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
“Did the old AWARE ex-co do such a fantastic job that so many of you are incensed that they have been reduced to just members?”
Have the new members done anything yet. Not incensed but just to let you know for every point you have made, there is an equally valid point at the other point.
“To those commenting – are you members or do you believe the members are too lackadaisical to take ownership of this issue? Isn’t this purely an internal issue? Is the debate worth it?”
Do you need to be member to comment or whatever you have in mind. are you a member also. so do you think the debate is worth it ? why else are you doing it here?
“Is the answer is yes. I say let us fight her to the death here and now.
If not? Why the hell are you people arguing?”
Luckily in this world, no one needs to be guided by your parameter of having to fight to the grave end.
Why are you arguing also and showing your anger ? no ?
With Aware… Fundamentalist will have official cover to push their version of sex education in schools. They also have a platform to a NMP position in parliment… 3 past aware presidents have been NMPs…..
I guess non of their supporters have the intellectual honesty to admit that its really really hard to believe that they go to the same church and yet they claim not to know each other.
I can’t help to smell the stench of double standards coming from the “right”.
They’re allowed to take over a NGO to push forth their beliefs, write letters to denounce homosexuals and their lifestyles. But when they do that, we’re not allowed to criticize them and denounce their discriminatory comments?
It is their right to have their beliefs and to practice them, but when they bring them out into the open and try to force it onto others. They have to be prepared to defend their beliefs and not resort to using religion as justification.
Should we be expecting crusaders knocking at our door to slaughter us because we’re disbelievers?
They’re allowed to swing their fists at our faces and we’re not allowed to do the same to them?
Social stability requires the consensus among a society, that we all have a right to live the way we wish to as long, as it does not cause harm or inconvenience to others.
The law should not be protecting religion from the people.
The people be protected by the law from religion.
Dear Gemina
I have only one question on reading through the posts which I hope u can answer. A Contest of ideas should be played out in the context of a vibrant civil society space, a liberal pro equality, pro abortion, pro sex education AWARE alonside a Women Focus on Faith type org led by Josie bin Ladin, Pro family, Pro Life , Pro Abstinence etc, I have no problems with that, what I have a problem with is one section trying to take over the other whilst blithely insulting our intelligence and denying it to the core
Society benefits from a healthy active diverse civil society space. However respect for each others views and ideological leanings means that one does not take over an existing society with views contrary to one’s own views in order to better push one’s own agenda. That is disgusting and despicable.
That is now a call that the two camps within AWARE should compromise. What sort of crap is that ? If that bunch of Christian Women joined a Muslim Women welfare organization and staged a similar putsch, the ISD would be arresting and questioning every single one of those idiots. Certain views are so fundamentally apart that they cannot logically exist within the same organization. Pro Life and Pro Choice for example Abstinence vs Condoms etc. There is space enough within Singapore for both but not within one small org.
So why are you denying, the right for AWARE to exist based on the views it fundamentally believes in because a bunch of right wing pentacostals believed in taking it over and reforming more to its wishes ? What is wrong with setting up a parallel Focus on Family org calling it say Focus on Women ? Why set up a putsch in the most despicable way possible and then denying it and insulting our intelligence
Locke
hi acidrush #153,
I totally concur with you on this. I am very wary of Christian fundamentalists hijacking our Parliament. Singapore cannot become a Christian nation in the Muslim part of Southeast Asia. Moreover, there are also other religions practised in Singapore and as we know, even the Bible speaks against the worshipping of other Gods other than the Christian God.
151)dear Ohnani, why are you showing your anger :
Anger? I’m afraid you are mistaken there. It’s more of my frustration at being unable to understand why this matter warrants so much attention.
“Have the new members done anything yet. Not incensed but just to let you know for every point you have made, there is an equally valid point at the other point.”
Yes i concede this point to you. Your counter (to my question about whether it is because of the extremely good job the old ex-co have done that such a reaction to their ouster has happened) that the new ex-co hasn’t done anything in the less than 2 weeks in office is extremely valid. How can the new ex-co ever compare to the old one based on current evidence. Good valid point there. I would have preferred it though if you had just answered my question.
“Do you need to be member to comment or whatever you have in mind. are you a member also. so do you think the debate is worth it ? why else are you doing it here?”
I am not a member and i don’t know. You see how i’ve been asking questions? I seek to understand why this matter – at least to me – has been blown way out of proportion.
Luckily in this world, no one needs to be guided by your parameter of having to fight to the grave end.
Why are you arguing also and showing your anger ? no ?
I didn’t expect you to take me literally so i shall revise my comments. I failed to realise that perhaps you would have a problem understanding figures of speech. I apologise and shall endeavour to explain to you in terms put as simply as i can so that you can understand.
