Half-truths and innuendos have sunk a worthy programme
In a move that was half-anticipated, the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced in a terse statement on 6th May 2009 that it was suspending the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme conducted by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) after receiving some complaints from the public that the programme was “promoting homosexuality”.
This marked a reversal of MOE’s stance just days earlier defending the CSE and maintaining that “it adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups” despite some Christian groups raising heckles about it. Strangely enough, AWARE had said that it had received only positive feedback from participants about the programme. MOE itself did not receive any complaints until after the recent high-profile leadership tussle in AWARE saw the CSE thrust into the spotlight by a Christian-dominated faction. It now appears that the highly conservative MOE has decided to err on the side of caution, probably in an effort to defuse the issue before it escalated further.
That is highly regrettable. The mere mention of homosexuality has lamentably inflamed matters and obscured the reason why the CSE was adopted in the first place, which was as a response to the growing number of youths afflicted by sexually-transmitted diseases. Such a trend had implied that, among other things, it was possible that MOE’s existing sex-education programme was not doing as good a job as it should.
The CSE laudably tried to fill some of the gaps in MOE’s programme by providing youths with a more comprehensive outlook on the subject. AWARE worked on the premise that the best way to address the problem was to empower youths with proper knowledge about sex and sexuality rather than to deny that pre-marital or same-sex intercourse does take place by shaming youths about its “wrongness”. The ‘shaming’ method has been shown to be rather counter-productive because it discourages youths from opening up and talking about sex-related issues to the adults who might be best-placed to help them.
In its statement of 6th May MOE asserted that the CSE “convey[ed] messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex”. That seems questionable: such a programme would not have been approved by MOE in the first place. The programme, which is over a year-old, would also surely have triggered alarm bells a long time ago.
Furthermore, one trainer involved in the CSE programme has pointed out that the objectionable content circulating on the Internet that was supposedly from the trainers’ handbook – statements like “anal sex can be healthy” and “homosexuality is perfectly normal” – were taken out of context1. Trainers were instructed never to say that such behaviour is “morally ok” and the CSE focused on the health aspects of sexual behaviour rather than attempt to tackle moral issues. Obviously this meant that the programme did not condemn homosexuality or pre-marital sex, but it would be patently absurd to imply that it was “promoting” such behaviour either.
MOE’s flip-flopping has set back efforts to improve sex-education in Singapore. Undoubtedly the ministry wanted to avoid confronting a vocal group of rejectionists, but it could have tried harder to make a case for the CSE with the wider public rather than allow that group’s simplistic and histrionic arguments to carry the day without reply. The likely outcome of this sad episode is that it will leave more youths vulnerable to the fallout from making uninformed choices about sex.
***
1 http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/awares-comprehensive-sexuality-education-cse-re-homosexuality/
—-
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
68) clairty
Since my Part II was not posted, I shall re-post it again from memory
6″Sex is natural behavior between a man and woman he loves and not between a man and a man or a man and a child or a man and a ewe.”..Curious
“it is not even worthy of a retort- the usual crap of linking bestiality and pedophilia to homosexuality- “..Clarity.
But it is true that sodomy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia are against the law in Spore.
“http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/what-is-pedophilia.htm —– DID YOU SEE THAT – 50% were molested by their parents – since gays dont have children , they can’t be the perpertrators , can they ?”
It only shows that America is a sick society if your stats are correct. Spore on the other hand is a civilized society. Were you ever molested by your parents or relatives in Spore? Just because they abuse their own kids in the US, does that make you disgusted to be a parent in Spore?
”Slippery slope argument – the fact is , the world is NOT all gay and lesbian- it will never be -between 2-10% of any population is- “
Show me proof that homosexuals make up 10% of any country.
“natural selection obviously sees a need for the gay gene hence its persistance thro time- there is plenty of straight people to procreate and maintain the world popuilation.”
