Just like your 3Whitetiger clone, nothing substantive. Only a scum like you can shake off the shame of being exposed as 3Whitetiger can come back and nonchalantly masturbate in front of all the members and readers here!
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Aware Ambushed & they had no clue
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
Just like your 3Whitetiger clone, nothing substantive. Only a scum like you can shake off the shame of being exposed as 3Whitetiger can come back and nonchalantly masturbate in front of all the members and readers here!
From Wayang Party's Comments
Oh Tham Eng on Mon, 20th Apr 2009 10:06 am
WHAT AWARE SHOULD BE ALL ABOUT
Thanks, Alvin, for your post and question.
Read the report on page 6 of today’s TODAY tabloid. You can get a lot of good answers to your question. It is a report of her interview by CNA on Saturday and broadcast last night at 10:10PM. I had watched it.
Classic example of a grammatically and structurally correct, and creative document that is false, misleading and michievious. Not to mention the thrill of using the word phallus and its deratives for the sake of it rather than the symbolism behind it.
In this country, they are very guarded as old man has little time for their cause but the people behind him know the votes that they carry. Both church leadershave hosted or attended sessions conducted by well known members of the biblical belt in the US. When Jim Bakker was released from Prison, the first country he visited was Singapore at the inivitation of our local lads and the session was held at the National Stadium.
Unlike the States, where religious more or less cannot be controlled, the authorities here are very different. The animal thus exhibits different overt behaviour where govt is involved.
Unlike the States, where religious more or less cannot be controlled, the authorities here are very different. The animal thus exhibits different overt behaviour where govt is involved.
Generally I cannot stomach this prick Pappy toad Paul Jacob, however I gotta to say that this article of his appears to be one of the more reasonable fair and objective takes on the AWARE saga thus far...oh except for the last imperious pappy/harry bit...LOL
Dangerous turns in domestic dispute
Both sides in Aware saga share the blame for current situation
By Paul Jacob, Deputy Political Editor
I THINK the time has come for some heads to be knocked together.
It is an old remedy to knock some sense into people who have been having a go at each other for well on three weeks now.
When people start throwing out such descriptions to involve religion and drag in the church - as if the church sent these women out on a 'crusade' - then someone is playing with fire.
What essentially started out as a domestic dispute over who is in charge of the household has spilled out into the corridors.
Family and friends have joined in the fray, an employer too, and the neighbourhood is abuzz with residents out on their balconies watching on with bemusement.
When the dust settles, as it must, those who had no clue as to what the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) stood for, and more importantly, what it has achieved since its establishment in 1985, will remember it for the wrong reasons.
By marketing this dispute to the public and being prepared to air dirty linen, the protagonists and supporters on both sides of the dispute are sullying the name of the organisation that they claim to be in the best position to represent.
The danger is that whoever emerges the 'victor' in this catfight will have alienated those who stand firmly in support of the other side. And Aware, like it or not, will be in real danger of losing its effectiveness because there will surely be a counter-group sniping at its every pronouncement.
Sadly, that appears to have already happened.
It is regrettable that the team ousted from power has been so swift to suggest that Aware, under new management, will stray from its ideological moorings.
This after digging up and citing statements that some in the new team made publicly and in their personal capacity about issues such as homosexuality.
Their supporters have further suggested that the new group is of an extremely conservative bent, that the leading women's advocacy group here has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists - and that all these will have a significant bearing on Aware's secular nature and its advocacy and programmes, some of which are carried out in schools.
I think that what is worrying, and dangerous, is that this camp has chosen to throw down and play the religious card.
It is one thing to portray a group as conservatives. In fact, if the former incumbents or their supporters need any reminding, it is that the bulk of society here is just that - conservative.
They don't make a song and dance about it, but just ask any Member of Parliament about the make-up of his or her constituency, and you will get a clear idea of just what values are prevalent in the heartlands.
Unfortunately, the label that I have heard some people apply to the new crowd at Aware is not just a simple 'conservative' tag. It is 'Christian conservative' or 'fundamentalist'.
On the Internet, there are even worse tags. Among them: 'Christian Taleban'.
I think that when people start throwing out such descriptions to involve religion and drag in the church - as if the church sent these women out on a 'crusade' (another description I have come across online) - then someone is playing with fire.
One writer asked if the Registrar of Societies should step in if it is found that the organisation is being used for 'a quasi-religious agenda'.
Religion and an alleged anti-gay agenda have become the central themes colouring this debate, taking it in a wholly new, different and potentially explosive direction.
Having said all that, I also think that it is equally regrettable that the newly elected team was slow to outline their position and to respond, when asked straight up at the annual general meeting and afterwards, just what they stood for.
Their reticence, inability or unwillingness to do so when opportunities first arose behind the closed doors of the March 28 meeting where they were elected has contributed to this state of affairs, and the predicament that Aware now finds itself in.
