If you think good won over evil in AWARE, you better sit down, take a stress pill and think it through again!
May 4th, 2009 | 
Author: 
(By the way do take the trouble to check out many of our AWARE essays at the bottom of this essay)It’s Monday and as some of you know, I am allergic to Mondays – so let’s keep this one, simple Simon short. As some of you already know Josie and her pussy cats have been booted out of AWARE, the old guards have regained control.
Question: has good finally triumphed over evil?
Judging by internet chatter, it would appear ‘good’ has certainly won over the forces of darkness – there remains however the unresolved question of how did this episode really further the whole idea of building a more inclusive civil society where every quadrant has a legitimate voice?
Contrary to what botak head NMP Ah Siew described in glowing terms as:
“……a strong affirmation by Singapore of the values that AWARE stands for: inclusiveness, diversity, openness and transparency. Today, I am so proud to be Singaporean.”
To be perfectly honest with all of you, I have no idea what Botak head Ah Siew was referring too – for one, as hard as I tried, I couldn’t even trace out the barest outlines of a “process,” not one that didn’t provoke me to consider whether what transpired in Suntec last Saturday might not have subtracted rather than added anything constructive to the whole idea of inclusiveness and respecting the whole idea of diversity – not unless you consider petulant hecklings and endless ad hominem accusations of guilt by association as some enlightened way of making progress.
Truth remains as far as the whole idea of perpetuating civil society goes what transpired in Suntec has to be a pithy summary of what can and did go wrong when the whole idea takes a wrong turn. Instead of deep spirited reasoned discourse which are absolutely essential to promoting the whole idea of inclusiveness and diversity – what played out instead was reminiscent of the scathing German couplet:
“Und willst du nicht mein Bruder, sein. So schlag’ ich Dir den schadel ein!”
Which is to say, “If you are unwilling to stand beside me as my brother, then I’ll smash your head in!”
My point is simply this: if anything resembling common ground is to be carved up – then it is necessary to jettison the corrosive you are with me or against me, all or nothing game – as the cost of failing to do so will only mean perpetuating the vicious cycle.
What lies at the heart of the idea that makes civil society possible is the absolute requirement – both sides should seek to resolve their differences peacefully in a manner that respects each other. This may appear like a quaint and dreamy idea, but it harks all the way back to the important point in Immanuel Kant’s famous essay where he once wrote about the idea of perpetual peace, circa 1795– there the idea of peace is coupled to the idea of justice, which was the cornerstone of his political philosophy which subsequently morphed into the whole idea of civil society.
Regrettably instead of this model that would have been able to produce tangible results that may even have allowed the two competing factions in AWARE to hammer out their differences, what we had instead was something that can only exacerbated the divide i.e peace was dependent on the balance of power, in this case terror which became the very means of creating stability. In this case, the melee degenerated right down to the lowest common denominator of conflict resolution – numerical superiority instead of reasoned discourse.
To what degree this is able to harmonize many of the divisions that separate these two camps in AWARE and how it might even have contribute to greater inclusiveness is a matter each individual participant must determine for himself (or herself in this case). What remains patently obvious to me, if we are to cling to only the superficial desiderata of “sit down!” and “you have no respect for your elders.” Then we may perhaps never ever get beyond the pettiness that accounts for why both camps are terminally locked in the vicious circle; let alone take on the jugular issues that once divided these two opposing camps.
The danger of unfinished business means whatever once motivated the likes of Josie and gang will certainly come back in yet another form and guise to revisit AWARE. As the vicious circle has not been decisively broken – as what many may have failed to appreciate is the primary motive that once impelled Josie and her gang to seize control of the old AWARE has very little to do with underhandedness, stealth or even the whole issue of faith, though I don’t deny those side dishes may have encrusted the main issues.
As the main concern is the very real fear that is shared by thousands of ordinary Singaporeans and residents who remain wary of the encroaching new order of moral turpitude brought forth by homosexuals and lesbians leaching into the mainstream through the old AWARE – whether those fears and anxieties are real or imagine is irrelevant. What cannot be so easily discounted is providing there is no real effort to deconstructed these fears on a meaningful and honest level, then these fears will not only persist, but they will even fester and sharpen further rendering all prospects of lasting peace elusive.
This should prompt us all to consider whether the old guard and their adherents even gave peace a chance last Saturday when they denied the new exco the right to speak?– in that one singular denial – it could be said, the old guard threw away what was most prized and valuable to the whole idea that makes up civil society – as in their zeal to regain power they had even seen it fit to circumvent the due process along with decamping from “higher principles” by leveraging on the power of the mob. In doing so they had proven themselves to have no better moral pedigree than Josie and her pussy cats who once seized control of aware using covert techniques. Worst of all, what the old guard and their adherent unleashed was not the enlightened way in which wrong’s could be reliably righted to nourish the idea of civil society, but rather by condoning mob rule; they endorsed of a new form of tyranny – one that relies exclusively on the power of the statistical majority.
My own view is that despite the many differences over points of views and even possible malfeasance on the part of the new exco; this in no way excludes the need for reasoned argument – you would have to decide for yourself watching the many video clips here and elsewhere whether this was in fact the case.
Where the old guard may have thrown the whole idea of civil society into dustbin is by taking the path of least resistance by even suggesting its possible whenever circumstances warrant it to treat it as reducible – that would have been feasible if only they didn’t realize at the inner core that makes possible the whole phenomenon of civil society isn’t sugary rhetoric on the cheap, righting a wrong or even winning; rather it’s a collective commitment by both proponents and opponents to a due process of how to resolve disagreements in a manner that doesn’t threaten the stability and legitimacy of the system with regard to the equal worth and dignity of all human beings – to term what transpired in Suntec on Saturday a victory for civil society is to commit the highest travesty of reasoning as it suggest such a thing called civil society could be had without ever once having to subject oneself to higher principles beyond the law of the jungle.
I am sorry, I wrote this in 15 minutes flat, so I have no time to spell check.
Darkness 2009
Read up on other Brotherhood Press concerning aware, get the real story within the story.
How to win in Aware? Forget Sun Tzu, just order one Masala Dosai!
