continue to lead this organization.”

However, according to a statement by Ms. Lau’s employers, The Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), it was made clear that Ms. Lau had informed them earlier in the week of her intention to run for Presidency of AWARE, a request which DBS eventually rejected.

Furthermore, it was mentioned during the interview that Ms. Lau did not know Ms. Maureen Ong, the new Honorary Treasurer of AWARE, prior to their involvement in the organization — despite being from the same church. The church in question is the Church of Our Savior, a relatively small-sized Anglican community church in comparison to several mega churches in Singapore.

Indeed, the possibility is remote that 6-7 members of a community church may actually end up running for 11 positions at the same time in a secular national organization such as AWARE (exhibiting a dwindling membership of only about 200 last year) without any antecedent communication or planning.

Questions remain about the 80 odd members that suddenly showed up during the AGM of AWARE to vote the old guards of the organization out. Most of these 80 odd members had their AWARE membership freshly minted several months ago, and prior to the AGM were not understood to be active participants of AWARE.

However, information has not been disclosed about these 80 odd members if they were also from the Church of Our Savior.

AWARE is primarily a secular national organization that fights for women’s rights in Singapore. When pressed with a hypothetical scenario of a woman dismissed from work based purely on a discrimination arising from her sexual inclination, Josie Lau’s answer was hesitant and evasive to say the last:

“(We) have to look at it and see what direction we’re going to take,”

“We haven’t had the chance to discuss individual ideas yet, we want to quickly get on with work.”

Clearly, such a case of unmistakable sexual discrimination of women in Singapore should not require the grand workings of a tedious litany of ideas to be categorically stood up against. For the leader of a secular organization fighting against all forms of discrimination of women not to provide a simple definitive answer to such a direct question, the future may indeed be ominous for the rights of women in Singapore.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27420.8

Aware: Both parties marshalling members for EOGM

Fight Over Aware Leadership
Both parties marshalling members for EOGM
Feuding camps shaping up for a showdown
WHEN and how will the war of words between the newcomers and the old guard in the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) end?
By Ho Lian-yi
20 April 2009

WHEN and how will the war of words between the newcomers and the old guard in the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) end?

In a showdown of numbers, it seems.

Both sides are strengthening their positions by marshalling their forces before an expected extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) initiated by a group of Aware veterans.

They have done so with a petition carrying 160 signatories.

In a letter to the media, new president Josie Lau accused the old guard of artificially swelling their numbers.

She wrote: 'No more than five signatories were present at the 28th March AGM attended by 99 ordinary members and three associate members.

'Some 120 of the 160 signatories appear to have been recruited just after the AGM in time to swell support for the requisition.'

She also wrote that ordinary membership has hit about 400, compared to 253 in 2008, and it continues to grow 'at an impressive rate'.

So is the old guard marshalling its numbers for the showdown?

Former Aware vice-president Margaret Thomas, one of the 160 pushing for the EOGM, said: 'What do you mean by recruiting? We are not going around the streets saying join us.'

The people on the list, she said, are old members - meaning current members and former members whose memberships have lapsed.

There were also newcomers, from strangers to friends of friends, who are concerned and want to help, she said.

The exact numbers who joined recently could not be established.

'We didn't stick up a notice board and say, join Aware,' she said.

She agreed that it was a kind of 'grounds up' movement.

'A lot of people have been jostled out of a certain complacency. People are saying I'm supportive of Aware, but I was complacent, and never joined and showed support for the cause,' she said.

'This is a wake-up call. If I believe in something, I have to get off my seat and get involved.'

# Ex-Aware chief quits

MS Constance Singam has resigned from the exco as advisor in her capacity as immediate past president. She sent an e-mail yesterday afternoon to some Aware members. Her reasons for resigning:

# She gave advice at the first two meetings of the exco, but was ignored. She was particularly unhappy that the exco proposed to replace all subcommittee chairs with exco members.

# The possible ideological opposition of many exco members to Aware's fundamental values.

She said that several times, those who were standing for election were asked about their understanding of feminism and Aware's objectives, but their responses were, at best, non-committal.

# Her increasing concerns about the intentions and ability of the exco. She referred to DBS' statement about how president Josie Lau had breached its code of conduct for staff and that some of the exco members were from the same church.

