By Terence Lee and Choo Zheng Xi / Pictures by Kenneth Tan and Damien Chng
“SHUT up and sit down!”
That was ex-Honorary Treasurer Sally Ang’s (picture left, in red) retort 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 auxiliary 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 apparently 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 apparent 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 auxiliary 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.
—–
During the Aware EGM, the voting results were announced at about 8:10 pm. Josie Lau and team did not resign immediately, but went missing for an hour to decide. What happened during that hour? This video provides the answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHKZdFwcjDo
103) WeiHan on May 5th, 2009 2.35 pm
Dear WeiHan
Excellent video. I encourage everyone to watch this!
Thanks.
103) WeiHan on May 5th, 2009 2.35 pm
1″During the Aware EGM, the voting results were announced at about 8:10 pm. Josie Lau and team did not resign immediately, but went missing for an hour to decide. What happened during that hour? This video provides the answer. ”
Hey WeiHan, when I am ready to do a movie called “Bare-backing Mountain” you will certainly be the one to be considered as the Director.
Heh heh. I’ll humour you again, Watchman, just to return the favour for the many moments of humour you have provided me.
Art 9 of the Constitution merely states that the management of the Society is vested in the general meeting, presided over by the Prez. The general meeting, as you would no doubt be aware, is comprised of the members (i.e. the 3000 folks who were present.) The rest of the Art is on the necessary quorum for the making of resolutions, which was more than satisfied, and is hence not material for your purposes.
Article 12 notes that members who wish to place items on the agenda may do so with 10 days notice to the Secretary. While the resolution to remove Josie’s exco was likely not communicated to the Secretary (we don’t know if it was), there are no words in the Article indicating a mandatory nature (“shall” etc), or whether breach of the Article voids the resolution. In my reading of the AWARE M&A , there is nothing implied that voids such a resolution either.
But there is no need to rely on Art 12 because it was always open to Josie’s legal counsel, who was present at all times, to object to any purported impropriety. By not doing so, he must be taken to have elected to accept the proceedings (thereby “curing” it, in non-legal parlance). Alternatively, it was also always open to Josie’s exco when they returned to the EGM to dispute the technicalities of Art 12. But they did not, and waived that avenue when they tendered their resignation. Josie’s resignation is the key event here. Legal counsel was clearly aware of the sentiment of the general meeting (as evidenced by the overwhelming support at General Meeting in favour of electing a new team), and it would not have changed a thing if the new election was held before or after Josie’s resignation.
In any case, attention should be drawn to Art 17 on the duties and powers of the exco –”the exco may not act contrary to the expressed wishes of the general meeting without prior reference to it, and always remains subordinate to the general meeting”. This suggests that there is no case for Josie to dispute the timing of notice when its crystal clear what the express wishes of the general meeting are.
While its doubtful that Josie’s exco is estopped from insisting on its strict legal right on general equitable grounds, this is a moot point since its a reality that Josie will not be issuing a challenge. (And i guess, neither will you).
Now, that was my pro bono advice.
I am waiting with bated breath for your application to mount a challenge on the purported “ultra vires” election. Somehow, though, I doubt you will get up off your keyboard and do anything about it, despite all your talk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAT4Oiwp-yw
haha this one even funnier weihan! one day before the EGM, now what wld WWHD?
108) observer on May 5th, 2009 4.30 pm
1″Art 9 of the Constitution merely states that the management of the Society is vested in the general meeting, presided over by the Prez. ”
Really? What does the rest of Article 9 say then? Why are you reluctant to post the whole Article9 so that other lawyers can give their opinions too?
2″The rest of the Art is on the necessary quorum for the making of resolutions, which was more than satisfied, and is hence not material for your purposes.”
Never mind. Just post the complete Article9 and then we can discuss further.
Since TOC reported that ” Legal counsel for the new exco is speaking now. He says the constitution does not “expressly” give grounds for the eogm to remove the exco. He also said a vote of no confidence is not legally binding. The meeting continues” it is very important that you post the complete Article 9 for all to see.
And please advise, Mr Lawyer , if an Election of Officers in Aware can be legally held iaw its constitution when the exco had yet to resign, if there were no notice given and if the Election of Officers was not part of the EOGM’s Agenda?
Also according to the ROS,”In carrying out their activities, societies not only have to abide by the rules of their own respective constitutions, but also the prevailing laws in Singapore.”
Did Aware conduct the Election of Officers iaw the rules of its constitution? Any pro bono advice, learned counsel?
Art 9 is in full here, I probably shouldn’t cross-post and clutter the page.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/aware-lessons-from-a-fiasco/comment-page-5/#comment-70607
“Imagine what SIngapore will be like in the parliament?”
Why use the world-famous orchestrated circus as a example ? At least I didn’t see any wayang during the AWARE meeting, and everyone free to speak, but I see tons of wayangs and expensive kangaroos singing the same musical tune in the circus, and they can even hip-hop. You see, at least there is solution and result in AWARE , but in our circus, there is no solution and action unless it benefit the kangaroos.
“The Watchman” seems ill-informed about many matters, making many general assumptions, leaps in logic and generalisations. Please research your information thoroughly before coming up with poorly-informed conclusions. Worst still you are busy contradicting yourself.
Your attempt at sarcasm, if there was any, also pretty much fails due to your incoherence.