Why even Jesus would agree religion has no place in the public square of civil society
fight, the greatest thing that has ever happened to Singapore civil society?
Posted in Review
65 Responses to “If you think good won over evil in AWARE, you better sit down, take a stress pill and think it through again!”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Foyce Le Xuan George Yeo GIC highnote5 highnotes5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo press conference Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism Malaysia MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League Sex silviu ionescu Singapore Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Wendy Chong
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
“This should prompt us all to consider whether the old guard and their adherents even gave peace a chance last Saturday when they denied the new exco the right to speak?– in that one singular denial – it could be said, the old guard threw away what was most prized and valuable to the whole idea that makes up civil soc– as in their zeal to regain power they had even seen it fit to circumvent the due process along with decamping from “higher principles” by leveraging on the power of the mob.”
I wrote a similar comment in solo bears’ lone article castigating the old guard.
They should ave given the opportunity for JL and the new AWARE to speak irrespective, and not “manipulate” the crowds which the old guards seem to have no problem to control.
I second your opinion!
I would have preferred the old guard to have allowed the former new exco to speak. Regardless of one’s opinion, it is very important to allow the other side to defend themselves.
Wrong, darkness.
Peace had gone out the window the moment JL and gang planned their subterfuge. Negotiation 101, the most unreasonable party wins. Never negotiate with extremists. Make them sit in a corner until they learn to be reasonable.
I for one, will celebrate the fact that the government didn’t have to intervene for this one.
The forces of good do not need to apologize for being more coherent than JL & her supporters. Their own incompetence stifled their own case (or rather, the lack thereof). Any attempt at civil dialogue would have been one-sided anyway.
I presumed that the new Exco lost the game when they switched off mikes at the audience stand. Josie & Gang fanned the fire and the crowd went emotional then.
Besides, there is that red versus white crwod that builds up the tension in the Hall.
At that stage it is clearly heart over mind for the Old guards supporters.
Probably, if the new Exco has given fair ground, things could have been very different. A simple gesture of switching on the mike from the very first minute of the meeting.
thank you for the article. this is the first balanced article I have come across regarding the Aware issue on Wayang Party.
most of the other articles and comments posted have been tainted by much emotion.
after this saga, we do need to sit back and reflect on the status of our beloved singaporean society. i am sincerely worried on the status of things, esp if the aware saga is any measuring stick to go by.
my main question is that as a civil society, why is it that different views cannot be talked about, debated in a civil way? the aware saga, and especially the events at the EGM (organised rioting was what i have heard it being described as) was far from civil. is this the singapore we want? i certainly dont.
our society is meant to be a melting pot of ideas, cultures and talents. the aim of this melting pot is so that we as a nation can harness the best amongst our diversity and stand together and become stronger as a nation – to be a nation standing behind each other as a single voice, identity.
it is important that we remain rational and not shut out opposing views. we need to listen. however, in being able to discern right from wrong (for society & not individual needs & wants), we must be just and be true to our heart in doing what is right and moral.
in this way, this single voice and identity will lend to sound, rational ideals and policies that will enable our young nation to be carried forth for the long term.
I thought that what Darkness wrote was eloquent and reasonable. However I am a pragmatist at heart and the best and deepest discourses in the world will still have to end up in a vote where democracy is concerned. So whether you consider to it to be mob rules its irrelevant, that would give you a clear result, painful though it would be for the losing team. There is no such thing as a win-win situation in such a contest. There will be casualties. The JL team chose to play it on their terms and they lost it when it came to the most impt arena, that of public opinion. Its hardly the old guard’s fault that the JL team’s supporters did not share the same passion nor speak up. Says a lot doesn’t it. You had the opportunity, you squandered it so Cest la vie. I was nevertheless heartened to see so many impassioned speeches. It is very rare in Singapore you see such passion and excitement. Kudos to those who spoke.
There is nothing to stop JL and gang to gather a few hundred signatures for a new petition to have another EGM and to cast a vote of no confidence on the Dana gang, and this time round, ensure numerical supremancy and not forgetting to use mob rules.
And the vicious cycle can continue until the unfinish businesses are finished.
Certainly there are unfinish businesses. And both sides are not allowing either side “the right of replies”.
Civil society certainly did not win on that Saturday afternoon. Instead what came out glaringly clear is “he who can speak the loudest wins the arguement”.
Congratulations to the Old Guard. They won using a combination of hooliganism and hypocriticism by utilizing the exact same last minute recruitment in numbers tactics they denounced. Sure, the Young Turks had it coming using such tactics first, but the Old Guard have proven that they are no better. Good for them, they have driven dissent underground. They had better be prepared to face guerilla warfare against their programs from now on.
And as for the CSE program that sparked this whole sordid mess off in the first place, given that Chua Mui Hoong of the Straits Times reported that her niece who underwent the program said that her niece was taught that it’s okay even for preteen kids like her to watch pornography, it should make everyone wonder whether Josie and the Pussycats had legitimate grievances against the program. Sure, Ms. Chua is Catholic, a Christian, but who other than a PERVERT would encourage KIDS to watch pornography in the first place?!
Each time Josie Lau & company was given the opportunity to speak, they didn’t really take it, instead prefering to pass the mike to their legal counsel, and twice to Dr Thio. You cannot really fault the audience for not wanting to listen to Dr Thio when she’s going on and on about pg. 73 which she wasn’t coherent enough to explain what was that all about. Other than that, she literally went on about her illustrious career, and did nothing much to defend those on the stage.
I thot that TSM was pretty loud herself, to the point of being disgustingly arrogrant. Given that the “red camp” supporters hardly seems enthusiastic abt supporting the new exco, leaving soon after they cast their votes, its seems unlikely to be able to gather as much as support again. Its human nature to want to support the “underdog” or “victim” and fight against “injustice”, which the old guard is being portrayed here by the MSM. It certainly doesnt help with a arrogrant woman boasting her achievements on page 73, as well as the religious link and subsequently the statement made to retract that COOS is not going to ‘interfere’. The mob mentality was against them all the way. With a mob mentality of 2000 people, emotions are going to overrun logic in the brain foremost. With rage and injustice running wild in the members head, and the next subsequent event was the voting, they(new exco) were ‘destined’ to lose, civility is not even going to be an option.
