streetsmart73 on Mon, 4th May 2009 1:53 pm 

hi there

1. thank you for the well-written article.
2. yes, i shared the same sentiments too.
3. i am also glad that the entire saga is finally over.
4. and there are plenty of stuffs to be done in aware.
5. however, i am equally interested looking into how some 90k were spent within one month.
6. bearing in mind that aware is a ngo where funds don’t come easily.
7. with a 40buck per year as membership subscription, 90k is some amount that could be put into many good use and cause.
8. i wish ms dana lam and her team success.

Double Standards on Mon, 4th May 2009 2:41 pm 

You seem to have left out the part about the heckling and jeering of the old guard supporters that did not give the new guard the chance to speak. Was that appropriate behaviour?

lijing on Mon, 4th May 2009 4:24 pm 

Dear Ms Soh,

How can you speak of ‘giving a voice to women’ when 1) Thio Su Mien wasn’t given a chance to speak; and 2) neither was anyone from the ex-Committee? What you appear to mean is that only women whom you want to listen to should be given a voice to speak.

You also talk about ‘engaging the members’. How many ‘members’ who turned up really wanted to be ‘engaged’? Most went with a fixed agenda. This wasn’t an ‘open challenge, debate and dialogue’. This was bullying by numbers.

Neither was it democracy. Democracy is about respecting a democratic and fair outcome – the prior election. Not about mobilising ‘migrant members’ (both sides were culpable) to effect a revolution.

auntielucia on Mon, 4th May 2009 6:52 pm 

Abt that $90K expenditure… wot wld have happened, if the ex-New Ex-Co had said they cldn’t hold no-confidence EOGM because they need to have an EOGM to get permission to incur expenses to hold the no-confi EOGM? Won’t poor JL n co be accused of prevaricating? The kangaroo court of biased public opinion had put them in a no-win situation

talkmore on Mon, 4th May 2009 7:03 pm 

To:lijing on Mon, 4th May 2009 4:24 pm

Thio Su Mien controls Josie & company & the 700 plus supporters who were there. Josie & company had to perform like robots cos Thio is instrumental in controlling their actions. Also, Josie & company were assured thru their misguided fundamentalist beliefs that their God will ensure that they just stay silent & controlled & the rest will be smooth sailing to ensure their success.

Josie & company NEVER had anything to say in the first place becos their interest is not in AWARE but in destroying it forever. I would suggest you go to http://www.yawningbread.org excellent analysis of why Thio, Josie et al staged the coup. Yes, I know yawningbread is a gay website but he writes well. Grit your teeth & go there to read up.

But then for someone like you lijing, you have probably been indoctrinated & stoned by your fundamentalist beliefs too that is why you do not see what we see. Brainwashed is what we call it, you and many others like you, Thio, Josie et al are all too far gone.

253SA on Mon, 4th May 2009 7:12 pm 

Thio Su Mien and her merry bunch were given all the time in the world before the EOGM to speak! That they proffered deafening silence or mock understanding of the burning issues engulfing the entire saga is a path of their own choosing. The defunct Exco was an unmitigated PR disaster, helmed in no less by a supposed ‘marketing’ and ‘communications’ expert from DBS. What tripe!

Alwin Loi on Mon, 4th May 2009 8:01 pm 

double standards said: ‘You seem to have left out the part about the heckling and jeering of the old guard supporters that did not give the new guard the chance to speak. Was that appropriate behaviour?’

they had almost 1 month chance to speak out through media and come clean about their true intentions and goals. they ended up being silent most of the time. certainly when the time is up, it’s too late to speak up

Alwin Loi on Mon, 4th May 2009 8:04 pm 

lijing said: “Neither was it democracy. Democracy is about respecting a democratic and fair outcome – the prior election. ”

well, the prior election was essentially a stealthy take over so we all can’t consider that democratic and fair. even the head of church organization in Singapore, Archbishop Dr.Chew do not condone the action

The Dangers Aint Over on Mon, 4th May 2009 9:00 pm 

We have to be careful. The placing of Thio Li An as NMP and the now revealed subversion of Aware..there seems to be a larger game at play with [b]one common denominator, COOS and Pastor Derek Hong…

We must not forget the real puppet master, who hides in the darkness..
From an online blog, seems he wasnt sorry at all, and was mentioned to have said.. well if the media wants an apology, I will give them an apology..

