http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28274.97
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Booting of new guard ends AWARE catfight
Video coverage of Aware EOGM
Josie Lau and team defeated soundly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGbmNVvFfXY
Josie Lau and team admit defeat and step down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjBljKf0RSw
Constance Singam joyous with results
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_9VdbvRAoI
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.330
Voted out but still willing to contribute
Sunday, 3 May 2009
By Terence Lee
DESPITE the controversy that has erupted, Ms Josie Lau and her team would still contribute their expertise to AWARE if asked.
Speaking at a press conference after their resignation from the women’s organisation, the team said that their original purposes for joining AWARE has not changed.
Josie explained that she was initially asked to join the organisation because of her marketing and fundraising expertise, and she hopes to continue doing that.
Currently, the team has no future plans. They were non-commital when quizzed about whether they would set up their own organisation promoting their own beliefs and values.
“We’ve yet to sit down over coffee and discuss our future plans,” said Honorary Treasurer Maureen Ong.
Despite the strong opposition to their leadership, the team stands firm in their beliefs. They believe they have the constitutional right to stay in the organisation, but the only reason they stepped down was really “for the sake of AWARE.”
“When I joined,” said Ms Ong, “I was simply only answering Constance Singam’s call for new blood.”
She could not understand what caused this reversal in AWARE’s attitude.
The team once again reiterated that there was no ulterior motive for them joining AWARE, said Ms Lau. There was no conspiracy, and in fact she does not know any of the Committee members except for a few of them, but even those were passing acquantances.
“I did not come in knowing who would run with me,” said Ms Lau. In fact, she revealed that there were quite a lot of minority people that stood up for elections at the AGM, but they were not voted in.
The team also criticised the discrimination against people with “pro-family” views, citing the just-concluded meeting as an example.
When asked about whether they expected such a reaction from the crowd, the team said that they “expected it” because of the negative reaction and attention it has already spawned in the past month.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.328
Aware Chaos - “Shut up and sit down”
Sunday, 3 May 2009
By Terence Lee and Choo Zheng Xi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-VYBZgwGdg
“SIT down and shut up!”
That was ex-Honorary Treasurer Sally Ang’s (picture left, in red) retorted to the heckling and disruptions of Ms Josie Lau’s address at the EGM. However, instead of silencing the crowd, more howls of protest followed, including cries to remove Ms Ang from the stage.
Angry arms flayed, voices bayed for blood, some from the Aware Old Guard came up to the front, and with both hands on the legal counsel’s table, beckoned him to remove the Executive Committee for speaking “vulgarities.” Another member, also at the table, shouted, “What vulgarities?”
Resembling more of a rowdy football crowd, the noise had struck some raw nerves among the Executive Committee. “People with unruly behaviour will be escorted out of this hall,” said Honorary Secratary Jenica Chua earlier, perturbed by the disruptions to Ms Josie Lau’s speech.
She then repeated the same warning, this time ordering the auxilary police to escort disruptors out. They included people taking flash photography and video recordings. However, in the face of such chaos, even the security personnel were powerless.
Such was the fury and passion displayed throughout the EGM.
Earlier on, at the beginning of the meeting, Ms Lau attempted to eject Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Mr Siew Kum Hong (right) from his seat amongst ordinary voting members. He was seated amongst the previous Aware presidents, acting as their legal advisor.
Men, who are associate members and not granted voting rights, were allotted separate seats from voting members. Mr Siew asserted his right to be with the old Aware Committee, and Ms Lau backed down from her position to loud jeering.
Chaos then broke out when Ms Lau attempted to open the meeting with a President’s address, but had problems getting through her first sentence because of the audience’s vocal insistence that she proceed with the vote of no confidence.
Not deterred, Aware members also protested over the fact that the mikes on the floor were not switched on. “On the mike!” they shouted repeatedly. An Aware member was even seen trying to bring a loud hailer to the front, although it was never used.
“What are you afraid of?” a lady hollered, to which Ms Lau replied, “What are you afraid of? Let me finish my business.”
Even the small section of men sitting at the side refused to be left out — they booed and shouted at Ms Josie Lau and team, who were desperately trying to maintain order. Eventually, Ms Lau made a compromise: the floor mikes would be switched on.
It took a total of 35 minutes for her to start the address. But even then, the speech was punctuated with jeers.
The supporters of Ms Lau’s team were a distinct minority. They replied to the heckling with dignified silence, occasionally clapping approvingly whenever the Executive Committee said something. But even as they complained about the “unruly” behaviour of the crowd, even they would fall victim to unbridled anger.
A young lady was particularly perturbed when the Old Guard later on requested that the ballot boxes be withheld for inspection. She had already dropped her ballot in — and was mad that they were allegedly trying to “tamper” with votes. Ms Braema Mathi went over to reason with her, but her anger would not subside.
Later on, as members of Aware addressed the crowd, she made an attempt to go for the mike, but was stopped by other members who were apparantly pro-Old Guard. She got into a temper, and a shouting match ensued.
Nevertheless, the other supporters of Ms Lau’s team preferred to protest with folded arms, pursed lips, and utterances amongst themselves.