[quote]This should prompt us all to consider whether the old guard and their adherents even gave peace a chance last Saturday when they denied the new exco the right to speak?– in that one singular denial – it could be said, the old guard threw away what was most prized and valuable to the whole idea that makes up civil society [/quote]
From what I observed, the new exco were the ones who threw that away. As Wim pointed out, that one singular denial came right at the start of the meeting when the new exco instructed Ape Communications to keep all microphones in the hall, apart from those in the hands of the new exco, switched off. Things might have taken a different turn had the new exco not denied the audience their right to speak in the first place.
When the new exco ordered Siew Kum Hong to get out of the ordinary members’ section before they would begin the EGM, the old guard & Siew tried to explain that he was there as their legal advisor, & that was when everyone realised that all microphones on the floor were off. That was how the audience started to get agitated, & how the shouting started at the beginning, when people realised that they were being silenced, & any remnant of hope for a level playing field vanished.
The microphones were turned on only after the old guard insisted that the legal counsel be consulted, & Gregory spoke in favour of the old guard. For a moment, I felt that perhaps there was still hope for a more even exchange. However, for the rest of the EGM, the new exco continued to signal to Ape Comms to turn off the audience’s microphones so that people could not speak, or were cut off in mid-speech. What more, immediately after the new exco announced their decision to resign & walked off the stage, all microphones in the hall, including those on the stage, were instantly turned off. Many of us had to move to the front of the hall in order to hear the old guard address the audience using their voices, & then loudhailers, until Ape Comms graciously turned the microphones on again. At that point in time, many in the audience were half-expecting the lights & air conditioning in the hall to be turned off too.
In a way, giving the new exco less time to speak helped them a lot. It allowed them to escape answering some rather tough questions. The more they spoke, the more they revealed their weaknesses, inexperience, unfamiliarity & lack of understanding of the constitution & work of AWARE, the nature of CSOs/NGOs, social work practice, etc, providing even more ammunition for the old guard & their supporters.
Botak Head is a PAP crony.
If we were to discuss about process, then we should not just single out the EGM alone. The whole process should be traced back right from the start, even before the AGM held on 28 March 2009:
1. How certain group of people had thought fit to plan and execute a co-ordinated infiltration, invasion and capture of the leadership and management of Aware with the intention of implementing their own hidden agenda or ulterior motives.
2 How certain group of people started infiltrating quietly into the organisation about one or two months before the AGM.
3. How the AGM was conducted and new Exco elected. How forthright or otherwise the newly elected Exco had shown themselves when questions were asked as to their intention, purpose, background, affiliation, etc.
4. How behind-the-scene supports were given by their church and church members through the mouth piece of a pastor.
5. How a self-proclaimed ‘feminist mentor’ and self-confessed master-mind was trying to imposed upon the general public her own version of sexuality..
6. How malicious emails were sent out to paint a negative picture of Aware and the CSE programme.
7. How a last-minute petition was set up to salvage the image of TCM for the unsubstantiated allegations publicly made against MOE and the various schools.
8. How the Aware Manager was unreasonably sacked and replaced by a COOS member.
9. How the CEDAW team was terminated with the slightest excuse.
10. How locks were replaced without consideration for those women who are still getting help from Aware.
11. How certain members within the new Exco were excluded from the Exco meetings.
12. How the Adviser (previous Aware President by tradition) was disrespectfully treated before and during the EOGM – to be told to “Shut up and sit down!” in front of 3000 members by new Exco’s Sally Ang
13. How the microphones were turned off to deny the members in the audience to speak up.
14. How the blatant disregard to the Constitution of Aware concerning the limit of monthly expenditure to only $20,000.
15. How, fairly or unfairly, one single issue on homosexuality was used as the tool to discredit Aware for all and everything that Aware has done for the past 25 years.
16. Last but not least, the EOGM’s sole purpose was to call for a vote of no confidence, not to hold a dialogue of two irreconcilable views and try to make peace. The opportunity for dialogue was available from 28 March to 1 May 2009 – about 5 solid weeks.
So, considering all the above, would peace be possible even if given a chance?
This article raises some good points. One day, the “liberal” faction might find themselves in the minority… and denied right of reply.
Separately, one can follow the rules of procedure and still get the job done… Check out Adlai Stevenson at the UN Security Council during the Cuban Missile Crisis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxDGtu-aMi0
I have to agree with Peace Piper.
There were several opportunities for Josie’s team to engage the Old Guards (not just the previous office holders but ordinary members too) but they didn’t. Sadly they chose the path of shutting up and shutting off.
I don’t really care about their Church connection. I honestly don’t. What made me a 12 year supporter of AWARE sit-up and attend the EGM was the fact that if a 25 year old, national NGO/CBO representing women’s rights in Singapore could be so easily taken over, what about the smaller NGO/CBOs?
No one has a monopoly on ideas but the work put in by countless volunteers, staff and office holders would come to naught if external parties who had no previous interest or participation would simply use the power of the vote to throw out the good work of a whole generation.
I am glad that AWARE is back in good hands that have the necessary ground feel, experience and passion.
I wish Josie Lau and team all the best and I also wish Dana Lam and her team all the best too.
ben
the old guards have been trying to reach out to j&co since they got elected, even suggesting to sit down with mediators from SMC.
but j&co continued to alienate all the women that they were elected to represent.
Has anyone thought about this – according to the ST, the “re-voted exco” was revoted before the old-new JL exco stepped down. This sounds as if it was ultra-vires. That in itself calls into question its legitimacy (not that the JL exco wil fuss about).
It’s a pity that when they had a chance of doing things correctly, they kan-cheong and anyhow hantum. Nothing can be achieved by anarchy, no matter how you call it.
why was I censored? what happened to my comment?
[...] An Insidious Thiology – Nomed Letters: Our Evil Gains from the AWARE Fiasco – The Wayang Party: If you think good won over evil in AWARE, you better sit down, take a stress pill and think it throu… – Tricia: I’m a hooligan and proud of it – The Christian Post: What the ‘Aware [...]