What i meant and i hope you are following me is that if she possessed such powers then i would have understood such a response and debate. I too would vehemently be against her appointment.
Is my entire answer simple and clear enough for you (151) to understand?
Hi everyone,
I am curious, why is there such a strong debate about Christianity vs gays?
As an apathetic bystander, i like to delve deeper into the perceived actions of the previous President.
I feel that the true issue here is not so much to how good or evil Christianity or homosexuality may be.
The point of contention however is that the previous EXCO upon losing are not happy, and they use such “hot” topics to garner attention and support for their cause.
I wonder why then are we merely staying on the surface of the real problem at hand.
Christians or not, i believe that Josie has won the elections fair and square. You cannot blame the previous commitee for having a poor showing. Why cant Josie, irregardless of her religion make a positive difference through AWARE?
I feel that this should NOT be an issue of Christianity vs homosexuality. Thats just an excuse to sensationalize this piece of news by the MSM and the previous EXCO for losing.
I feel that this incident is something too trivial to upset the civic peace we have in Singapore. I believe many people will capitalize on this opportunity to promote their own agendas which is rather disturbing.
LOL:Ahhhh….here we see again….religious belief….this guy just hates christians…and now he is attacking christianit as a whole as mentioned above . Wow….I thought u r not attacking our “dangerous” beliefs….wat a liar
Of course lah, it is some of your beliefs that mold your behaviours. And there is nothing to cover up here. We are talking about certain fundy group pushing their beliefs into a secular organisation. Only you are thinking that it is an issue of a group taking over another group.
Ahhh….so u admit in attacking christianity as a whole…..so……no christians should be part of government, no christians should be in the police force….no christians should be in the army then….woohoo……YEAH…..
For your information, all of the above organisations are secular and many christians i know have places in them….and the scariest part of all, they be termed fundy by u soon.
I have no qualms u attack the actions of a person but NOT the whole organisation that she is in ,aka christianity. So by attacking christianity beliefs in a news forum, are u trying incite everyone to hate christianity and their dangerous beliefs and henceforth christians? Do u think you are inciting hate and anger against christianity beliefs and christians by all your above statements? No?
sorrie i was to #15….i wanted to type #159 =p
To #160,
Stop hiding fundamentalists under the label Christians. Separate the black sheep from the rest.
A Tan,
Your post set of another random chain of thought. No, it wasn’t about the rather unappetising mental image of Ms Lau wearing balls.
AWARE is not a for-profit organisation, not withstanding the need for fiscal responsibility and the complete organs of organisation which they share with any other relatively large organisations.
We in Singapore applaud people for qualities of leadership, decisiveness and political shrewdness, academic prowess, business acuity; but we very rarely, especially where it counts the most, evaluate the morals and values of these persons. Too “touchy-feely”. No place for these in the business context.
But even in the US, today, excessively Machiavellian behaviour in the commercial arena is proven once again to be detrimental to the greater good. I do not say “proven” and “once again” lightly – this last crisis wasn’t the first, the danger of such a value system has always patently obvious; it just isn’t easy to quantify, we have all deliberately eaten up all the lip-service presented in company mission statements and advertisement copy.
We applaud and elevate these people, only to express surprise and chagrin when they later take us for a ride.
I feel this way about our political leaders as well. The joke is indeed on us.
That is why I say they are sly. Fundie hiding behind the name of christian. And he don’t think. When did I attack christianity as a whole? He kept hoping to poof (the word he like most) that I did so. Like I said before, there is no problem for people of any religions to join AWARE as long as they have their values aligned with the organisation. Yah….and then…AWARE can actually consider banning the fundies outright in their constitution.
Dear #157 Ohnani
I understand your deep concerns very much on why there is such ‘drama’ unfolding around this situation that seems unwarranted and exaggerated.
To put it in a nutshell: it is a battle of ideologies and the tactics employed by both sides of the debate to further their cause.
AWARE is doing a favour not for just women, but for all civil society organisations in general. If the new exco indeed does not share AWARE’s values, then a vote of no confidence is indeed the right thing to do.
And for all of you who have not been following the news, there is very much reason to suspect whether they even know AWARE’s values and programmes at all (Josie Lau could not even name a programme of AWARE’s in her interview!)
Regarding your point that no one will die from the new ExCo, that is completely true. But we are at a point in civilisation where we are not talking about life and death, but quality of life.
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.
This is backdropped against thousands of years of female oppression, where religions have been (and, in the case of Christian fundamentals, still is) a major supporter of such female discrimination. This is tough and harsh fact to accept; and it is not that religions are wrong, because religions have progressed very much since.
