AWARE EGM: Sign up, Turn up, Be counted on the 2nd of May

For those of you all who are reading this blog, are female and are supporters of a more inclusive AWARE, do sign up for and turn up at AWARE's upcoming EGM on the 2nd of May 2009. The details of the EGM are as follow:

Where: Suntec City Convention Centre, Hall 402

When: Registrations starts at 1200h while the actual EGM will begin at 1400h on the 2nd of May 2009

Note:There was a change in the venue for the EGM which the video above did not reflect. While this blog will try to make updates if any more changes are made, it will be best if you all refer to the website below for up-to-date notifications.

For more details, please refer to the Save AWARE website.

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.

Earth Day 2009

You all may or may not be aware of this but today, 22nd April, is Earth Day.

On that note, there are many things we all can do, without going to extremes, to help protect the Earth from further environmental degradation. Singularly, what we each do as individuals may perhaps not achieve anything. But, collectively or cumulatively, the little things we do will add up.

One example of these little things which all of us easily do would be to sign this online petition to urge world leaders to personally attend and take seriously the UN Climate Summit at the end of this year (note: I got wind of this petition through a friend of mine).

In the end, if everybody thinks that somebody else will do something about the environment, nobody will do anything. As Mahatma Gandhi puts it, "We must be the change we wish to see".

"Every day is Earth Day" -- Anonymous

"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.

P.S.

For those of you all who may find the various in-text citations in this post somewhat distracting, I apologise. I have rushing two academic essays in recent days (even though it is supposed to be already "reading week" and students should be given time to prepare for their upcoming exams) and I guess I am still caught in the "must-properly-cite-everything-I-made-reference-to" mode. I would also have used the Chicago style of citation/referencing but in-text citations was more convenient and less tedious.

Susan Boyle -- "I Dreamed a Dream"

I stumbled upon this video through a link my friend shared on Facebook. Some of you all may have already watched this video but for those of you all who have not, I would strongly encourage you all to watch it; it will most definitely be worth your while.

I Dreamed a Dream

There was a time when men were kind,
And their voices were soft,
And their words inviting.
There was a time when love was blind,
And the world was a song,
And the song was exciting.
There was a time when it all went wrong

I dreamed a dream in time gone by,
When hope was high and life, worth living.
I dreamed that love would never die,
I dreamed that God would be forgiving.
Then I was young and unafraid,
And dreams were made and used and wasted.
There was no ransom to be paid,
No song unsung, no wine, untasted.

But the tigers come at night,
With their voices soft as thunder,
As they tear your hope apart,
And they turn your dream to shame.

He slept a summer by my side,
He filled my days with endless wonder
He took my childhood in his stride,
But he was gone when autumn came!

And still I dream he'll come to me,
That we will live the years together,
But there are dreams that cannot be,
And there are storms we cannot weather!

I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I'm living,
So different now from what it seemed
Now life has killed the dream I dreamed

To quote what my friend said about the performance (which I strongly agree with), "In a world that judges and puts a value on the individual based on the exterior, this is especially moving".

To find out more, you all may refer to here

ST Online Forum: "Why Easter play was titled The Final Solution?"

ST Online Forum: "Why Easter play was titled The Final Solution?"

I REFER to Mr Rayner Teo's Online Forum letter on Monday, 'Wrong to name Easter play The Final Solution'.

We regret that the phrase 'The Final Solution' brought Mr Teo's immediate attention to the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. We assure Mr Teo and readers that we do not bear any anti-Semitic sentiments, nor is it our intention to diminish Jewish sensitivities surrounding the great atrocities of the Holocaust.

Our Easter play was so titled because as Christians, our message at Easter is that we believe Jesus Christ is the Final Solution to all humanity's problems. Contrary to what Mr Teo mentioned, The Final Solution was written, not with any anti-Semitic element at all, but to demonstrate the struggle between science and the belief in God, and to portray that contrary to Adolf Hitler's belief that extermination of the Jews was the solution to the world's problems, Christ's voluntary sacrifice by death on the cross is the true and final solution for the salvation of man.

There are many other instances where this title has been used without any anti-Semitic sentiments. For example, a novel by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Michael Chabon is titled The Final Solution. It is a detective story that won the 2005 National Jewish Book Award and the 2003 Aga Khan Prize for Fiction by The Paris Review.

Another award-winning film directed by Cristobal Krusen is also titled Final Solution. It is based on a true story about how Gerrit Woldfaardt's prejudice against black South Africans was reversed as he realised his mistake and began to seek reconciliation between whites and blacks in the turbulent last days of apartheid.

Finally, film-maker Rakesh Sharma's feature-length documentary on the Gujarat riots and the study of the politics of hate is also known as Final Solution. This film has won two awards - the Wolfgang Staudte award and the Special Jury Award (Netpac) at the Berlin International Film Festival in 2004.

We would like to invite Mr Teo and readers to view a recording of our play The Final Solution to assure themselves that there is no reference or link at all to the atrocities of the Holocaust.

We remain committed to building racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

Derek Dunn

Spokesman

City Harvest Church

ST Online Forum: "Inappropriate to name play The Final Solution"

ST Online Forum:"Inappropriate to name play The Final Solution"

Although I am no prophet, I suppose I was, in light of the negative associations that the phrase "The Final Solution" has with Nazi Germany and The Holocaust, expecting a letter, like the one above, to appear after I got to know that the local church in question was going to title its Easter Play as "The Final Solution".