As to whether she thinks the newcomers are recruiting to match the challenge, she said: 'Since that was the way they got into the exco (executive committee), I imagine they must be.'

There has been no date set for the EOGM, neither has it been reported if the current committee would table it.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27414.1

To AWARE’s new exco: Please leave out your religion!

To AWARE’s new exco: Please leave out your religion!

SINGAPORE - The dramatic rise to AWARE’s leadership by a group of virtual unknowns kicked up a ruckus from within the organization itself all the way to cyberspace. What transpired was that 80 out of the 102 who turned up at the annual general meeting were new members who joined between January and March this year. Subsequently, the latter went on to elect many of their own peers into 9 out of 12 executive committee positions.

In the ensuing debates that followed, interesting information regarding the new executive committee members’ background surfaced. According to the older members, the newcomers were part of a Christian fundamentalist group that had the intention of taking over an existing organization in its entirety. The plot further thickens with revelations of the anti-homosexuality stand of the new Honorary Secretary and others in the new committee. It was revealed that they were prominent in writing against homosexuality in the Straits Times forum page, and this extended to their supporters too.

If fulfilling religious agenda is the motivation behind the takeover, AWARE could be facing the problem of a religious groupthink. Decisions will be based solely on the stands of such a group, and external ideas not conducive to the latter’s agenda will be rejected. For instance, would this group be in favor of pushing for the emancipation of a sexual minority group such as lesbians?

And would this religious groupthink result in AWARE losing the focus of its vision in achieving equality for all regardless of race, religion and sexuality? If the new members were to pursue their anti-homosexuality and anti-lesbian agenda in their capacity as AWARE members, it would be hard to see how they could be helping women achieving equality status. The bright side of this episode is that the public spotlight is now on the new members, and it appears from the public perspective, they seemed to be dissociating from their religious link.

Thus, this publicity may be positive in the sense that the newcomers’ credibility is now under scrutiny, which is why they are not keen to give signals of any religious link at the current moment. If they pursue any religious agenda, they will simply lose credibility. And AWARE risks degenerating into a quasi-religious organization, and losing its credibility as a whole too. From there, many possible eventualities abound, one of which is the establishment of another pro-women organization with AWARE’s original vision. In fact, hardly anyone would be surprised if the older members of AWARE were to set up a new organization based on similar principles, and this is followed by mass defection of dissatisfied members. AWARE will then become nothing more than a Christian women’s organization in pursuit of the Christian agenda.

It isn’t rare for a religious group to attempt seeking ways to pursue its religious agenda at the state level. Perhaps, the latter has a noble vision, reinforced by the belief that a state that lies on the bedrock on its beliefs will be better off. However, reality contradicts. In a seminal study by Gregory Paul and published in the Journal of Religion and Society, the least theistic secular democracies like Japan, France and Scandinavia have low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex-related dysfunction and even abortion. U.S., which professed to be a Christian nation demonstrated by absolute belief in God and the Bible’s literacy in addition to attendance of religious services, suffer from high homicide rates like Portugal, another Christian nation. And the U.S. has 6 to 300 times higher rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection as compared to other pro-evolution developed secular democracies. And what is more startling is that quantitative data seems to contradict the belief that more secular cultures lead to increased abortion rates. In fact, it was shown that increased adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with theistic belief, and again such numbers are uniquely high in the U.S.. Early adolescent pregnancies have dropped in democracies, but remain twice to dozen times higher in the U.S..

And according to Margaret Talbot in an article published in the The New Yorker titled “Red Sex, Blue Sex”, findings by social scientists and scholars comparing the socially liberal “blue” states to the sexual abstinence advocating “red” states within the US seems to be consistent with the theistic-secular divide elucidated by Gregory Paul. The highest teen-pregnancy rates were in Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas, whom are all red states, whilst blue states are amongst those with the lowest rates, with the exception of North Dakota, which is a red state. There was higher tendency to start families early due to unplanned pregnancies in the red states. Early marriage put couples at greater risk of divorce. Thus, states with the highest divorce rates are Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho and West Virginia, all of whom are red states.

Mr Alex Au, a popular socio-political commentator, highlighted his concerns that these new executive committee members might influence AWARE to preach abstinence and denounce abortion and homosexuality when invited to give sexuality talks to schools. For all the good intentions behind the preachings, it may result in undesirable outcomes as described in the aforementioned studies.