You may have nice fantasies of what “civil society” should be, but the truth isn’t so nice.
In a dictatorship, the dictator rules, and his word is absolute.
In a theocracy, religious leaders rule, and their words are absolute.
In a democracy on the other hand, the vote of the people is final, and the collective voice of the human hive mind cannot be opposed.
At AWARE, it was neither good or evil that triumphed for civil society; it was natural selection which proved that one side had more supporters than the other.
I must say, I happen to be one of those who enjoy reading the brotherhood press immensely. As it is one of the few online presses that writes exclusively for working adults and professionals.
But I am very troubled by Darkness et al’s lack of decorum to accord dignity to those who he chooses to mention here and elsewhere. Take for instance the term. “Josie and the pussy cats.” “Botak Head Ah Siew.” In other articles, he has described Tharman (minister of finance), as “eight ball Tharma.” Wong Kan Seng is “Wah Can’t See!” Even our president Nathan it seems is not spared the lashings of wit, “shorty naan.” And the list goes on and on, even the SPH is transformed into the “sisters of perpetual hesitation.” As the BP continues to label it a spinster enclave.
I really hope someone can do something about this. As I feel, not only does this distract, but it also lends the article a jocular feel which doesnt seem to add anything at all to the pleasure of reading.
Pls take this constructively.
AWARE is for ALL WOMEN? 1414 votes to 761. The 761 are “less” women I guess…..
“The danger of unfinished business means whatever once motivated the likes of Josie and gang will certainly come back in yet another form and guise to revisit AWARE. As the vicious circle has not been decisively broken.”
I agree completely with this statement. The matter of “unfinished business,” as the author mentioned is the one single most disturbing outcome from the EGM.
unfinished business? wasn’t there a motion to remove them? or is it unfinished since that laughable self addressed ‘own self write’ death threat was not fulfilled?
Aiyo Darkness, you expect what? You must think civil discourse here is really hopeless if you consider the actions of the old guard + their supporters as having thrown things down the BIN. In that case every country in the world must be down the shitter, man!
Also:
“the primary motive that once impelled Josie and her gang to seize control of the old AWARE has very little to do with underhandedness, stealth or even the whole issue of faith”
Pray tell us what it is then, Mr. Omniscient? It has more to do with faith (by which I presume you mean religion) than you think it does…
This is a diabolically clever write up. It is impossible to fault, with references to Kant’s Perpetual peace. But what it does is attempt to rob the old guard of one thing that allows them to hold on to their mission. Their legitimacy.
It is naive to expect civil discourse in an environment where mics are turned off and people are told to sit down and shut up.
First of all, to address the point about JL and gang not being given a right to reply. It is true that they were occasionally drowned out by booing. The old guard even turned round many times to calm their own supporters down to allow them to reply.
But for the most part, the reason they were boo-ed during the times they spoke is obvious. They did not speak with any sense or transparency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLk44e2_ob0
In this video at 1:40, you hear the question “how much have you spent” being asked.
Maureen spends 4 minutes explaining venue changes & inserting various mitigating statements without answering the question.Upon being pressed, they declare that the questioner has asked too many questions, despite her question being the same one that still remains unanswered, & call for security to have her removed.
Quote from your article
====
…when they denied the new exco the right to speak?
====
So who exactly is denying people the right to speak?
The people that shut off the microphones & call security on people asking questions they refuse to answer?
Or the people that boo and shout, but make no forcible or tangible attempt to PHYSICALLY PREVENT SPEECH?
In reply to this section of your article
======
“In this case, the melee degenerated ….numerical superiority instead of reasoned discourse.”
======
When JL’s supporters did get on the mic, they were rightly boo-ed because they had no valid points or observations to make. See this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Tcjx1ELhQ&feature=related
JL personally fights for his right to speak at the start.The point he makes on her behalf is poignant. Her supporters are idiots.
It was not a case of the loudest & rowdiest voices winning as the JL supporters like to describe. It was a victory for the side that chose to make sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA9L89aOSEI&feature=related
In this video, JL says “yes, we have overshot $20000, that’s a fact.”
Based on the violation of section 18 of the constitution & the sum of money involved, this is very clearly a breach of the law.
For all the arguments that have been bandied about, they are mostly subjective. But this is clearly, unequivocally Criminal Breach of Trust.
On this basis, JL’s exco has no moral authority & no right to use Legal Counsel to hide the constitution they flouted.
Finally, civility is highly overrated. It is how the arguments & disagreements are resolved that is important, not the form.
British parliament often has similar verbal curveballs thrown at speakers (shame,boo,fascist) during debates.
Do not miss the point. JL’s exco were deposed because they were financially imprudent, had no platform or direction other than vaguely opposing CSE & a anti-homosexual agenda, & managing an NGO with a corporate chequebook mentality.
Not because they were not allowed to speak.
They were.
They just sucked at it.
Aye aye, great article. Best I have ever read from the Dark one himself. Civil society… what a sham. It does not surprise me in the slightest what had transpired at Suntec.
Useless and senseless waste of energy, money and time to gain power. Power to do what, who knows… and I seriously do not care.
All I wish is for this site to move away from this stupid AWARE business and focus back on to the more pressing matters of society…
Flu, elections, jobs, thewhatnots…
Thanks for publishing if you do…
I am absolutely against JL but i was surprised by video of behaviour of women at EGM. Let the vote decides. To bring up faults of others to justify one’s reason to behave just as badly & gloating are not constructive. Courtesy, graciousness, humility, honesty, respect, tolerance etc have taken a beating by both parties in the AWARE saga.
Strange to say, my humble opinion is that the original/Old Guard exco and JL supporters are the ones who come up roses.
At the EGM the votes decide. My humble opinion by reading papers/watching video – two parties have come out roses : the original/Old Guard exco and JL supporters.
I agree with Im, peace piper and luminoir,
In addition, I should also point out that JL and her gang have had opportunities during the period before the EOGM to make their case, make a mark, to flesh out what their plans are, during Talking Point and later at a press conference they famously called at the Raffles Town Club (wonder who paid for it?). I believe, the Talking point occasion was also at their own initiative.