Those of you who haven’t, go to the COOS website and look under their ‘pro-family’ tenets: it states that women are subject to their husbands, and have four rules – marry, give birth to children, guide the house, and not to blame her husband.
And if 5 of the 9 members attend the same church, whose values very much contradicts AWARE’s in many ways (pertaining to sexuality, abortion, abstinence or marriage, just to name a few) then don’t we have a cause to be very concerned that people are despicable enough to take over organisations and promote the values of their own religion via piggybacking on a credible cause?
It is counter-progressive!
So if you are a woman who has an education, a job, a husband – THIS ALREADY CONCERNS YOU. If you are a man who knows such a woman, this very much concerns you too.
(and isn’t it ironic that josie and gang are tainting the values that allow them to enjoy the life they enjoy now? and promoting a point of view that, for thousands of years, have deprived women from the simplest essentials for a dignified life?)
164) WeiHan on April 21st, 2009 9.18 pm That is why I say they are sly. Fundie hiding behind the name of christian. And he don’t think. When did I attack christianity as a whole? He kept hoping to poof (the word he like most) that I did so. Like I said before, there is no problem for people of any religions to join AWARE as long as they have their values aligned with the organisation. Yah….and then…AWARE can actually consider banning the fundies outright in their constitution.
Well, if u put it that way, u wouldn’t have asked me to prove God would u? Aren’t u attacking the principle of christianity? Look at point 106 and 127….what r u refering to? U question about christianity, not about the person, aka, “whether the bible is politically motivated”, and also the “religious beliefs”
I have no bone to pick with anibody….If u read WeiHan’s above posts about his dealings with certain christians, u will know wat i mean.
LOL,
relak leh. There really isn’t a need to take it so personally. You are just reinforcing his perception.
158) iliveinuk on April 21st, 2009 8.38 pm
Whether the current EXCO won the elections “fair and square”, or if the previous AWARE EXCO are sore losers, or whether they are justified in seeking to regain control of the organization via EGM, are spurious issues.
“Why can’t Josie, irregardless of her religion make a positive difference through AWARE?” Based on what we have seen and heard from the protagonists thus far, the neutral bystander would find it hard to believe that Josie and the new EXCO would indeed make a positive difference through AWARE.
THE question is: is the takeover of AWARE a covert operation by a religious group to promote its agenda via the takeover of a civic organization?
I can understand and respect the divergent beliefs that various religions have on various issues, including that on homosexuality. However, I can not accept any religion to expand their public space through the taking over of civic organizations. If such an act is condoned, our secular peace and religious harmony will be at risk as other religious and non-religious groups seek to defend or promote their turf via similar means.
I agree that that this should NOT have be an issue of Christianity vs homosexuality, but the actions and beliefs of the protagonists has only led one to believe that homosexuality is the underlying agenda for the takeover of AWARE by a religious group.
Irrespective of your religion, get your wife, sister(s), daughter(s), nieces, female-in-law and relatives to join AWARE tommorrow en-bloc to remove the new gang of six and their narrow agenda. No place for this Taliban-type of leadership in AWARE.
One thing I cannot understand… Religious Fundamentalism is retreating in most of the developed world because of education (America is one of the exceptions because of the mixing of politics and religion).
Yet here are a bunch of highly educated Singaporean women…
I do not understand how they are able to make that leap of blind faith? How do they reconcil their education and their faith? After all one contradicts the other…
Ms Thio jumped to the conclusion immediately that it was god calling her name when she was leaving the room. How to prove that? Can’t it be some other spirits playing a fool with her?
You should read richard dawkins.
Acidrush,
You can’t understand because at it’s very core, fundamentalism has nothing to do with one’s relationship with God and everything to do with power.
Hi Joshua,
Yes that I can understand. For the leaders yes, but what about the followers?? Many of the followers are also highly educated… I mean I am pretty certain Josie & gang are not really the main leaders. The main players would still be behind the scenes…
What influences/motivates these highly educated followers????
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.
Because it’s just too damn difficult. Fundamentalistic organisations do the thinking for you. Paradoxically, my opinion is that it is not the organisation that makes one fundamentalistic, but that people who can’t deal with ambiguity go to such organizations.
Also, let’s not forget that what we call ‘education’ nowadays is really just an overspecialization in a certain field. An engineer with a doctorate may have never read Shakespeare. In the past, a person has to be very widely read, and knowledgable in many subjects before he can be considered educated. Not so today. What you call ‘educated’ men, I call literate specialists.
IMHO, I doubt many of them have ever read anything from other faiths beyond heresay. Hence the narrowness of thinking.
168) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 21st, 2009 9.54 pm
Hi Joshua, I am just erked by his some of his comments. I mean no anger towards him. Please continue debating…
Some postings are calling the new exco leaders “fundies”, “fundamental”, “Chrustian talebans” and so on.
These are just meaningless labels. At least they’ve got sound moral values, and not just some “progressive”, questionable values.
I’m sure we all agree that they are not in some covert operation to harm women in Singapore ?
“One thing I cannot understand… Religious Fundamentalism is retreating in most of the developed world because of education (America is one of the exceptions because of the mixing of politics and religion).
Yet here are a bunch of highly educated Singaporean women…
I do not understand how they are able to make that leap of blind faith? How do they reconcil their education and their faith? After all one contradicts the other…”
By developed world do you mean the WESTERN WORLD? Because South Korea, Japan, China and Taiwan are all deeply religious/ seeing an explosion is religious belief and extremely educated.
aiya i still have not decide to do lasik surgery or not.
i ask the lasik surgeon he say lasik is very safe.
i ask my optometrist he say hard to say all surgery has certain risk, have to weigh the pros and cons and decide carefully.
but 1 thing i am sure is i support the old guards of aware because they try their best not to have any discrimination.
“At least they’ve got sound moral values, and not just some “progressive”, questionable values.”
Just exactly what would you define as ‘moral’ values? The outward observance of purity? Monogamy? Piousness? Regular church attendance? Didn’t someone came along 2000 years ago, sat with prostitutes and tax collectors, quarrelled with Pharisees to show that what we narrowly define as ‘morality’ isn’t nearly enough?
Isn’t words like ‘pro-family’ and ‘pro-life’ meaningless labels too when pro-family is only defined as its physical composition (man-woman-child), and ‘pro-life’ as the absolute stance against abortion and euthanasia?
What about values like universal love and compassion, honesty and integrity that one should impart to the members of one’s family? What about pro-life being for making life for the other half of the people of the world bearable? Speaking out against unbridled corporate greed – because corporate greed is one of the chief reasons for the huge income disparity between the rich and the poor?
“I’m sure we all agree that they are not in some covert operation to harm women in Singapore ?”
The people who started the Spanish Inquisitition had the best interest of their souls in mind. Hitler honestly believed he is doing his countrymen a favour by killing the Jews. The point, as I keep repeating, isn’t about intent. The cartoon caricature of evil being a cackling despot hatching plans to destroy the world seldom exist in real life. Evil begins when one believes one can and should do anything, compromise anything in order to achieve a result that one believes is good for the majority of people – the sacred rights of a small group of people can be sacrificed for the betterment of the majority.
Josie and co didn’t rub their hands in glee with grand ambitions to take women rights back to the Dark Ages. They believed their vision is best for women, and to achieve it, it is ok to be a little bit below board in their methods. They lied to themselves that as long as it is legal, it is moral. And there isn’t that much difference between outright lying and with-holding facts.
Which is all the more worse because a liar who lies intentionally knows he is committing wrong. Someone who commits the act of self-deception and justification of the act being within legal means believes he is still righteous.
And the most dangerous evil is a man or woman who believes in his inerrant righteousness.
Bottomline is still “what if?”
What if your thinking of the new team is wrong? All the things said about them being the super-duper Christian, the super-heterosexual woman who scorns upon gays; who wants to conquer the world and Christianize it, and de-gay it?
Sure these are possibilities but they remain just that – possibilities.
What if they are nowhere near all these fears being thrown about? What if they just wanted to bring the core values of AWARE back into the running of the society?
What if they are nowhere near what you lot, the old guards included, make them out to be?
Having said that, it is good to ponder a bit and consider, did not the old AWARE started out being a society that looked after the needs of women?
Did gay issues and the fact that they each had their own religion played a part in the running of the old AWARE?
Can you say for sure they were not influenced by their religious beliefs and sexual inclinations?
Did anyone question them the way the new team are being questioned, when the old AWARE took issue with anti-gay views?
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.
25 years down the road and you see what they are championing for? Issues that has nothing to do with the majority of women, the non-gays.
Is this not a good enough reason to bring back some sense to the old guards? Is this not reason enough to get back to basics? Is this not reason enough to take hold and take charge. Like it or not, change comes in many forms but we must allow change to take the first step in order to comment whether the chage was good or not.
Hi lockeliberal & Joshua,
I posted replies to your comments. You’ll have to wait for them to be released :)
Why didn’t the CNA editor or the so-called editorial consultant ask the most obvious quesion: “Why did you and/or the other members of the new exco just form your own woman’s group?” ?
Wah! Got invoke MM! So potitically astute. Appoint him as Honorary Advisor/Mantor (HAM)?