If there is a gay gene it is news to me. Natural selection weeds out the weak genes and it should have weeded out the “gay gene” if it ever existed.
7”I stand corrected on the Women’s charter but I am sure as society progresses , homophobic language will be a thing of the past, just like church sanctioned slavery and racism “
Why accuse society that rejects homosexuality as suffering from a mental illness. A phobia is an irrational fear like agoraphobia, or fear of the market place. It is a mild mental illness. But rejection of homosexuality by matured and rational folks don’t make them mentally ill. This the dirty trick the fringe lunatics try to play on society. If one rejects gambling, can one be labeled a gamblingphobe?
8”It is obvious reading the comments here that the opposing camps are entrenched in their views- on one side , the view is in terms of HUman rights for gays as a minority group , a view that is adopted by many advanced societies in the West.”
If so why is it in the last bastion of human rights, the USA, only 5 states out of 50 only approve same sex marriage? Homosexuality is never a human rights issue. Genocide is.
No one can make a human wrong into a human rights issue as there is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in law. Get use to it.
98) HT on May 13th, 2009 4.15 pm
1″Does it mean that the EGM could elect new office-bearers BEFORE the exco resigned?”..Curious
“In a word, Yes.”..HT
What rule in Aware’s constitution says that it can elect office-bearers without giving notice to members and can also elect office-bearers BEFORE the current exco resignsor its term in office expires?
2″But was it MANDATORY under Aware’s constitution? That is what matters to the ROS and the court.”…Curious
“Well, the second resolution removed them anyway.”
What second resolution? Was that in the EGM Agenda? If not can it be legal if no notice had been given for such a SPECIAL Resolution? Can you table the EGM’s Agenda for all to see and debate?
“And mandatory or not, they did resign anyway.”..HT
I think they resigned under duress. That is the result of oppression by the majority,
“I can’t speak for the ROS or the court.”…HT
No one says that you are that important that you can. The ROS says very clearly that “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 the old guard abide by the rules of Aware’s constitution? That is the central issue.
” Can you?”
Ask a silly question!
68) clairty
Part II
6″Sex is natural behavior between a man and woman he loves and not between a man and a man or a man and a child or a man and a ewe.”..Curious
“it is not even worthy of a retort- the usual crap of linking bestiality and pedophilia to homosexuality- “..Clarity.
But is it not true that sodomy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia are against the law in Spore?
“50% were molested by their parents – since gays dont have children , they can’t be the perpertrators , can they ?”
It only shows that America is a sick society if your stats are correct. Spore on the other hand is a civilized society. Just because they abuse their own kids in the US, does that make you disgusted to be a parent in Spore?
”Slippery slope argument – the fact is , the world is NOT all gay and lesbian- it will never be -between 2-10% of any population is- “
Show me proof that homosexuals make up 10% of any country.
“natural selection obviously sees a need for the gay gene hence its persistance thro time- there is plenty of straight people to procreate and maintain the world popuilation.”
If there is a gay gene it is news to me. Natural selection weeds out the weak genes and it would have weeded out the “gay gene” if it ever existed.
7”I stand corrected on the Women’s charter but I am sure as society progresses , homophobic language will be a thing of the past, just like church sanctioned slavery and racism “
Why accuse society that rejects homosexuality as suffering from a mental illness. A phobia is an irrational fear like agoraphobia, or fear of the market place. It is a mild mental illness.
But rejection of homosexuality by matured and rational folks don’t make them mentally ill. This the dirty trick the gays try to play on society.
If one rejects gambling, can one be labeled a gamblingophobe?
8”It is obvious reading the comments here that the opposing camps are entrenched in their views- on one side , the view is in terms of HUman rights for gays as a minority group , a view that is adopted by many advanced societies in the West.”
If so why is it in the last bastion of human rights, the USA, only 5 states out of 50 only approve same sex marriage? Homosexuality is never a human rights issue. Genocide is.