On both occasions it was impossible to draw anything other than a negative conclusion about the group as a whole. There were lots of incoherence, vague generalisation and most significantly a fixated attack on the old Guards ‘homosexual agenda’. That came clearly across as their mother of all reasons to take over. The introduction of their self-styled ‘FM’ TSM really gave the game away. I suspect her presence was prompted by one or both reasons: 1. TSM’s self-righteous ego 2. she was asked to attend by the JL gang of four who felt inadequate to the task for the good reason that they are really TSM’s puppets.
At the EOGM, the gloves were already off from the start. Frankly, what sort of discourse except for what actually transpired do you expect? I don’t see why the old guards should be expected to observed queensbury rule when the usurper (for that is what the JL faction was) had gotten in by hook and by crook.
I think what darkness is trying to say here is civil society goes beyond the whole idea of what is right or wrong; rather the due process is the central linchpin that both parties have to abide too, if they are to stand any hope of making meaningful progress.
Please dont get me wrong, I understand fully how some of you may have been provoked to taking up arms to right what many of you perceived to be a wrong; some may have even seen it as justifable to have denied the new exco the right to put their case across.
Only from what Darkness has written, what he seems to be saying is, this episode does not herald a new dawn for civil society in Singapore as it condones a new form of tryanny – neither does it suggest good has won over evil either.
As the “due process” is what makes possible the whole idea of civil society. So that is really the alpha and omega and not something that can be negotiated away.
Whether some of you agree with Josie et al is hardly the issue here; what is central here is the due process must be seen to be operative; in this case, we can say many things, but one thing is patently clear – the old guard condoned and even supported the heckling, harrying and even sanctioned the whole idea of mob power, they never once promoted the idea of rational discourse. Neither did they even see the wisdom of pursuing a principled approach beyond the law of the jungle.
Yes, they won. No one doubts it, But according to darkness, they did so by leveraging on a primitive and not the enlightened means – what he described as the sheer force of the statistical majority i.e if I have more soldiers than you, I can crack your skull- he even went on to issue a stricture describing it as the law of jungle.
And why is that so? Because for meaningful progress to be made in the context of civil society, what it demands is moral coherency – according to darkness the principle must be above the whole idea of the statistical majority. As that is the only way for real civil society to take root; and if you think about it, it makes perfect sense as if we can all buy into the idea certain rights are elemental, then they cannot be predicated on the vagaries of such a thing as the majority opinion – that incidentally, is why countries have constitutions, they enshrine a couple of fundamental rights and even make it impossible for either the executive or legislature to tamper with them, even if they happen to have the numbers on their side. In this way, the curb abuses and protect rights.
But what has the old guard done? They set in motion a dangerous precedent; they also threw away the rule book. And gave free reign to what the darkness termed, the law of the jungle.
You know, let me tell you this, we are only gamers, but even in our UN, everyone has a right to speak and be heard without being shouted down. This rule is enforced so strictly that no man can be allowed to undo it; what more of the whole idea of civil society?
You all have to think long and hard about this.
SD
As for Siew Kum Hong and cherian george, we have read what they have written, we do not agree with them, this is a new dawn for civil society in Singapore ; and we have no qualms to even say, we can even take their arguments apart with ease (it is best, if they simply ignore us and hope not so many people are reading this); if they so wish to take issue with us.
As far as we are concerned, they are irrelevant and out of touch and what they have to say is a gross misrepresentation of fact concerning what transpired last saturday in Suntec.
Thank You
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)
I disagree with the view that the government did not have a hand, albeit a subtle one, in the final result. Three Ministers, namely Teo Chee Hean, Vivian Balakrishnan and Shanmugam, passed comment, strongly hinting that certain parties had better behave. Even DPM Wong Kan Seng, at the last hour, chimed in about which side was the preferred one. Why else did Pastor Derek Hong buckle, and the busloads from Church Of Our Savior failed to set off for Suntec City?
Fargoal on Tue, 5th May 2009 7:42 am
I was informed to tell you personally by darkness, he enjoyed your youtube link immensely, he mentioned in passing, he had vaguely seen this clip bfr somewhere but he did not realize its pertinence till he viewed it once again, he thanks you for jolting his memory along with best wishes.
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)
Josie and the Pussycats won’t be able to speak even if they were given the chance to, they need to consult their legal counsel first remember? Oh yes, and in the process, use someone else’s money to pay $90,000.
Chloe, how right you are. Just note how the government-owned MSM pointed out how Josie Lau’s husband wrote to the press protesting against the legalization of casinos, as though he was not well within his rights as a concerned citizen to do so.
With all those boos and jeers, some may think that this is unruly in a civil society. But I am glad how the EGM at Suntec turned out – that there were no riots causing any physical injury to anyone present. Singapore cannot afford to have another Maria Hertogh incident.
If the EOGM was democracy in action then I vote PAP.
@Singaporedaddy
====QUOTE
but one thing is patently clear – the old guard condoned and even supported the heckling…never once promoted the idea of rational discourse.
====
Look at this video at 0:38. You can clearly see the old guard shushing their own supporters to allow JL’s exco to talk.This is irrefutable evidence showing your statement is false.
Now I’m not saying that proceedings were civilized and peaceful throughout,but I am opposed to the misinformation you are propagating by claiming this is the law of the jungle.Show me video evidence of the old guard starting or condoning the heckling.Without it, your claims are baseless & libelous.
===QUOTE
that incidentally, is why countries have constitutions, they enshrine a couple of fundamental rights and even make it impossible for either the executive or legislature to tamper with them, even if they happen to have the numbers on their side. In this way, the curb abuses and protect rights.
But what has the old guard done? They set in motion a dangerous precedent; they also threw away the rule book. And gave free reign to what the darkness termed, the law of the jungle.
===
How has the rulebook been thrown away? The members have a right in the constitution to requisition a EGM.Which they did.They have a right to vote ‘no confidence’ in the JL exco. They did. The power is vested in the members, ie they have the right to remove JL’s exco. They did,& even if they didn’t, JL’s exco resigned.
Everything that happened in the above paragraph was well within the bounds of the constitution. So how was the rulebook thrown away?