Like it or not, they owe it to the membership and the organisation they seek to represent.
Now, because of that inaction on their part, they need to make their positions crystal clear - or risk adding fuel to the fire that others have started.
How about us bystanders?
I believe we are also owed some form of explanation. This is because we risk being burnt by the fallout from what was essentially a domestic dispute that has escalated and may well threaten the neighbourhood.
The responsibility rests with both camps to put their house in order. And soon.
Otherwise, somebody might need to step in and knock some heads together.
[email protected]
Dangerous turns in domestic dispute
Both sides in Aware saga share the blame for current situation
By Paul Jacob, Deputy Political Editor
I THINK the time has come for some heads to be knocked together.
It is an old remedy to knock some sense into people who have been having a go at each other for well on three weeks now.
When people start throwing out such descriptions to involve religion and drag in the church - as if the church sent these women out on a 'crusade' - then someone is playing with fire.
What essentially started out as a domestic dispute over who is in charge of the household has spilled out into the corridors.
Family and friends have joined in the fray, an employer too, and the neighbourhood is abuzz with residents out on their balconies watching on with bemusement.
When the dust settles, as it must, those who had no clue as to what the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) stood for, and more importantly, what it has achieved since its establishment in 1985, will remember it for the wrong reasons.
By marketing this dispute to the public and being prepared to air dirty linen, the protagonists and supporters on both sides of the dispute are sullying the name of the organisation that they claim to be in the best position to represent.
The danger is that whoever emerges the 'victor' in this catfight will have alienated those who stand firmly in support of the other side. And Aware, like it or not, will be in real danger of losing its effectiveness because there will surely be a counter-group sniping at its every pronouncement.
Sadly, that appears to have already happened.
It is regrettable that the team ousted from power has been so swift to suggest that Aware, under new management, will stray from its ideological moorings.
This after digging up and citing statements that some in the new team made publicly and in their personal capacity about issues such as homosexuality.
Their supporters have further suggested that the new group is of an extremely conservative bent, that the leading women's advocacy group here has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists - and that all these will have a significant bearing on Aware's secular nature and its advocacy and programmes, some of which are carried out in schools.
I think that what is worrying, and dangerous, is that this camp has chosen to throw down and play the religious card.
It is one thing to portray a group as conservatives. In fact, if the former incumbents or their supporters need any reminding, it is that the bulk of society here is just that - conservative.
They don't make a song and dance about it, but just ask any Member of Parliament about the make-up of his or her constituency, and you will get a clear idea of just what values are prevalent in the heartlands.
Unfortunately, the label that I have heard some people apply to the new crowd at Aware is not just a simple 'conservative' tag. It is 'Christian conservative' or 'fundamentalist'.
On the Internet, there are even worse tags. Among them: 'Christian Taleban'.
I think that when people start throwing out such descriptions to involve religion and drag in the church - as if the church sent these women out on a 'crusade' (another description I have come across online) - then someone is playing with fire.
One writer asked if the Registrar of Societies should step in if it is found that the organisation is being used for 'a quasi-religious agenda'.
Religion and an alleged anti-gay agenda have become the central themes colouring this debate, taking it in a wholly new, different and potentially explosive direction.
Having said all that, I also think that it is equally regrettable that the newly elected team was slow to outline their position and to respond, when asked straight up at the annual general meeting and afterwards, just what they stood for.
Their reticence, inability or unwillingness to do so when opportunities first arose behind the closed doors of the March 28 meeting where they were elected has contributed to this state of affairs, and the predicament that Aware now finds itself in.
Like it or not, they owe it to the membership and the organisation they seek to represent.
Now, because of that inaction on their part, they need to make their positions crystal clear - or risk adding fuel to the fire that others have started.
How about us bystanders?
I believe we are also owed some form of explanation. This is because we risk being burnt by the fallout from what was essentially a domestic dispute that has escalated and may well threaten the neighbourhood.
The responsibility rests with both camps to put their house in order. And soon.
Otherwise, somebody might need to step in and knock some heads together.
[email protected]
Balanced Editorial in ST 21/4?
Serve Aware, not undermine it
DISTRUST between Aware's long-time members and the newly arrived leadership could undermine the standing of a respected entity in the growing civic movement. Women of either camp who state grandly that they are there to advance the cause of family, gender equity and pertinent social issues must ask themselves whether an inability to play to one another's strengths is not damaging the vehicle for their mission. All week, they have been sniping at each other.
Alarm had first spread among older members over the manner in which the group of unknowns had captured Aware's executive machinery. Nothing has transpired since the time of the elections on March 28 to dispel impressions that this had been a well planned and executed operation. What has not been explained is the new team's plans for Aware and specific goals in social policy. New activists in public-interest advocacy would be courting the media to publicise their mission to gather public support. This has not been the case. It is unhelpful to the new leadership to have its reticence give rise to conjecture and accusations.
