Monday, May 4, 2009
Aware: Feminist Mentor no more
ACT 2
A NIGHT OF EMOTION
MOST HATED
Feminist Mentor no more
She called herself 'lion-hearted', yet was booed whenever she took the mike. Was Dr Thio Su Mien the mentor she claimed, or was she, as some say, simply patronising?
THE loudest jeers were reserved for feminist mentor Dr Thio Su Mien.
04 May 2009
THE loudest jeers were reserved for feminist mentor Dr Thio Su Mien.
Whenever she tried to take the floor, the audience would drown her out.
When Dr Thio came on the first time, the boos got so bad that a group of security guards started surrounding her, as if afraid the raucous crowd was going to pounce onher.
Dr Thio looked angry but took the mike anyway. She spoke about herself and her qualifications, including her position as the first female law dean in Singapore.
She brought with her a copy of the Aware book, Small Steps Giant Leaps: A History Of Aware And The Women's Movement In Singapore, in which she was featured.
She proudly held the book up, declaring herself a 'lion-hearted pioneer' and taunted the audience, saying that they should tear up the book since she was in it.
'Shut up!' the crowd screamed.
Dr Thio snapped back: 'You have no respect for your elders.'
Louder boos.
She added: 'You were falling asleep, you were not interested in your organisation...'
This riled the crowd further, who yelled that her three minutes of airtime was up.
Then she went back to her seat, which was in the front row of the stage.
She was seated next to Mrs Jean Marshall, 83, wife of the late David Marshall, Singapore's first chief minister. Mrs Marshall was there to support the old guard.
Later, Dr Thio sought the mike. Again, boos. The audience yelled as she tried to wrestle the mike from an Aware member who had been lining up to speak for some time.
She was told by other members to queue up like the rest did.
After some wrangling, Dr Thio finally got the mike. She went on to talk about Aware's constitution and why it should be adhered to.
'The constitution gives legitimacy and you need to be law-abiding,' she said.
Some members of the audience turned to each other and were overheard saying: 'That was so patronising'.
But after the vote of no confidence was announced in which the old guard won overwhelmingly, the confidence and aggression Dr Thio had displayed earlier faded.
Indeed, she appeared as if the wind had been knocked out of her sails.
In her final parting shot before she left, Dr Thio told The New Paper on Sunday: 'If they are happy for Singapore to be like this, then so be it.
'Let everything take its course.'
With that, she disappeared with the rest of her defeated exco.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28274.112
Aware: Seven-hour drama ends in dump
AT a hidden spot of Suntec City, the Feminist Mentor led her flock into a cargo lift.
The dirt-caked metal grill doors rumbled shut as a red siren sounded, and the women disappeared.
For a while, it seemed that was how the Aware saga would end.
Minutes earlier, the new exco had been handed a no-confidence vote. It was then given an ultimatum: Quit in five minutes.
But for almost half an hour, the new exco was nowhere to be seen.
And as reporters waited outside the cargo lift where they disappeared into, amid the forklifts, humming of machinery and faint smell of trash, the loud cheers of a crowd baying for blood floated in from the doorway leading to Hall 402.
For a while, it seemed they had left for good - as quietly as they had arrived.
In a night of high drama, this was the pivotal scene few saw.
They saw the taunts, the cheers, the shouting matches played out over microphones and giant speakers.
Some had queued for four hours to get in.
The women came - in matronly frocks and sultry black numbers, in tattoos and permed hair.
Inside the sprawling hall, the women took the nice green seats down the middle. The men, who had no voting rights, were relegated to one side on white plastic chairs.
'Wah, this is like a Muslim event man... girls one side and boys one side!' one usher quipped.
As soothing lounge music played, the audience sat awkwardly in their chairs, not sure if the one they're brushing elbows with was a friend or enemy.
Amid the sea of women, a shiny bald head stood out.
'Mr Siew Kum Hong (the Nominated Member of Parliament), can we request that you move to the men's section,' said president Josie Lau, as she opened the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM).
Her request was immediately greeted by loud boos and taunts.
A grim-faced aunty clapped her hands furiously, trying to drown out the nubile young lass beside her waving a stalk of sunflower like a flag.
Ms Lau tried to control the commotion, shouting into the microphone repeatedly: 'Quiet, please!'.
The audience broke into boisterous chants instead.
The old guard explained that Mr Siew was there as a legal advisor to them, but the new exco wouldn't budge.
'There is nothing in the constitution that designates seats,' protested a member of the old guard.
Mr Siew was finally allowed to stay. The crowd almost brought the house down.
It was Old Guard 1, New Guard 0.
The opening salvo set the tone for the EGM, with one side booing when the other side cheered.
There was hooting, screaming and taunts bordering on racial slurs and religious insults.
The first half hour went past like this, with angry shrill voices blasting from the speakers.
'Escort them out!' shouted Ms Lau, referring to the hecklers.
In front of the angry crowd, the Aetos auxiliary policemen moved half-heartedly, unsure of who to obey.
Amid the impasse, an elderly usher, already bored, made a shadow of a dog on one of the projector screens and giggled to himself.
When a relative calm finally settled, Ms Lau proceeded with her speech.
But its content, mostly a rehash of what she has already publicly said, got the impatient crowd riled up again.
War of words
'Can you please listen? Can I say something? Can we move on? You are missing the point!'
These were the most often-heard phrases amid the war of words. For the men in the hall, it must have seemed familiar.
They took a back seat, making the occasional boo or cheer when it was safe to do so. But a few good men waded right in.
'I paid $40 to come here...' one man began, calling for calm. 'At an EGM, you follow the agenda strictly. We can debate until 10pm if you want. There are 3,000 of you here.'
But his voice was lost in the chorus of women's fury.
Another man put himself in the line of fire, pleading: 'Let's be sensible!'
A woman jumped to her feet, crying out: 'Emotional is not irrational!'
The liberals made their voice heard. It was harder to pick out the supporters of the new exco, who sat mostly silent, waiting for opportune times to clap furiously in support.
As the hours went by, the EGM descended into an open mike night, with long lines forming at the microphones, each spouting their displeasure, at times rousing, at times poetic.
Through it all, Ms Lau sat slouched on stage, her face radiating a zen peace.
At the front rows, the old guard sat smugly with equally serene smiles.
Through the war, a baby lay sound asleep in his mother's arms at the back of the hall, somehow oblivious to it all.
A woman fished out a novel, Marley And Me, from her handbag, and was soon engrossed in it.
In a less happy position was Mr Gregory Vijayendran, a partner of Rajah and Tann, legal advisor to Ms Lau's team.
He sat at a table below the stage - just 2m from the angry women taking turns at the microphone - stoically, unblinkingly, his hands clasped in front of him, still as a statue.
Nearly seven hours later, it all came to an end. And when it did, it was thankfully civil.
You have been wonderful people, the old guard told the new exco.
'But you have five minutes (to step down).'
Thank you, Ms Lau replied sweetly.
And after a time-out with their mentor in the dump, they returned - and bowed out.
NG TZE YONG, SHREE ANN MATHAVAN, BENSON ANG
and PEARLY TAN
When Margie riled Sally
A HEATED exchange broke out within the first hour when founding member and ex-vice president Margaret Thomas, 57, took the floor to speak, to respond to Ms Josie Lau.
Ms Lau was defending her decision to be on Aware's committee, but Ms Thomas interjected: 'Point of order Josie, I'm sorry but you're over your three minutes.'
A visibly-angry Sally Ang, the outgoing assistant honorary secretary, shouted: 'Shut up and sit down.' Ms Ang's outcry drew loud shouts of 'You shut up' from the audience. Many stood up in protest.