Since empirical observations have shown that there is no benefit in building a society that rests on the fundamentals of a theistic religion, religion should remain separate from the state. Even more so for a secular organization like AWARE. And staying secular might be the way to go, as secular democracies have been observed in such studies to be better off than their theistic counterparts.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27516.2

The AWARE Saga and Political ‘Capture’: Lessons for Civil Society

The AWARE Saga and Political ‘Capture’: Lessons for Civil Society

The AWARE saga, where a new leadership emerged unexpectedly and displaced the old guard, represents a case of ‘political capture’. While some commentators have labelled it as a ‘coup’, a more accurate way of looking at the proceedings would be to see it as the ‘capture’ of power, made possible by distinct flaws of a democratic system. A ‘coup’ implies that the old leadership was forcefully removed from their positions and a new leadership was installed without the consent of constituents. That is not the case. The new members came to power via constitutional means and did nothing that overstepped the lines drawn by the organization’s constitution. In other words, the new leadership, by any democratic measure, is legitimate and has a right to lead the organization in the direction of their choosing, constrained only by Aware’s constitution, rules and to a lesser extent, norms.

In political science literature, political ‘capture’ occurs when a dominant person, or group, manages to attain an overwhelming degree of influence in an organization. The way this occurs, ironically, is made possible by the democratic process. NGOs are known to be transparent and democratic and AWARE is no different. Where heads and votes matter, the person, or persons, who get the most votes are legitimate holders of powers for that particular round of elections. Whether the elected office-bearers derive support, or votes, from an existing pool of members or from an outside pool of people who can be made eligible to vote by the simple act of signing up, is immaterial. The democratic process has been adhered to, and in a civic society, losers of an election have to be gracious, while winners have to be accepted( Provisions for a vote of ‘No Confidence’ is, fortunately, part of the deal).

The tone of the previous paragraph may imply that political ‘capture’ should be condoned but that is not its intention. The intention is to show that a democratic system produces democratically-elected representatives who are legitimate, as far as the constitution of the organization goes. Whether ‘capture’ is to be condoned, or to be seen as a manifestation of dirty politicking, is a matter of individual opinion. But of concern in this AWARE saga is the extent to which ‘capture’ can occur in other civil society organizations.

Organizations such as NGOs and sports associations regularly elect members to sit on their boards and who are entrusted with the task of leading the organization. It is not uncommon in Singapore to see organizations, especially sports associations, that have been led by the same person for numerous years. The reason for such a phenomenon is simply because the ‘electorate’, or the pool of members who are eligible to vote, is usually small and they usually have close connections to the elected member. However, when an electorate is allowed to grow in size overnight, as what presumably happened in AWARE, this system of democratic elections is open to abuse. A member running for a post can simply ask his/her friends to join the organization(usually having to pay a nominal fee) and appear in the AGM to vote him/her in. Implications? Members can buy votes from complete strangers who are indifferent to the aims of an organization, but are motivated by monetary, or other kinds of rewards.

The danger for civil society actors is clearly apparent here. Political ‘capture’ can occur should there be no countervailing system to prevent ‘new strangers’ from voting. A sudden influx of people paying the nominal membership due of $16 a year is all it takes to get a sudden surge of votes. Furthermore, any and every voluntary, open-door, organization is exposed to this risk. The potential political manipulation of an organization, by any group whether they are Christians,Marxists or Tree-huggers, is there to be exploited.

It’s time civil society actors revisit their constitutions and analyze the possibilities. It seems that AWARE is paying for its inability to forsee such a ‘capture’.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27517.1

AWARE old guard says debate is healthy

AWARE old guard says debate is healthy
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 20 April 2009 2201 hrs

SINGAPORE: The old guard from the women's group AWARE said the saga over the association's leadership change has resulted in a healthy debate in civil society. But it is not a fight as many would like to see it.

Singaporeans have often been criticised for being apathetic, but in a way, the AWARE saga has demonstrated otherwise.

Braema Mathi, former AWARE president and former Nominated Member of Parliament, said: "AWARE is simply an organisation that will always, I hope, stand up for any form of anti-discrimination - whether you are heterosexual, homosexual, transgender, transvestite, divorced or a single mum.