Their objectives in taking over the organisation have been questioned by the old guard, who plainly were caught unawares by the leadership manoeuvre. The compliment was quickly returned by the new president, Ms Josie Lau, who asked them to disclose their 'motives and objectives fully and honestly'. This bit of cheekiness will not endear her to the established members. The new team will find invaluable their institutional knowledge of issues and their counsel in getting things done.
Ms Lau passed up another opportunity in a television interview on Sunday to explain her action agenda, saying the time was not yet right. The public could regard as odd such a dereliction, as the team would have sought office with defined goals in mind. The longer the newcomers keep silent, the worse will be the inferences drawn, no matter how unfair. As an example, questions are asked about the new office bearers' known Christian affiliation. By itself, this is of no concern. But any hint that a religious colouring will be attached to future Aware programmes can be injurious. Aware has been effective as it has steered well clear of religious and race considerations in campaigning for social progress.
Civil society needs people with ideas and passion, as a prod for official accountability and to assist in communitarian growth. It is actually growing well. The biodata show that Aware's new executive team comprises women of accomplishment. It would be a setback to citizen activism if as iconic a civic player as this one were to be laid low by distrust and internal warfare.
Serve Aware, not undermine it
DISTRUST between Aware's long-time members and the newly arrived leadership could undermine the standing of a respected entity in the growing civic movement. Women of either camp who state grandly that they are there to advance the cause of family, gender equity and pertinent social issues must ask themselves whether an inability to play to one another's strengths is not damaging the vehicle for their mission. All week, they have been sniping at each other.
Alarm had first spread among older members over the manner in which the group of unknowns had captured Aware's executive machinery. Nothing has transpired since the time of the elections on March 28 to dispel impressions that this had been a well planned and executed operation. What has not been explained is the new team's plans for Aware and specific goals in social policy. New activists in public-interest advocacy would be courting the media to publicise their mission to gather public support. This has not been the case. It is unhelpful to the new leadership to have its reticence give rise to conjecture and accusations.
Their objectives in taking over the organisation have been questioned by the old guard, who plainly were caught unawares by the leadership manoeuvre. The compliment was quickly returned by the new president, Ms Josie Lau, who asked them to disclose their 'motives and objectives fully and honestly'. This bit of cheekiness will not endear her to the established members. The new team will find invaluable their institutional knowledge of issues and their counsel in getting things done.
Ms Lau passed up another opportunity in a television interview on Sunday to explain her action agenda, saying the time was not yet right. The public could regard as odd such a dereliction, as the team would have sought office with defined goals in mind. The longer the newcomers keep silent, the worse will be the inferences drawn, no matter how unfair. As an example, questions are asked about the new office bearers' known Christian affiliation. By itself, this is of no concern. But any hint that a religious colouring will be attached to future Aware programmes can be injurious. Aware has been effective as it has steered well clear of religious and race considerations in campaigning for social progress.
Civil society needs people with ideas and passion, as a prod for official accountability and to assist in communitarian growth. It is actually growing well. The biodata show that Aware's new executive team comprises women of accomplishment. It would be a setback to citizen activism if as iconic a civic player as this one were to be laid low by distrust and internal warfare.
Oh yes...but I just love to take ringside seat and observe this ideological slugfest cat fight play out...as an aside though, how I wish these personalities would use their creative energies and resolve to constructively stand up for pro singapore political democractic pluralism instead:(
You should have stuck to your instincts where this prick is concerned.
No one suggested that the Church sent these people into AWARE. I don't know why Paul thinks that people suggested that. Its some people from the church and I don't know why he dragged the whole church into it.
Interesting term "catfight" to be used when he wants to be sanctimonius.
He must be deaf, dumb and blind if he thought the new team is going to stick with AWARE's orginal mission. If it walks like duck and quacks like a duck.......
Paul Jacob must be one dumb fuck to think that this is not about religion and anti-gay. I wonder why is he pushing the 'conservative" label and is trying to associate the Singapore masses who are conservative with this lot who took over AWARE. They are poles apart.
I found 2 things disturbing about Paul Jacob's article. The fact that he thinks that Singaporeans believe that the Church led the coup rather than a group of individuals from the church, and secondly he labelling them as "conservative" rather than religious and anti-gay.
I think Paul Jacob true to form is twisting and turning and making this an explosive issue when it is not. Note he used the terms "explosive", "religious card", "fundamentalist", "playing with fire", "heartlanders" etc, all poltically sensitive labels and has no place in this issue about AWARE. How the word "heartlander" appeared in this article, I have absolutely no clue.
Then again he is the Deputy Political Editor of Toa Payoh Brothel and reporting to guess who?
No one suggested that the Church sent these people into AWARE. I don't know why Paul thinks that people suggested that. Its some people from the church and I don't know why he dragged the whole church into it.
Interesting term "catfight" to be used when he wants to be sanctimonius.