157) Ohnani on April 21st, 2009 8.30 pm
How about post 165) yw on April 21st, 2009 9.36 pm who has provided a good answer to your own post 157). such long noisy controversy does not come about for no reason.
good luck. by the way, now i know that you are not angry but frustrated.
How many Christian Women follow God’s Advice and Bear a Child for Singapore!
Any data to proved! LKY would be very happy! Come on we live in secular, realistic Society and had to pay some much bills before going heaven or hell.
Let not made hell on earth! Think is better get religion out of TOC.
Josie’s coup attempt was successful and crudely took care of the old guards. Now she appears on TV to ask for reconcillation? ha ha ha
And now old guards trying to oust her again using memberships and calling for another meeting.
This is the biggest joke or comedy this year. Let us just shut down AWARE and let it rot. A character like Josie running AWARE? You want it?
Dearest gemani,
You have been posting very furiously on these boards, and whilst your investment in this debate is very commendable, I would like to urge for you to look beyond what you believe is truth.
I am a strong supporter of the old guard, and it is indeed unfortunate that over the years they have been being lulled into a sense of complacency and have not been moving as fast as they should have been. They have been growing inefficient, I give you that.
Their values, however, have remained sturdy. Please take some time to do research on the values of AWARE for the last 24 years, and take some time to do research on the value of the church that Josie and gang come from (this is a huge factor that you cannot deny. You yourself have been allowing your staunch religious background to colour how you view the situation. its inevitable isn’t it?).
AND THEN, you need to do research on the women’s rights movement, also known as women’s suffrage. Read my post #165 if you will, but don’t forget to do your work too. In fact, this goes for everyone who has the gall to say that the new guard is justified in what they do. What they are doing IS legal, but it still is NOT RIGHT (does religion not teach the same thing?). When you grow up, maybe the ‘grey’ quality of things will be easier to understand.
THEN, you take time to formulate your rebuttal on the following:
1. The principle of non-discrimination has been a key tenet of AWARE. Lesbians are women too. How do you reconcile such a basic value that AWARE has striven to perfect over the years?
2. You are impressed by Josie’s ability to formulate a new programme so quickly. But just what is the relevance of this programme ‘wind beneath my wings’? I find it an utter insult for her to say AWARE has not been doing relevant work and then have her suggest this programme which has such a limited reach and does little in eliminating discrimination. (and kudos to her for the religious imagery by the way, I laughed.). What do you see in it?
3. As a continuation of point number 2, specifically programmes does AWARE need to cut back on to go back to basics? For many women in distress, AWARE has been a haven. Josie herself could not even name one of AWARE’s programmes during the interview.
4. In fact, if you will bother to do the research, you will see why AWARE’s programmes are so diversified. The economic crisis simply adds another dimension of AWARE’s outreach programme, because one will understand how other problems that its programmes address do not disappear and are long term objectives.
5. I also want to add that your entire perspective on ‘possibilities’ is very weakly founded. AWARE members have to be vigilant in protecting their values, and that is why they have been raising questions to the new guard and sought clarification. Sure, these are possibilities, but when the beneficiaries of the exco demand clarity, why is the new guard being so evasive and so laconic in their response? There is already overwhelming proof to question the motives of the new guard! If we are in a situation where we are still speculating possibilities, the exco is obviously not being transparent! A hidden agenda that they are trying to mask is a reasonable conjecture.
Lastly, your anti-homosexual remarks are at the very least stunning and hateful. Just because they are a minority group doesn’t mean they have less of a right to live in this world than you do: this is called discrimination. If you could very kindly tell me how they are distorting everything and creating imbalances in this world, I will appreciate it because I see many of them contributing to society in many ways. Their freedom to express their sexuality is a choice of theirs.
They are so lucky that they were not in Hardtalk or meeting with an interviewer like Tim Sebastian. Our journalists really need training on hostile media approaches.
Dear Gemani
You have resorted to mindless rhetoric and endless words to what avail and yet have failed to reply or answer the one simple question which I have repeated in threads.
No one disputes your right to have a xtian right point of view, no one disputes the right to exists in civil society. I am a xtian to as well and would fight just as ardently for your right to exists against gays if they ever protested such an a well lets call it Focus on Women groups existence
Why take over AWARE which is a feminist movement and which traditionally even in the west has been PRO CHOICE, Pro informed sexuality, pro sex education and thus pro women becoming lesbians if they want to. Why Why Why and do it under guise of stealth.
AWARE has not gone from its feminist liberal roots in taking up the gay cause. It is in fact being true to its principles. Go form focus on women if the xtian right is unhappy but do not mess with a secular liberal femminist org.