"This is the way a women's movement functions - you embrace all forms of diversity. But if communities outside are threatened by what has happened, they want to take it further, then we have to live with it. That is also part of the diversity of voices around.

"In a way, I see a lot of good things happening for Singapore happening through this episode too. I think women who care about this organisation now have to say, ‘Yes, what do I want to do?’

"Come, put your stake down - if your claim goes in whichever way, we accept it, but let's get to it. And other civil societies watching the space and wondering what is happening, and getting involved, I think all that is good."

Newly elected president Josie Lau had said AWARE had lost its focus under the old leadership, a view which the old guard said needs to be substantiated.

The old guard said that in recent years, AWARE has done a lot of work on sexuality education, body image and domestic violence. There are existing leadership programmes for members - for example, two years ago, the group's Youth Group ran a leadership camp. Women are also encouraged to serve on various committees.

Members of the old guard will be asking, at the upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting on May 2, questions about the new members' values - which they feel still have not been answered.

Braema added: "This is not a fight as I think everyone likes to see it. This is a simple case of 'we do not understand why you need to do it in the way so far'.

"Right now, it looks like the value system is the same. Then one doesn't need to do all this, one could just come and have volunteered some time ago and be part of the processes."

The old guard members also said they never wanted the matter to go to the media and they wanted to resolve it internally. But given the public interest in developments, coupled with the lack of communication from the newcomers, the old guards said they felt they had to respond.

On her dismissal by the new executive committee (exco) as chairman of one of AWARE's sub-committees, Braema said she will need to discuss the matter with her 20 committee members who are upset with her dismissal before deciding what to do.

The new executive committee had sacked her because it claimed a report that was due in March last year had not been submitted.

Braema, and AWARE's previous president Constance Singam, said the report was actually due in March this year.

AWARE's immediate past president Claire Nazar had also claimed that the new exco wanted to replace chairpersons of important subcommittees with exco members. AWARE President Josie Lau could not be reached for comments.

It now remains to be seen if answers will be forthcoming at the EGM next Saturday. - CNA/vm

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27463.4

London caught in a China vibe

Apr 21, 2009
London caught in a China vibe
By Daniel Allen

LONDON - As London gears up for its own Olympic Games sportfest in 2012, the runaway success of the Beijing Summer Olympics last year has given the English capital's fascination with all things Chinese a major shot in the arm. With over 100,000 Chinese nationals living in London alone, and another 150,000 across the British Isles, the spread of Chinese culture is a natural by-product of deepening bilateral ties and mutual respect.

London's Chinese community is one of the oldest in Europe, dating to the mid-1880s, when seamen from China settled in East London to escape their chicken-coop dockside lodgings. Nowadays, an impressive network of Chinese schools and community centers helps Chinese Londoners pass on their cultural identity from one generation to the next. Still, it's one thing to preserve your own culture, it's quite another to get other people of a different background to understand and appreciate it.

For many years, tucking into chicken chow mein or egg rolls from the local takeout was as close as most Londoners came to sampling Chinese culture. Set in the heart of the West End, London's Chinatown was little more than a loose collection of bargain buffets and cheap grocery stores. Neither very authentic nor very contemporary; it was, much like the fortune cookie, an aging Western take on a hackneyed Eastern theme.

Now, thanks to the Beijing Olympics, and the efforts of people like David Tse Ka Shing, all that is changing. Tse Ka Shing is creative director of the Chinatown Arts Space (CAS), started in 2003 by a group of British East Asian artist who wanted to drive the development of East Asian performing and visual arts in London. Over the past couple of years, CAS has organized many high-profile events, and was heavily involved in last year's "China in London" event.

"Together with all at CAS, I decided it was time to help rebrand Chinatown," says Tse Ka Shing. "For a long time the area was just known for food and shopping. Now a younger generation of Chinese and other East Asians in London want to express themselves, and this involves promoting all manner of art forms, from dance and drama though to sculpture and songwriting."

Most recently, CAS has overseen the installation of Chinatown's first public art work, a giant mural by Hong Kong-born architect and designer Wing Kei Wong. Her design, entitled 1888, is a huge mural of a simple bowl of rice that when viewed up close reveals itself to be a mosaic of 1888 photos of Chinatown, its residents and visitors. This month, a second art work, a three-meter long plastic and steel sculpture of a Chinese lion by Taiwanese Hsiao-Chi Tsai and Japanese Kimiya Yoshikawa, will be erected at one entrance to Chinatown.