He must be deaf, dumb and blind if he thought the new team is going to stick with AWARE's orginal mission. If it walks like duck and quacks like a duck.......
Paul Jacob must be one dumb fuck to think that this is not about religion and anti-gay. I wonder why is he pushing the 'conservative" label and is trying to associate the Singapore masses who are conservative with this lot who took over AWARE. They are poles apart.
I found 2 things disturbing about Paul Jacob's article. The fact that he thinks that Singaporeans believe that the Church led the coup rather than a group of individuals from the church, and secondly he labelling them as "conservative" rather than religious and anti-gay.
I think Paul Jacob true to form is twisting and turning and making this an explosive issue when it is not. Note he used the terms "explosive", "religious card", "fundamentalist", "playing with fire", "heartlanders" etc, all poltically sensitive labels and has no place in this issue about AWARE. How the word "heartlander" appeared in this article, I have absolutely no clue.
Then again he is the Deputy Political Editor of Toa Payoh Brothel and reporting to guess who?
Dear Scroobak
Dear Scrrobal
A Contest of ideas should be played out in the context of a vibrant civil society space not within the same org as the ST seems to suggest. A liberal pro equality, pro abortion, pro sex education AWARE alongside a Women Focus on Faith type org led by Josie bin Ladin, Pro family, Pro Life , Pro Abstinence etc, I have no problems with that, what I have a problem with is one section trying to take over the other whilst blithely insulting our intelligence and denying it to the core
Society benefits from a healthy active diverse civil society space. However respect for each others views and ideological leanings means that one does not take over an existing society with views contrary to one's own views in order to better push one's own agenda. That is disgusting and despicable.
That is now a call that the two camps within AWARE should compromise. What sort of crap is that ? If that bunch of Christian Women joined a Muslim Women welfare organization and staged a similar putsch, the ISD would be arresting and questioning every single one of those idiots. Certain views are so fundamentally apart that they cannot logically exist within the same organization. Pro Life and Pro Choice for example Abstinence vs Condoms etc. There is space enough within Singapore for both but not within one small org.
Locke
Dear Scrrobal
A Contest of ideas should be played out in the context of a vibrant civil society space not within the same org as the ST seems to suggest. A liberal pro equality, pro abortion, pro sex education AWARE alongside a Women Focus on Faith type org led by Josie bin Ladin, Pro family, Pro Life , Pro Abstinence etc, I have no problems with that, what I have a problem with is one section trying to take over the other whilst blithely insulting our intelligence and denying it to the core
Society benefits from a healthy active diverse civil society space. However respect for each others views and ideological leanings means that one does not take over an existing society with views contrary to one's own views in order to better push one's own agenda. That is disgusting and despicable.
That is now a call that the two camps within AWARE should compromise. What sort of crap is that ? If that bunch of Christian Women joined a Muslim Women welfare organization and staged a similar putsch, the ISD would be arresting and questioning every single one of those idiots. Certain views are so fundamentally apart that they cannot logically exist within the same organization. Pro Life and Pro Choice for example Abstinence vs Condoms etc. There is space enough within Singapore for both but not within one small org.
Locke
On second thoughts I think you may have a point here
Lots of labelling going around perhaps?
Letter criticises TOC for use of “divisive labels” in article
Sunday, 19 April 2009, 11:15 pm | 1,752 views
Dear Sir,
I refer to the report: “TOC Report: 150 call for vote of no confidence” by Choo Zheng Xi.
I write this letter in response to two objections I have about what the author of the article wrote. :
1) Christian Fundamentalism
Firstly, I object to the pigeonholing of AWARE ex-co members as “Christian Fundamentalists”, a term which the author employs in his article. After quoting a statement by Angela Thiang about her stance against homosexuals, Mr Choo then makes the logical leap (and a huge one that is) in the very next line to conclude that AWARE is now run by a group of “Christian Fundamentalists.”
I take issue with making this huge leap because (i) nowhere in the article is there suggestion or evidence that the ex-co is now Christian fundamentalist, (ii) an anti-homosexual stance does not equate to Christian fundamentalism.
True, Jenice Chua and Angela Thiang had both previously attracted attention for their anti-homosexual stance. But is that evidence of Christian fundamentalism? Is that a good ground for labelling them as such? How is the Author sure that they are Christians in the first place? And even if they are Christians, why must they be pigeonholed as being “fundamentalist” as opposed to “misguided” or “uninformed Christians” or “Christians who may not be totally familiar with Christ’s teachings as a whole.”
Attaching the “fundamentalist” label on them just results in tarring public perception of their reputation because “fundamentalist” as a term carries with it a negative connotation. A glance through some of the comments on TOC using the search function to look for the term “fundamentalist” would perhaps make this point of mine much clearer.
Mr Choo needs to be more aware of the implications of using certain terms before using them loosely as he has done.
