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.
Part 1
Part 2
——
Previous video: Minibond saga – six months later
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
“Who carries the bigger guilt?”
At the end, all are sinners in the eyes of God. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Now, you kept pointing out the process of elections was put in place by the old guard themselves and they have themselves to blame. That is merely focusing on the election day itself.
You point out that during an election, there would be differences of views and the group that commands the most vote wins.
The issue hence then, is this – if there had been strong differences in views, and most of the new members joined three months before, did any of them say it out? When a member joins a group willingly, the natural assumption is that you would agree to most of the methods and principles the group stands for. If the new group a) feels that their principles are in direct opposition to the old, and b) they truly believe in the mandate of the majority, they would make it open prior to the elections, giving the incumbent time to prepare. Then would have won the election fair and square.
Now you acknowledge a very interesting thing – during the EOGM, that the old guard will most certainly win back the seats. That means, more people will support the position of the old group, now that they know that there is a contest of ideas and ideals. If I can push it further, the EOGM would be a fairer representation of what people want.
If that’s the case, shouldn’t that be said that Josie and co could never had the mandate of representing women and hence had to resort to subvertege to lead?
So are you saying it is right that if a group knows it will lose an election in a fair fight, it is alright for it to resort to ambushes akin to the bombing of Pearl Harbor WITHOUT a declaration of war?
Joshua,
Good points you bring across. Joshua.
Now we can move on to scrutinize things a little further. We have all heard and used every comment coming out from the old guards to vindicate their losing the election. It is time now to scrutinize the words uttered by Josie.
Would you allow yourself to ask why she said her priority is to “go back to basics?” Would you read further into the words, “to disagree in an agreeable manner?”, and that “AWARE has lost its focus?”.
These are telltale signs, clearly indicating to us that there had been discussions on issues, and that perhaps, these issues were never resolved but pushed under the carpet, thus angering and offending those who brought them up. So, again, we are jumping the gun with our accusations that they did not try this end, aren’t we?
If that’s the case, shouldn’t that be said that Josie and co could never had the mandate of representing women and hence had to resort to subvertege to lead?
This is the type of argument I am most against, to put one and one and take for granted that it will add to two. Sometimes people get mistaken by adding one-half to one-half and the answer is one.
She has the mandate for sure. Go tell the PAP that because not everyone had voted in a GE, therefore the result is not conclusive. The mandate to lead was given in terms of votes from those who cared enough to show up. Whatever theories that come after this are just that – theories.
Now the old guards are galvanising its troop to hijack this result. “Two wrongs don’t make a right”, you say?
To (198) dear Ohnani, thank you for telling me.
On what you wrote below:
We do see things differently. So do most of the participants here. same goes to you on what you have written as far as our perception (yes, you may say perception only) on the new AW*** is concerned. and this thread is still going very strong.
My stance on Josie Lau – I don’t know. I need more informantion and would rather not infer because of her background. I think someone mentioned something about men being hanged because of circumstancial evidence. Hands up anyone who feels this is the right way to do things.
Reading the comments it seems like most have problems with her religious background. Which i then asked “Does it matter?”
Josie Lau did say this though “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.”
I’m sure the members will not let her have a free pass if she ever did push this agenda. Which is why i’ve always thought Josie Lau’s influence was a little too overstated. Which i then asked about and (151) replied:
“Can she convert all members of AWARE to her way of thinking? She might. I’m pretty sure she will try. Afterall, the newspaper article last weekend did report that she told her subordinates/collegaues at work that the best place to find a husband is at church. Doing such a thing at work says a lot about her professionalism.”
I’m pretty curious about the outcome. Did her subordinates/colleagues rush to church after that to look for a husband? Does she have great powers of persuasion? Or is it just a woman sharing her successful experience of husband hunting during watercooler breaks. Is there something wrong with that? If she did it in a business meeting or coerced them in anyway i would then question her professionalism and maybe even sanity.
I feel labeling her tenure as AWARE President as fundamentalist is a tad premature. Same to labeling her tenure as anti-gay.
Frankly i think that judgement should come after actions. I lack prescience so i do not know nor can predict if she would impose her beliefs on AWARE or as you put it AW*** and women in general.