The addition of Chinese-themed artwork is just the start of Chinatown's enhancement. Late last year, the London Chinatown Chinese Association (LCCA), set up over 30 years ago to promote the interests of Chinese businesses, teamed up with the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment and Westminster City Council to launch the Chinatown Design Strategy, which was aimed at boosting the area's authenticity and cultural appeal.

As a result of stakeholder consultation, this year's 2 million pound (US$2.9 million) Chinatown revamp is likely to include a new screen garden, golden lanterns, a timber pagoda and replicas of ancient Chinese dragon statues to guard its nine entrances. Building work, which will take into account Chinese mythology and feng shui, will be jointly funded by Westminster Council and private developers. There will also be a series of monthly crafts markets showcasing Chinese creative talents.

"The aim is to make Chinatown seem more authentic, taking its inspiration from Chinese cities such as Beijing, and should result in London's Chinatown being given even more of a Chinese feel," said Robert Davis, Westminster City Council's deputy leader. "It is vital that we work with the local community to develop design ideas that build on the area's heritage, and reflect the cultural identity of the Chinese community who first made this unique area of the West End their home in the 1950s."

Many people feel that Prince Charles' involvement in the Chinatown project, through the foundation, is a way of compensating for his high-profile boycott of the Beijing Games last year. The foundation has also recently worked to preserve Beijing's hutongs, the unique backstreets. Charles - who once famously described China's leaders as "appalling old waxworks" - recently met President Hu Jintao while he was in London for the Group of 20 summit, with the apparent aim of "mending bridges".

Hank Dittmar, chief executive of the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, explains more behind the charity's thinking on Chinatown's development. "Our mission is to improve the quality of people's lives through a timeless and ecological approach to designing, planning and building. We think Chinese crafts and traditional building methods are enduring and will improve the quality of experience of Chinatown, both for residents and visitors.
"In Chinatown, we were particularly interested in learning how the design of the built environment had evolved, and is evolving still, within the context of its London surroundings. A key part of its distinctiveness comes from the blend of Western traditions and Chinese crafts, seen both in London and Beijing. By working with the local community, we hope to build on that cultural interchange, which has persisted for a couple of hundred years," says Dittmar.

People make places as much as pagodas, and keeping London's Chinese community involved in Chinatown's development has been vital. This was acknowledged by Suzannah Kwok, LCCA's vice president, when she spoke to BBC London recently. "We've engaged some of the younger members of the Chinese community in London Chinatown; some of the BBCs [British-born Chinese] have got involved. This is positive because in order for Chinatown to move forward we need to embrace the younger generation coming through as well as respecting the elders."

David Tse Ka Shing agrees with Kwok's sentiments. "A younger generation of Chinese people in London wants to express themselves. They can really contribute to the multicultural vitality of this city, with Chinatown as a base."

As part of London's Thames Festival in September, Tse Ka Shing and CAS are working on "Piccadilly Revisited", a project based on the 1929 silent black-and-white movie Piccadilly starring Anna May Wong, Hollywood's first-ever Chinese star. A fresh interpretation on a classical theme, it neatly sums up the capital's new take on Chinese culture in 2009.

Daniel Allen is a freelance writer and photographer from London who has lived in China for the past three years.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27402.1

Aware chief answers critics

April 20, 2009

Aware chief answers critics

Josie Lau says change needed as group had diversified too much

By Wong Kim Hoh, Senior Writer
		Ms Lau (far right, seated) said she hopes that an extraordinary general meeting to be held soon will provide an opportunity for an open discussion. -- ST PHOTO: MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN

AS ITS new president, Ms Josie Lau says her priority is to reconcile members of the Association of Women And Research (Aware) following the controversial leadership change on March 28.

She hopes that an extraordinary general meeting to be held soon will provide an opportunity for an open discussion.

'The team has clearly fissured. I want to operate such that my members can support me, and we can all disagree in an agreeable environment,' she said.

Ms Lau and Aware's new honorary treasurer Maureen Ong appeared on Channel News Asia's half-hour Talking Point programme aired on Sunday night.