The excitement died down somewhat when it became apparant that the torrent of criticism against The Executive Committee would not subside. In fact, some of Ms Lau’s supporters left towards the end of the meeting, leaving vacant seats. And all these while, Ms Thio Su Mien sat quietly at the front directly in front of the Executive Committee, only speaking when asked to.
Gradually, what ever opposition that was left seemed to have totally evaporated. When the Executive Committee was asked to consider tendering their resignation — they took longer than expected, leading the Old Guard to think they had left the building.
They only returned twenty minutes later, when half the new Committee was already nominated, and much to the surprise of everyone. Nonetheless, there would be no more conflict, only resigned defeat, and picture-perfect smiles to go along with it.
It was clear even before the meeting that there would be huge divisions and dramatic conflict — the distinction between both factions were loud and clear.
Controversy arose when some red shirts allegedly tried bring some Aware members up to the top floor, bypassing the queue. This was met with unhappiness by other members and was dealt with swiftly.
Even in the hall right before the meeting, the Executive Committee mostly kept to themselves at the front row, guarded by two auxilary policemen. In contrast, the past presidents were seen walking around talking to people and shaking hands.
Ex-Aware president Braema Mathi was seen walking to them exchanging formalities and beaming a smile. Neither party gave an indication of the thunderous scorn that was to follow.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.327
Aware members demand: “Account for our money!”
Sunday, 3 May 2009
By Choo Zheng Xi and Khairulanwar
THE drama didn’t let up while votes were being tallied by external auditors Deloitte and Touche.
From 4.30 pm till the final count at 7.30pm, member after member continued to castigate the new committee on a range of issues from their understanding of feminism to the amount of money they had spent so far a month into their term.
One burning issue members demanded an answer to was how much of Aware’s funds has been spent in the last month. The Aware constitution requires the Executive Committee to seek the consent of members before approving expenditures above $20,000.
One member pointedly asked Honorary Treasurer Maureen Ong if her committee had used more than $20,000 in organising the EGM, and noted asked if her committee had acted beyond the powers granted to them in the Aware constitution. Picking up the question of financing, members from the floor started demanding an estimate for how much had been spent so far.
Ms Ong announced that an estimated $80,000 had been spent on lawyers, auditors, and venue bookings. This brought the audience to its feet in anger.
Calling the spending “extravagant”, Aware member Loretta Chen said it was the “turning point” as it indicated that the team headed by Ms Josie Lau “may not be the best to lead AWARE”, despite being “well-meaning women”. Running a group such as AWARE required a set of values that was different from their “corporate ethics.”
Mark Ho, the legal adviser to the Old Guard, questioned whether Josie Lau’s exco tried to “reach out” and “call for help” in organizing the EGM, to save on fees for event organizers, legal help and the various miscellanies.
Social worker Suzanne Jarzabkowska commented that in “an NGO culture, money is the last thing we reach for” – preferring to “work by consensus” and leveraging on the “network” of civil society. By resorting to a “chequebook culture”, it underlined that Ms Lau’s team “does not understand how NGO works.”
Ms Bridget Lew, the director of HOME, derided the expenditure as “shameful” for an NGO whose ethics are usually to “work hard (and) struggle hard.”
It is unclear at this point of time how Aware will defray the costs for the expenditure, or whether Ms Lau’s team will bear any of the costs.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.324
Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays - So what's the difference?
Can't help feeling that the original, old Aware's agenda is centred on gay and lesbian issues. About every other speaker from the old guards' supporters talked about homosexuality and sexual orientation. As if there isn't any other female minorities.
Here are some facts that happened at the EGM:
1. The Old Guard did not deny that the trainer's manual that was put up online, which teaches young girls that homo sex is natural, is authentic. This is notwithstanding the fact that MOE finds that it warrants an investigation.
2. The Old Guard said that the topic of mentioning homo sex in schools is natural, is only about a minute or so.
3. About more than 50% of the speakers supporting the Old Guard spoke about homosexuality.
4. 45% of the speakers supporting the Old Guard spoke against Josie and gang, be it their management style or takeover style.
5. Less than 5% of the speakers spoke about what the Old Guard did for AWARE and women in Singapore.
As a parent and member of the public, I see that the above shows that the Old Guard is adamant, unrepentant and unmoved by the fact that they have breached parents' trust, when they covertly sneaked in pro-homo topics in the CSE in schools.
Luckily for parents, MOE is now investigating the case.
Items 1 and 2 show that there exists a planned, methodical system to indoctrinate young girls as young as 12 in schools that homo is a natural practice - and they still intend to carry that plan out - notwithstanding the fact that MOE is now investigating Aware's CSE programme.
Items 3 shows that AWARE is now under the control of gays and lesbians.
Item 4 - no comment. That is in order for an EGM.
Item 5 shows that women in Singapore is currently last on the current AWARE's (ie Dana's group now) agenda.
A Christian interest is replaced with gay interest. So what is the difference?
From my wife's perspective.