I am not sure if it is all a concerted scheme to influence the social-political sphere to achieve their misguided intended ends..

His modus operandi is clear. Work behind the scenes, stir up parents’ emotions through emails on appeals to do God’s work, provoke them into action via feedback or petition to the authorities.

All civil organisations, Action for Aids, Trevvy. Fridae etc.. be AWARE.

The Puppet Master runs free… Pastor Derek Hong.

Hidden Answers on Mon, 4th May 2009 11:24 pm 

According to the data given so far, Aware’s membership had risen to nearly 3,000. However, the vote counts were 1414 vs 761, which totals to 2,175.

What has happened to the remaining 825 voters? Were they prevented from voting? If the 825 were to vote for the pro-Christian JL group of stealth invaders then the outcome could have been 1414 vs 1586, right or not?

Taking into consideration that some of those 825 could be male-members who have no voting rights, then the outcome could have been evenly matched (deadlock), if the rest have voted, right?

Could the the bus-loads of red-shirts have decided at the very last minute not to turn up? If that was so, then their “God” might have sent a message to tell them that they have been misled?

Puresacha on Tue, 5th May 2009 12:24 am 

I was there at the EGM. TCM & Josie had nothing new to add. TCM was blowing her own trumpet & JS was just reiterating the same old hash. She & her new (or is it considered old now?) ex-co had the audacity to try to claim the achievements of the old guards.The only credit I give them for is the surge in the membership. It was the making of JS & Co. What they failed to realise was that, contrary to what they believed,the ordinary gal in the street were relying passionately for the Old Guards.

CP on Tue, 5th May 2009 12:36 am 

Hi Lai Yee,

Good article. You are back to being active in a civic organisation. Good!

Just hope that the old guards can also treat this as a learning opportunity, that the programmes that they organise or hold are more closely watched than they think. And the divide regarding how our society should see same-sex marriages and relationships is real and wide. There could also be more that can be done for women during this difficult financial time and this is the best opportunuity for AWARE to show that they can take up the challenge.

Also, I listened to the tape recordings on WP. The procedures could be carried out better by both sides. I am also intrigued by the suggestion that the new EXCO members are just puppets of TSM. Interesting.

misspoh on Tue, 5th May 2009 1:25 am 

Indeed, Josie and her ousted exco had one microphone each – switched on at all times – while the 2000-odd members speaking up for justice had to share one microphone AND adhere to dictatorial rules like “you can only speak once”.

The ousted exco came across as “having no chance to speak” only because:
1) they didn’t ADDRESS the questions asked – instead, they beat about the bush and raised irrelevant points to distract the audience from the real issues at stake – pardon me, but why would anyone want to listen to things like “we slept at 4am every night”?;
2) they kept referring questions to the legal counsel, displaying a sore lack of understanding of the Aware constitution – which is absolutely unacceptable at the exco level;
3) their public speaking (dis)abilities and lack of conviction in the cause failed to make the crowd want to listen

They had more chances to speak than they deserved, and they wasted all of them.

myn on Tue, 5th May 2009 9:53 am 

hi CP,
even before the event, the old guards approached j&co on how to manage the meeting.
but j&co ignored their help.

how to have better procedures if you refuse to listen to the very people who have asked for the meeting right from the start?

double standards on Tue, 5th May 2009 12:07 pm 

double standards said: ‘You seem to have left out the part about the heckling and jeering of the old guard supporters that did not give the new guard the chance to speak. Was that appropriate behaviour?’

alwin loi said: they had almost 1 month chance to speak out through media and come clean about their true intentions and goals. they ended up being silent most of the time. certainly when the time is up, it’s too late to speak up

So that excuses their hooligan-like behaviour?

Someone on Tue, 5th May 2009 1:06 pm 

Quote from double standards: So that excuses their hooligan-like behaviour?

I think first of all, you need to get the facts straight. The audience who attended the EGM on saturday, was expecting Josie & friends to state their agenda clear and give them a proper explanation.

However, right from the start, Josie & friends had been using an authoritarian approach to address the audience. Not only did Josie refused to turn on the mic to allow both parties to communicate, an exco member even shouted at the audience to “shut up and sit down!”. Tell me, was that an appropriate behaviour in the first place? Especially someone from exco who will be in charge of AWARE?