No one can make a human wrong into a human rights issue as there is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in law. Get use to it.
Curious, you are obviously a supporter of Josie and her gang. Are you a member of COOS? Just being curious.
And why do you keep calling people “silly billy” and “silly”?
100) Curious on May 13th, 2009 5.01 pm
98) HT on May 13th, 2009 4.15 pm
I hv indeed posted the EGM requistions (yes, you are silly, they are called requisition at that stage) but TOC is still moderating. Ah well, have to humour sore losers I suppose, here is the second and third requisition.
Here, o Spurious Furious Curious ;
2. that all members of the Current Exco be and are hereby removed from their positions on the Executive Committee; and
3. that a replacement Executive Committee be elected to serve for the remainder of the current term”
101) HT on May 13th, 2009 5.25 pm
1″I hv indeed posted the EGM requistions (yes, you are silly, they are called requisition at that stage) ‘
BUT you said wrongly that “All three requisitions were passed at the EGM.”
When the requisitions were tabled for voting they are called Resolution, was my point.
“but TOC is still moderating. Ah well, have to humour sore losers I suppose, here is the second and third requisition.”
Where?
102) HT on May 13th, 2009 5.26 pm
1″Here ”
“2. that all members of the Current Exco be and are hereby removed from their positions on the Executive Committee; and
“3. that a replacement Executive Committee be elected to serve for the remainder of the current term”
My point all along is: could the great unwashed table SPECIAL Resolutions in a general meeting if no prior notice was given to other members who could not attend the EGM under Rule 11?
According to another poster Aware’s Rule 11 says:
“At least three weeks’ notice should be given of an annual general meeting and at least two weeks’ notice of any other general meeting and particulars of its agenda will be posted to members one week in advance of the meeting. The following points will be considered at the annual general meeting:
(a) The previous financial year’s accounts and report of the Executive Committee.
(b) The election of office-bearers for the following year.
(c) The election of Hon Auditors as specified in Rule 21.”
Also do note that Rule 11 is silent on whether an EXCO can be elected at an EGM and if the particulars of the two said resolutions were not posted to members one week in advance of the meeting can they be valid?
Since the exco had adjourned the meeting and went outside the Hall so that it can decide whether to step down or otherwise, who gave the great unwashed the POWER to table all the Special Resolutions to sack the exco members?
Was this legal under Aware’s constitution?
If so, please show me where it says it is legal to sack the exco in an EGM where no notice was given, especially to other members who did not attend the EGM and to the exco members who were outside the Hall and could not speak up against this unconstitutional mob rule by the great unwashed.
I repeat again the ROS’s stand on this:
“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 the old guards abide by Aware’s constitution and the prevailing laws in Singapore at the EGM. Go figure.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/ (see societies act)
http://www.law-office.demon.co.uk/art%20shall-1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will
Legislative acts and contracts sometimes use “shall” and “shall not” to express mandatory action and prohibition.
regard: 102
102″But was it MANDATORY under Aware’s constitution? That is what matters to the ROS and the court.”…Curious
–
I dare say R&T is entirely wrong about the use of the word SHALL, thus given the vote of no confidence, it is mandatory that the josie lau exco resign.
eg: this statement from the statutes:
(6) Any person who fails to comply with any such order shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 …
would one say that one may not mandatorily be guilty if one failts to comply with such order? the legal language of shall = imperative/mandatory.
Anymore personal attacks and this thread will be closed for further postings.
Or we will ban those who engage in personal attacks.
Curious,
You do not have to keep quoting lines from other people’s comments. If u wanna reply to the comments, please just do so as a whole.
110) theonlinecitizen on May 13th, 2009 10.04 pm
1″Curious, You do not have to keep quoting lines from other people’s comments. If u wanna reply to the comments, please just do so as a whole.”