There were also cries for Ms Ang to be escorted out. Ms Lau apologised. After more screaming from the audience, Ms Ang relented. She said: 'I offer my apology but I hope that everyone gives the president a chance to speak without being interrupted.'
'Don't harass me, I'm just a man'
AMID the emotion and anger, there were moments of levity.
One such moment was provided by 'concerned father' Marshall Lee.
The father of three daughters began his turn on the floor by paying tribute to the previous exco's ex-president Constance Singam.
He admired her for her smile and how nurturing she was, just like 'his own mother', he said.
As the crowd turned restless and jeered him, he went on to say bizarrely: 'I'm only a man, not a woman. I'm just a man don't harass me.'
Shortly after, one of the volunteers presented him with a sunflower, perhaps as a gesture before leading him off the floor.
He then insisted on giving this same flower to Ms Singam, who accepted it after some persuasion.
Red, white and new
COLOUR-coded camps aren't confined to Thai politics. Yesterday at Suntec City, those at the EGM, too, showed their colours.
The new guard wore red; those who supported the previous committee and old guard wore white.
Before the meeting started, white shirts were seen at the escalators distributing We Are Aware packages which included a list stating why a no confidence vote should be carried.
They also distributed sandwiches and bottled water to the crowds, some of whom had queued for over an hour for the EGM.
During the meeting, the white shirts were more vocal, shouting in support whenever members of the old guard took to the mike. Supporters of the new guard showed support quietly, by clapping when their committee made a point they agreed with.
300
Number of members before saga
3,000
Number of members after saga
65%
Members voted against new exco
35%
Members voted for the new exco |
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28274.110
AWARE old guard makes new blood a priority
SINGAPORE : No meeting date has been set, but the old guard AWARE executive committee - voted back into power two days ago - has set out its priorities.
Top of which is how to manage its now-swollen base of around 3,000 members, many of whom joined only in the days leading up to the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on Saturday.
“There’s so much more we can do now because we have so many more people … we will look at how to extend the use of new media and engage younger people,” AWARE’s new president, 57-year-old Dana Lam, said on Sunday. She was speaking on Talking Point on MediaCorp TV Channel 5, and to TODAY. Ms Lam said there is “a heavy responsibility now” to keep the new members interested.
Exco member Margaret Thomas told TODAY that managing the membership is now the “biggest challenge” for AWARE. “We have to get in touch and find out more their interests,” said Ms Thomas, 57, an AWARE founder member.
What the Exco won’t be doing though, is to change the direction of the 24-year-old advocacy group.
“I don’t expect us to be in great hurry to go in new directions. There are very good programmes in place,” Ms Lam told TODAY. “(These) will carry on.”
Different views will be taken on board, but they will have to be taken into context, added Ms Thomas.
“If we do something that the majority of people feel is wrong, we will consider what is wrong and needs to be changed. But just because someone barks, it does not mean that you change your path.”
An immediate task is to arrange for a handover and retrieve official documents from the previous team, as well as restore confidence with AWARE’s sponsors and programme users. “One of the first things might be to contact our subcommittees chairs and restore them in their position,” said Ms Lam.
On the S$90,000 supposedly spent by the previous Exco, Ms Lam said: “It’s a little too early for us to comment on (talk of a law suit). We have to go into the office and look at what has actually been going on before we make a decision.”
Correcting certain impressions of AWARE brought on by the saga is another priority.
For one of the six new faces on the 12-woman committee, Ms Hafizah Osman, content development manager of Mocca.com, the task ahead is to “get back on track” and “ensure that the passion and commitment (at the EGM) … are captured and harnessed for AWARE”.
The leadership coup had made the 39-year-old mother of two young children “sit up” and take on an active role. With women from different races and religions on the new committee, she is “confident” that AWARE “will be able to hear the different voices in society”.
As for criticism that AWARE has not been organised, Ms Lam said this is inaccurate. “We don’t have enough volunteers, we may be a little slack in the administration. It has always been difficult to get busy people to give us the time, and advocacy is not a very popular kind of thing to do.”
The loopholes in the constitution - that enabled the takeover on March 28 - were already in the process of being thought out.
“We were not fast enough to put it into fact. What are the lessons learnt? I think we have to be more vigilant … Of course, we are now going to look at that and change the locks on our back doors.”
- TODAY/il
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.215
How to lose an EGM vote
SINGAPORE: Did their inexperience and naiveness, or perhaps their under-estimation of the competition, contribute to the downfall of Aware’s new guard team on Saturday night?
The first time round, the old guard and their supporters were caught sleeping, but at Saturday’s extraordinary general meeting of the Association of Women for Action and Research, they were out in full force to turn the tables on the new Executive Committee that had pulled off a shock takeover a month ago.
The veterans came out with guns blazing, as they shot question after question that left Ms Josie Lau and her team on the defensive for the most part of the six-hour marathon session.
The new guard had come prepared with power point slides and introductory speeches — but the crowd would not listen. Their quiet, reserved voices were no match for the fiery passion of the other side.
They had no track record to fall back on — when they instead did a presentation of Aware’s past achievements, this drew thanks from the Old Guard for highlighting their work.
As one veteran Aware member even told them, if the new team wanted to present their case, they should have, like the Old Guard, prepared supporters to take the microphone.
Instead, the new guard’s main defender was self-declared “feminist mentor” Thio Su Mien, whom they introduced as someone who would “give a more balanced view”.
Suffice to say, this did not go down well with the crowd. They barely listened to Dr Thio, showering her instead with jeers.
Did the young Exco lose the vote in part because they were not truly prepared for the showdown?
Were they over-confident of controlling the crowd? Did they believe they could set the agenda for the day without contest?
Perhaps, they underestimated the boldness of the other group, which had supporters such as Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong, newly-proposed NMP and theatre director Loretta Chen, and Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics president Bridget Lew.
Ms Rose Tan, a new Aware member and chairman of a public relations company, observed that the new guard team were “six nice ladies” but “inexperienced and not ready” to lead Aware.
Just look at the veteran civil rights advocates they were up against, she pointed out. Past presidents Dana Lam and Constance Singam; founding member and ex-journalist Margaret Thomas, just to name some.
It even seemed like members from the floor were giving the Exco a lesson on running a civil society group. Why, for instance, didn’t the Exco seek pro-bono help in holding the EGM, instead of paying for everything?
Did they realise, when they installed CCTVs in the Aware headquarters, that this would hinder women going in to seek help and compromise the privacy of volunteers?
But perhaps, Saturday’s outcome was already decided before the EGM.
Many who turned up were self-confessed supporters of Aware’s “old guard” era.
Others came because they had read media reports on how the new team had “infiltrated” Aware with their allegedly anti-gay and religious stance, and wanted to tick them off.
One giveaway sign: Even before the arguments were made, some Aware members were already seen checking off their voting slips. - TODAY/fa
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.214
A NIGHT OF EMOTION: Feminist Mentor no more
She called herself ‘lion-hearted’, yet was booed whenever she took the mike. Was Dr Thio Su Mien the mentor she claimed, or was she, as some say, simply patronising?
THE loudest jeers were reserved for feminist mentor Dr Thio Su Mien.
Whenever she tried to take the floor, the audience would drown her out.
When Dr Thio came on the first time, the boos got so bad that a group of security guards started surrounding her, as if afraid the raucous crowd was going to pounce onher.
Dr Thio looked angry but took the mike anyway. She spoke about herself and her qualifications, including her position as the first female law dean in Singapore.
She brought with her a copy of the Aware book, Small Steps Giant Leaps: A History Of Aware And The Women’s Movement In Singapore, in which she was featured.
