Very interesting. I've done some thinking as well, and here are some thoughts in response:
I agree that the old guard was right to have some concerns about the intentions of the new exco. However, I think the EGM was a farce and it kind of made me disappointed with the old guard as well. My friend who went said that every time the new exco tried to speak they were met with boos and jeers; their voices really couldn’t be heard.
I was disappointed as well, because they should've been given the chance to speak, making the facts self-evident, rather than based on common conjecture. But I really don't think the old guards were to blame - it wasn't them doing the shouting. Plus we have to bear the fiery atmosphere in mind - it's not often Singaporeans get to vote about anything vaguely important and we're, sad to say, politically immature; it's understandable that everyone would've been uncontrollably riled up. A lot of people also felt the new guards' presence was personally attacking them in some way, which I don't think they can be blamed for.
But okay, the old guard was tabling a no confidence vote because 1. They did not know the intentions of the new exco, and 2. Because of the new members that appeared suddenly whom they suspected voted for the new exco. Aren’t they doing the same?
Technically yes, because a lot of the voters weren't at all involved with AWARE to begin with, until this event. But I still think there's a stark difference, because their votes were reactionary and specifically targeted at a valid cause. It's kind of like, Country A invading Country B for an unfounded reason (stealing its cows), and Country B retaliating with similar violence to throw them out. In this example we can hardly accuse Country B of committing the same war-crimes.
How can we say “Civil society won” (Tan Joo Hymn (past president and new Honorary Treasurer))? Did it really win (refer back to fourth objection)? What did it win?
It's not about the homosexuality at all; to me, that was only secondary. In my book, civil society won because many people from unique backgrounds (while there were a lot of gay people, there were many other secularists) voluntarily grouped together to oppose something they felt was wrong, and achieved the results they desired. They could've just rested on their laurels and let things happen, as we're so used to doing, but they didn't. Regardless of the result, I think the sheer numbers involved, and the importance attributed to the event, rendered it a very encouraging watershed in Singaporean history.
If they weren’t Christians, but Muslims or another religion, would this big a fuss have been made?
Yes. I think an even bigger commotion would've been made, had it been Muslims, because of everyone's Islam-related paranoia. Christianity is the most socially acceptable religion to have in Singaporean high society - the (educated) elite tend to run in the same social circles, which happens to be predominantly Christian. Unfortunately this also makes Christianity easy to criticise, because it's so mainstream that no one can be accused of being racist and intolerant.
If it'd been another religion, such as Buddhist or Taoists, I doubt anybody would have cared, because those religions lack the same clout and organised strength.
But I really don't think the old guards were to blame - it wasn't them doing the shouting. constance singam did this whole "where were you" speech ("Where were you when women were abused and battered in the home, and girls raped? Where were you when children and husbands of Singapore women were denied citizenship? Where were you?") which i don't know, doesn't seem very called for to me. i know that AWARE has done many things to improve women's rights but the new exco didn't even have the chance to prove itself (which is part of the inherent problem).
Plus we have to bear the fiery atmosphere in mind - it's not often Singaporeans get to vote about anything vaguely important and we're, sad to say, politically immature; it's just sad to see that we as Singaporeans cannot settle this issue amicably i guess.
it's understandable that everyone would've been uncontrollably riled up. A lot of people also felt the new guards' presence was personally attacking them in some way, which I don't think they can be blamed for. i agree with this. i don't think the new exco did themselves any favors at all.
It's kind of like, Country A invading Country B for an unfounded reason (stealing its cows), and Country B retaliating with similar violence to throw them out. In this example we can hardly accuse Country B of committing the same war-crimes. i like your analogy, i think it made me appreciate the situation more. but it was like a sudden influx of people claiming ownership for something that they were originally not part of too. i understand why they did it (i would have done the same thing too), but i guess i'm just saying that the old guard's actions of asking people to join WITH the intention of voting the new guard out is not really right too..
i'm sorry my comment was so wordy too, thanks for your input!! :D:D
I agree that the old guard was right to have some concerns about the intentions of the new exco. However, I think the EGM was a farce and it kind of made me disappointed with the old guard as well. My friend who went said that every time the new exco tried to speak they were met with boos and jeers; their voices really couldn’t be heard.