The old guard did not declare the elections that put JL’s exco in power as null and void, THAT would have been throwing away the rule book.
They regained control through constitutional means,& I don’t understand how you can quote the constitution without mentioning the flagrant flouting of section 18, aka the $90k question.
THAT is throwing away the rulebook.
You may have your reservations about the conduct of some members of the mob & I would agree with you because shouting achieves nothing. But to call it the law of the jungle is disingenuous because nothing of significance happened as a result of the booing,most of which occurred after the votes had been cast anyway.
The exco were not denied their right to speak. They had microphones and muted the audiences’. They might have had to raise their voices a little to be heard but nothing they said had any significance or value. See below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJSECSOOrg
All they needed to do was answer the question how much did you spend.
It was all sidetracking from the question, excuses and whinging about how it’s not easy to find a venue & we slept at 4am.
Cry me a river, running an NGO is hard work, if you can’t handle it, get out.
It is the loophole in the Aware’s constitutions that was exploited by Josie’s camp to allow them the chance to take over the organisation legitimately. Is this act an enlightened means for rational discourse in civil society or a law of the jungle?
This is the video where at 0:38 old guard supporters are clearly seen gesturing to the crowd to pipe down.
@Singaporedaddy
====QUOTE
but one thing is patently clear – the old guard condoned and even supported the heckling…never once promoted the idea of rational discourse.
====
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvd4YWbg3Do
Look at this video at 0:38. You can clearly see the old guard shushing their own supporters to allow JL’s exco to talk.This is irrefutable evidence showing your statement is false.
Now I’m not saying that proceedings were civilized and peaceful throughout,but I am opposed to the misinformation you are propagating by claiming this is the law of the jungle.Show me video evidence of the old guard starting or condoning the heckling.Without it, your claims are baseless & libelous.
===QUOTE
that incidentally, is why countries have constitutions, they enshrine a couple of fundamental rights and even make it impossible for either the executive or legislature to tamper with them, even if they happen to have the numbers on their side. In this way, the curb abuses and protect rights.
But what has the old guard done? They set in motion a dangerous precedent; they also threw away the rule book. And gave free reign to what the darkness termed, the law of the jungle.
===
How has the rulebook been thrown away? The members have a right in the constitution to requisition a EGM.Which they did.They have a right to vote ‘no confidence’ in the JL exco. They did. The power is vested in the members, ie they have the right to remove JL’s exco. They did,& even if they didn’t, JL’s exco resigned.
Everything that happened in the above paragraph was well within the bounds of the constitution. So how was the rulebook thrown away?
The old guard did not declare the elections that put JL’s exco in power as null and void, THAT would have been throwing away the rule book.
They regained control through constitutional means,& I don’t understand how you can quote the constitution without mentioning the flagrant flouting of section 18, aka the $90k question.
THAT is throwing away the rulebook.
You may have your reservations about the conduct of some members of the mob & I would agree with you because shouting achieves nothing. But to call it the law of the jungle is disingenuous because nothing of significance happened as a result of the booing,most of which occurred after the votes had been cast anyway.
The exco were not denied their right to speak. They had microphones and muted the audiences’. They might have had to raise their voices a little to be heard but nothing they said had any significance or value. See below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJSECSOOrg
All they needed to do was answer the question how much did you spend.
It was all sidetracking from the question, excuses and whinging about how it’s not easy to find a venue & we slept at 4am.
Cry me a river, running an NGO is hard work, if you can’t handle it, get out.
Would an organization run by men turn out to be like AWARE? I think not.
I fully agreed with this article.
Dmeocracy works – “one (wo)man one vote”.
“Mob Rule” work better in a democracy.
Bring your “Rent-a-Mob” to ensure Democracy works.
That 3,000 present at that EGM?
- How representative are they to the aspiration and need of those working-class women living in HDB Estates – 90% of SIngapore population live there?
Must that less than 1% imposed their views onto the rest of the 99%?
@Singaporedaddy
====QUOTE
but one thing is patently clear – the old guard condoned and even supported the heckling…never once promoted the idea of rational discourse.
====
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvd4YWbg3Do
Look at this video at 0:38. You can clearly see the old guard shushing their own supporters to allow JL’s exco to talk.This is irrefutable evidence showing your statement is false.
Now I’m not saying that proceedings were civilized and peaceful throughout,but I am opposed to the misinformation you are propagating by claiming this is the law of the jungle.Show me video evidence of the old guard starting or condoning the heckling.Without it, your claims are baseless & libelous.
===QUOTE
that incidentally, is why countries have constitutions, they enshrine a couple of fundamental rights….But what has the old guard done? They set in motion a dangerous precedent; they also threw away the rule book. And gave free reign to what the darkness termed, the law of the jungle.
===
How has the rulebook been thrown away?
The members have a right in the constitution to requisition a EGM.
Which they did.
They have a right to vote ‘no confidence’ in the JL exco.
They did.
The power is vested in the members, ie they have the right to remove JL’s exco if the no-confidence vote passed.
They did,& even if they didn’t, JL’s exco resigned.
Everything that happened in the above paragraph was well within the bounds of the constitution. So how was the rulebook thrown away?
The old guard did not declare the elections that put JL’s exco in power as null and void, THAT would have been throwing away the rule book.
They regained control through constitutional means,& I don’t understand how you can quote the constitution without mentioning the flagrant flouting of section 18, aka the $90k question.
THAT is throwing away the rulebook.
You may have your reservations about the conduct of some members of the mob & I would agree with you because shouting achieves nothing. But to call it the law of the jungle is disingenuous because nothing of significance happened as a result of booing or shouting,most of which occurred after the votes had been cast anyway.
The exco were not denied their right to speak. They had microphones and muted the audiences’. They might have had to raise their voices a little to be heard but nothing they said had any significance or value. See below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJSECSOOrg
All they needed to do was answer the question how much did you spend. The question was first asked at 5:10pm. It was eventually answered at 6:18pm, a full hour and 8 minutes later.
Is it any wonder people were shouting & unhappy?
It was all sidetracking from the question, excuses and whinging about how it’s not easy to find a venue & we slept at 4am.