They said they could not understand why the Aware old guard had been unhappy with the change, when the exco's new faces had merely responded to calls to serve women.

Asked if their takeover was a planned coup, Ms Lau said: 'No.' She and Ms Ong claimed they had only just got to know each other.

They were short on details about their plans, saying it was too soon.

But Ms Lau said change was needed because Aware had lost its focus and diversified too much, going into too many different areas. The result was that it did not have enough depth.

'Like any good corporation, if you have diversified too much, consolidate,' she said. 'And as with any new committee, we know that resources are always limited, (so) let's take a look and review what is done in the past that is good, let's keep that, and what new ideas we have, bring on.'

She said she hoped to start a mentoring scheme to groom younger women for leadership positions.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27393.1

DBS sending wrong message on volunteerism

I AM appalled by DBS Bank's public rebuke of Ms Josie Lau for taking up the post of president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).

The bank said it supported her involvement as an executive committee member, but not as president. The rationale given was that being president of Aware would compromise her work performance. Another reason was that she had not heeded its protocol in seeking an external appointment.

Ms Lau had run to be an exco member, but due to the sudden resignation of the elected president, she had stepped up to take on the president's role.

Bearing in mind the swift turn of events, should DBS not applaud Ms Lau for stepping forward, instead of rebuking her? I assume there is no conflict of interest as she was allowed to be involved as an Aware exco member.

I am concerned about the message on volunteerism that DBS is sending to women - or men, for that matter.

With higher governance standards expected of the charity and voluntary welfare sector, boards in these organisations need people to step up to volunteer their time and expertise.

By rebuking one of its vice-presidents who had stepped up to take on a leadership role in a volunteer organisation and dictating her level of involvement, DBS is sending a wrong message. It also prejudged Ms Lau's performance, even before she had been given the chance to prove herself.

If all other organisations took DBS' stance, we would never have seen the likes of Ms Grace Fu, who was from PSA; and Ms Jessica Tan, Microsoft Singapore's managing director, contributing to society and their families in their multiple roles as career women, MPs, wives and mothers.

Teo Tze Wei

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27381.1

The Right to Die in Singapore

The Right to Die in Singapore
Written by Ben Bland
Monday, 20 April 2009

From a proud tower in the town/Death looks gigantically down/On the island republic

Singapore may have not a reputation for opening its doors to outspoken activists but in an intriguing move, next month it will host a seminar by one of the world’s most controversial speakers, Philip Nitschke, the Australian campaigner for voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide known, like Dr Jack Kevorkian in the United States, as "Dr Death".

What makes the visit of the renowned pro-euthanasia campaigner even more surprising is the legal status of suicide in Singapore, where attempting to take your own life remains a criminal offence. Those who have slashed their wrists or taken an overdose but failed to kill themselves are routinely handcuffed to their beds when they are brought into hospital by the police. Assisting a suicide is considered an even more serious crime, with a mandatory jail term for anyone found guilty of such an offence.

Nitschke has played a key role in driving the global debate about voluntary euthanasia and in 1996 he became the first ever doctor to administer a fully-legal, voluntary lethal injection under the right-to-die law in Australia’s Northern Territories. His campaign group, Exit International, regularly holds seminars around the world in which it discusses voluntary euthanasia and tells over 50s and the seriously ill how they can end their lives in a reliable, painless and cost-effective manner. However, his vigorous advocacy for euthanasia has earned him many critics, who oppose assisted suicide on moral, religious or social grounds.

With an irony not lost on Nitschke himself, he will be welcomed in Singapore, a state that places strict limits on public discourse, just weeks after he was turned away by the Oxford Union, the famous university debating society that likes to think of itself as the "last bastion of free speech in the Western world".

"We get repeated requests for information from Singapore so we think it would be reasonable to see what the interest really is," Nitschke told Asia Sentinel from his base in Darwin. "We’re unclear about the reaction but we’ll see how things go."

The Singaporean government argues that it is necessary to place restrictions on freedom of speech when it comes to sensitive political and religious issues in order to prevent outbreaks of social disorder. The fact that the government is willing to allow in someone such as Nitschke, whose views have prompted furious opposition from religious groups in the past, is indicative of its desire to push forward the debate about end of life issues in a nation that has one of the world’s most rapidly-ageing populations.