In such a situation, of course the audience would get angry and express their frustrations with disgusts and boos, shouting and condemnation, since the one and only mic for the audience to speak up was never turned on at all.

Obviously, you can’t be expecting the audience to gently reply: “Sally, would you please clarify what you mean by that? The ladies at the floor do not think it is an appropriate phrase to use? So may we appeal to you to kindly take it back and apologize to us?” Seriously…would you be expecting this kind of reaction? Of course not.

Therefore, you can perceive and label the behaviours of the audience as hooligan-like. I would prefer to see it as a normal reaction and I am proud of Singapore women (and men) at the EGM, who passionately fought for what they believe in. Could you not see the difference between Josie & friends and the old guards?

The key difference is the passion, the trust, the friendship and the integrity in them. You can easily spot the difference by looking at Josie & friends’ media interview and the media interview conducted by the old guards. You can see it in the way how Josie & friends presented themselves, and the way how the old guards presented themselves at the EGM.

It may be true that Josie and friends may have lacked opportunities to express their views during the EGM. However, as said by a few, they had an entire one month to do so. Yet they chose to remain silent about their agendas and directions for AWARE. They spent their time and effort in firing AWARE female employees, changing the locks and tape record conversations when old guards and supporters wanted to have a dialogue with them.

So, let’s not say Josie did not have the chance to speak up. Even if she had the chance to do so at the EGM, I am sure majority of the audience are not interested to hear what she and her exco had to say. Especially not, when the audience are treated like small kids being shouted at with “Shut up and sit down!”

Alwin Loi on Tue, 5th May 2009 1:11 pm 

yes. stop being a cry baby, double standards

Alwin Loi on Tue, 5th May 2009 1:13 pm 

one thing i forgot to say, double standards. the pussycats gangsters have been the one that act like hooligans first

Samie on Tue, 5th May 2009 2:20 pm 

Correction Alwyn Loi, JL & CO were “bandits”.

xtrocious on Tue, 5th May 2009 3:03 pm 

Anyway, the EGM was not really the platform for the ex-EXCO to speak was it?

It was convened with the purpose of voting them out…

If they had been interested to engage the media, the old guard and everyone else, they could have done so over the one month that they were in charge…

I know this may not be apt here (irony even) but there is a chinese saying that describes the situation very well…

“If one doesn’t burn joss sticks daily (or religiously), clinging to buddha’s feet during one’s time of need won’t help”

lijing on Tue, 5th May 2009 5:17 pm 

To Talkmore,

How do you automatically assume that ‘Josie never had anything to say in the first place’ given that she never had a chance to say anything?

You shouldn’t attempt to mind-read.

To Alwin,

Why is a stealthy takeover not democratic and fair if it is in accordance with the rules? There is a difference between moral perfection and democracy.

From your other replies, you also seem to have a marked preference for chest-thumping behavior. I don’t think anyone is a crybaby for wanting a more civilised discussion.

To Someone,

You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right. Just because Sally Ang was rude, doesn’t mean the hooliganism was justified or even excused. And you should ask yourself why Sally Ang lost control in the first place – because Josie Lau couldn’t get to speak.

You say you are ‘proud of Singaporean women’. The behavior a the EGM was neither educated nor sophisticated. It was herd-mentality grounded upon schadenfreude. Nothing to be proud about.

Jaunty Jabber on Tue, 5th May 2009 9:12 pm 

My take on the old exco’s winning votes, is receiving no clap from me.

To me, bad people are usually more suspicious, more sensitive, more defensive and ever ready to war.

When one did not do anything bad, one don’t need to be suspicious of other people’s intent when others haven’t even lift a finger, simply rising an eyebrow will set an evil- heart on its nerves.

Bad people also tends to over-react whenever there is a slight sniff of rat, they are ever prepared with loads of defensive gears and also ready to start a war anytime should they feel that their position is in any form of threat.

The good always believe that it is never too late to fight back a justice. Never in a need of hurry to proof anything, the truth will be out. The good sometimes have to tolerate bullies until the right day comes, and if the right day will never come, at least the soul is at peace with its dignity.

All the new members who have joined recently just to add up to the vote digits are good for head counting only? What are they going to contribute to the society after the EGM? Before this saga, where are they? Why didn’t they join AWARE if they have true interest to work on woman issues here?

