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
Monday, April 20, 2009
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
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
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
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.
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
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: | |
| 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.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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)