Loading ...
Say NO to internet regulation in Singapore.
Daily SG: 24 Apr 2009
Posted by singaporedaily on April 24th, 2009
Takeover of AWARE
- STOMP: AWARE - The Hidden Hand
- Trevvy Forums: Aware - The Hidden Hand
- Mathia Lee: They came for me
- TOC: Thio Su Mien comes out
- Sgpolitics: Misinformation spread by AWARE’s new Exco is deserving of the sternest rebuke
- Simply Jean: Reason for AWARE coup: group was becoming pro-lesbianism
- Sam’s Thoughts: More (secret) rallies to support or save Aware
- Unbranded Bread n Butter: Are you AWARE email is Evil? [Thanks auntie]
- SingapuraKini: Anonymous email in supporting AWARE [Thanks Singapura kini]
- ThangDynasty: A Greater AWAREness [Thanks Pat]
- Alice Cheong in Wonderland: AWARE saga: Too many questions left unanswered
- The Wayang Party: Why even Jesus would agree religion has no place in the public square of civil society
- ST Discussion Board: New exco tells of death threats
- HWZ: THIO SU MIEN - Behind AWARE takeover
- The Kent Ridge Common: Notice: Join AWARE and Vote
- Used Brains For Sale: Save AWARE! Gender equality for all!
- Singabloodypore: Singapore’s LGBT community plans ‘pink dot’ event
Reading about Thio Su Mien and her apparent behind-the-scenes masterminding of the AWARE hostile takeover (see the STOMP and Trevvy Forum threads), I am reminded of Gundam 00’s Ribbons Almark, the secretive Innovators and the brutal A-Laws. We all want to change the world. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is who has the right of way, and how do we account for the collateral damage?
Public Order Bill
- ed’sperience: Singapore : quelling dissent. The Minister, the Match and the Idiot
- Jacob’s Weblog: Further restrictions on rights in Singapore - Amnesty International
Recession
- Blowin’ In The Wind: Singapore 10% GDP drop, 7.5% unemployment likely: IMF report
Pink Issues
- The Kent Ridge Common: The science that religious figureheads and associates are unaware of
Life After Harry
- Seelan Palay’s Blog: Baby gloom haunts Lee & Why LKY should play SimCity
Daily Discourse
- The Wayang Party: Questions for Justice Choo Han Teck in the sentencing of Shin Min [Thanks Alex]
- The Kent Ridge Common: The issues involving the separation of conjoined twins
Life, the universe and everything
- Yesterday….Today….Tomorrow: Beginnings at Telok Ayer
- Cooler Insights: Can We Truly Market the Arts?
Infoblogaramous
- Otterman speaks..: Draft Singapore Blue Plan released for feedback
April 24th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Dear everyone,
I wonder why the supporters of the old exco seems to be those who uses dishonorable methods like boycotting the bank, votes buying, their voices online are also more unkind as well as the loudest, latest news even reveal that they actually sent death threats to the new exco?
What kind of members were there in the old exco to have this kind of supporters?
Next, I discovered that someone is very angry with me but in a dilenma of don’t know what to do with me thus have come out with a very lame act. This person decided to impersonal me by leaving comments on the cyberspace, the fake Jaunty Jabber said:
“I am a fat stupid person…..jaunty jabber”
Obviously the person who dislike me must be a supporter of the old exco.
Once again I have to ask: What kind of members they are in the old exco to attract that caliber of supporters? Or the old exco discriminate fat women whom they may deemed to be not as intelligent enough?
April 25th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I think you are making huge assumptions as to the people who “support” the old guard. There are cranks everywhere and whoever is impersonating you must be someone who is very free and has some mental issues. That does not however indicate the type of people who “support” the old guard. Just like how there are people who want to “reform Syariah laws” in the new guard itself. (You can find this quote in The New Paper)
The new exco are all chinese and christian, from the same church. I think it should be obvious to you that the supporters of the old guard will be from all walks of life, of all ethnic groups and of all religions. Yes, there are Christians who also disagree with the new guard.