2) Christianity and Regressiveness
The second grouse I have is Mr Choo’s quoting of the Glass Castle Magazine’s editor, Jolene, whose view is that Christian fundamentalism leads to effects that are “regressive to women’s rights.”
Firstly, I think that there must be more justification on Mr Choo’s part first to show why Christian fundamentalism leads to a regression in terms of women’s rights. Simply putting a quote there will not do. Again, we see here a large logical leap that it unjustified. It seems as though the Author has made the erroneous assumption that Christianity is against women having rights or worse, that Christianity leads to a diminution of women’s rights – both of these are untrue.
Many questions follow from his quoting of Jolene’s views:
- What is the Christian stance on women’s rights?
- Does it in the first place negatively affect women’s rights or does it promote women’s rights?
- Is Mr Choo even aware of how Christianity views the issue of women’s rights? If he does not, is he therefore justified in making such an equation between Christianity and regression of women’s rights?
One perspective that I hope Mr Choo will consider is that Christianity holds women in high regard. The Bible affirms that women are equally valued, equally treated and share the same divine image of men. Husbands are to love and honour their wives just as they love themselves. Let it also not be forgotten that the Biblical accounts of Christ’s resurrection sees women as the first ones at the empty tomb.
From this and from other articles on the TOC website, it seems to me that TOC is trying to side with the old committee of AWARE. Based on what Mr Choo wrote and based on the lack of evidence, it seems very contrived for him to try and link the new committee to anti-homosexual and “Christian fundamentalist” stances, both of which are deeply dividing terminologies.
Concluding, I wish to urge against the use of such divisive labels such as “fundamentalist” as it is unhelpful in promoting civil discourse. Even if one believes bona fide that someone is a “fundamentalist,” perhaps there are other less offensive terms that can and should be used.
Yours Sincerely,
Tang Shang Jun
—–
Editor’s note:
TOC apologizes for any offence caused by the terminology employed in the article in question and highlights that it was not our intention to criticize the Christian community as a whole.
Lots of labelling going around perhaps?Letter criticises TOC for use of “divisive labels” in article
Sunday, 19 April 2009, 11:15 pm | 1,752 views
Dear Sir,
I refer to the report: “TOC Report: 150 call for vote of no confidence” by Choo Zheng Xi.
I write this letter in response to two objections I have about what the author of the article wrote. :
1) Christian Fundamentalism
Firstly, I object to the pigeonholing of AWARE ex-co members as “Christian Fundamentalists”, a term which the author employs in his article. After quoting a statement by Angela Thiang about her stance against homosexuals, Mr Choo then makes the logical leap (and a huge one that is) in the very next line to conclude that AWARE is now run by a group of “Christian Fundamentalists.”
I take issue with making this huge leap because (i) nowhere in the article is there suggestion or evidence that the ex-co is now Christian fundamentalist, (ii) an anti-homosexual stance does not equate to Christian fundamentalism.
True, Jenice Chua and Angela Thiang had both previously attracted attention for their anti-homosexual stance. But is that evidence of Christian fundamentalism? Is that a good ground for labelling them as such? How is the Author sure that they are Christians in the first place? And even if they are Christians, why must they be pigeonholed as being “fundamentalist” as opposed to “misguided” or “uninformed Christians” or “Christians who may not be totally familiar with Christ’s teachings as a whole.”
Attaching the “fundamentalist” label on them just results in tarring public perception of their reputation because “fundamentalist” as a term carries with it a negative connotation. A glance through some of the comments on TOC using the search function to look for the term “fundamentalist” would perhaps make this point of mine much clearer.
Mr Choo needs to be more aware of the implications of using certain terms before using them loosely as he has done.
2) Christianity and Regressiveness
The second grouse I have is Mr Choo’s quoting of the Glass Castle Magazine’s editor, Jolene, whose view is that Christian fundamentalism leads to effects that are “regressive to women’s rights.”
Firstly, I think that there must be more justification on Mr Choo’s part first to show why Christian fundamentalism leads to a regression in terms of women’s rights. Simply putting a quote there will not do. Again, we see here a large logical leap that it unjustified. It seems as though the Author has made the erroneous assumption that Christianity is against women having rights or worse, that Christianity leads to a diminution of women’s rights – both of these are untrue.
Many questions follow from his quoting of Jolene’s views:
- What is the Christian stance on women’s rights?
- Does it in the first place negatively affect women’s rights or does it promote women’s rights?
- Is Mr Choo even aware of how Christianity views the issue of women’s rights? If he does not, is he therefore justified in making such an equation between Christianity and regression of women’s rights?
One perspective that I hope Mr Choo will consider is that Christianity holds women in high regard. The Bible affirms that women are equally valued, equally treated and share the same divine image of men. Husbands are to love and honour their wives just as they love themselves. Let it also not be forgotten that the Biblical accounts of Christ’s resurrection sees women as the first ones at the empty tomb.