If a person took an hour to answer a simple question, a question you had been waiting since 10am in the morning on your weekend to ask, a certain degree of frustration does creep up onto you.
It doesn’t excuse the behavior but JL’s exco clearly aren’t blameless for the resulting atmosphere by switching off the mics,telling people to shut up,segregating associate members from the members,refusing to answer straight questions & calling security to remove members whose questions they couldn’t answer.
Dear Brotherhood Press,
The point of the EGM was not about the improvement of civil society. So what if the old guard were just as low as the new exco in using the mob to bulldoze their way? Nobody is going to give you a medal for your ‘fair play.’
And do you think it really makes (practical) sense to speak of communicative rationality as a pre-requisite to civil society, in an (overwhelmingly) unequal society? Personally, this seems naive to me. And quoting Kant didn’t add any intellectual weight to your argument.
If you think due process is the alpha and omega of civil society… I personally would disagree; it should be the center of politics instead.
Frankly speaking I think it is not incorrect to set up a dichotomy between 1. the new guard continuing and 2. old guard having to employ some unsavory tactics to prevent 1.
I think it’s an overall win for 2 to happen as opposed to 1, as much as it is a matter of choosing the lesser devil.
At the stage Singapore’s been stuck at, anything along the lines of 2 would be a breakthrough IMO.
Anonymous: “If the EOGM was democracy in action then I vote PAP.”
Lee Kuan Yew realised that decades ago. That is why the PAP is so successful.
Darkness and SingaporeDaddy, please give examples of the “due process” that you are referring to. Any cases or scenarios will help illuminate. It’s utopian or not?
From not-so-bright vicky.
Why has my response been awaiting moderation since yesterday night? Are you turning off my mic?
The irony of you complaining about the law of the jungle.
The writer misconceives the issue of civil society in this fundamentalist Christian attempt to suppress what they perceived as the gay community campaign to undermine society based SOLELY on their – the fundamentalist – interpretation the BIBLE, rather than objective evidence, facts and experiences.
In the first place it should be recognised and acknowledged that Josie Lau and her fellow fundamentalist women folks are just pawns of their homophobic Church Pastor who had gone on record of vowing that “to mobilize churches in Singapore to stand up against the homosexual issue, and highlighted his goal of making Singapore a nation of righteous Christians without contamination of the homosexual lifestyle.” Mr Hong felt that homosexuality should not be allowed to “come out to the surface and made acceptable to the nation.”
Darkness & singaporedaddy are obviously blind or in denial or maybe sympathetic or are supporters of the fundamentalist Christians not to see the evil behind the power grab of AWARE and the attempt to impose Christian values and beliefs on the rest of the Singapore society of non-Christians.
To talk about lack of “due process” based solely on the events at the EGM is plain daft and even flawed because Josie Lau and the then new EXCO had more than ample time and opportunity to present their case, which they failed miserably to do so, even after repeated prodding by the media. Their treatment of other exco members and sub-committee personnel is just dictatorial and totally unbefitting of a civil society organisation. The simple fact is that Josie Lau et al were not bona fide, lacked credibility and integrity. To give them a chance, as their supporters had written in the Press, is like allowing the fox to be the keeper of the hen house.
In any case, if their intentions had been noble in that they wanted to help women in this economic downturn, they had more than ample resources to do so, either by forming their own NGO, offering their ideas to the CDC or MOM etc.
Justifying their power grab as analogous to a backdoor listing as what Biz Times Jamie Ee had done smacks of dishonesty because backdoor listing has never been acrimonious nor done stealthily.
By trying to camouflage their evil deeds by criticising the supposed mob behavior at the EGM risks encouraging similar illegitimate tactics by other radicals of Derek Hong/Thio Su Mien’s ilk.
Hits very hard, merciless even in the way it took our Siew.K.H, but nonetheless true in every sense.
This saga illustrates to me how UNCOUTH many S’porean women can be….Good education may not necessarily lead to good manners.
The writer misconceives the issue of civil society in this fundamentalist Christian attempt to suppress what they perceived as the gay community campaign to undermine society based SOLELY on their – the fundamentalist – interpretation the BIBLE, rather than objective evidence, facts and experiences.
In the first place it should be recognised and acknowledged that Josie Lau and her fellow fundamentalist women folks are just pawns of their homophobic Church Pastor who had gone on record of vowing that “to mobilize churches in Singapore to stand up against the homosexual issue, and highlighted his goal of making Singapore a nation of righteous Christians without contamination of the homosexual lifestyle.” Mr Hong felt that homosexuality should not be allowed to “come out to the surface and made acceptable to the nation.”
Darkness & singaporedaddy are obviously blind or in denial or maybe sympathetic or are supporters of the fundamentalist Christians not to see the evil behind the power grab of AWARE and the attempt to impose Christian values and beliefs on the rest of the Singapore society of non-Christians.
To talk about lack of “due process” based solely on the events at the EGM is plain daft and even flawed because Josie Lau and the then new EXCO had more than ample time and opportunity to present their case, which they failed miserably to do so, even after repeated prodding by the media. Their treatment of other exco members and sub-committee personnel is just dictatorial and totally unbefitting of a civil society organisation. The simple fact is that Josie Lau et al were not bona fide, lacked credibility and integrity. To give them a chance, as their supporters had written in the Press, is like allowing the fox to be the keeper of the hen house.
In any case, if their intentions had been noble in that they wanted to help women in this economic downturn, they had more than ample resources to do so, either by forming their own NGO, offering their ideas to the CDC or MOM etc.
Justifying their power grab as analogous to a backdoor listing as what Biz Times Jamie Ee had done smacks of dishonesty because backdoor listing has never been acrimonious nor done stealthily.
Trying to camouflage their evil deeds by criticising the supposed mob behavior at the EGM risks encouraging similar illegitimate tactics by other radicals of Derek Hong/Thio Su Mien’s ilk.
Agree it is imperative to have due process to set precedence for future engagements.
Personally what I saw was dumb taking over, followed by dumber
taking back….refering to the AWARE fiasco.
I say dumber because of failure to learn from dumb’s gross mistakes. In work or play that is exactly how I will rate myself. cheers.