Locke
The more I read on this issue, the more concerned I become. I have been reading many posts not just here but on other sites as well and I see a pattern which is as follows :
(1) defend the power grab as legal – if anyone says it was unethical, then blame the old guard as “complacent”, “this is the real world” “you should have seen it coming” blah blah. But describe the old guard as sore losers or sour grapes for calling an EGM, although that’s perfectly legal as well.
(2) demonise the old guard – they are gay lovers, Christian-haters, immoral, lost direction, what have they done for women, never heard of them, no effect on my life and so on- but all without a shred of proof. Gemani, in his/her posting writes particularly well, the postings start off very reasonably and then the sly comments (all without proof) come in – #181 is a good example especially at the part where it states that AWARE took a pro-gay stance “Did anyone question them the way the new team are being questioned, when the old AWARE took issue with anti-gay views? ” Very well written, I must say, no direct statement, just inferences. (BTW, AWARE was neither pro-gay nor anti-gay).
(3) then if the questioning over the unethical tactics used or the lack of openess continues, gloss over it – aw, shucks, let’s move on (careful, PAP may sue for copyright infringement), for the good of women, let the new team show what it can do, how do you know the new team won’t do better…
(4) And if all fails, attack the poster – and various parties will then jump in. (#109 So I can conclude, u hate christians and therefore CHRISTIANITY as…). WeiHan got the brunt of it but he is tough and gave back as good as he got. BTW WeiHan, throughout my schoollife and working life, I too have many experiences of sneaky mealymouthed hypocritical Christians. I don’t mean in general, there are horrible people of all religions. What I mean is the posture they adopt to non-Christians or in pursuit of their religious beliefs – and no, I don’t hate Christians or Christianity, but some of the followers seem to think that they and they alone are the Chosen One. At this time, the only Chosen One is Jose Mourinho (just kidding ok?).
(5) Finally, the trivialisation of the issue – what’s the big deal – why so much excitment, don’t understand why there’s a problem, its only a catfight, don’t bother about it.
The last argument is the most dangerous – we must be bothered by it. AWARE is not a wealthy nor powerful organisation. But it is a civic organisation. Josie and the Pussycats are free to have their personal convictions but these should not be imposed onto a civic organisation and if for any reason, they cannot comply with this, then they should not hold positions. At this time, given their behaviour, I seriously doubt that this is the case. From all the facts, I believe that there was a planned power grab with an undisclosed agenda that is NOT the furtherance of AWARE’s basic principles. Circumstantial evidence, yes, but men (not sure about women) have been hung on circumstantial evidence.
One of the most interesting tactical moves here is to characterise the issue as a gay issue (it is NOT). This is very cunning as it distracts from the real issue which is whether a power grab with an undisclosed agenda is acceptable to the conscience.
Finally the last tactic is to accuse the opponent of the same thing that these people are guilty of – you hate us, you have a secret agenda, why are you angry, you are intolerant…
Scary, isn’t it?
Stunning post HT!
Fantastic summary of the cyber-christian counter tactics. I apologise to anyone who feels smeared by my description, but over at the mainstream online sites and here, all the strategies you outlined are very much in evidence. Only been here the last couple of days but I can even name the posters fighting the ‘culturewars’ or the ‘religious wars’. i even caught references to ” Dawkins and his gang of 4″ (apparently out to destroy the one true church, yawn) here, on this site. Amazing !
#191) lockeliberal,
I posted a reply to your question but it is still under moderation. It’s at #177 which you cannot see lah. The comments you referred to is in #181, which is not the answer to your question. Be patient and wait for Mr Moderator.
To the others who commented on my views, please be patient and let me work on your questions … so many … ;)
Hi yw on April 22nd, 2009 9.36 pm,
Very well written, clear and straight to the point. I was almost won over by your writings at first reading. But the thing with writings like yours is that I would always thread more carefully and read them again and again and again. So please allow me to try and share my views as best I could. And I hope TOC allows this lengthy reply ;)
They have been growing inefficient, I give you that.
This is the reason for their downfall isn’t it? This is the effect of inefficiency and the only answer that we need to hear and keep in mind. The rest are just the pre- and post-causes that had created the effect, or, the effect that it will be creating. And I think that’s all to it.
I will indulge you with the rest of your comments since you took so much trouble to share them.
You asked me to do research on the works of AWARE for the past 24 years as well as on the history of COOS. There is no denying that AWARE has done tremendous work for the women of Singapore and the world over. True also, even if you did not mention it, that they have managed to gain latitude for the social standings of Singapore women. But what’s the point of filling the top layer of a basket with fresh apples when those below are left untouched and rotting? This is the ‘inefficiency’ and ‘lack of speed’ which you talked about, the cause that created the effect.