To yw:
“Females in Singapore enjoy an education, careers, legal rights, voting rights, to name a few. Reverse 100 years ago, women would have NONE of these. AWARE is about fighting discrimination against women and how they are viewed/stereotyped/stigmatised in society.”
As part of the Male gender, i’ve never thought of women as anything but peers. In Singapore, there isn’t much restriction for a female. Perhaps slow in making inroads into Parliament but the numbers are growing. Josie Lau herself is a VP of DBS. What evidence is there that she will regress the state of females?
Also i believe that again if she ever did anything of the sort, i’m sure activists like you won’t sit by and let her run roughshod over their rights.
My stance as above is – i don’t know. And i don’t want to be drawn into speculation on what she will or won’t done when she hasn’t done anything. Perhaps that’s the problem.
How did this evolve to be about fundamentalist christians and the GLBT movement? I understand the concerns but isn’t this all a knee-jerk reaction on what could happen?
Maybe my inability to predict the future has restricted my understanding somewhat.
The only issue i could see is that her unorthodox though legitimate way of taking the reins of AWARE. And that doesn’t warrant that much attention compared to the passing of the POA restricting civil liberties of citizens in the name of open society, the NEA’s responsibilities in the Geylang Serai case and where does the buck stop when Govt agencies are concern, the one day sentence of the editor of Shin Min and the questionable judgement of the judiciary.
Though i do admit. This is way more entertaining.
To (198) dear Ohnani, thank you for telling me.
I am flattered that you have singled me out for attention. Even to the extent of naming yourself after me.
“We do see things differently. So do most of the participants here. same goes to you on what you have written as far as our perception (yes, you may say perception only) on the new AW*** is concerned. and this thread is still going very strong.”
Brilliant riposte. I recognise the source from the old school oratorical style of “i am rubber you are glue”. Good job.
of course, it is important that your queries are addressed orelse why are we wasting our time here? whoever can convince better will influence better with all arguments laid bare for all to see.
I have never sought to convince anyone. Just to query on the importance of the issue at hand. I thank yw for her post at (165). It went a long way to furnish answers.
I thank you for pointing the direction to the helpful comment. Your part in the argument was immense. Of course you were the more convincing and influencing person when all arguments are laid bare for all to see.
Germani,
You said ‘This is the type of argument I am most against, to put one and one and take for granted that it will add to two. Sometimes people get mistaken by adding one-half to one-half and the answer is one.”
But isn’t that the nature of any deduction? Short of having Charles Xavier around to read everyone’s mind, the only way in which people make decisions about other people is based upon the knowledge they have, and whatever biases and prior perceptions they have. What we’ve been saying is based on probabilities. What you are asking for is a confession of wrong-doing before you are convinced. You take a statement that anyone could have made – “to disagree in agreeable manner” and use this as an evidence to plead that Josie and co. had been concillatory all along without looking into everything else that had transpired before.
I’m just saying, based on observation, and knowledge and experience of how people would handle different views in an organisation, (and many other examples which many people here have quoted) that the actions of Josie and co. is one which few people with a healthy shred of decency would do.
Next, I would like to bring your attention to your ever-changing position – first you argued there’s nothing wrong with their actions. Then, when it was pointed out by a few people that legal and constitutional doesn’t mean it’s moral, you switched around and pointed the finger at the Old Guard saying that everything started because they had the audacity to lose their focus and harp on gay issues. My point is still the same – IT DOES NOT ABSOLVE JOSIE FROM WRONG.
Of course, I would also like to bring your attention to a statement you made earlier-
“Mind you, the majority of people the world over are straight, very straight. It is the few crooked ones that are distorting everything and causing the imbalance the world over, and no less here.”
- that most people are straight and it’s the fault of a crooked few (which one who reasonably infer as gays) who want to create all these trouble (ie – the world was fine until gays arrive). Later of course, you retract your statement that you are against homosexuals when others took offence.
Now you are really entitled to your own views on homosexuality really, and that’s not something I want to pick on, so follow me for a bit more.