From this and from other articles on the TOC website, it seems to me that TOC is trying to side with the old committee of AWARE. Based on what Mr Choo wrote and based on the lack of evidence, it seems very contrived for him to try and link the new committee to anti-homosexual and “Christian fundamentalist” stances, both of which are deeply dividing terminologies.
Concluding, I wish to urge against the use of such divisive labels such as “fundamentalist” as it is unhelpful in promoting civil discourse. Even if one believes bona fide that someone is a “fundamentalist,” perhaps there are other less offensive terms that can and should be used.
Yours Sincerely,
Tang Shang Jun
—–
Editor’s note:
TOC apologizes for any offence caused by the terminology employed in the article in question and highlights that it was not our intention to criticize the Christian community as a whole.
Someone who appears to agree with you perhaps
Monday, April 20, 2009
"We didn't start the fire..."
In today's edition of The Straits Times (ST), one would find on the second page of the main section an opinion piece ("Dangerous turns in domestic dispute, ST, 20/4/2009) written by Mr. Paul Jacob, Deputy Political Editor for the ST, regarding the ongoing dispute between the "old guard" and the "young Turks" within AWARE.
Fall not into the trap of "Us versus the Christians"
In all fairness, I must confess that I do agree with some of the sentiments expressed by Mr. Paul in his opinion piece.
Well, I do agree with him that this ongoing dispute within AWARE will, if it is not settled amicably soon, have a considerable negative impact on the organisation's reputation, that is if this negative impact has not already manifested. If damage has already been done to AWARE's reputation, I suppose an Odyssean dispute will only make things worse.
Also, I too find it somewhat unhealthy and unhelpful that this ongoing dispute within AWARE has perhaps been increasingly conceptualised as a struggle between liberal secularists and conservative Christians. With regards to this, I must clarify that while some of my blog posts here may have been critical of some aspects of Christianity, I am not anti-Christian per se; in fact, I have several friends who happens to be Christians and who I get along well with, notwithstanding our differences in religious beliefs. [Note: As such, I was somewhat hesitant to allow certain comments on this blog that may be construed as being anti-Christian but recognising that they were not "seditious", I ultimately allowed them]
As Mr. Sam Ho succinctly puts it:
"Be pro-diversity, not anti-Christian Fundamentalist.
Do not play the same game of polarisation that others are playing. If they blow up their side of the bridge, you are not obliged to blow up your side. If you do so, you are no different from them. (ironically, "us" and "them" already imply polarisation)".
And as Mrs. Constance Singam, a former president of AWARE, said in an interview with the ST ("Constance Singam quits as Aware adviser", ST, 19/4/2009), "I am not at all happy where this is going. This is not a gay versus Christian debate".
"J'accuse!"
However, I nevertheless found some of the other sentiments expressed by Mr. Jacob in his opinion piece rather perplexing, if not hypocritical.
For one thing, it would seem to me that Mr. Jacob, in his opinion piece, is blaming the two feuding camps within AWARE and their [online] supporters for "marketing this dispute to the public and being prepared to air dirty linen", thereby "sullying the name" of AWARE.
He also expressed concern, if not annoyance, at how AWARE's "old guard" and their online supporters have perhaps "involve religion and drag in the church" into the ongoing dispute. Similarly, Mr. Jacob appears to fault the same people for "digging up and citing statements that some in the new team made publicly and in their private capacity about issues such as homosexuality".
Who started the fire: The ST or the bloggers?
Hmm... In light of the above, I cannot help but wonder if Mr. Jacob has been reading the reports and articles that the newspaper he works for has been publishing about this ongoing dispute regarding AWARE. Correct me if I am wrong but it would seem to me that the ST itself have also partaken in the transgressions that Mr. Jacob is expressing his concern/annoyance about!
In fact, I would contend that the ST has played a major role in publicising this ongoing dispute (or as Mr. Jacob puts it, "marketing this dispute to the public") within AWARE and portraying the new executive committee (exco) of AWARE as being Christian conservatives.
I mean, it would seem to me that it was the ST which first provided the spark to this saga with its first report ("Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls", ST, 10/4/2009) on this ongoing dispute. It should be noted that this was also the article that first implicitly portrayed members of AWARE's new exco as being conservative Christians who are anti-homosexual through, to borrow Mr. Jacob's words, "digging up and citing statements that some in the new team made publicly and in their private capacity about issues such as homosexuality".
[As the song goes: "It only takes a spark to get the fire going..."]
Adding fuel to the fire
The ST then perhaps added fuel to the fire with its subsequent reports that repeatedly and consistently made references to the Christian and anti-homosexual affiliations of members of AWARE's new exco. It even had a special feature last Saturday (18/4/2009) which explicitly mentioned, albeit briefly, the Christian background of some members of the new exco.