Bearing in mind that to answer your list of questions would take up space beyond what TOC can provide in one post, I shall try to present my case while at the same time attempt to answer all your questions at the same time.
You talked about the values of COOS, about women’s right movement, about discrimination and about the legality of the elected team. I appreciate the diverse points of consideration in your argument. Let me address them.
1. COOS: In your post #165, you brought to our attention the 4 areas pertaining to the issue of a Christian woman and her behaviour.
2. Wind Beneath My Wings: We speculate no end what this program is, ignoring what Josie tells us on national tv that this will be reveal in good time. How big or how “little” this program is, we do not yet know.
I would prefer to keep these considerations at bay for the simple fact that the old AWARE exco was made up of people with diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds, and for which 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. It’s a case of either black or white isn’t it?
3. Back to basics: My reaction when I first heard this was, “Hurray! the mainstream woman is going to be heard at last!”. Why do I react this way? Because we are going to work on the ‘… gains which benefit families and society as a whole ‘ as stipulated in AWARE’s mission statement.
4. Long Term Objectives: Why then did not the old guards take the trouble to safeguard these programs? Why treat an election so lightly? Why let all these members who have been working tirelessly, side by side, day in day out, why let them down by such attitude? It places a big ‘?’ on how seriously they view their jobs, does it not?
5. Possibilities: I did not try to draw up a case based on possibilities. On the contrary, the many comments and insinuations by supporters of the old AWARE were arguing their cases based on this, the conjectures, ‘hearsays’ and ‘what ifs’. I was only trying to get them to see the picture without all these, the ‘possibilities’. Your ‘overwhelming proof’ theory is also another possibility.
6. Homosexuality: I have no reason to hate homosexuals. In fact I learned a lesson or two from one poster who goes by the name of Robert, a self-professed homosexual living in marital bliss for the past seven years. I like his honesty and I would surely fight his case if there is a need to – but not in the ‘take-the-world-by-the-scruff-of-their-necks kind of way.
It is therefore good to hear that the new AWARE will be getting back to basics. I understand that the tsunamic reaction is nothing more than a normal reaction when the status-quo is shaken, and shaken hard.
HT, great stuff you wrote!
To :(185) dear Ohnani, have you got the answer now
To (148), (152), (185), thank you for your concern. What you wrote was a little redundant in that it neither added nor took anything away from the conversation, but it seems important to you that my queries be addressed.
Thank you.
Gemani,
The gist of your arguments, if I may sum up, is that AWARE has strayed off course and address only the concerns of a small liberal segment of the women population at the expense of the conservative majority. In your mind, this has to be put right.
But you have yet to give a reason why it is far better to take over AWARE instead of setting up an organisation that addresses the ‘unaddressed’ concerns.
In case you think that this country is too small for two organisations that serve the same cause to exist, do keep in mind that there are at least two organisations which address the concerns of the migrant workers population here – TWC2 and HOME. Both have different approaches take deal with the same problem, and both complement each other.
Secondly, you use the example of the failure of the old guard at the elections as an example that they have a lousy attitude towards their job. WRONG. You may not be aware of the culture of NGOs around here. As John Gee from TWC2 has said, there is always a shortage of volunteers that most NGO will welcome with open arms anyone who join their ranks. There is a sense of camaradery within and between NGOs as a result of many of the same problems they face – shortage of resources, the need to depend on the goodwill of others be it funds or manpower… It is generally assumed that anyone who joins only have one thing in mind, which is to give part of their time for a good cause. Because there is a commonality of vision, in many cases, the members who sit in the committee do not worry whether they will be ‘replaced’ the next year – not because they are complacent, but a) because they are too busy fulfilling their roles and b) keeping their jobs is the last thing they worry about. For most, they do not desire the privilege of the position (because do keep in mind most of it is strictly volunteery – ie- no income) they do it because very few volunteers want the extra responsiblility beyond just being the ‘foot-soldiers’.
In other words, unlike the government, committees in NGOs do not work to keep their positions for the following year (in fact the constitutions usually do not allow members to stay on in the same role for more than two consequtive years). Committees in NGOs work because there is a job to be done.
I have had the honor to volunteer for one of the NGOs here. (not AWARE of course lol) I have seen for myself the sense of trust and genuine friendliness between members of all ranks that is so missing in many business organisations. In the absence of salaries and power, there really isn’t a need to fight or distrust each other.
One of things that Josie and co’s coup has done is to put a dent in this intrinsic trust that NGOs have between old members and new recruits. And that is doing civil society a great disservice.
So, before closing, I would ask you to answer again – why is it far better for Josie and co to take over AWARE instead of setting up an organisation that addresses the ‘unaddressed’ concerns?
this forum is totally a waste of time.