Personally, besides agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the letter writer, I also cannot help but wonder why was the title "The Final Solution" (note: the full title of the play was "The Final Solution -- A New Messiah?") even approved in the first place? Surely the organisers behind the play would have some knowledge of the negative associations that the phrase "The Final Solution" has, no? [if they didn't, then, no offence, I cannot help but be amazed/disturbed at the level of ignorance]

And while I can understand that the idea of naming the play "The Final Solution" may perhaps stem from the Christian belief that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ was God's solution for the salvation of humankind, surely "The Ultimate Solution", "The Divine Solution" or any other similar titles would have worked just as well, no?

Hmm... I wonder if the local church in question and/or any of their members will respond to the letter above?

Update No. 1 (1730h, 13/4/2009)

It would seem that, according to the trailer and interview with the organisers of the play in question, the organisers behind the play are aware of the negative associations that the phrase "The Final Solution" has. However, I still do not understand why the play is named "The Final Solution". Of course, I will concede that having not watched the play, I may not be aware of an underlying reason, if any, for why the play is named "The Final Solution".

So if any of you all reading this have watched the play, perhaps you all can enlighten me and the rest of those reading this blog post on any underlying reason behind the play's rather controversial title.

Update No. 2 (2100h, 14/4/2009)

From what I could gather from a simple blog search, it seems that in the play in question, "The Final Solution" was the name for a fictional serum that, once injected into a person, will alters that person's DNA and rendering him/her unable to sin after the injection.

Hmm... As interesting as the above idea may sound, the question remains: why "The Final Solution"?

Update No. 3 (2205h, 15/4/2009)

I did a quick check with an acquaintance of mine who is a member of the local church in question and who went for the play in question.

According to him, the play's plot has no real link with The Holocaust. If so, then why include scenes about The Holocaust in the trailer of the play? Was it, as a comment on this blog post said, "a calculated attempt to draw attention to itself, albeit in a rather contrived manner"?

And, oh yeah, my friend is of the opinion that people complaining about the play's title are perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill.

Update No. 4 (1115h, 16/4/2009)

The local church in question has written in a response which has been published on the ST Online Forum.

Troubles in Pattaya through the eyes of FM George Yeo

For those of you all who have been following the news and interested to get a first-hand account of what have been happening in Pattaya, you all may perhaps be interested to take a look at George Yeo's, Foreign Minister of Singapore, account of it.

"Aggressive takeover" at AWARE?

Most of you all should by now be aware of what has happened at AWARE (pun not intended). For those of you all who are not aware yet, suffice it to say that, due perhaps to a combination of complacency by the veteran members of AWARE and astute tactical maneuvering by the new members, at AWARE's latest Annual General Meeting, a group of new members (who apparently only joined AWARE from the beginning of this year or slightly earlier) was able to take over 9 out of 12 positions on AWARE's executive committee (exco).

But what really raised eyebrows was the angle used by The Straits Times (ST) in its article on this "aggressive takeover" of AWARE's exco. According to the ST report, it would seem that some of those new members on AWARE's exco have previously expressed anti-homosexuality opinions.

In light of the above, various online commentators have generally expressed a similar opinion on how this takeover of AWARE's exco appears to be an "aggressive takeover" by those in the conservative Christian camp which harbours anti-homosexuality sentiments. Questions about what implications this "aggressive takeover" would bring about have also been asked.

Personally, while I would not speculate too much about what will now happen after this "aggressive takeover" of AWARE's exco (especially since the new exco has promised a press release within the next few days; I hope it's a promise they will keep), I must confess that, just as what other online commentators have been saying, this "aggressive takeover" does appear to me to be an attempt to hijack AWARE as perhaps a front organisation/vehicle to promote an alternative agenda that may not be congruent with what AWARE has been campaigning for all this while. As a Chinese saying puts it: “挂羊头，卖狗肉” (literal translation: "Selling dog meat while hanging up a goat's head").

However, although I have my suspicions about this "aggressive takeover", I suppose it would be more prudent to not jump to hasty conclusions (as Treebeard would say: "Do not be hasty"). Instead, it would perhaps be wiser for us all to first see if the new exco keeps their promise to release a press statement within the next few days and if they do keep this promise, we should carefully examine the press statement to determine what are the future plans and new agenda (if any) that this new exco has planned for AWARE. Also, we should be vigilant and continue to keep an eye on the activities of AWARE (under the leadership of this new exco).

If their words and deeds prove to be worthy of support, then good. But if their words and deeds appear to be suspicious and/or not worthy of support, then perhaps we should withdraw our support (until perhaps a new exco more worthy of support takes over). Hopefully, it will not be the latter situation but if it does turn out to be this way, let's hope the war will not be lost despite a loss in one battle.

Update (2125h, 14/4/2009)

Interestingly enough, it seems that, according to this CNA report,"160 members of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) have submitted a request to call an extraordinary general meeting for the society, where a motion of no confidence in the newly-elected Executive Committee (ExCo) will be considered".

MCYS Commercial: "Funeral"

ST: "Imperfect ties that bind"

Family


Funeral

P.S. Hmm... Family, Funeral... Will there be a third commercial also starting with "F" to make this a trilogy?