She proudly held the book up, declaring herself a ‘lion-hearted pioneer’ and taunted the audience, saying that they should tear up the book since she was in it.
‘Shut up!’ the crowd screamed.
Dr Thio snapped back: ‘You have no respect for your elders.’
Louder boos.
She added: ‘You were falling asleep, you were not interested in your organisation…’
This riled the crowd further, who yelled that her three minutes of airtime was up.
Then she went back to her seat, which was in the front row of the stage.
She was seated next to Mrs Jean Marshall, 83, wife of the late David Marshall, Singapore’s first chief minister. Mrs Marshall was there to support the old guard.
Later, Dr Thio sought the mike. Again, boos. The audience yelled as she tried to wrestle the mike from an Aware member who had been lining up to speak for some time.
She was told by other members to queue up like the rest did.
After some wrangling, Dr Thio finally got the mike. She went on to talk about Aware’s constitution and why it should be adhered to.
‘The constitution gives legitimacy and you need to be law-abiding,’ she said.
Some members of the audience turned to each other and were overheard saying: ‘That was so patronising’.
But after the vote of no confidence was announced in which the old guard won overwhelmingly, the confidence and aggression Dr Thio had displayed earlier faded.
Indeed, she appeared as if the wind had been knocked out of her sails.
In her final parting shot before she left, Dr Thio told The New Paper on Sunday: ‘If they are happy for Singapore to be like this, then so be it.
‘Let everything take its course.’
With that, she disappeared with the rest of her defeated exco.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.213
AWARE SHOWDOWN: Religious leaders back Archbishop
By Aaron Low
Key religious leaders in Singapore have thrown their backing behind the Anglican Archbishop’s stand that churches - and religious bodies in general - should stay out of the affairs of secular organisations.
Leaders of Buddhist, Taoist, Catholic and Protestant bodies said they agreed with Dr John Chew’s statement that the pulpit should not be used to push social or political causes.
They declare that secular organisations should stay secular, while religious organisations that want to propagate their beliefs should do so to their own members.
‘We feel that organisations which are meant to be secular in nature, to better serve the general public, should always be kept secular, while other organisations with non-secular or religious stances are free to propagate them to their own members,’ said Venerable Kwang Sheng, president of the Singapore Buddhist Federation.
‘It is best that members of a secular society be always mindful of the objectives of the society, and to respect secular points of view, so as to foster harmony for society at large,’ he added.
Archbishop John Chew, who is head of the local Anglican diocese as well as president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS), issued a statement on Thursday saying the NCCS does not condone churches getting involved in the leadership tussle at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).
This came about a few days after Pastor Derek Hong of the Anglican Church of Our Saviour urged the women in his flock to support the new leaders at Aware, most of whom attend his church.
One of his statements during that Sunday sermon - ‘It’s not a crusade against the people, but there’s a line that God has drawn for us and we don’t want our nation crossing that line’ - caused many ripples of concern among Singaporeans.
Pastor Hong issued a statement on Friday saying he regretted his actions on the pulpit and that he would be ‘more sensitive to similar situations in future’.
On Saturday, the head of the local Catholic Church, Archbishop Nicholas Chia, weighed in on the issue.
Responding to The Sunday Times, he too stressed the importance of drawing a clear line between secular and religious organisations.
While religious organisations can give their opinions on secular organisations,’we don’t go into their affairs’, he said.
He added: ‘Aware is secular. If there are issues, the Government can look into it. If it is a religious organisation within the church, we will handle it.’
The head of the Taoist Mission, Reverend Master Lee Zhiwang, told The Sunday Times: ‘Secular organisations should be run based on what’s best for the people, including respect for individuals’ religion and values.’
‘Religious groups should not be involved in this matter. Let members of Aware resolve their own issues,’ he added.
Even as these religious leaders spoke out against interfering in the affairs of secular organisations, however, other religious organisations preferred to let their silence speak.
The City Harvest Church, a Protestant church with 24,000 members in Singapore, reflected a sentiment common among many of the 30-plus church groups contacted by The Sunday Times yesterday when it said: ‘We feel the Aware matters should be resolved internally by their own members. We are not in a position to comment.’
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.212
Men play active role in meeting
It was a women’s meet but the issue of men came to the fore repeatedly.
Barely minutes after the meeting started yesterday, a woman raised an objection.
She asked: Why was Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, a man, allowed to be seated on the right side of the hall, a section reserved for women who were eligible to vote.
Like ordinary members, men can pay $40 annually to join the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) as associate members, but they have no voting rights and cannot be elected to the executive committee.
Even so, about 300 or so men - many of whom signed up on the spot - attended yesterday’s meeting. They sat on the left side of the hall together with foreign women, who were also not allowed to vote.
While the crowd rumbled with cheers and jeers, Mr Siew remained in his seat in the fifth row, unflinching. A member from the old guard clarified that Mr Siew, who joined Aware last October, served as its legal adviser and should be allowed to remain. The grumbles then died down and the meeting started.
Although the atmosphere among the men in the crowd was calm at first, it grew more lively as the afternoon passed. Several chuckled when the Aware exco members exchanged sharp remarks with female members on the floor.
‘She was a man in her previous life. Short and sharp,’ joked one man loudly when Ms Josie Lau addressed the audience, causing several men around him to snigger.
There were generally two types of men: Young, articulate men in their 20s or 30s who went to see the issues of civil society being discussed, and men in their 40s to 50s who were mostly fathers and went with their wives.
About two-thirds of the men seemed to be supporters of the old guard. They cheered and pumped their fists when anyone made rebuttals to the points laid out by the team led by Ms Lau. Some heckled and booed as passionately as the women.
‘You should get out,’ yelled one man to Ms Lau’s team.
At one point, the men broke into sonorous chants of ‘Where were you?’ when former Aware president Constance Singam asked Ms Lau’s team where it had been in the group’s two decades of existence.
Several men also volunteered as ushers, helping with registration and the distribution of free bottles of water, sandwiches and flowers.
Some men arrived after 3pm and were not allowed to register and denied entry. They kept vigil outside the hall.
‘It’s very frustrating to hear loud cheers and noise inside and be able to only peep through the door cracks,’ said fresh graduate Ed Chan, 30, who stood by the entrance for more than seven hours.
Those who supported the veteran Aware members generally wore white T-shirts with the words ‘We are Aware’ printed in red.
Those who supported MsLau’s committee wore red shirts with the word ‘Aware’ printed in black.
Analyst C.F. Lam, 47, who was wearing a red shirt, said he was attending the meet ‘to defend family values’.
Referring to Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme, which Ms Lau’s team had criticised for promoting homosexuality, he said: ‘I pay taxes and I want to know what my children are being taught in school. If they are being taught the wrong things, we should speak up.’
Another father, Mr Farid Hamid, 45, took a different stance.
Addressing the crowd during the question-and-answer session held while the votes were being counted, he identified himself as a Muslim father of three girls.
He said he would be ‘proud’ for his teenage daughters to go through the CSE programme as ‘they need to make informed choices, not submit to dogma’.
The issue of male membership was also brought up for scrutiny.
On the accusation that the inclusion of male members has become a mask for male homosexual activists to forward their cause, former chairman of Aware’s male chapter, Mr Tan Wah Kiat, 37, said: ‘The only masks I wear are SKIIs (facial masks) and I share those with my wife.’
In response, Ms Lau turned to the exco’s appointed legal counsel from Rajah & Tann and asked if the Aware Constitution provided for a men’s chapter.
When the lawyer said it did not, former Aware president Braema Mathi replied that ‘there are feminist men today’ and that ‘they should be equal partners in the feminist movement’.