Also on another point, how is boycotting dishonourable? To boycott something is to take individual action yourself. If you suggest a boycott to other people, and they choose to take it up, it is their own free choice to do so. There is nothing dishonourable at all about taking voluntary actions, and suggesting it to others, in an open and honest manner.
On the other hand, coercing others to follow your own beliefs is quite another altogether…
April 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Han,
The person who cares to impersonate me is certainly someone who can’t managed to get something better to do - this I agree with you, you are so right over here. But why I say that this person is one of the supporters of the old guards, that is because this impersonated comment appear right after my comments which I have indicated my personal displeasure over the votes buying & bank boycotting actions of the old guards. This nothing-better-to-do person impersonated me because he/she do not like what she saw in my comment, this person is unhappy that I said something negative about the old guard.
Boycotting a bank is not dishonorable by itself. So how it has become dishonorable now? That is because the bank has no part in helping the new exco to takeover AWARE. The bank just happened to be the employer of the new AWARE president. The people who boycott the bank are using the boycott as a tool to pressurize the bank to deal with Josie. It is not a case of bank-consumers unhappy with the service of the bank and hence decided to boycott it. They are boycotting it because they want to make things difficult for someone they opposed to. Making use of situation. Understand?
Han, wish u a nice weekend.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Jaunty Jabber,
Hello. Here is what you said:
“The people who boycott the bank are using the boycott as a tool to pressurize the bank to deal with Josie. It is not a case of bank-consumers unhappy with the service of the bank and hence decided to boycott it. They are boycotting it because they want to make things difficult for someone they opposed to. Making use of situation. Understand?”
I’m sorry but that’s a pretty fail explanation. Here’s why: Think of all the environmentlists who boycott oil companies, or people who boycott shoemakers for allegedly employing child labour. Do you think that their causes are any less legit? They sure aren’t boycotting the products because they think that the oil is of poor quality or that the shoes are faulty. They are boycotting for reasons other than the product, but no less important to society.
In this case, what is important for society is not to let lying prevaricating religious fundamentalists take over organisations as a cloak for their extremist agendas.
If you think boycotting a bank to deal with religious fundamentalists is illegitimate, then surely you must also think that boycotting oil companies for global warming and Nike for employing child labour is also illegitimate.
Good day.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Han,
Boycotting for a good cause is okay. Like the examples you have given.
It is dishonorable to boycott a bank when the bank did you no wrong and you are boycotting to achieve your personal aim to push Josie out of presidency. If you think it is correct to boycott the bank for this purpose, you are saying that it is “wrong” for Josie to be AWARE’s new president - then what make it so wrong?
Next, are you putting words into the mouths of the new exco that they are going to impose their religion beliefs to steer AWARE from now on? Have they already said so or it is solely your own assumption? Even if their personal stance is anti-homosexual that doesn’t mean they cannot stay secular when they wear the AWARE hats.
Also, if all your assumptions is correct and the new exco consist of all the wrong person for AWARE, then why not give them a chance to prove your right? Why have to support all the dishonorable act just to oust them out? Is there no more chance to re-elect at the next AGM? Is there not the old members themselves to blame for not attending the previous AGM? When you are not there to do your part, you missed to achieve something due to your own absence, then you blame people for not giving you the something which you wanted? And, the people did bot prevent your presence but you still want to blame them?
Han, Han, you are really interesting.
April 25th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
what if part of the consideration involved the minibonds saga.
April 25th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Dear Jaunty Jabber,
Of course they have not said that they will impose their religious beliefs upon AWARE. They’d have to be quite mentally deficient to do so. However let us examine what we know so far:
1. The new exco are all from the same church.
2. Their “mentor” is Thio Su Mien, also from the same church.
3. They fired the manager of the center and hired a new person, also from the same church.
4. They are all chinese, all christian, and all from the same church.
5. They have openly said that they are anti-lesbian and anti-gay.
6. If you look at the following link :http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,199936,00.html?
Note what the reporters heard:” Ms Ong mumbled something about changing Syariah law”
Now, even though she was quickly interrupted by another member of the exco, this slip of the tongue is pretty much a giveaway.