Jaunty Jabber on Tue, 5th May 2009 9:48 pm 

Nevertheless, what’s good and what’s bad can be subjective depending on each and every individual perception and beliefs. I am not imposing what I thought to anyone, I am just airing out my views on this friendly online panel.

Now, about the supporters of the old exco, I do wonder if anyone find it scary from the way they have behaved at the EGM and all the other things they did prior to 2 May? Things such as death threats, loud and nasty online bashing against Josie & team, boycotting DBS, names-calling, votes-buying, shouting and bawling at the EGM…, if AWARE is going to be made up of members who do not appreciate cordiality and manners, I do not think AWARE is earning any respect.

Jaunty Jabber on Tue, 5th May 2009 10:07 pm 

If AWARE is going to be made up of members that behave like hooligans towards whom they deemed as opponents, then it deserve no respect. It will not be setting good example to the young people in the schools who will be receiving some programs from AWARE.

Having a vote in their hand, they have a chance and the right to dictate who they want to support, why the need to boo and bawl at? Only to show to the public that they cannot manage their behavior, can’t control anger, has no EQ?

If AWARE is professional, they ought to have integrity & social responsibility in terms of what they are showing and demonstrating to the public.

Someone on Wed, 6th May 2009 12:35 am 

lijing said: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right. Just because Sally Ang was rude, doesn’t mean the hooliganism was justified or even excused. And you should ask yourself why Sally Ang lost control in the first place – because Josie Lau couldn’t get to speak.

You say you are ‘proud of Singaporean women’. The behavior a the EGM was neither educated nor sophisticated. It was herd-mentality grounded upon schadenfreude. Nothing to be proud about.

—-

Hi lijing,

Either you have mistaken what I have said, or you have read too much into its meaning that you totally missed the point.

The point was that some people can perceive those behaviours as hooligan-like. Others can also perceive it as a normal reaction which makes sense since not only were the audience being treated with an authoritarian attitude, they were being shouted at rudely with “Shut up and sit down!”. Whether to call it hooligan-like behaviours or normal reactions, is based on what you personally believe in that’s all.

There is no right or wrong either, since those who support Josie and friends will naturally label them as hooligan-like behaviours and undermine the supporters’ actions. As for others, they call it a normal reaction because honestly speaking, there were very little reasons for the supporters not to defend themselves and voice out their displeasure in that kind of circumstance.

Let’s also be realistic and consider the setting for EGM. It was kind of like a showdown between the two parties. Of course emotions will run high among the supporters and for the both parties. Likewise, you can’t possibly expect everyone to graciously chat with each other over a cup of tea and biscuits, when so many unpleasant things happened before and during the EGM, right?

So the continuous emphasis about the supporters’ behaviours as hooligan-like, to me personally, is as good as making a mountain out of a molehill. The idea that Josie did not have a chance to speak, that’s why Sally shouted is even more preposterous. They had an entire month to speak up and yet, they spent it on doing only petty things. Anyway, Josie laid down the rules that every individual member will have 3 minutes to address to the EGM, and she exceeded her 3 minutes when she had a chance to speak, so one of the old guards reminded her, that’s when Sally Ang started shouting.

And on the contrary to what you think, I feel that the supporters did a great job presenting their case at the EGM. Have you not seen some of the videos showing the audience presenting their speech, with wits and passion? How beautiful those moments were.

Oh never mind, you probably won’t understand what I am talking about anyway. Since people see things differently. Just like two women were locked up in a cage hanging in the air in a forest. One lady looked up and saw the shining stars while the other looked down and could only see the dirty mud… =)

Lai Yee on Wed, 6th May 2009 2:46 am 

Lijing’s initial note provides an opportunity to further elaborate.

I went there to listen (to both sides).

The time with the audience would have been much better spent on shedding light on their ideology and better articulating their vision.

For instance, I was looking forward to an interesting discussion from the panel on stage in response to the request for their ideals on feminism. They could have returned to it at any point in the evening, but did not.

Rather a disproportionate amount of airtime was spent chiding the crowd for disrespect and unruly behaviour.

While it wasn’t straightforward for Dr Thio nor Josie and team to speak without stirring emotions, they did have some airtime and certainly less technical problems with their microphone.