But not all the talk was serious.
Several men who took the microphone also elicited much laughter and jeers.
One joked that he was inspired by the meeting to ‘write a book and call it Women Are From Mars And Men Are From Venus’.
Trainer Marshall Lee, 47, said of the heated atmosphere: ‘One woman I was sitting next to hissed at me as though she was Catwoman. I feel so harassed. Don’t harass me. I am only a man.’
debyong@sph.com.sg
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.211
Face-off: The white shirts v the red shirts
Battle lines are drawn as supporters from both sides bear their allegiance proudly
By Teo Wan Gek , Elizabeth Soh
9am: Five hours before Aware’s extraordinary general meeting (EGM) is due to begin at 2pm, supporters of the old, and new, guard begin streaming in.
Outside the venue - Suntec’s Exhibition Hall 402 - battle lines are clearly drawn.
Volunteers from the old guard are turned away by event organiser APE Communications but ‘red shirt’ volunteers from the new guard appear to enter freely.
Ms Eileena Lee, 38, a sports therapist, is one of the volunteers turned away. ‘We were told by the event organiser that we had to leave as the voting ground was neutral ground,’ she says.
The red shirts bear the words ‘Pro-woman, pro-family and pro-Singapore’.
The old guard supporters are in white shirts that say ‘We are Aware’.
11am: Eighty per cent of the more than 200-strong crowd outside the venue are from the red side. About 20 per cent of them are men.
When asked by The Sunday Times, the volunteers in red refuse to comment. One man says: ‘Talk to the women; they know better.’
When Ms Schutz Lee, 42, who was sacked as centre manager for Aware by the new guard, turns up, she is pushed by a red shirt volunteer and asked to leave.
Ms Lee is overheard shouting: ‘Don’t touch me. Do you think this is right?’
The mood at the exhibition hall is visibly tense.
Noon: When registration begins, the queues form.
Mrs Constance Singam, past president of Aware, arrives and greets supporters with hugs and smiles. She is met warmly by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong.
‘I support everything that the old guard has done,’ he says.
Queues snake all the way to the third floor as people throng the holding area to register as new members.
Only members are allowed to attend the EGM.
About 10 security officers arrive and say the starting time for the EGM will now be 2.30pm as the crowd is getting too chaotic.
However, Ms Yap Ching Wi, a volunteer with the old guard, tells them that the crowd is orderly. There is no need to break up the queues - it will delay the proceedings if people have to re-queue.
Artists Patricia Mok and Chua En Lai are among the last to register as new members.
Mr Chua, who says he supports the old guard, describes the way the new guard has taken over as ‘insidious and sinister’.
2pm: Registration for new members closes.
Aware president Josie Lau tries to begin her opening address at the EGM but is met with repeated boos and jeers.
She asks photographers to leave as they have used flash photography, which is not allowed on the premises.
As Ms Lau is repeatedly interrupted, Ms Sally Ang from the new exco shouts to the crowd: ‘Shut up and sit down.’
Her outburst draws even louder jeers. Ms Lau apologises for Ms Ang’s outburst but the latter again admonishes the crowd sternly to let them continue.
3pm: The crowd is briefed on the voting procedure. Each ordinary member is entitled to one vote. The men cannot vote.
Members cast their votes in boxes as the audience continues to fire questions at Ms Lau and her exco.
The meeting is interrupted many times by chants of ‘We are Aware’ and ‘Where were you?’ after Mrs Singam asks the new exco where they were over the past 24 years.
Fly Entertainment’s chief executive, Ms Irene Ang, steps up to the microphone during the debate and says: ‘I’m a Christian and I love God as much as you do. But I don’t agree with what the new exco is doing.’
4pm: Self-styled ‘feminist mentor’ Thio Su Mien takes the microphone and asks people to ’show respect to their elders’.
NMP Siew asks for the old guard’s team of scrutineers to monitor the vote-counting, which the new exco’s legal counsel agrees to.
5pm: Ms Lau says in her right to reply that Mrs Singam was asked to step out of a recent meeting after the March 28 annual general meeting (AGM) as sensitive matters were discussed.
Ms Lau says Ms Schutz Lee was fired for ‘insubordination’.
The crowd is agitated when Ms Maureen Ong of the new exco reveals that it cost more than $20,000 to book the venue.
It is later revealed that the new exco has spent about $90,000 in the first month in office.
Members accuse the new exco of ‘high-handedness in the use of Aware’s funds’.
6pm: The discussion moves on to the controversy over Aware’s comprehensive sexuality education programme.
A sex education trainer with Aware says the information has been taken out of context - discussions on homosexuality take up only one and a half minutes of lesson time, compared to half an hour dedicated to the topic of abstinence.
It feels as if the meeting will never end.
8.10pm: The vote of no confidence is passed with a two-thirds majority. The crowd goes wild and demands that the new exco resign.
The new exco asks its legal counsel for advice. Mr Gregory Vijayendran says: ‘Legally, the new exco is allowed to stay in office even though the vote of no confidence has been passed. However, they are advised to take the vote of no confidence into consideration.’
Ms Lau and her team leave the stage for a discussion.
8.45pm: The crowd is still waiting for Ms Lau and her team to return, failing which it will ‘declare by their conduct that they have resigned’.
9pm: The old guard passes a motion to remove Ms Lau’s exco. It is passed with two objections.
Former Aware president Dana Lam is named new president, Ms Chew I-Jin vice-president, Ms Yap Ching Wi honorary secretary, Ms Corrina Lim assistant honorary secretary, Ms Tan Joo Hymn honorary treasurer, and Ms Lim Seow Yuin assistant treasurer.
9.10pm: Ms Lau goes on stage to make a statement with her team: ‘We have decided to graciously step down. We wish Aware all the best,’ she says.
Ms Lam declares: ‘I was just astonished by the number of passionate women; it is just so reaffirming. This is a historic moment, and a moment we can be proud of for a really, really long time.’
What a night.
wangekt@sph.com.sg
esoh@sph.com.sg
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.210
New team spends $90,000 in five weeks
Wearing a black dress and a string of pearls, lawyer Karen Teoh, 30, queued up patiently, and when her turn came to speak, articulated a question that was already being muttered on many lips.
‘How much money have you spent so far?’ she asked the Josie Lau team.
Honorary treasurer Maureen Ong gave a long and detailed explanation of how Aware’s skyrocketing membership numbers - which had gone from about 300 five weeks ago to nearly 3,000 last Friday - had prompted several venue changes.
The executive committee (exco) finally settled for the Suntec City venue which cost more than $18,000.
The gasp across the hall was audible, since $20,000 is the upper limit of what the exco is authorised to spend in a month.
But there was more to come. Minutes later, Ms Lottie Poole, who identified herself as a ‘proud and dedicated fund-raiser’ for Aware, asked: ‘How much money have you spent in the one month you have been on the exco?’
Ms Ong replied that the figures were not confirmed, but it was roughly $90,000.
‘We are horrified,’ countered long-time Aware member Poonam Mirchandani, a lawyer. ‘We will look to you personally for reimbursements over $20,000.’
Ms Ong replied, as often throughout the seven-hour meeting, that the team would ’seek legal advice’.
Her revelation that the new team had spent $90,000 in five weeks opened a barrage of protests and rebukes, with many members saying the exco could have spent a lot less.
New member Rose Tan, a public-relations veteran, said she was shocked that the exco was paying for things like renting a venue when it could have been had for free.
The new exco also faced flak for hiring what some members perceived as pricey auditors and lawyers from the firm of Rajah & Tann to help conduct the proceedings.