Lastly when I wrote two wrongs doesn’t make a right, you wrote rather teasingly –
“Now the old guards are galvanising its troop to hijack this result. “Two wrongs don’t make a right”, you say?” The point being that therefore my arguments are refuted. But you see, the point isn’t about a fight. It’s about a fair fight. If you want to fight, make it known. Give others a chance to prepare. Win fair and square. I don’t even see what’s your point about bringing up PAP because a lot of people would also conclude that their claim of mandate vis-a-vis the GRC system is hot air.
At the end of the day, my friend, I can only conclude that you defended the new guard chiefly because the old guard showed an inclination towards gay issues and causing further imbalance in this straight straight world, and when your arguments are tested and found wanting, you starting grasping at straws. But they’re just that – straws.
I rest my case.
Gemami:
The notorious gang of 6 are definitely not part of the majority of ‘mainstream’ women.
The majority of ‘mainstream’ women are upright women with a sense of righteousness.
Upright women know how to appreciate other women’s contributions to the society and womankind.
Upright women will work cooperatively and respectfully with other women for the betterment of women’s welfare.
Upright women will never take over other’s establishment in such a hostile and ruthless manner.
You said “the sentiments and views of the larger conservative community had been very much overlooked in recent times. If the liberals fear the tenets for women at COOS, then the conservatives would also live in fear of the same in an overly- liberalised team.”
What do you mean by ‘overly-liberalised’? To be inclusive of people of all backgrounds and respect diversity are threatening? Are you sure it will cause people to live in fear?
So finally, the truth is out: The staunchly chauvinistic lot (I’m sure you’re one) who are hiding under the name of conservatives are finally striking, huh?
Now, women’s intuition tells me that the guys are behind all these. Notice that Josie was stumped for words. The gang appeared to be waiting for further instructions from at least two guys behind them.
What is AWARE for? It welcomes open-minded gentlemen who are supportive of women’s rights and welfare. And it’s right that men can be members, but have no voting rights. So Josie and gang trying to give staunchly chauvinistic men voting rights? What are they trying to do to AWARE? It’s so clear here, isn’t it?
Up to now, they are not able to spell out their agenda, because once it’s revealed, they will be expelled from AWARE. And that’s the good thing to do!
The poor moral conduct of Josie should not go unpunished. I urge people to provide feedback to DBS about this appalling behaviour of their staff.
https://www.dbs.com.sg/contact/Pages/staffcode.aspx
http://we-are-aware.sg/
For anyone interested to know what happened from the Old guard’s perspective.
The arguments have now changed. Now the tack is “give the new exco a chance” “don’t be quick to judge” “judge them later when they have had time”. “we don’t know Josie – we can’t judge” “don’t jump the gun” (#204 Gemami #205 by Ohnani).
These are cleverly designed arguments – at this time, the electioneering for the EGM is in full swing. The new exco needs to mobilise the undecided and those who have not really followed the issues or who have not really understood the issues. This is an appeal to the innate sense of fair play found in most people.
But these arguments are dead wrong. The new exco have had their chance. When? Firstly, right from the time they joined AWARE, they could have shown the AWARE members their positions, their characters and their abilities and most importantly, their views and their criticisms of the existing system. They did not. They kept quiet.
Then after they won the elections (was it in the spirit of fair play? – u decide; but its cute when Ohnani describes it as “unorthodox” (#205) Ha. Spin baby spin.) they could have shown not only the members, but also the public what they were about. Did they? Yes they did. They excluded a respected ex-president from meetings, they sacked the committee heads without a single word of thanks. The president quit, saying that she couldn’t work with “stormtroopers”. They refused to disclose their agenda or their plans to members (only on TV did Josie give some generalities) and they have simply failed to answer the criticisms levied. It appears to me that there have been more than enough facts and circumtances to judge.
And again, at the end of the posts, there is again a sly reference to christians and gays -”How did this evolve to be about fundamentalist christians and the GLBT movement? ”
I have said before and I say this again : this is NOT an issue of christians vs gays – this is a red herring intended to scare neutrals and to galvanise those who might otherwise find their acts distasteful.