I did it for the sake of clarity in my answer. but if you insist I shall try to make improvements.
oh dear, silly billy spurious furious curious #110
“…table SPECIAL Resolutions in a general meeting if no prior notice was given to other members who could not attend the EGM under Rule 11″
Please look at my above post #101 at item 3 of the agenda where it specifically refers to the requisition. The agenda was sent by Jenica Chua.
”
BUT you said wrongly that “All three requisitions were passed at the EGM”
The requsition remains a requisition by the 160 members and were passed. The EGM passed three resolutions based on the requisitions.
The title of this thread really does apply to you doesn’t it? Suspension of reason indeed. Oh, you’re so funny.
#12) theonlinecitizen on May 13th, 2009 10.02 pm
“Anymore personal attacks and this thread will be closed for further postings.
Or we will ban those who engage in personal attacks.”
Oops. Hope I haven’t crossed the line in my reply to Curious. Just trying to be facetious. Apologies if I have offended his sensitivities.
108) loupgarou on May 13th, 2009 6.47 pm
1 If you believe that it was mandatory for the exco to resign please show me where it says so in Aware’s constitution.
Also please note that Rule 11 is silent on whether an EXCO can be dismissed or whether a new exco could elected at an EGM.
If the members had voted on two resolution to dismiss the exco and replaced by a new exco were the particulars of the two said resolutions posted to members one week in advance of the meeting to be valid, according to Rule 11?
Since the Josie exco had adjourned the meeting and went outside the Hall so that it can decide whether to step down or otherwise, who gave the great unwashed the POWER to table the Special Resolution to dismiss the exco members?
Where does it say so in Aware’s constitution?
2. What order are you talking about that Josie and her exco member should comply?
3 I think you need to look not only at Aware’s constitution but also “the prevailing laws in Singapore, as stated by the ROS.
Please refer to the Companies Act Chapter 50, in particular Section 180 “As to member’s right at meetings”. It reads:
180. —(1) Subject to subsection (2), every member shall, notwithstanding any provision in the memorandum or articles, have a right to attend any general meeting of the company and to SPEAK AND VOTE on any resolution before the meeting …etc.” (emphasis mine)
When the resolution was tabled to dismiss the exco and then voted on by the great unwashed were Josie and her exco members given a chance “to speak and vote”? The answer is No! They were outside the Hall with legal counsel deciding whether to step down or otherwise.
Were they allowed to speak freely during the EGM itself without being booed and jeered by the unruly mob? The answer is again No!
If that was indeed the case then not only Section 180 was breached but section 216 as there was clearly oppression by the majority at the EGM.
In the Societies Act Chapter 311, two sections are important in the Aware saga.
The first is sect 10 which concerns the information to be furnished to the Registrar of Society, especially the minutes of the EGM.
I would really love to read a copy of that minutes to see if it is accurately written according to the time-line recorded on videos.
Secondly, sect 19 of the Societies Act deals with penalty for misuse of money of a registered society.
If the old guards think that the new exco had misused Aware’s money they could always take the case to court.
Lets not speculate on “shall or will”. Lets refer objectively to Aware’s Constitution and the prevailing laws in Singapore when we discuss the above.
#117) Curious on May 13th, 2009 11.49 pm
I won’t reproduce your text coz it would be too long – let me just respond to your points.
Actually the second requisition had already removed the ousted exco. So technically they were no longer the exco. Their resignation was actually moot and was meant to preserve their dignity. The particulars of the EGM and the three requisitions were posted to members (see my earlier post). Surely you would agree that that was why close to 3000 people turned up – to vote on the requsitions (certainly not just to approve the minutes). However only the first requisition (ie the vote of no confidence) was widely publicised so many commentators missed the rest. Josie et al did not – they sent out the agenda and prepared the voting papers with all three requisitions tabled and the voting members voted on all three. The third requisition authorised the EGM to vote in a new exco. Theoretically Josie (as chairperson) should have chaired the election of a new exco (she could have run too, had she been nominated and seconded). But since she left, it was open to another person to take over as chairperson and continue the EGM. By the way, legal counsel didn’t go with them. He was Aware’s lawyer (paid for by Aware) and not the ousted exco’s lawyer. Also, Josie didn’t adjourn the meeting. She just left (although to be fair, she did come back).