‘If you had reached out and called, you would have got free legal advice,’ said lawyer Mark Goh, who said he served as legal adviser to the old Aware committee for free.
‘Did you even ask?’
A member from the floor also wondered if the overspending on the exco’s part needed to be reported to the Commissioner of Charities, which keeps tabs on whether all charities follow the letter of the law.
But the exco found some support from the floor in accountant Lim Wee Lim, 55.
Identifying himself as a member of the Church of Our Saviour - which several exco members attend - he said to some applause: ‘If you take away $90,000 from $120,000 that you got, you still have $30,000 more than before.’
He was referring to the windfall in membership fees Aware collected - at $40 a person - from all those who swelled its membership in recent weeks.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.209
The awareness to right a wrong
The awareness to right a wrong
Hundreds of women joined Aware to make their voices heard after group’s takeover
By Radha Basu
Until recently, many of them had no more than a passing knowledge of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).
But concerned over what they saw as a stealthy takeover of a secular organisation by a group of Christian women, hundreds of women signed up as Aware members to put right what they felt was a grave wrong.
And yesterday, they spoke clearly, in a resounding vote of no confidence in Aware’s five-week-old leadership.
Several spoke up at the Aware extraordinary general meeting, questioning Ms Josie Lau and her team, as well as their mentor, veteran lawyer Thio Su Mien, who had encouraged women to take over Aware.
Internet executive Hafizah Osman, 39, pointed out that Ms Lau and her executive committee (exco) members were all of the same race and faith.
‘Where is the diversity?’ asked the mother of two, who wore a pink headscarf.
‘As a Muslim woman, I have no faith that you can represent my voice, my views, my faith.’
Business development manager Siddy Zb, 45, said that the new Aware team contravened the spirit of the Singapore pledge, which promises to build a democratic society based on justice and equality for all.
‘This is not about the new guard or old guard,’ she said. ‘You deliberately left out the old guard who were on your committee at meetings,’ she said. ‘Is that equality?’
The new exco’s stand against homosexuality also generated heated debate.
Associate Professor Chitra Sankaran, 49, from the National University of Singapore, who teaches a module in feminism, said that she felt compelled to join Aware last month as she thought the new committee would harm its international stature.
She rose to point out that according to modern feminist theory, you cannot speak about one marginalised group - in this case women - without speaking for all marginalised groups, including racial, religious and sexual minorities.
Observing that Aware had won widespread respect in the region, she said: ‘Please do not undermine Aware’s international credibility with your thoughtless actions.’
Public relations executive Meera N, 23, spoke up, saying: ‘I am not a raging lesbian, but I believe you have no right to tell us who to love. It’s ridiculous. You have to be pro-choice.’
She too joined Aware recently, to be heard.
Undergraduate May Yee, 21, defended Aware’s sexuality education programme, which has faced flak from the new guard for a chart in which homosexuality is treated as neutral.
She said she had had a Christian education and added: ‘I did not come out of the system learning to judge people. For people to make informed choices, they must have information.’
Arguing for parents to give their children access to optional school-based sexuality education programmes, she said: ‘The alternative is the Internet and it’s much harder, especially without adult guidance.’
Many women who described themselves as Christians also said they disagreed with the new exco, with some chiding them for ‘un-Christian behaviour’.
Actress Irene Ang, who runs a talent agency, criticised the new exco for changing the locks on the Aware office and asked: ‘How can you change the locks and say your doors are open?’
Ms Dale Edmonds, a mother who described herself as a ‘traditional Christian’, also spoke passionately in favour of Aware’s sexuality education programme and its other programmes.
She said that as an 18-year-old she had received free legal advice from Aware and it helped her get out of a bad marriage.
‘They helped me when I needed help badly. Now I want to do what I can do help them back,’ she said.
Although the Josie Lau team had several hundred women supporters in the room, hardly any stood up to speak during the proceedings.
From their seats, some of them would call out: ‘How rude, how rude.’
radhab@sph.com.sg
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.208
‘Feminist mentor’ responds to jibes
Senior lawyer Thio Su Mien stood up to respond to the jibes on why she had declared herself the ‘feminist mentor’ of the women who seized control of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) in March.
She had called herself that when she revealed on April 23 her key role in bringing about Aware’s sudden leadership change.
Dr Thio, Ms Josie Lau and five others on the executive committee booted out yesterday all attend the Anglican Church of Our Saviour in Margaret Drive.
Yesterday, amid loud boos and objections, she held up a 2007 book that Aware had published on the women’s movement here and pointed out that she was mentioned as the first woman dean of the Law Faculty - from 1969 to 1971 - at the then-University of Singapore.
Holding up the book, she said she felt ‘very charmed’ to have been included.
As the booing and jeering continued, Dr Thio told the crowd: ‘Show some respect to your elders.’
Someone in the audience responded: ‘You have to earn respect.’
Dr Thio had sent out e-mail messages encouraging women to join Aware and change it, but she maintained yesterday it was no ‘covert operation’.
Old guard leaders had said that most of the people who came to the March 28 annual general meeting were unknown new faces, and they voted solidly for unknown new faces who took over without saying who they were, or why they were in Aware.
But Dr Thio yesterday accused long-time members of having fallen asleep.
‘You were not interested in your organisation…So don’t blame others…don’t blame other people. You are not interested. You are not interested!’
She wanted to continue, but she was drowned out by chants of ‘Your three minutes are up, three minutes, three minutes.’
Later, she told The Sunday Times she was surprised by the ‘anger’ and ‘vehemence’ she felt from the Aware members.
‘It’s very scary,’ she said. ‘What is happening to women in Singapore?’
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.207
SMRT's train frequency to be reduced if flu alert hits red
SMRT's train frequency to be reduced if flu alert hits red
By Kheng Siong & Lynda Hong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 04 May 2009 2123 hrs
| ||||||
|
SINGAPORE: SMRT said train frequency will be reduced by 30 per cent once Singapore's pandemic alert level hits red. This is because its service staff are divided into two teams to prevent the potential spread of the H1N1 virus.
SMRT has increased its cleanliness vigilance level in trains and buses by more than three times ever since the Health Ministry raised the flu alert to orange.
Public areas are cleaned once every two hours and temperatures of SMRT officers are checked twice daily. There is also a quarantine room for passengers who display flu symptoms.
Ventilation within the trains has been increased, while windows and doors of buses parked at interchanges will remain open.
Temperature of bus captains are also being checked at bus interchanges.
- CNA/so
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28408.2
AWARE: Take in lessons and refocus on mission
POST-CRISIS AWARE
Take in lessons and refocus on mission
TO THE old guard who have retaken their place at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), I hope the organisation will now refocus on its mission and vision.
However, there are some nuggets to be gleaned from this experience, and one is that the old guard seemed to have been caught unawares when they were constitutionally removed from office. They also seemed unaware that there was a group of women who were strongly opposed to certain matters relating to the gay/lesbian issue.
To move forward, Aware needs to understand that there is a group who has alternative views on how some of its previous programmes were conducted and take appropriate steps to address this.
I was also somewhat appalled at news reports that Aware's extraordinary general meeting (EGM) at Suntec City was conducted in a rabble-like manner with constant booing and jeering and interruptions. This is not appropriate behaviour. This is hardly the example one expects members of Aware to set for the young women of Singapore, and our children. Alternative views must always be heard and respected - that is basic civil behaviour.
On the positive side, many more people have become aware of this organisation and what it stands for, and it is now in the public eye. There is a real opportunity for Aware to take advantage of this. The membership has swollen dramatically and I hope many of the people who joined did so not just for the purpose of the EGM, but to help this organisation.