“To (148), (152), (185), thank you for your concern. What you wrote was a little redundant in that it neither added nor took anything away from the conversation, but it seems important to you that my queries be addressed.”
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.
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.
Joshua,
But you have yet to give a reason why it is far better to take over AWARE instead of setting up an organisation that addresses the ‘unaddressed’ concerns.
I did give a reason but it is under moderation at somewhere around #177.
The simple answer is because I do not see the constitutional election of a team to office is a ‘takeover’ bid, like some of you do. Not yet anyway.
Don’t you think Josie’s stand on getting back to basic, implies that the best place to give back the voice of the ‘mainstream’ woman, is the only place where the original creation of a society to serve this purpose, namely AWARE, took place?
I also understand that setting up an alternative focus group may be the ideal option but come on, surely you and I know that in any organisation, where the democratic election of members into office is put in place, has in itself a purpose for members to champion causes that may not be in line with the opposing members’. Every opposing member has a different view, whether extreme or minute, and this is put to the vote, and the winner takes charge. Why did this simple process took a turn like it is now, you tell me? Where did the provocation come from? Let us be civil about this and take away all the preposterous assumptions and ‘possibilities’.
I did not say the old guards had lousy attitudes doing their job. If I had said it then I apologize without reserve. I was merely concurring with yw that the possible reasons for their ‘inefficiency’ could be due to the overlooked majority of ‘mainstream’ women. I did question, however, the fact that the attitude of the old guards approaching the election was something that was left to be desired. Here you are, representing women and all things women, and there you are, taking things for granted. Whose fault?
I know the focus have been very much on the new exco, but have you guys question the old exco how this could have come about? They have enough members to win the election hands down, so how could this have happened? They are now galvanising support, believing they would win the EOGM, and I know they will win it. Question is, how did they allow the new exco to takeover, or ‘hijacked’ them in the first place? You think about this and tell me how I would feel if I have these sort of executives representing my interests.
I fully understand that the old guards were seriously and sincerely ‘filling their roles’, but is it reason enough to neglect the most important annual event in the society’s calendar, the election?
I also agree with most parts of your comments especially about the dents caused by this chain of events. Tell me then, whose fault is it? Even if I were to stand on the middle ground, and agree with all the possibilities, the answer would be this, “that the fault lies first and foremost with the old guards for treating the election lightly and therefore failed the people they represent, and, that the new exco is also at fault for not seeking a softer approach.
Will this do? Who carries the bigger guilt?
Dear Gemani
What if the core values of AWARE are correct if viewed through a liberal feminist definition but very very wrong through your right christian viewpoint ? If the two are so far apart as north and south why why stage a take over , why seek to impose your values on an organization whose values are defined in a different manner. What if AWARE was not set up with a xtian right focus on family view point but with a traditional liberal feminist view ?
Btw the law society along with AWARE supported Sec 377A in 2007. Since there seem to be errrr enough lawyers in the clique who supported the takeover, you might as well tell them to take over the law society because IT to has strayed from its basic values.
The Law Society AHHHH but passionate as these women are they do know WELL enough not to alarm the government by taking over the law society right ?
How has AWARE become pro gay apart from supporting section 377A and one screening of a female bro back mountain. Wait I did not see JOsie organizing demonstrations outside Shaw during its run right ? Why are Josie and her pussycats also aware that there are lines not to cross but decided to pick on AWARE as an easier target ?
Tell you what scares me, Pro Family are code words for Pro Life and Pro Abstinence. Half of the letters written by Aware in 2008 on its website were in support of Abortion and comprehensive sex education. I cannot see you or Josie supporting that.
Btw do u support Abortion and Comprehensive sex education or is that to straying from errrr basic “family values ” .
Locke
Gemami,
When a group of committed people is out there, doing the donkey work, the hard slog of advocacy in a largely apathetic society, membership drives and annual elections can be sometimes become a lesser priority. Unlike evangelicals with their soul-count, they tend not to waylay people in public areas, pressing (photocopied, ha ha) membership forms under the noses of the unwary.
In the 1990′s I was involved in several civic organisations, including the SCWO and the green groups. Met and worked with about 5 Aware members, including one guy, over a year and not once did they even ask me about my membership status. It simply wasn’t an overwhelming focus of theirs. I wasnt interested in much beyond that particular project, though I admired and appreciated what AWARE was doing. Now that a lot of x’tian fundies have hijacked the organisation – your and some of your friends’ contributions on this forum were definite tipping points – I have joined AWARE and will meet you on the 2nd if you dare to come and put your money where your mouth is. Ever done anything for any woman civic organisations?