By 2030, one in five Singaporeans will be over 65, up from 1 in 12 today, according to the Ministry of Community, Development, Youth and Sports’ latest report on the ageing population. This graying of Singapore, which is being driven by a low birth rate and ever-increasing life expectancy, will put even greater pressure on the island’s already-stretched healthcare and social services.

Singapore has also been flirting with ways to increase the number of organ donors for those with failing kidneys or other organs. As Asia Sentinel reported in January, the government has decided to legalize the payment of compensation to organ donors, who can be reimbursed for their medical expenses and loss of earnings. Although the figure has yet to be finalized, the sum could be at least S$50,000 (US$33,179.69 after Singapore’s most recent devaluation).

In a widely reported speech last year, health minister Khaw Boon Wan called for an open public discussion about the end of life issues including palliative care and the right to a "good death". While not openly endorsing euthanasia, he said that he had been moved by accounts of terminally ill people who wanted the right to end their lives.

"I do not know if Singaporeans are ready for euthanasia," he explained. "But I do know that aging will throw up many more human stories of agony and suffering. All societies will have to prepare for longer life spans and the many dilemmas that they will have to confront. We must seek a humane way out of such dilemmas."

In light of these comments, it becomes easier to understand why Singapore is welcoming Nitschke with such open arms. His seminar, which will take place on May 13, is being hosted by the National Arts Council, in the ultra-modern National Library building.

Nitschke says that while there is a chance that the event will fall apart because he still needs to obtain a public entertainment license, he is hopeful that there will be no hitches. He is mindful of the legal climate surrounding suicide in Singapore and concedes that he will be modifying his usual program as a result.

"We'll be taking a great deal of notice of the legal situation and we won't be presenting the same sort of material as we do in the UK, for example," he says. "We’ll mostly be talking about the advantages and disadvantages of moving toward legislation for providing legal assistance to die."

Nitschke says he will not be running his workshop on how to commit suicide painlessly, although he will happily direct Singaporeans to such information, which is widely available on the Exit International website and elsewhere on the internet, if they ask.

"I would imagine that there'll be private discussions with people who want to know how to end their lives and I’d point them in the right direction without necessarily sitting down and saying this is what you do," he explains.

The main aim of his trip is to generate support for the establishment of a branch of Exit International in Singapore. "We’d like to see a branch of our organization set up in Singapore and I’ll be interested in talking to people who want to help us do that," he says.

Although the right-to-die law in the Northern Territories was overturned after just a few months, a number of other jurisdictions - including Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the US states of Oregon and Washington - have since enacted similar legislation.

Nitschke is hopeful that he can persuade more governments to bring in right-to-die laws, which he believes are much needed. "There’s an awful lot of tragedy going on around us," he adds. "I see people every day caught up in medical nightmares who are desperate for help. But people are fearful to provide that help because of the legal climate we all find ourselves operating in."

He thinks it is an "inevitability" that right-to-die laws will eventually become commonplace around the world and that it is a question of "when not if". Judging by the government’s unusually open-minded approach, perhaps Singapore will be next.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27552.1

SingapuraKini

Monday, April 20, 2009

Which country would the Minister like to govern?

Thirsting After Greed

Josie Lau’s first television interview

For much is at stake

Public call to join AWARE may backfire

Facebook: We believe that recent events at AWARE concerns us all

We believe that recent events at AWARE concerns us all

Basic Info

Contact Info

Aware chief wants to heal rift with upset members

NEA CEO’s open letter: Full of empty rhetoric and short of substance

Letter from AWARE about EGM agenda

Offer of olive branch by AWARE President Josie Lau Meng Lee failed to convince sceptics

AWARE president says will not step down despite pressure

Sore Losers?

Aware: Too much shrieking, too little explaining

Inconsistencies in Josie Lau’s Television Interview

Aware: Both parties marshalling members for EOGM

To AWARE’s new exco: Please leave out your religion!

The AWARE Saga and Political ‘Capture’: Lessons for Civil Society

AWARE old guard says debate is healthy

London caught in a China vibe

Aware chief answers critics

DBS sending wrong message on volunteerism

The Right to Die in Singapore

Followers

Blog Archive

Contributors