Vicky on Wed, 6th May 2009 7:43 am 

Doublestandard, Heckling and jeering were not instigated by the old guard. Did you see any of the old guards rousing the crowd? As I had signed up as a member through we-are-aware.sg, I had received sms reminders from the old guard to keep calm and be respectful and dignified prior and during the EGM. Many a times, the volunteers in white t-shirt from the old guard camp tried to calm the crowd when the volume and jeering heightened. Emotions ran high and there were many who were already pissed off with the reported events that happened prior to the EGM, notably, Thio’s statements. We are afterall human beings, not robots.

Jaunty Jabber on Wed, 6th May 2009 8:44 am 

I think most of the comments about the much disgusted jeering crowd was referring to the “supporters of the old guards”, not the “old exco” themselves.

Robox on Wed, 6th May 2009 10:27 am 

To everyone who shares the PAP’s pathological fixation for perfect, no-hair-out-of-place behaviour, you may wish to read Yawning Bread’s take on the EGM:

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1018.htm

Ordinary Citizen on Thu, 7th May 2009 7:27 am 

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_373271.html

May 7, 2009
Volunteer tells why Aware’s EGM turned raucous
I READ Ms Sumiko Tan’s article on Tuesday, ‘More losers than winners’, with dismay. There were some 3,000 people present last Saturday at the extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Emotions were charged, people came to correct what they thought was a grave injustice to the core principles of Aware, they came to stand up for what they believed in, they came to speak up.

If Ms Tan expected 3,000 people in these emotionally strenuous conditions to sit like sheep and make polite conversation, then obviously she had not thought through the gravity or extent of the event.

I was one of the volunteers for the old guard and my duties included keeping peace in the hall. As volunteers, we were prepped for these conditions and we braced ourselves for extreme ugliness. There was none. There was no violence and considering what we had to put up with, I think the crowd was very well-behaved.

In fact, everything was relatively quiet until Ms Josie Lau’s team started to switch off the microphones on the floor at the start of the meeting to silence the crowd. When one is trying to speak up in a hall as cavernous as the one in Suntec City with no microphone, one is left with little choice but to shout to be heard. Even the new guard’s legal counsel, Mr Gregory Vijayendran, advised that the microphones be left on as this was normal procedure at an EGM.

Ms Lau’s team’s actions set the tone for the EGM, the crowd did not. This ‘unbecoming behaviour’, which Ms Tan described as ‘disquieting and disgusting’, was not ‘bitchiness’ as she claimed. This was passion, which Ms Lau’s supporters did not have, made clear by the fact that most of them left after voting, without even caring about the outcome.

We protested when Mr Siew Kum Hong was told to go and sit with the men at the sidelines. There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates segregation of sexes at an EGM. Furthermore, Mr Siew was acting as legal counsel for the old guard, so he had every right to sit with them.

We protested when Ms Lau started making her president’s address; we had not come to listen to her speech. This was not an ordinary meeting, this was a meeting requisitioned for by 160 Aware members to submit our vote of no confidence in Ms Lau’s exco. Ms Lau proceeded with her speech eventually and we protested again when she brought up a slide that showed the achievements of Aware in the past 24 years, none of which she or her team was responsible for.

We protested when Ms Lau tried to credit the spike in membership from January to last month to her new exco. The spike in membership had nothing to do with the work of her new exco, they had not done any.

We protested when Ms Sally Ang shouted the now infamous ’shut up and sit down’ line into the microphone. We were treated like primary school children from the start and we were not about to allow that to happen.

We protested when Dr Thio Su Mien hijacked the microphone from people who had queued for up to an hour and a half for their chance to speak.

We protested when she started to boast of her credentials and why she deserved the self-named title of ‘Feminist Mentor’. This was the woman who had admitted that she was the driving force behind the March 28 takeover of Aware.

We protested when she demanded that we respect our elders; as a member of the meeting so rightly called out, respect has to be earned.

We protested when it was revealed that $90,000 had been spent by Ms Lau’s team in the past month, a staggering figure that made many of us gasp in shock.

As a volunteer peacekeeper, I found certain times very trying myself, such as when a male supporter of Ms Lau’s team twice referred to the crowd as ‘the congregation’. We were not a congregation, but we were certainly expected by Ms Lau’s team to behave like one.

Pamela Oei (Ms)