Whether Josie et al could speak – well, they did, notwithstanding the jeers. But more importantly, it’s not correct to say that they went out during the voting on the requisitions. The voting was in writing. All voting members were given a printed form prepared by the ousted exco with the three requisitions printed and the ousted exco (I think it was Jenica) actually explained carefully how to vote on all three requisitions. The votes were then collected and counted (took about four hours) by Deloitte. Only after the results of all three requisitions (all approved) were obtained did Josie et al step out.
#117) Curious on May 13th, 2009 11.49 pm
“Please refer to the Companies Act Chapter 50, in particular Section 180 “As to member’s right at meetings”
Sorry, no can do. This is a society governed by the Societies Act as you have painstakingly pointed out in so many threads. The Companies Act does not apply at all. So the reference to Sections 180 and 216 of the Companies Act aren’t relevant.
Societies Act, Section 11 and Section 19? Well, you’ll have to wait for the next AGM (or maybe another EGM?) to check out the confirmation of the minutes. Interesting, huh? And as for the money, technically Josie et al are in serious s*** over that and may even face criminal charges. I too wonder how they’ll work that out.
it is a truly strange phenomenon. we have so many good texts on sexuality in asian tradition, we have the kama sutra, we have wind and clouds paintings, we have such a rich legacy of reaching enlightenment through copulation. what has colonialism done to our rich heritage! we have become captive to a culture that was never ours! ALAS!
—–
# If so why is it in the last bastion of human rights, the USA, only 5 states out of 50 only approve same sex marriage? Homosexuality is never a human rights issue. Genocide is.
No one can make a human wrong into a human rights issue as there is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in law. Get use to it.
—
isn’t that pretty much of a strawman arguement? you are making the point that now there are 5, but how about I tell you that 5 years ago there are none. isn’t that the sign of progress. and in some places where there is no gay marriage, civil unions also exist.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm
—-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/obama-admin-to-endorse-un_n_176115.html
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.
They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.
“The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world,” said one official.
“As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora,” the official said.
RE: 119: what is the exact language of article 9 of the aware’s constitution.
Old guard member and lawyer, Halijah, disagrees with new exco’s lawyer. She says in Article 9 of the Aware constitution that if members have no confidence in the exco, the exco should step down
the point of dispute there was the use of the word shall. I do not have a copy of the constitution here, but I saw a video of gregory saying to that effect .
who would write a constitution that gives someone who loses a vote of no confidence an option not to step down, that would be stupid anywhere.
however, I’m not going to argue about this since its apparently based on “hear say” since I don’t have the constitution with me. it suffices for me that josie lau has been demoted in DBS and out of the Aware ex-co
—-
furthermore, what we know of genetics is even fully explored
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/ru-nnc041609.php
Anyone who studied a little genetics in high school has heard of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine – the A,T,G and C that make up the DNA code. But those are not the whole story. The rise of epigenetics in the past decade has drawn attention to a fifth nucleotide, 5-methylcytosine (5-mC), that sometimes replaces cytosine in the famous DNA double helix to regulate which genes are expressed. And now there’s a sixth. In experiments to be published online Thursday by Science, researchers reveal an additional character in the mammalian DNA code, opening an entirely new front in epigenetic research.
apologies on typos.. mi argue, argument, genetics is NOT even fully explored
116) HT on May 14th, 2009 12.53 am
Article 9 of Aware’s constitution says that ” The management of the society is vested in a general meeting of the members PRESIDED over by the President.” (emphasis mine).
You said “She just left (although to be fair, she did come back).”