I was disappointed as well, because they should've been given the chance to speak, making the facts self-evident, rather than based on common conjecture. But I really don't think the old guards were to blame - it wasn't them doing the shouting. Plus we have to bear the fiery atmosphere in mind - it's not often Singaporeans get to vote about anything vaguely important and we're, sad to say, politically immature; it's understandable that everyone would've been uncontrollably riled up. A lot of people also felt the new guards' presence was personally attacking them in some way, which I don't think they can be blamed for.
But okay, the old guard was tabling a no confidence vote because 1. They did not know the intentions of the new exco, and 2. Because of the new members that appeared suddenly whom they suspected voted for the new exco. Aren’t they doing the same?
Technically yes, because a lot of the voters weren't at all involved with AWARE to begin with, until this event. But I still think there's a stark difference, because their votes were reactionary and specifically targeted at a valid cause. It's kind of like, Country A invading Country B for an unfounded reason (stealing its cows), and Country B retaliating with similar violence to throw them out. In this example we can hardly accuse Country B of committing the same war-crimes.
How can we say “Civil society won” (Tan Joo Hymn (past president and new Honorary Treasurer))? Did it really win (refer back to fourth objection)? What did it win?
It's not about the homosexuality at all; to me, that was only secondary. In my book, civil society won because many people from unique backgrounds (while there were a lot of gay people, there were many other secularists) voluntarily grouped together to oppose something they felt was wrong, and achieved the results they desired. They could've just rested on their laurels and let things happen, as we're so used to doing, but they didn't. Regardless of the result, I think the sheer numbers involved, and the importance attributed to the event, rendered it a very encouraging watershed in Singaporean history.
If they weren’t Christians, but Muslims or another religion, would this big a fuss have been made?
Yes. I think an even bigger commotion would've been made, had it been Muslims, because of everyone's Islam-related paranoia. Christianity is the most socially acceptable religion to have in Singaporean high society - the (educated) elite tend to run in the same social circles, which happens to be predominantly Christian. Unfortunately this also makes Christianity easy to criticise, because it's so mainstream that no one can be accused of being racist and intolerant.
If it'd been another religion, such as Buddhist or Taoists, I doubt anybody would have cared, because those religions lack the same clout and organised strength.
Sorry this is so wordy!
Reply
Reply
But I really don't think the old guards were to blame - it wasn't them doing the shouting. constance singam did this whole "where were you" speech ("Where were you when women were abused and battered in the home, and girls raped? Where were you when children and husbands of Singapore women were denied citizenship? Where were you?") which i don't know, doesn't seem very called for to me. i know that AWARE has done many things to improve women's rights but the new exco didn't even have the chance to prove itself (which is part of the inherent problem).
Plus we have to bear the fiery atmosphere in mind - it's not often Singaporeans get to vote about anything vaguely important and we're, sad to say, politically immature;
it's just sad to see that we as Singaporeans cannot settle this issue amicably i guess.
it's understandable that everyone would've been uncontrollably riled up. A lot of people also felt the new guards' presence was personally attacking them in some way, which I don't think they can be blamed for.
i agree with this. i don't think the new exco did themselves any favors at all.
It's kind of like, Country A invading Country B for an unfounded reason (stealing its cows), and Country B retaliating with similar violence to throw them out. In this example we can hardly accuse Country B of committing the same war-crimes.
i like your analogy, i think it made me appreciate the situation more. but it was like a sudden influx of people claiming ownership for something that they were originally not part of too. i understand why they did it (i would have done the same thing too), but i guess i'm just saying that the old guard's actions of asking people to join WITH the intention of voting the new guard out is not really right too..
i'm sorry my comment was so wordy too, thanks for your input!! :D:D
i hope you've been fine, btw! (:
Reply
Leave a comment