And then :
“And that doesn’t warrant that much attention compared to the passing of the POA restricting civil liberties of citizens in the name of open society, the NEA’s responsibilities in the Geylang Serai case and where does the buck stop when Govt agencies are concern, the one day sentence of the editor of Shin Min and the questionable judgement of the judiciary.”
Classic tactic – gloss over the matter (after the deed has been done), nothing to see here, come on, move along, move along. Yeah sure. If Ohani and Gemami feel that there is nothing important, would they be posting so much not just here but in other threads as well? This is important.
So people, don’t be fooled by these false arguments.
Gemami, give the new exco a chance indeed!
Putting three burly men at the premises, sacking the centre manager (an employee who had nothing to do with the elections) and changing the locks sure warms the cockles of my heart.
And you still argue that the new exco should not be judged?
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/424471/1/.html
man im cancelling my dbs card as well!
lol. Josie Lau and DBS are the least of your worries now. I agree with HT. This new development sets warning bells ringing in my head. This feels far more insidious than a simple takeover and goes beyond gay rights.
Read in TODAY that death threat received by ExCo member. Check it out at
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/315756.asp
The police is now involved , is now involved. Those who are making baseless attacks on the new Exco especially on religion better think again and be prepared to be questioned
they lied on national tv that this was not a planned takeover. ;)
To 210) HT on April 24th, 2009 2.16 am.
And again, at the end of the posts, there is again a sly reference to christians and gays -”How did this evolve to be about fundamentalist christians and the GLBT movement? ”
I have said before and I say this again : this is NOT an issue of christians vs gays – this is a red herring intended to scare neutrals and to galvanise those who might otherwise find their acts distasteful.
Did you not read the other comments before today? I am with you on that this is NOT an issue of christians vs gays but what were is most of the rhetoric and outrage here about? Hate speech on fundies, Hate speech vs homosexuals.
“These are cleverly designed arguments”, “This is an appeal to the innate sense of fair play found in most people.”
Is fair play not important? Forgive me if i would rather not condemn someone before knowing the facts. Of course now that the facts are out with the Thio Su Mien interview. I stand chagrined.
“Classic tactic – gloss over the matter (after the deed has been done)”
Hindsight is 20/20. Without full knowledge of the facts of the AWARE, i would have thought the restriction of civil liberty for all citizens, the roles and responsibilities of govt agencies and the questionable decisions of the judiciary should take precedence since everything else was speculation.
As i’ve said earlier since i lack prescience, more information is needed before any judgement call can be made.
Since now it’s clear that AWARE’s agenda is mainly anti-GLBT, by all means vote for the old guard at the EOGM.
Thio Su Mien’s agenda of prejudice cannot stand.
Well, their plight receives no pity from me. Who ask them to threaten Secularism in Singapore? Religion must be separated from the State. Now that the police is involved, it is essential for the police to investigate the possibility of the Thio’s family association with the Christian Right Movement in North America.
Well, their plight receives no pity from me. Who ask them to threaten Secularism in Singapore?
Well, their plight receives no pity from me. Who ask them to threaten religious harmony in Singapore?
HT #210
Damn it you beat me to it.
“But these arguments are dead wrong. The new exco have had their chance. When? Firstly, right from the time they joined AWARE, they could have shown the AWARE members their positions, their characters and their abilities and most importantly, their views and their criticisms of the existing system. They did not. They kept quiet.”
I would like to add that they knew PRECISELY what to say (i.e. AWARE stands for all women, heterosexual or homosexual) to put the scrutiny to rest but went out of their way to avoid saying it. Proof? There you go.
Joshua Chiang #175
“Being educated doesn’t mean one is immediately capable of critical thinking – correction – I believe most people are capable of critical thinking.
But not everyone is willing to.”
Nice. Couldn’t agree more.
Lockeliberal #190
“…mindless rhetoric and endless words…”
I caught the intro of a creationist dvd once and members of the organization are taught “rhetoric” to “circumnavigate the intelligence” of non-believers. Staggering huh?