Also, the same special feature had an article that explicitly mentioned how some of the members of the new exco have linkages with a mother-daughter pair of conservative evangelical Christians and are members of a particular local church which has expressed a strong anti-homosexual stance in the past (and, if I am not wrong, continues to do so).
And, interestingly enough, it was as though the ST was concerned that readers will not know which Christian denomination this particular church belongs to and where it is located, in light of how the abovementioned article explicitly mentions these details.
Hence, considering the above, it would seem rather hypocritical and unfair for Mr. Jacob to place all the blame onto the "old guard" of AWARE and their online supporters and to perhaps adopt a "holier-than-thou" stance/tone. This is considering that the online discussion about the ongoing dispute within AWARE is perhaps largely feeding on the spark and fuel that the ST has provided.
A hint at possible government intervention?
Finally, I also raised my eyebrows (figuratively speaking) at the final two statements made by Mr. Jacob in his opinion piece.
These two statements were:
"The responsibility rests with both camps [within AWARE] to put their house in order. And soon.
Otherwise, somebody might need to step in and knock some heads together."
Hmm... Perhaps I am reading too much into these statements by Mr. Jacob but it would appear to me that, with these two statements, he seems to be implicitly suggesting that it may be necessary for an external actor/agency, possibly the government, to step in to intervene in the ongoing dispute that AWARE is embroiled in.
While I understand where Mr. Jacob is coming from with this sentiment of his, I would however be hesitant towards having external/government(?) intervention in what is essentially a civil society dispute. There may be some weed amongst the grass but this does not mean that the gardener or banyan tree should try to intervene.
Monday, April 20, 2009
"We didn't start the fire..."
In today's edition of The Straits Times (ST), one would find on the second page of the main section an opinion piece ("Dangerous turns in domestic dispute, ST, 20/4/2009) written by Mr. Paul Jacob, Deputy Political Editor for the ST, regarding the ongoing dispute between the "old guard" and the "young Turks" within AWARE.
Fall not into the trap of "Us versus the Christians"
In all fairness, I must confess that I do agree with some of the sentiments expressed by Mr. Paul in his opinion piece.
Well, I do agree with him that this ongoing dispute within AWARE will, if it is not settled amicably soon, have a considerable negative impact on the organisation's reputation, that is if this negative impact has not already manifested. If damage has already been done to AWARE's reputation, I suppose an Odyssean dispute will only make things worse.
Also, I too find it somewhat unhealthy and unhelpful that this ongoing dispute within AWARE has perhaps been increasingly conceptualised as a struggle between liberal secularists and conservative Christians. With regards to this, I must clarify that while some of my blog posts here may have been critical of some aspects of Christianity, I am not anti-Christian per se; in fact, I have several friends who happens to be Christians and who I get along well with, notwithstanding our differences in religious beliefs. [Note: As such, I was somewhat hesitant to allow certain comments on this blog that may be construed as being anti-Christian but recognising that they were not "seditious", I ultimately allowed them]
As Mr. Sam Ho succinctly puts it:
"Be pro-diversity, not anti-Christian Fundamentalist.
Do not play the same game of polarisation that others are playing. If they blow up their side of the bridge, you are not obliged to blow up your side. If you do so, you are no different from them. (ironically, "us" and "them" already imply polarisation)".
And as Mrs. Constance Singam, a former president of AWARE, said in an interview with the ST ("Constance Singam quits as Aware adviser", ST, 19/4/2009), "I am not at all happy where this is going. This is not a gay versus Christian debate".
"J'accuse!"
However, I nevertheless found some of the other sentiments expressed by Mr. Jacob in his opinion piece rather perplexing, if not hypocritical.
For one thing, it would seem to me that Mr. Jacob, in his opinion piece, is blaming the two feuding camps within AWARE and their [online] supporters for "marketing this dispute to the public and being prepared to air dirty linen", thereby "sullying the name" of AWARE.
He also expressed concern, if not annoyance, at how AWARE's "old guard" and their online supporters have perhaps "involve religion and drag in the church" into the ongoing dispute. Similarly, Mr. Jacob appears to fault the same people for "digging up and citing statements that some in the new team made publicly and in their private capacity about issues such as homosexuality".
Who started the fire: The ST or the bloggers?
Hmm... In light of the above, I cannot help but wonder if Mr. Jacob has been reading the reports and articles that the newspaper he works for has been publishing about this ongoing dispute regarding AWARE. Correct me if I am wrong but it would seem to me that the ST itself have also partaken in the transgressions that Mr. Jacob is expressing his concern/annoyance about!
In fact, I would contend that the ST has played a major role in publicising this ongoing dispute (or as Mr. Jacob puts it, "marketing this dispute to the public") within AWARE and portraying the new executive committee (exco) of AWARE as being Christian conservatives.