This begs the question: could the meeting be “presided over by the President” when Josie and the Exco had gone outside to deliberate whether the exco should step down?
In the absence of the President only the VP can step in to take her place but was this the case when all exco members were outside of the Hall?
Who took over in presiding over the meeting then? Was that in accordance with Aware’s constitution?
Also Article 14 says clearly that “An executive committee shall be elected at EACH AGM-consisting of president, VP, Hon Secretary etc..” (emphasis mine)
It did not say that an EGM could elect an exco otherwise what would prevent another pro-life group of members from requesting a second EGM, say in June 2009 to vote out the old guards and followed by another retaliation by the old guards?
The potential “tit for tat” will never end if the two groups cannot resolve their differences.
This is what Art 14 tries to prevent and it says “An executive committee shall be elected at EACH AGM”
You claim that “Josie et al could speak – well, they did, notwithstanding the jeers”
but that is also called oppression by the majority as there was mob rule, death threats, hooliganism and storming of the “Bastille”.
In my opinion, the best outcome would be that the EGM was held in a civilized manner and that since the exco had stepped down, a new election should be held when tempers cool down in the near future.
117) HT on May 14th, 2009 1.07 am
“Sorry, no can do. This is a society governed by the Societies Act as you have painstakingly pointed out in so many threads.”
Please show me where I said that.
It is the ROS which states that “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.”
That is to say Aware must abide by not only its own constitution but also “the prevailing laws in Singapore”,which does not mean only just the Societies Act.
Since Singapore is a common law jurisdiction its prevailing laws come from statutes, judicial precedents or case law, customs and of course common law.
“And as for the money, technically Josie et al are in serious s*** over that and may even face criminal charges”
Lets see what happens next as the stomach turns.
Article 9 of Aware’s constitution says that ” The management of the society is vested in a general meeting of the members PRESIDED over by the President.” (emphasis mine).
wow, I guess if josie lau was killed that day, then aware must be dissolved? lol
Hi everyone,
It’s me Mr Moderator again.
First, PLEASE stop posting numerous url links in your comments. They will not be allowed. Some comments have as many as 10 such links.
Second, the word-limit of 500 words will, from now on, be more strictly enforced. Anything more than 500 words will no longer be allowed.
Thank you.
24) loupgarou on May 14th, 2009 4.17 pm
For those who can read Aware’s constitution it clearly states in 20 (b) that “The Vice President shall deputise for the President in the latter’s absence.”
Why don’t you read before you hit the keyboard, pal?
And why do you think she would allegedly be killed that day? Was it the unruly mob that you have in mind?
If the unthinkable had happened the meeting would have been called off as it would be a day of shame and mourning for Singapore and the police would be called in to arrest the assassin(s) if the security guards had not already done so.
To anticipate your follow-up question : if the President and the VP were killed by the mob then IMO the meeting would also be called off as it would also be a day of shame and mourning for Singapore.
And then it COULD up to the ROS to decide who should be the interim President and VP going forward if there are no other solutions in Aware’s constitution, since that is clearly an unprecedented crisis.
In any case, the new President and VP could be from the new Exco, until the next AGM and the elections of new office-bearers.
#124) Curious on May 14th, 2009 3.45 pm
“Article 9 of Aware’s constitution says that ” The management of the society is vested in a general meeting of the members PRESIDED over by the President.” (emphasis mine)….
This begs the question: could the meeting be “presided over by the President” when Josie and the Exco had gone outside to deliberate whether the exco should step down?”
Nope, wrong yet again, Curious. This clause refers to the general management of the society which is determined by the members in a general meeting, and does not refer to proceedings at an actual general meeting. This means that members cannot individually or even altogther give directions (otherwise it would be very difficult to keep track). So the members have to act at a general meeting (which btw includes EGMs). The actual execution of course is presided over by the president. The president has no role at the general meeting. That is chaired by the chairperson who may or may not be the president.
