AWARE -- The Plot Thickens...
As most of you all should already know by now, some members ("some" since it would appear that the "old guard" members were not represented) of the new executive committee (exco) of AWARE held a press conference last night to divulge their intentions behind their "agressive takeover" of AWARE. They also revealed at the conference that they have supposedly been receiving death threats. Also, it was revealed that Dr. Thio Su Mien, who was termed as being the "feminist mentor"(why does this sound like "Minister Mentor"?) of some of the "new guard" members of AWARE's new exco, played a considerable role behind the "aggressive takeover" of AWARE.
This press conference, while it did shed some light on the intentions of AWARE's new exco, raised new questions and failed to answer some lingering questions.
On one hand, we now know that the "aggressive takeover" of AWARE was motivated by the "new guard"'s concerns about AWARE becoming a vehicle for promoting a pro-homosexuality/pro-lesbianism stance.
However, as many observers have been asking and will most probably continue to ask: if the "new guard" was concerned about the direction/stance that AWARE was supposedly taking, why did they not just set up another organisation to compete with AWARE? Why the need to resort to a "hijacking" or "agressive takeover" of AWARE?
Similarly, while we now know that Dr. Thio Su Mien played a significant role as the "feminist mentor" of the "new guard", the question now is: how much influence would she continue to have over AWARE? In what capacity would she, a non-AWARE member (as far as I know), be exercising this influence? And if she does not have any official role within AWARE, upon what would this influence be legitimately based upon? Would she perhaps be the power behind the throne at AWARE?
In addition, while I do not condone the use of (death) threats by anyone, I must say that to cite these (death) threats as being examples of a belligerent opposition against the "new guard" of AWARE is perhaps somewhat fallacious. I say this because, in my opinion, reactions by people towards an issue would perhaps always cover a wide spectrum, ranging from those who will extremely disagree with the issue to those who will extremely agree with it. Thus, to cite examples of "extremely disagree" responses as being indicative of all the responses received would perhaps be most misleading. I mean, if a person claiming to be a supporter of the "new guard" of AWARE, using anti-homosexual slurs and invoking religious language, writes a death threat to one of AWARE's "old guard", should we take this as being indicative of all the supporters behind AWARE's "new guard"?
Also, it will seem to me that, looking only at the wording used by the person who wrote the death threat, the person may perhaps not be all that rational or sane, if not trying to incite trouble. I mean, for goodness' sake, the person claims to be a "masculine gay" and a "jihadist sleeper" who has joined a "militant group"! Furthermore, it would seem to me that while there is indeed a call for an "Operation Leper" to be initiated against the "new guard" at AWARE and the names and schools of one of the "new guard" exco member's daughters being revealed online, there is perhaps little support for the "operation" and the schooling details of the "new guard" exco member's daughters were swiftly removed after feedback that such details should not be revealed online.
To end off, I hope that AWARE's EOGM on the 2nd of May will turn out well. If it does not, perhaps a new women's organisation should be set up.
This press conference, while it did shed some light on the intentions of AWARE's new exco, raised new questions and failed to answer some lingering questions.
On one hand, we now know that the "aggressive takeover" of AWARE was motivated by the "new guard"'s concerns about AWARE becoming a vehicle for promoting a pro-homosexuality/pro-lesbianism stance.
However, as many observers have been asking and will most probably continue to ask: if the "new guard" was concerned about the direction/stance that AWARE was supposedly taking, why did they not just set up another organisation to compete with AWARE? Why the need to resort to a "hijacking" or "agressive takeover" of AWARE?
Similarly, while we now know that Dr. Thio Su Mien played a significant role as the "feminist mentor" of the "new guard", the question now is: how much influence would she continue to have over AWARE? In what capacity would she, a non-AWARE member (as far as I know), be exercising this influence? And if she does not have any official role within AWARE, upon what would this influence be legitimately based upon? Would she perhaps be the power behind the throne at AWARE?
In addition, while I do not condone the use of (death) threats by anyone, I must say that to cite these (death) threats as being examples of a belligerent opposition against the "new guard" of AWARE is perhaps somewhat fallacious. I say this because, in my opinion, reactions by people towards an issue would perhaps always cover a wide spectrum, ranging from those who will extremely disagree with the issue to those who will extremely agree with it. Thus, to cite examples of "extremely disagree" responses as being indicative of all the responses received would perhaps be most misleading. I mean, if a person claiming to be a supporter of the "new guard" of AWARE, using anti-homosexual slurs and invoking religious language, writes a death threat to one of AWARE's "old guard", should we take this as being indicative of all the supporters behind AWARE's "new guard"?
Also, it will seem to me that, looking only at the wording used by the person who wrote the death threat, the person may perhaps not be all that rational or sane, if not trying to incite trouble. I mean, for goodness' sake, the person claims to be a "masculine gay" and a "jihadist sleeper" who has joined a "militant group"! Furthermore, it would seem to me that while there is indeed a call for an "Operation Leper" to be initiated against the "new guard" at AWARE and the names and schools of one of the "new guard" exco member's daughters being revealed online, there is perhaps little support for the "operation" and the schooling details of the "new guard" exco member's daughters were swiftly removed after feedback that such details should not be revealed online.
To end off, I hope that AWARE's EOGM on the 2nd of May will turn out well. If it does not, perhaps a new women's organisation should be set up.
Posts
2 comments:
"why did they not just set up another organisation to compete with AWARE? Why the need to resort to a "hijacking" or "agressive takeover" of AWARE?"
Because that is the only way to STOP what AWARE is doing, instead of instituting their own parallel programme or NGO to compete.
They do not want to compete, they just want to remove/destroy/wipe out, period.
Would a "jihadist sleeper" expose himself so willingly? So much for the intelligence of the new exco!
Post a Comment