Alexia
I really dont think you can label the brotherhood as blind supporters of Josie et al. Alexia you will have a very hard time selling that idea to most ppl the internet. These people are renowned for being uncontrollable and fiercely independent.
I have noticed of late, maybe its my imagination, but everyone who either shows support for the new exco or criticises Siew Kum Ho is automatically labelled as a christian fundamentalist.
Seems to me there is a deliberate attempt by the old guard of aware and even SKH to forward only two possible categorizations and it is startling accurate how the author describes it as
““Und willst du nicht mein Bruder, sein. So schlag’ ich Dir den schadel ein!”
When all the facts show there may be a multitude of views that may even defy any attempt at categorization.
I for example am an atheist. I have a 7 year old child. I couldnt care less about aware, but what I do care about is the well being of my child. If my child has to sit through an induction course that endorses the gay and lesbian lifestyle as normal, then I am concerned enough to say, go to hell with your induction program along with gays etc. I dont want it. Same goes for bible thumpers. Go to hell, I dont want everything to revolve around god. I want my kid to learn about dinosaurs and evolution if possible.
That in my view is what the writer seems to be saying, there are many people such as me. That is why when I read this, I kept nodding my head and saying, yes, yes, yes, yes. and please do correct me, if I happen to be wrong. The vast majority of people would prefer to have a hybrid of both Josie’s and Dana Lam’s philosophy, that is why, if you read this article, there is a tinge of regret in his tone, as if a great opportunity to improve the current system has been squandered. I know, as I am a regular reader of the BP and I can pick up these feelings.
But how can this be accomplished, when Dana, Singam, SKM even go around saying this a proud moment for singaporean civil society along with calling this a watershed for democracy, transparency etc?
Tell me who is going to represent people like me and my kid? SKH, Dana, Singam and Josie certainly arent doing it.
Are you telling me the only people who will speak up for us and even protect us all is the brotherhood? A bunch of gamers? Has Singapore come to this stage when the only people who can be counted to have wisdom are those who administer an imaginary territory in the virtual world 20 times the size of the Roman Empire?
What is happening!
[...] An Insidious Thiology – Nomed Letters: Our Evil Gains from the AWARE Fiasco – The Wayang Party: If you think good won over evil in AWARE, you better sit down, take a stress pill and think it throu… – Tricia: I’m a hooligan and proud of it – The Christian Post: What the ‘Aware [...]
ong lei kit, well said.
John Stuart Mill: “You have the rights of freedom of expression as long as you do not ifnringe ont eh rights of your neighbour’s freedom of expression”
Why am I slagged from pillar to post when I said I find homosexuality repugnance?
Even though I am a free thinker, and had shares a villa (5 bedroom) with a gay couple for a yea, and still remain friends?
I am willing to share space, but please do not encroach into my personal space.
Say what you like about the brotherhood. But if you say they are such unreasonable people. Then pray tell how could only a handful of individuals exact such a disproportion measure of influence over the gaming community. How is that even possible, that is a bit like a country like Moldavia controlling the security council in the UN. Or a Madives island having a GDP as big as the US. Let me tell you why in simple language. Firstly, they are very very very very very very very good administrators. Wherever they go trade and commerce prospers. Secondly, they bring with them law & order, not the bent level playing field variety with traffic cone ob markers galore, where they will run you out of town like a certain political party just because they want to find fault with your annual tax returns, but the type where you can even challenge and defeat them if right is firmly on your side. Neither do they shift the rules whenever it suits them. We all live under one rule and it is clear. Thirdly, their system of taxation is often 1/100 of what was previously imposed by our own elders in our community. Believe or not most us prefer them to rule over our territories than our previous elders who seem to do nothing except raise taxes in the virtual every single year and they even give us a fair price for our minerals, never ever once short changing us. They one is one, two is two and it is a better than a copper clad guarantee from the bank of england. When times are lean, they will roll up their sleeves and work with us to make things better. If war comes our way, they will all take their positions and fight for us. In between when the game master tries to bully us, we can always go to their liaison rep and he will usually push our case. He is always there to help us, so many see him as a friendly older brother figure. So wonder no more why even though these are only space nomads who do not even have a planet to call their own, they can rule over nearly 900 dominions, 50 protectorates and at least 1,500 colonies.
And when you consider one earth year equals to 150 space years, how many centuries of experience do you think they have in civil administration. May not believe it, but this is kacang puteh to them. Really it is.
The likes of Siew Kum Hon just dont have any idea how they have been outclassed, outflanked and out manuevered. They are not even in the same league.
[...] May 4 – If you think good won over evil in AWARE, you better sit down, take a stress pill and … [...]
To Alexia of Thu, 7th May 2009 3:33 pm.
Do you think that the Straits Times, The New Paper and the government would have also done what they did – had Dr TSM, Ms J Lau and associates been tudung clad Muslims?
Or, would they have given such a new exco high praise, understanding, time and space – for them (the tudung clad new exco members) to expand into a “rainbow” final new exco?
With thanks to trailnuts’ below Mon, 4th May 2009 9:09 pm post in Wayang Party’s “BREAKING: Leaked emails from COOS members showed that AWARE take-over was pre-planned in advance!!”
“Turns out Shawn Tay himself claims to be an ‘ex-gay’.. umm…. take a look here..
http://www.coos.org.sg/testimony/index.php?coospg=2007/2007_finding_learning_the_truth.html
interesting…”
Yah. Interesting.
I supported the new exco member from the beginning. Nothing to do with their regligion but their views about homosexual lifestyle is so true.
To all who cite “This is the video where at 0:38 old guard supporters are clearly seen gesturing to the crowd to pipe down” as proof that the old guards were not inciting the mob in that EGM.
That 0:38 phot op shot was an actual indictment on the truth that the fact that the old guards incited their mob to prance and yell around much like they having fire ants in their anuses and rectums.
Any other shots in the video showing the old guards trying to reign in their mob – relative to the length of time their mob had been screech, screaming and prancing during the EGM?
Text book tricky from the pathetic supporters of those who sought to trick the MOE into letting them into the schools to teach school children that pre-marital sex and anal sex are “neutral”.