Aware should quickly put behind it the issues of the past, close ranks, include the alternative viewpoints now expressed, and continue the good work on women's issues.
To the new guard who relinquished their place, I say perhaps you may not have been prepared for the events that overtook you, but you have brought this organisation into the public eye, and issues that are close to the hearts of many Singaporeans. You have made us all more aware.
Samuel Owen
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.357
AWARE: Need to walk the talk
By Wong Kim Hoh, Senior Writer | ||
| Despite the recent upheaval, much good has come out of it, says Ms Lam, citing the surge of support and many new members who want to help. -- ST PHOTO: CAROLINE CHIA |
'We will not take anything for granted any more,' said Ms Dana Lam, 56, who was elected new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) on Saturday night, at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM).
Learn from this episode: DPM 'WELL, I think all sides should take away the right lessons from this and focus on wanting to serve the community and do your best. I think there will always be differences in society; it is a question of whether we can deal with them in a sensible way, learn how to accept one another's differences and still work together for the good of this society. There are people in our society with different views and if ... we push them too hard, there will be a push back from the other side. You are not going to resolve some of these differences because they are strongly held and you risk polarising society if you push too hard. |
That was exactly what happened when a large group of new members elected a team of unknowns into power at Aware's annual general meeting on March 28.
Aware stalwarts overturned that on Saturday and won back control, with members on both sides playing by the rules of the organisation.
Aware is considering introducing the requirement that anyone who wants to stand for elections must have been a member for at least a year. Most of the women seized power in March had joined only in recent months, and the rules allowed them to run for office.
'We need to look into a system which can allow us to screen potential trouble-makers but we have to be careful not to become too exclusionary,' she said.
The vigilance is necessary, said Ms Lam, a past president of Aware. 'It's like we left our back door open and people came in to take our things.'
The tumultuous events of recent weeks have changed Aware, which had operated for years on trust, allowing anyone to join in the spirit of inclusiveness.
But much good has also come out of the recent upheaval, said Ms Lam, citing the surge of support and a large number of new members who want to help.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28274.108
AWARE: Lessons from a fiasco
Monday, 4 May 2009
By Cherian George
The battle for control of Aware can be a learning experience for civil society activists and the wider public. There are at least three lessons to reflect on: the brand of secularism that works for Singapore; the type of representation that civil society organisations should offer; and the level of transparency and accountability that the public deserve from such groups.
Secularism
Some may view the outcome of the Aware showdown as a triumph over religious values and then – depending on their standpoint – either despair or gloat. But, this would be a wrong reading of events and only set the stage for more confrontational encounters.
The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.
Crucially, however, the state stays separate and equidistant from the different religions. Even more crucially, when there are disagreements over public matters, Singaporean secularism cannot recognise religious arguments as a trump card. One could allow one’s reading of God’s will to dictate how one runs one’s own household or faith-based community (and even then only within the limits of the law); but God’s word cannot be the final word on how collective decisions are made in the public sphere.
People of a particular faith must therefore be able to translate their values into secular terms to the satisfaction of fellow citizens who do not share those values, or else accept graciously that their desires are, for the moment, incompatible with what the wider society wants.
The Aware battle was not between the profane and the sacred, but between those who understand Singaporean secularism and those who apparently do not. The concerted steps they took to subvert a secular organisation and rid its leadership of its traditional diversity showed that the insurgents did not want merely to be part of a conversation; they wanted to be the only voice.
When intolerant – and considerably more violent – voices have surfaced in other religious communities, the moderate mainstream had to rise up to reclaim the microphone, to assure themselves and their fellow citizens that their faith was entirely compatible with peaceful co-existence in a multicultural and democratic society. Similarly, one of the most positive outcomes of the Aware saga is the strong assertion by Singaporeans of faith and their religious leaders: we are here, our faith makes us and our society stronger, but we will not impose our values on others.
Representation
The Aware old guard accused the insurgents of not reflecting Singapore’s cultural diversity. The insurgents retorted that, compared with the liberal old guard, their conservative values were more representative of Singapore’s majority. Who was right? Both, probably. But, neither diversity nor representativeness is a necessary or sufficient criterion when assessing a civil society group.
First, while the expectation that a civil society organisation (CSO) should represent the majority view is superficially seductive, it is in fact fundamentally flawed. CSOs are not political parties, which must appeal to the majority to win elections. One of the chief values of CSOs is precisely that they fill the gaps left by political parties (and by the private sector), by serving causes that the majority may not embrace.
For example, the majority of Singaporeans would probably not go out of their way to improve the lives of strangers with disabilities. When voluntary welfare organisations work passionately for the interests of disabled, it would be rather perverse if we criticised them for not representing the views of most Singaporeans.
Indeed, if crude democratic logic were applied to gender issues, there would have been no Aware in the first place: when it was set up, most Singaporeans – men and women – held sexist views about the proper place of women and the abuses that they should endure quietly. That many CSOs are not representative is a fact, and a healthy one.
Still, some may wonder if society should tolerate CSOs that embrace seemingly far-out views. Again, it is important not to confuse CSOs with political parties. Electoral politics is more or less a zero-sum game. The winning party controls the government, which in turn monopolises certain powers and resources – including the powers to tax and to command the armed forces.
Civil society space is quite different. CSOs can gain influence, but have no power to set national policy. Furthermore, multiple CSOs can work within the same space simultaneously. Since a CSO has no monopoly over its area of work, it has no moral obligation to be representative in its values – or, for that matter, in its racial or religious composition. If others are fundamentally opposed to its direction, they can set up their own organisation.
CSOs face an inherent tension. On the one hand, they require a certain solidarity and unity of purpose if they are to overcome challenges. On the other hand, internal diversity can be a key strength: a group’s problem-solving capacity is enhanced when it is able to look at situations from multiple angles.
While it may be unfair and unrealistic to expect each CSO to reflect all colours of the rainbow, a CSO that aims to have national impact should certainly be outward-looking. An internally homogeneous community-based CSO is not a problem in itself; it should be judged by the friends it has. It deserves to be viewed with skepticism if it is unable to work with groups representing other communities. Fortunately, several faith-based and ethnic-based groups in Singapore have excellent records of working side by side with other groups, regardless of race, language or religion.
Transparency
Setting aside the substantive disagreements, the Aware saga offers lessons about civil society governance and process. What alarmed many neutral observers was the way the insurgents went about their plans.
Civil society groups that want influence and respect should be transparent in their dealings and be ready to account for themselves. It would be an understatement to say that the insurgents were unprepared for the intense public scrutiny they attracted.
They were secretive in their plan to take over Aware and coy about their intentions. Based on their public statements, it is still unclear how much they were motivated by a single issue: their opposition to Aware’s liberal stand on homosexuality. If this was their target all along, it does not speak well for them that they did not state it plainly and publicly at the outset.
If this was not their primary concern, then an even more troubling concern arises. Their allegations at the height of the dispute, that Aware had been promoting homosexuality to children and teens, smack of a cynical (but, sadly, historically effective) political ploy: win support from the masses by turning a marginalised minority into an object of fear.
In many societies, the tactic would have worked. Governments lacking in moral courage are known to side with intolerant forces when they whip up mass sentiment against minorities. Fortunately, it did not work here. The Ministry of Education’s measured and rational response took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents and exposed them as scaremongers.
The Government is not known to be sympathetic to the progressive agenda of Aware’s liberals. Perhaps the insurgents had hoped that dragging the school sexuality programme into the debate would prod the Government to take its side. If so, they miscalculated. If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.
No doubt, the weekend’s events would have made the insurgents feel utterly misunderstood and underappreciated, as losing factions are wont to. They have nobody to blame but themselves. No matter how pure their intentions, their words and actions were patently out of place in Singaporean civil society.