I think there is no need to put any words in their mouths. Look at the above evidence and you can pretty much come to a conclusion what they really are.
April 25th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Hi Han
I like the way you speak (writes) now, sounds more like a discussion and more friendly, thank you.
What the old & new exco did, doing and going to do shall be for us to see and for all to judge. I do not take sides but when I come to know of something that is not right, I shall care to voice out my displeasure, we thank Singapore Daily and some other websites for providing such a panel.
Members’ behaviour and conduct will affect the organization. If I see a contradiction of personal doing of any AWARE member that is against that the organization advocates. I would feel that the member need to be removed in order not to contaminate the organization and the rest of the team members. If AWARE was setup to protect woman’s welfare, well-being and rights, then why would it allow its member to do things that hurt woman, insult woman, bully woman? For this part, the old team disappoint me.
April 25th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Hi all,
I think the old exco is behaving in a hypocritical way:
1. They say that the new exco comprises many members who recently joined AWARE, and uses this against them. But if this is wrong, then how is it right for many new members to join group to get rid of the new exco. Isn’t this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
2. They say that members of the new exco should have approached the old exco to discuss internally what they find wrong about the way things are done. But it was members of the old exco who first spoke to the media and brought the whole matter into the media limelight. Shouldn’t they have practised what they preached and resolved the matter internally instead of outing to the media about their internal disagreements, and trying to force the hand of the new exco?
If anyone is to be blamed for ruining the reputation of AWARE, it has to be the person who first brought this matter to the media instead of trying to resolve it internally.
April 26th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Will anyone agree to let a trainer from AWARE for sex education to go to the schools & libraries to give talks to the young, telling them that being faithful in a relationship is a fallacy? As the trainer emphasized that being faithful do not protect one from getting HIV/STD, however using a simple protection (condoms) is more reliable than being faithful?
How would the teenagers react if they found out that their sex education trainer depends on the use condoms to prevent HIV & STD RATHER THAN to protect oneself based on basic human moral & ethic? Will parents respect AWARE if this is the case?
It is a let down that the old AWARE contain such a member.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:03 am
@ Catholic Writer:
“But it was members of the old exco who first spoke to the media and brought the whole matter into the media limelight. Shouldn’t they have practised what they preached and resolved the matter internally instead of outing to the media about their internal disagreements, and trying to force the hand of the new exco?”
The Old Exco tried resolving things internally, but all their words were ignored. This was highlighted by both Claire Nazir and Constance as the reasons why they tendered their resignation. This was also highlighted by Caris Lim when she walked out, after being continuously ignored. Chew I-jin was also left out of the press conference, despite her attempts to engage internally. The Old Exco hence, had no choice but bring the matter before the public, because there was no way to engage internally after being ignored again and again. On the other hand, for 25 years, AWARE has been listening to diverse voices, and allowing diverse voices in the organisation to debate , discuss and come to a consensus.
Do you think that a single Old Exco has been in power for 25 years? No! There has been a lot of new blood, obviously, to sustain so long. Why hasn’t there been any problems? Why only now? Think about that. Is the problem with the Old Exco? Or Josie and company?
@Jaunty Jabber
“condoms to prevent HIV & STD RATHER THAN to protect oneself based on basic human moral & ethic”
AWARE has always been committed to remaining a secular organisation. Sexuality Education classes deal with sexual HEALTH — we believe it is NOT the roles of educators to preach about morality. The Chuch can preach morality — that’s their role and function — but it should not spill over to secular space.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Nobody says AWARE should preach about morality. The minimum request is not for any member of the old AWARE to try to challenge morality and using liberalism as an excuse.