This kind of attitude is a real turn-off. People who don’t even know what is going on, and pass value judgments based on misinformation. I’ve seen so many of these types commenting on other articles. If you want to make your voice heard, at least make sure its credible first. Don’t make a fool of yourself.
It’s people like these that justify the government’s strict OB markers. Sigh, maybe true democracy is really not for everyone.
So much for moral vigilantes.
#107 Observer
what a waste of breath and space trying to explain the intricacies of the law to people who have no concept of the basic rules of engagement in a civil society, let alone the rudiments of the law! At least, Josie & her Gang finally saw the light and accepted defeat by resigning (graciously or otherwise).
Those of her supporters who cannot or will not follow her example and are spoiling for a fight should take the matter to the courts or the Registrar of Societies if they REALLY feel that the AWARE constitution has been breached, and the New Exco is illegal. Not repeat the same allegations in cyberspace ad nauseum – so unproductive.
Similarly, those who are still harping on the CSE should resort to the proper avenues if they feel it is not appropriate – one of the first is, pull your own kids out of it if you think it will ‘corrupt’ them or turn them into lesbians, gays, etc In other words, vote with your feet – that’s the most effective method, rather than clutter this space with spurious accusations and innuendoes. Likelihood is, your kids aren’t even affected, since not all schools have the programme. And who are you to judge for those parents who want their kids in the programme?
If FM & her Gang of 7 felt so strongly about the CSE , why didn’t they voice their objections at the EGM? In fact, no-one in the FM camp (or any of their supporters) repeated their allegations when one of the CSE trainers clarified (at the EGM) that the parts on homosexuality, etc occupied only 1.5 mins of a 3 hour programme. Did FM seriously believe in her allegatons, or was it just a cynical attempt to grab attention? If so, she’s certainly suceeded, since there is complete silence now from her camp, but the cats’ paws are repeating the same old lines ad infinitum. SUBSTANTIATE your claims or accept defeat graciously.
112) Scherzerade on May 6th, 2009 1.55 pm
1″what a waste of breath and space trying to explain the intricacies of the law to people who have no concept of the basic rules of engagement in a civil society, let alone the rudiments of the law! ”
So it is lawful to engage in mob rule, death threats, lynching party and storming of the Bastille when it comes to the public meeting of a civil society? Where did you learn the rudiments of law? In the jungle?
#114) Curious on May 6th, 2009 9.14 pm
Aiyoh Curious, surely even one such as you must admit that what happened at the EGM was lawful, isn’t it? A little high spirited perhaps but that’s what happens when people play rough. After all, if its so unlawful, surely public spirited people like you would have called the police? Reported to the police? Or filed lawsuits or report the matter to the Registrar of Societies?
No? none of the above? So, okay settled then, it’s lawful. Come on, move on.
116) HT on May 6th, 2009 9.46 pm
1 “Aiyoh”
That’s what Aware must be shouting now that the silly game is out in the open.
2″Curious, surely even one such as you must admit that what happened at the EGM was lawful, isn’t it?
It would been if there were no mob rule, duress, undue influence, death threats and storming of the Bastille. What happened revealed the dark side of some women in Singapore. Hooliganism in public meetings has no place in a civilized society like Singapore. Also electing new officers when the exco had not even resign cannot be legal in any society.
2″A little high spirited perhaps but that’s what happens when people play rough.
That must be the understatement of the year. The only people who played rough were the hooligans on 2nd May, a day of infamy for civil society.
3″After all, if its so unlawful, surely public spirited people like you would have called the police? Reported to the police? Or filed lawsuits or report the matter to the Registrar of Societies?”
The impossible the mainstream values have tackled immediately and they have succeeded to convince the MOE to throw out the nefarious CSE, but miracles takes just a little longer.
People are questioning how could the election be legal if it was held prior to the resignation of the exco?
4″No? none of the above? So, okay settled then, it’s lawful. Come on, move on’
Must be the sour grapes working on you right now. The battle was lost on 2nd May but the war has just begun and the score is mainstream values 1 GLBT 0.
113) Curious on May 6th, 2009 9.14 pm
(sigh) – just illustrates my point – no concept about rules of engagement in a civil society and sheer waste of breath. Also, not only poor command of the English language but showing signs of losing his/her mind. Sore Losers Syndrome clearly in evidence …. sad, sad, sad …
116) Scherzerade on May 7th, 2009 10.17 am
113) Curious on May 6th, 2009 9.14 pm
Have some sympathy for our poor little Furious Curious – he/she (it?) has been posting desperately on so many threads trying to turn black into white. Must be tiring for him and with only sour grapes for nutrition, all can see that his mind is gone.
No matter. The election at the EGM was won, the FM got spanked and Curious despite his hyperbole knows better than to enrich the lawyers by starting a hopeless legal case so all is well.
And if nutcases want to pick a fight with the govt and the MOE and the LGBT community, good for them. We’ll wait and see what happens.
115) Curious on May 7th, 2009 12.54 am
‘… but miracles takes just a little longer’
117) HT on May 7th, 2009 11.50 am
‘The election at the EGM was won, the FM got spanked and ..’
Poor, poor Curious , so reluctant to disilusion him, but -
The FM proposed, God disposed – at the EGM, 2 May 2009. Amen.