My wife joined AWARE only just before the EGM. She is not affiliated to either side. When she arrived, she found a long queue. Seeing some white shirts, she initially thought they were ushers for AWARE. It later turned out that they were supporters of the old guard. She was led by a team of white shirts to nowhere round a wild goose chase. After about 20 to 30 minutes later, she was finally directed by genuine ushers back into the very queue she was led away from by the white shirts.
On hindsight, she felt that the old guards' group deliberately pretended to be officials of AWARE to confuse members of the public. At one stage she was evenly brazenly asked who was she supporting - the old or the new.
My wife spoke to some other members of the public, who like her were non-partisan, and found that they too felt they had been "mishandled" by the group of white shirts.
My wife also observed that supporters of the old group hogged the microphone. Speakers who did not support the old guard were booed and jeered. They numbered less than five, because dozens of Old guard supporters hogged the microphone. Supporters of the old guard on the other hand were cheered to the point that the chairperson could not reply to what was said by people from the floor.
Overall scenario was the crowd was boorish, boisterous and gangster-like.
The mass media also appears to favour the old guard. Channelnews Asia reported that speakers from all walks of life spoke for pluralism. Not quite true. About more than 50% spoke about gay and lesbians and less than 5% spoke about women in general. The rest attacked Josie and gang.
My wife was stunned and shocked that some reporters of the media even cheered when supporters of the old guard made points about gays/lesbians and/or attacks on Josie and gang.
But the one that takes the cake was the reporter who yelled and jumped with joy when an announcement was made that the motion of no confidence against the EXCO was carried out.
Aren't reporters supposed to impartial? Isn't it like the referee celebrating a goal when one side scores?
That about explains why the MSM seems to crucify Josie and gang, while making Old Guard look they are for secularism and pluralism, when it was obvious to members of the public who were at the EGM, the issue closest to the hearts of the supporters of Old Guard, was about gay rights.
That is my say from a member of the public, a parent, who does not have any affiliation with Christian groups, gay groups, old guard or new guard.
Thought I need to let readers of this blog know that what you hear and see from the media and pro-gay blogs has been grossly misrepresented.
Today, I don't believe that the AWARE is for pluralism. It is still as sectarian as Josie's group. Only difference is that Josie's group is filled with pro-Christians, while Dana's group is filled with pro-gays and lesbians. Also, at least Josie's group was civil.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.323
Aware EOGM doomed from the start for New Group!
Let's put it this way ..when the press and media are explicitly and government implicitly in support of the Old guards..how can the New Guards win? And Look at Pearl Forss of CNA so happy when she announced the results! From the very minute Josie was reprimanded by her bank the DBS for her role in AWARE, it was clear she was somewhat a pawn, fighting the odds! God in heaven and perhaps also on earth... wasn't willing to give her that miracle to win!
Of course Derek Hong's about turn did not help either . As to why the about turn of a Pastor who has always been strong in his views, your guess is as good as mine.
The only good thing about the whole issue is that parents are now more AWARE that what is recommended by AWARE in the sex education curriculum MAY NOT be the right sort of value teachings, they want for their kids. SECONDLY that if they do not voice their concerns regarding any issue, the government takes it to mean "everything is fine !"
The MOE also cannot support the new Guard simply because to do so would be tantamount to admitting they have not been vigilant enough in their scrutiny of Aware's sex education curriculum for schools.
Dr Thio's appearance as Femininist mentor certainly did not help the cause of the new guards. She is known for her conservative and perhaps more ultra extreme conservative Christian views. The Old Guards boosted with the media reports of warnings from government leaders as well as socially correct viewpoints of various religious leaders of different religions, very cleverly play the religious card-(that this was a secular organisation turning Christian)
Now playing along that line of reasoning, they quickily won over supporters of other religious inclinations. Rightly or wrongly - the "fear factor came into the minds of those of other religious persuasions- "oh we cannot allow this organistion to be "taken over " by Christians. Though logically, no decent Muslim Hindu or Buddhist would have agreed that " anal sex can be healthy ..or homo is neutral or Pink family is ok." as taught in the aware sex education curriculum Thus the strong significance religion still holds- in the political positioning of issues here.
Dr Thio may not realise this , but by terming herself as Feminist Mentor , it could have been viewed as if she was ridiculing the MM . When the MM is termed Mentor ...it makes sense NOT to use the same terminology "mentor". She could have called herself Senior member, Guide, Honorary Adviser ..whatever but she unwittingly chose to call herself a Feminist Mentor!
As I had said earlier I applaud Josie for her daring, in taking on the marauding horde of lesbians and gays, but she probably didn't realise in reality how formidable they can be. HER heart and spirit may have been in the right place for the sake of our kids , but she could be wearing shoes too big for her feet, based upon her poor performance at the EOGM. She seemed to have lost her cool too many times, unfortunately! Nevertheless, she should be commended for at least trying.
For those who have followed the events closely, the whole episode clearly shows how potent the "invisible hand " of the government functions, in influencing success or failure of ANY group seeking office even in organisations- secular and/or religious.
Without the tacit support of the government ( even when they say they do not interfere) and without the "help " of the press in "shaping" public opinion , it is difficult for any group to succeed in their objective! And that is reality for us in Singapore!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.314