These may OR may not be real, but if they are, it just shows they had been lying that there wasn’t any hidden agenda-
http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?t=26201
the police is involved now
I wonder how it is possible a reputable bank like DBS can tolerate such bad leadership skills display by Lau. Her behaviour and actions clearly shows disrespect and disregard for DBS. Her strong stance against homosexuality can possibly affects DBS’ image and created negative views against the bank. This matter has over-blown and attracting too much media attention. I personally have very negative views about Lau and the way her team is managing the takeover. Since she is still with DBS, this will rub off my view of the bank too.
My comments #207 “Now, women’s intuition tells me that the guys are behind all these. Notice that Josie was stumped for words. The gang appeared to be waiting for further instructions from at least two guys behind them.”
Oops, my intuition is half-correct. It turns out to be ‘at least one guy and one woman behind them’. By the guy I mean the husband.
All around me are familiar faces
Worn out places, worn out faces
Bright and early for the daily races
Going nowhere, going nowhere
And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which I’m dying are the best I’ve ever had
I find it hard to tell you, I find it hard to take
When people run in circles its a very, very
Mad world, mad world
Alamak!! I invited you to stay my house and you come and move, throw and change my barang barang. . Not only that you changed my padlock. After that you kick me out…. What is this? Where got meaning, you bluff 3 years old kid.
By martyring themselves, by screaming at the top of their voices and getting their trolls to echo it on the internet that there are gays everywhere who are persecuting them (militant gays who are jihadist indeed – that’s hilarious – can you imagine Osama mincing in high heels), they are trying to get all the people who are uncomfortable with gays on their side and more importantly to force the ambivalent Christian to have to make a decision whether to support them or not. That is why they are painting it in black and white – you are with me or against me – you are for gays or against gays. If you do not support me, the gays will take over SIngapore.
I disagree. This is NOT a pro-gay/ anti-gay issue.
The issue is whether a religious group can sneak into a civic organisation, hijack it and impose their religious views on it. This has serious ramifications for the society we live in. Everyone should understand that.
On top of that, they are just mean and underhanded people.
One more point to note – the fundies are not concerned with alienating the liberals and the neutrals (I hate to categorise like this but for lack of better words) and therefore now state boldly their claims. The so-called liberals and neutrals may posit nasty messages yes, but how many will actually bother to join AWARE and vote. They are just not that organised and by nature, don’t want to be organised – I don’t want a gay militant group telling me what to do either.
Whereas if they can force their fellow Christians to choose sides, you can bet your last dollar that they will get them willy nilly down to join AWARE and vote. They will call them, arm twist them and bus them down.
Any person who attempts to argue will be demonised as pro-gay and anti-family. With specks of froth foaming at the mouth, they will denounce reason in strident terms and speak of your children being attacked or converted by gays, to scaremonger.
Therefore expect the trolls to continue to paint this as pro-gay/antigay. Some will be be blatant, some will be subtle. You will hear more fantastical utterances of the ficititious gay invasion (will Singapore change its national colour to pink?). The neutrals will be puzzled and disgusted at this open display of homophobia but hey, the fundies are not concerned as to what you think. They never were.
70) acidrush on April 20th, 2009 11.46 pm
For the perusal of the many people who contributed to the discussion:
A poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller about the holocaust.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…
Good men need only do nothing. And we’re all doomed.
Go back to your church and set up your own group! Don’t claim whats not yours and of no credit of! Shame on you!
josie lau the new appointed exco for AWARE simply looks like she was caught off guarded of the questions that were coming towards her. her stands for the organisation were confused and totally misleading through her replies.
she was quoted saying the body is pro-families, pro-women. i think she left out the term “pro-gay”.
the simple answer to womens diversified sexual orientation is not through gay beliefs, practices, or even people. god just happen to create women who like women
I think Josie completely don’t know whatz she talking about. She is lost……
Why do people hate Josie Lau so much?
For a provocative explaination, see http://inspirationfortoday.wordpress.com/
Yes, I would like to know what Chan Heng Chee and Claire Chiang think about being dragged into this interview by Josie. I personally do not think that Chan and Chiang would like to have anything to do with Thio/Joise/Ong and Co.
Wind Beneath My Wings is Josie’s new theme for AWARE? Is she ignorant or just plain stupid. What would Bette Midler and her legions of fans say about having a signature song hijacked by these anti-gay bigots?