It could well be that they haven't done so because it is against the law to do so.
-
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.
Josie Minus her Pussycats Tonight 10pm on CNA interview with Balji & Debbie Soon
- Thread starter Porfirio Rubirosa
- Start date
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...
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.
Well, it looks like a lot of the broohahaas are coming from the gay community.
A good gay is a castrated gay!
A bunch of retards trying to ambush a women's association! That speaks volumes of these bunch of people.
You siow ah? The old AWARE only had 200+ members after all these years. and the article calls them a respected bunch? What have they actually achieved? They are no different from the trade unions in sinkieland.
You really bring yourself and all women in sinkiepore down to a level that only animals tred on.
Singapore women deserve better. If the pappies and their policies can go unchecked by an association such as AWARE then obviously something is wrong.
Sinieland needs a more affirmative proactive women's association. KUDOS to the new AWARE. The old grew haggard and deserve to be replenished with new blood that truly speks for the womenfolk of sinkieland.
Why not let the democractic process play out instead...let the battle of ideas plays out...then vote on it...and then everyone act with rational maturity and learn to live with the outcome...while still continuing to fight your corner for the next round of elections/vote.
Please continue to post whatever views you may have...better to see you in here than the resident forum pest and the motley gang that he invariably attracts infect interesting threads like this one with their viral childish rubbish which spoils it for everyone else
Dear Porifirio
A Contest of ideas should be played out in the context of a vibrant civil society space, a liberal pro equality, pro abortion, pro sex education AWARE and 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
A Contest of ideas should be played out in the context of a vibrant civil society space, a liberal pro equality, pro abortion, pro sex education AWARE and 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
according to josie, she was elected through "democratic" process. then again according to chee, "he isn't interested getting elected until there is 'Democracy'..."
the difference here is the former had gone through the process of voting and got herself elected while the latter being a sore loser blamed voters for not electing him.
the difference here is the former had gone through the process of voting and got herself elected while the latter being a sore loser blamed voters for not electing him.
Random Thoughts Of A Free Thinker
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.
To me ultimately, it should really boil 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.
I suggest you go read the editorial again
Anyone that suggests that ST is a good unbiased read needs to have teir head checked. It's a bloody propaganda machine and they've admitted so.
What more do you want them to say to you? You siow ah?
While some of what Jacob says is accurate, especially to those who lambast blindly about religion, the fact remains that the reasons why the brouhaha over this AWARE issue is simply because of the nature of the power grab, and the hidden agenda.
And it is these two things, that led to the inclusion of religion as a dominating theme. Right now, religion is a pre-supposition, because it seems the most logical conclusion to draw (not proven yet).
However, just because it's religion does not mean we must back away from talking about it in a fair and measured way. Mold the steel while it is hot and melted, because it is going to be helluva lot harder when it's cold and solid, if you get my drift.
Dear Porifirio
But alas some basic tenets of gender equality run against the very basic values of the christian right. For example a basic fundamental aspect of gender equality is that women have the right to decide on ok issues of their own sexuality but more than that above and beyond that, the basic issue of the right to chose and decide on sexual reproductive protection health and methods.
Can u imagine the "moral xtian right" supporting that ? Please see the abstinence versus condom debate. Equality at work is possibly something that Josie bin Ladin should be able to support but I hardly feel that she would support AWARE in lobbying for greater rights for single mothers, single women etc in that area, perhaps equal pay for married women, and greater rights for women with kids are something both sides of the liberal and conservative divide can agree on, but feminist have always been concerned about the greater issues.
Locke
But alas some basic tenets of gender equality run against the very basic values of the christian right. For example a basic fundamental aspect of gender equality is that women have the right to decide on ok issues of their own sexuality but more than that above and beyond that, the basic issue of the right to chose and decide on sexual reproductive protection health and methods.
Can u imagine the "moral xtian right" supporting that ? Please see the abstinence versus condom debate. Equality at work is possibly something that Josie bin Ladin should be able to support but I hardly feel that she would support AWARE in lobbying for greater rights for single mothers, single women etc in that area, perhaps equal pay for married women, and greater rights for women with kids are something both sides of the liberal and conservative divide can agree on, but feminist have always been concerned about the greater issues.
Locke
No, there's nothing wrong with Christian women joining AWARE on their own accord. But joining on others' urging is a different matter. A sudden influx of Christian women turning up at the EGM is unlikely unless church machinery is used (like pastors speaking in church, emails being sent out, etc). But religious organisations here are prohibited from meddling in politics (however that is construed). So I was just wondering if there was such evidence to be collected. And that would put them in the doghouse.
But you're right, in the final analysis, it's about whether it all actually manifests in intentions and changes being wrought to AWARE services. I think there's already evidence of this in the new President talking about pro-family values, and saying in an interview, that her team would need to review the issue of whether to support a woman who was being discriminated for her sexuality. AWARE is not a gay organization but it is against all forms of discrimination against women (and that includes sexuality discrimination). So the President's statement already signals a change in foundational values of welcoming and serving ALL women. Plus, she axed the chair of the CEDAW sub-committee.
I'm planning to be there.
Methinks it unwise to bring the battle to the church, for they number 4,000 strong (and generally an antagonistic lot, from my experience with Christians). Unless this was 300 and all you need to defend is a narrow pass (not to mention have buff abs), then yes, but the old guard should focus the fight on the immediate 'enemies' for now.
I'm angling towards your point of view also, that the subversion is already apparent in the dialogue of the new ExCo - depends on how closely one looks. Homosexuality aside (since many are accusing naysayers of focusing on that one topic), these are the other topics that possibly could be under AWARE's umbrella that I am concerned about :
1. The teaching of intelligent design vs evolution
2. Abortion rights
3. Euthanasia rights
4. Abstainance vs Safe Sex in young people
5. Promotion of conservative interpretation of religious texts
6. The lack of science-focused women in the organization (scientists are overwhelmingly atheistic)
7. The teaching that the universe revolves around Earth
Okay the last one was a bad joke - but because Galileo challenged a Christian majority (and lost), he was put under house arrest and died under sad circumstances. If a religious majority takes hold of AWARE, they might do something equally drastic to challengers too, like force cheap China rouge and foundation upon them or something.
Don't plan, be there.
Now we got you, a lady (I suppose from your nick there), which of you brave gentlemen will venture to go too as gallant escorts? Or would you all prefer to snipe from afar?And someone be a sweet, get the beer and deckchairs will ya, mate?
Last edited:
You have raised some interesting points here no doubt...however I am not so sure that you are correct on the highlighted one though...now back to the polarising issues, again I say why not let both parties have their say and then take it to a vote?
Similar threads