I mean, it would seem to me that it was the ST which first provided the spark to this saga with its first report ("Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls", ST, 10/4/2009) on this ongoing dispute. It should be noted that this was also the article that first implicitly portrayed members of AWARE's new exco as being conservative Christians who are anti-homosexual through, to borrow Mr. Jacob's words, "digging up and citing statements that some in the new team made publicly and in their private capacity about issues such as homosexuality".
[As the song goes: "It only takes a spark to get the fire going..."]
Adding fuel to the fire
The ST then perhaps added fuel to the fire with its subsequent reports that repeatedly and consistently made references to the Christian and anti-homosexual affiliations of members of AWARE's new exco. It even had a special feature last Saturday (18/4/2009) which explicitly mentioned, albeit briefly, the Christian background of some members of the new exco.
Also, the same special feature had an article that explicitly mentioned how some of the members of the new exco have linkages with a mother-daughter pair of conservative evangelical Christians and are members of a particular local church which has expressed a strong anti-homosexual stance in the past (and, if I am not wrong, continues to do so).
And, interestingly enough, it was as though the ST was concerned that readers will not know which Christian denomination this particular church belongs to and where it is located, in light of how the abovementioned article explicitly mentions these details.
Hence, considering the above, it would seem rather hypocritical and unfair for Mr. Jacob to place all the blame onto the "old guard" of AWARE and their online supporters and to perhaps adopt a "holier-than-thou" stance/tone. This is considering that the online discussion about the ongoing dispute within AWARE is perhaps largely feeding on the spark and fuel that the ST has provided.
A hint at possible government intervention?
Finally, I also raised my eyebrows (figuratively speaking) at the final two statements made by Mr. Jacob in his opinion piece.
These two statements were:
"The responsibility rests with both camps [within AWARE] to put their house in order. And soon.
Otherwise, somebody might need to step in and knock some heads together."
Hmm... Perhaps I am reading too much into these statements by Mr. Jacob but it would appear to me that, with these two statements, he seems to be implicitly suggesting that it may be necessary for an external actor/agency, possibly the government, to step in to intervene in the ongoing dispute that AWARE is embroiled in.
While I understand where Mr. Jacob is coming from with this sentiment of his, I would however be hesitant towards having external/government(?) intervention in what is essentially a civil society dispute. There may be some weed amongst the grass but this does not mean that the gardener or banyan tree should try to intervene.
Ultimately, it really boils down to gender equality, and I hope that gender equality will be the focus of the debate, rather than focusing on the religion or sexuality.
Last edited:
Someone who appears to agree with you perhaps
Monday, April 20, 2009
"We didn't start the fire..."
While I understand where Mr. Jacob is coming from with this sentiment of his, I would however be hesitant towards having external/government(?) intervention in what is essentially a civil society dispute. There may be some weed amongst the grass but this does not mean that the gardener or banyan tree should try to intervene.
Spot on. I still have no idea why he was making a mountain out of a molehill and the heavy slant on chaos, religious card, church, explosive and on and on.
Yes, yes, yes, yes. That is exactly what this should be about. Thanks for reminding us.
Agree with you especially your para which is pertinent.
No wonder the Toa Payoh brothel has strumpets when good insightfull comments seem to come from elsewhere.
No wonder the Toa Payoh brothel has strumpets when good insightfull comments seem to come from elsewhere.
Paps sending out an unsubtle 'coded' message to any other 'mischief' makers with 'bright' ideas perhaps?
I think we are looking at inference (wrongly) at work by an overzealous and ambitious journalist. After the marxist episode with the Catholic Church and old man's clear signal, this guy decided to bring in another Church so that he can bring in the national security cloak and throw out adjectives and rhetoric associated with chaos and disorder.
No matter how you look at it, whether you are with Connie or Josie or even a neutral party, that piece of journalism has no bearing, relevance or place in the AWARE discussion. Its basically a bun fight involving a couple of people on both sides. It does not even involve fraud or any form of criminal activity.
Paul Jacob has no excuse having being a journalist (I am being kind calling him a journalist) for donkey years. Even his boss Chua Lee Hoong whose love of the ruling regime is a registered patent does not resort to this artform where 2 cups of coffee suddenly becomes WMD on wheels.
I decided to trawl the web hoping to see if there were suggestion or insinuation that the particualr Anglican Church was behind this and except for Paul Jacob suggesting that it came from the Internet, there was none. What is obvious is that people associated with the Church have banded together and hijacked what they thought was a convenient vehicle whose owners and drivers can be best described as a complacent and found sleeping at the wheel.
This donkey needs to find a quiet room, spend 30 minutes meditating and then take out a white piece of paper and map out the personalities involved in this incident and then try and figure how the term heartlander entered his article. Even in the worst case scenario, there is no way this can lead to any where close to what he suggests.
Patrick Daniel needs to have a chat with this fellow and address his obvious anxiety over his career path. At the very least a warning letter should be in the works.
Ouch...recently found out that Warren left ST to join Shell...perhaps Paulie trying to get more attention now
Similar threads