Cherian George is an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information and a member of Maruah, the Singapore Working Committee for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. Email: cherian@ntu.edu.sg.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.90
AWARE FOUNDER MEMBER CHARGED
Former NUS lecturer accused of IT contract fraud in Hong Kong
By Channel NewsAsia's Hong Kong Bureau Chief Roland Lim | Posted: 04 May 2009 2243 hrs
City University of Hong Kong - taken from official website | ||||||
|
HONG KONG: An academic who used to teach at the National University of Singapore (NUS) is among four people charged with conspiracy to defraud Hong Kong's City University.
Dr Vivienne Wee is an associate professor at City University. The 57-year-old used to lecture at the NUS Sociology Department and was a founding member of the Singapore women's group, AWARE.
Dr Wee and her brother, Gregory Wee, are accused of conspiring to defraud Hong Kong's City University, in relation to a US$128,000 information technology contract.
Hong Kong's anti-graft body, the ICAC, said she hid the fact that there was a conflict of interest with the service provider, Sparkland Production, which was awarded the IT contract.
The siblings are said to have conspired to win the contract for Sparkland. But as the company did not have the expertise, it is alleged that the job would have been done by her sister-in-law's firm, Locus Interactive.
The other two people charged in the case are the owner of Sparkland and Dr Wee's sister-in-law.
Bail for all parties is set at US$2,500 each and they have to give two days' notice before they leave Hong Kong.
The case is adjourned to May 22.
- CNA/so
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28425.1
AWARE : One Saga, Many Lessons...
This one is not about whether being gay is morally correct or wrong but on how to further your own cause. Suppose I'm a fundamentalist right wing religious person who believes that God has spoken to me as he did to Noah - how do I go about to do what I believe is right and rid the world of sin. The answer I believe is in the movie Evan Almighty...the lesser sequel to Bruce Almighty. God spoke to Evan one day and told him about an impending flood. He tried his best to warn the people but all they do was laugh at him - it was a waste of time. Even his family couldn't believe and thought he was mad. He was only able to redeem himself when the flood came and he saved a group of people who actually turned up at his ark to mock him. If you want to bring people to your worthy cause who don't share your faith, you can only convince them with evidence. When the evidence is compelling like the flood in the movie your harshiest critics will become your biggest supporters. Regardless of how much you believe something is right and how much faith you have - the rest of the world needs evidence. The more you try to push your ideas without evidence, the more people will push back and they will laugh at you.....
.
Lesson 1: There are very few people who can call themselves MENTOR without being laugh at. As one participant of the EOGM put it, respect is earned. You can't force people to respect you. You can make them fear you by force but respect has to be given. You can't make yourself mentor something just because you think you're somebody who deserves respect. The title "mentor" something is given when there is clear consensus about your status otherwise there will be some people laughing at you all the time.
.
Lesson 2; Think ahead & do basic planning. Step 1 was takeover Aware....hmmm step 2?? Step 3? A Christian group taking over a secular organisation will definitely result in national scrutiny in Singapore. People will want to know why you're doing this...what is your justification and it better be compelling. They didn't even think of the immediate consequences of their act and look totally lost when the spotlight shone on them. When you do something like this you better have a dossier of solid evidence to justify it otherwise you end up getting condemned by the media and your opponents.
.
Lesson 3: Start with the end. Before you do something, ask yourself what you're out to achieve. Then you try to get there with the least effort. Stripping away all the baseless accusations and suspicions, the main grouse was that Aware ran a CSE programme that has contents they didn't like. The easiest way to do get it fixed was to collectively complain that the contents were unsuitable and insensitive to people of their religion. You can be very sure the MOE will move to revise the content and Aware would be put on the defensive for having controversial contents in its CSE. No need to takeover Aware to get this done.
.
Lesson 4: Know your opponents. The women in Aware were not the type to walk away quietly from a fight - they fought for a long time to set up the organisation and that required tremendous commitment. They have links to the media and allies in positions of power. They have helped thousands over the years and these people are looking for a way to pay them back.
.
Lesson 5: Perception is important. No matter how they tried they cannot change the perception that this is whole thing was about a Christian group taking over a secular organisation to impose its own values on others. Its a case of "it looks like a rat, smells like a rat....".
.
Lesson 6: Understand everyone's interests. Otherwise you will find yourself the enemy of many. When the CSE programme was dragged into the spotlight, MOE was forced to step in to explain and deny what was said hurting the credibility of the Aware exco and their mentor. National Council of Churches had to say that it did not support the use of the pulpit for social causes[Link] as religious harmony is one of its . That was a rebuke for the pastor who asked his flock to lend their support.
.
Lesson 7 : Actions must reflect intent. Saying you're also inclusive but have members from the same small group is not convincing. Saying you're for feminist causes then sacking feminists in the organisation is not credible. Saying you're not anti-gay but having given speeches and written letters to public forums against gays makes it look like you're not telling the truth and cannot be trusted.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.382
Moving on from EOGM
The EOGM is over, and reins of AWARE has been handed back to the old guards. However, the AWARE affair is far from over.
A number of issues are in hand.
1) The $90k spent in 5 weeks by the ousted exco is over the $20k upper limit of what the exco is authorised to spend in a month. This issue will have to be solved and accounted for. In NGO, every cents count.
2) The influx of roughly 3k new members, where some are unfamiliar with AWARE. How are these 3k new members going to be integrated into AWARE? Many have abilities, and are willing to contribute. How is AWARE going to tap into their expertise?
3) There is 761 members who voted against the old guards. How is AWARE going to engage them? Will them lay hibernating, and perhaps strike again in future? Will they actively makes life difficult for AWARE to carried out activities? Or will they contribute in their own way to AWARE?
With the take-over and ousting, trust was lost. and 2 camps are formed, where each camp is united. The old guards got back their association, and perhaps the other camp can consider setting up their own association too. The 2 camps obviously have different ideas on association management, public relations, democracy, and target group of people their will like to assist.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28274.114
Aware: Process, pluralism, protection
Straits Times, 04 May 2009
By Janadas Devan, Review Editor
‘THE Aware Saga’ has come to an end. What lessons does the episode hold for civil society? There are undoubtedly many, but here is a preliminary set of what I believe are the chief lessons:
# Lesson No. 1: Ends and means
The group that captured Aware on March 28 presented themselves as exceedingly moral beings. The group’s inspirator extraordinaire Thio Su Mien - lawyer, self-styled ‘feminist mentor’ and, by the looks of it, the world’s foremost expert on homosexuality - described her mentees as just a group of women who wanted to contribute to society.
There is no reason not to accept at face value this characterisation. It is impossible to believe this group woke up one day and consciously decided to do ill by taking over Aware, as the caricature on the other side would have it. Which is precisely why one wonders about the methods they chose to employ.
The means used in pursuit of any cause ought to be commensurate with the ends proposed. Bad means cannot encompass good ends. If your goals are fairness, justice and goodwill, you cannot achieve them by employing surreptitious, opaque and divisive means. The moral universe does have a balance sheet: You cannot be in the red on means and expect to be in the clear on ends
Dr Thio’s team got this equation wrong. Whatever one might have thought of their ends - and there are good people on both sides of that argument - it was difficult not to notice that their means did not measure up.
They did not declare openly who they were - until they were pressed to do so; they were not transparent about their policy aims - until their aims became apparent despite themselves; they did not answer questions - until it was too late to dispel doubts.
We know process matters in the law and politics. The Aware Saga has taught us it matters in civil society too, which tends to attract passionate, committed and often self-righteous people.