By the time, they stepped out of the hall, Josie was no longer the president, having been voted out. In a meeting, when the chairman leaves the meeting before it is over, another person can then be appointed as the chairman and the meeting continues. This is in accordance with the general law on meetings. As you have so kindly pointed out at the end of your post, the common law principles are also applicable apart from the actual terms of the constitution.
“Also Article 14 says clearly that “An executive committee shall be elected at EACH AGM-consisting of president, VP, Hon Secretary etc..” (emphasis mine)
It did not say that an EGM could elect an exco otherwise what would prevent another pro-life group of members from requesting a second EGM, say in June 2009 to vote out the old guards and followed by another retaliation by the old guards?”
Neither does it say that the General Meeting cannot remove the exco and appoint a new one. So again general principles of law would apply and it is clear that the rights of the society lie with the members including the right to dismiss the old exco and appoint a new one. Counsel from Rajah & Tann did not dispute this. Neither did Josie et al. While you would naturally refuse to leave the corner in which you have painted yourself in, this has not been disputed by anyone else thus far (whoops, should I expect 7000 “concerned parents” writing in to say they dispute this? Ha!)
And you have referred to the ROS so many times eg “In the Societies Act Chapter 311, two sections are important in the Aware saga.” In any case, can you admit that you are wrong to refer to the Companies Act ? or are you going to insist that the Companies Act applies to a society registered under the Societies Act? – where did you learn your law, counsel?
Oh and Curious, sure another EGM can be called if sufficient members sign the requistion (you would recall that they are not called resolution at that stage?). And you keep saying that the ROS says…I don’t think the Registry of Societies, being an abstraction, can say anything. And I don’t think the Registrar of Societies made any public comment. Don’t you mean Section something of the Societies Act? Or are you referring to a friend called “Ros”?
Finally, Curious
“You claim that “Josie et al could speak – well, they did, notwithstanding the jeers”
but that is also called oppression by the majority as there was mob rule, death threats, hooliganism and storming of the “Bastille”.”
Dear me, you are funny, aren’t you? And the best part is, you are funny without even trying to be. A real natural born comedian. Please tell me which death threats were issued at the EGM and how many people were ushered out or arrested for anything at the EGM? So what mob rule was there? Sigh. Another lesson for you is that repeating a lie often won’t make it come true. You can ask your soulmate, George Bush.
“In my opinion, the best outcome would be that the EGM was held in a civilized manner and that since the exco had stepped down, a new election should be held when tempers cool down in the near future.”
That’s why I believe you have no experience in the actual functioning of a society or holding of a meeting (Companies Act – ha! What a hoot!) And in the meantime, who’s going to run the Society? or even call for the next meeting? After all, there’s no exco ? And why should the winning side having obtained the mandate of the members legitimately wait to call for another meeting – to waste more time and resources?
To all, I do apologise for er… “steeplejacking” this thread but I think it is important to correct Curious’ many honest mistakes so that he can develop into an upstanding person who would hopefully be of benefit to society (but don’t hold your breath).
Oops, The ROS stands for the Registry Of Societies.
wow, lets say on the assumption that the rapture occured like many suspected when the entire “josie exco” dissappeared, then the general assembly has no power whatsoever to elect a new one? sounds entirely ridiculous.
The management of the society is VESTED in a general meeting OF THE MEMBERS.
you make it seems like having josie lau around is of any importance., what if she simply decline to show up, or the entire exco stepped out prior to voting , decided to step out or get raptured away, then they get to stay in power indefinitely?
I think you’re being deliberately difficult, I guess its pointless to continue at all. the audience will decide, and you are free to lodge a complaint to the ROS..
guess nothing is going to happen.
Oops “As I already said I don’t HAVE locus standi. I would if I could.”
Attention everyone:
As I said before, there is no need to re-quote the posts or comments you’re replying to.
Just post your replies as a whole. No need to have a quote-and-reply format.
This will no longer be allowed.