It is precisely because the self-righteous have so often in history cited their ends to justify whatever means they employed that democracies have learnt to insist on transparent and open processes.
# Lesson No. 2: Pluralism matters
There is nothing wrong with religious people involving themselves in secular groups - as individuals. The vast majority of Singaporeans are religious. We would have hardly anyone in politics, Government or civil society if we were to insist people checked in their religious beliefs before entering these secular realms.
But that does not mean that the spiritual and the secular, the church and the state, should be confused. It does not mean that the faithful of any religion can impose their views on others. And it most certainly does not mean that the religious should organise themselves in groups to pursue secular agendas. It is actually against the law in Singapore to have a Buddhist Action Party or a Christian Reform Party or a United Muslim Front.
There is no reason to doubt the assurances of Dr Thio’s group that they were not acting on behalf of any particular religion. The clear statement on Thursday by Dr John Chew, president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore, that the NCCS did not condone any church getting involved in Aware’s leadership tussle, set the record straight.
It was nevertheless daft - no more appropriate word comes to mind - for six people from the same church to have attempted this takeover at Aware. What were they thinking of?
That people wouldn’t learn they came from the same church? That people wouldn’t mind a secular organisation being taken over by a group clearly identified with a particular church in a particular denomination of a particular religion? And if they had won last Saturday’s vote of confidence, having depended on support solely from their co-religionists, that they could have continued credibly as leaders of a secular organisation?
If they had prevailed, Dr Thio’s group would have established, inadvertently perhaps, a new benchmark for social activism among the religiously-inspired. It’s hardly credible that Buddhists and Taoists - who together constitute close to half the population - or Roman Catholics, Muslims and Hindus, would have, in response, left the field uncontested to Protestants.
Everyone realised that would not be good for Singapore. Thus Dr Chew’s statement and the strong support it received from other religious leaders. It was good that they combined spontaneously to draw a firm line.
# Lesson No. 3: OB markers matter
As controversies go, The Aware Saga was minor. It did not permanently alter the body politic. Socially, it was the equivalent of a group of women, setting off on what they assumed would be a diverting walk, falling into a ditch. But it could have been worse - and that is precisely the point.
There were moments when things got uncomfortable. Ms Josie Lau, the erstwhile Aware president, received a death threat. The pastor of her church, Mr Derek Hong, spoke in terms that he later regretted. There was loose talk of Christians versus the rest.
The so-called ‘liberals’ in Aware have won. I am personally glad they did. But here is something that some ‘liberals’ may not be comfortable with: This episode proves why we need many ‘illiberal’ laws - including the Religious Harmony Act, Group Representation Constituencies, HDB racial quotas, etc.
Religious and racial harmony here are not givens. You have got to work at maintaining them. The Aware Saga shows we still have some work left to do.
janadas@sph.com.sg
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.374
New Aware president Dana Lam’s first message to members
Monday, 4 May 2009
Dear Members
This is my first day in office. I just want to quickly convey my gratitude for your forbearance in the past weeks and for your tremendous support at last Saturday’s EGM.
Your statements, your actions of support have changed the face of civil society in Singapore and we at AWARE can now stand even taller and braver than ever before.
Our membership has surged and women and men, young and old, now feel empowered by your exemplary voices.
These have been an extraordinary time. In the furore and, the trauma, we have experienced affirmation and renewal: old friends have reconnected, new friends made. An immediate task for us is to reach out and connect with all new members, to bridge differences and, to invite their participation in the work of AWARE.
I would also like to thank you for the vote and to say that it is a real privilege to be in office at this momentous time. I’m sorry this has to be short for now. You will hear again from me very soon. The Exco join me in thanking you for your vote of confidence in us.
Warmest Regards,
Dana Lam
President
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.373
Political parallels of the AWARE saga
Monday, 04 May 2009
Singapore Democrats
Whatever is said about the recent saga of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), it cannot be denied that the episode concluded in an open and democratic, if not entirely amicable, manner.
It was an intriguing event in a country where citizens have been conditioned to shun politics. The fight between the "old" and "new" guards broke new ground as the teams vied for control of the organisation, energising members of society in the process.
This, in essence, is what politics is all about.
The participants congregated at the Extraordinary General Meeting at the Suntec City last Saturday to contend with a motion of no-confidence against the new executive committee led by Ms Josie Lau.
Members turned up in the thousands, the majority of whom joined the organisation only days before the EOGM specifically to vote at the meeting.
In a heated conference where passions ran high – participants jeered and drowned out the speakers from the new executive committee on several occasions – supporters of the old guard were out in force to vent their anger at Ms Lau and her team.
After the heated rhetoric, those who showed up did what they came to do: Vote. The new leadership was defeated by a margin of 2 to 1. The joy of the veterans was manifest. Reports indicated that Ms Lau's team members comported themselves with grace and dignity.
The episode was democratically resolved. In the main, supporters of both sides had the chance to put forward their views (the old guard members and their supporters were evidently the more strident ones) and the voters were given the final say.
Despite the acrimony, the event took place in the spirit of an open political contest. In this sense, Aware is the stronger and richer for it.
The trick now is for the organisation, under the leadership of its president Ms Dana Lam, not to clean house and silence those who were defeated. This is not what democracy is about.
Instead a bigger tent must be erected to accommodate the diverse views. Winston Churchill once said: “In defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity.” Sure there will be contention in such a set-up, but it is only in despotic societies that dissent is obliterated, is it not? A leadership capable of winning a vote must also be capable of handling opposing views.
Women show leadership. PAP?
What happened on Saturday is what democracy is about. It is also what is tragically lacking in Singapore.
Our national politics is as far from the passion demonstrated at Aware's EOGM as Earth is from Pluto. Of course there were boos and jeers during the meeting, but that's what passion is all about – it comes with what one strongly believes in. But even when they were angry, the hecklers seemed to have a sense of composure about them.
If Singaporeans cannot feel strongly about Singapore and be passionate about what we want for our country, what do we have?
Unfortunately, any minute demonstration of political emotion by citizens is denounced as blasphemy and unerringly stamped out by the PAP Government.
Now imagine if the new executive committee, after taking over the reins of Aware, had quickly amended the organisation's constitution, ordered the arrest of Constance Singam et al, threatened to fix all those who did not support it, and at the meeting forcibly shut dissenters up, the EOGM would have proceeded quietly and uneventfully, and the outcome of the vote would have been forgone.
Would this have been good for the organisation and its leaders, both veterans and novices?
As it was, Ms Josie Lau and colleagues respected the rules, convened the meeting and accepted the majority decision.
The thousands who turned up at Suntec City last Saturday demonstrably nailed the lie that the ruling party so eagerly mongers: That politics, if left unattended by the heavy hand of autocracy, degenerates into anarchy. Singaporeans are an educated lot, and they know that civility and passion can mix, often to good effect.
Which leads us to another important subject: Now that the old guard has resumed control of the organisation, it is hoped that Aware will look beyond what is immediately in front of it. As much as it has benefited from the practice of democracy, it must now also work towards democracy for the country.
Civil society, by its very definition, cannot operate effectively in the absence of free speech and freedom to assemble. If supporters of the veterans could not gather and speak as they did last Saturday, the old Aware would have been consigned to history.
As an NGO, Aware's obligations must also be to society-at-large and to the nation, not just women -- not when democracy is in a strait-jacket.
While Aware has come alive with its new members taking a keen interest in the organisation, Singapore and Singaporeans continue to languish under a system designed to extract every ounce of economic effort but stamp out every bit of political passion and zeal.
A cold and soulless people would surely not have been good for Aware; it cannot be good for our nation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.30