so many words to scan through on the night before my last paper! |:
but anyway i just want to clarify that the old guards tabled the vote of no confidence for 3 reasons actually. your first one being quite right, second one, not really.
1. has not acted and is not acting in the best interest of the Society; and/or 2. does not appreciate or share the values of the Society; and/or 3. does not have the requisite experience of carrying out the Society’s work or is otherwise inadequate to further the Society’s objectives
i totally agree with the 3rd reason. but for the first two, it's really quite a mystery. why? because they weren't even allowed to voice their stand. seeing them getting blasted continuously by the old guards and their supporters, my heart really went out to them.
and yes i agree that the new exco did takeover aware in quite a tyrannical fashion. i still disagree with what they did. but i do not think the old guards were any better during egm. absolutely no grace and no respect. they busied themselves with nitpicking and insult throwing. so hmm.. they spoke of earning respect. well they did have my respect but it's all lost now.
as for tsm, yeah i was quite amused by what she said during egm. super off point and provocative to the old guards. bad bad bad approach.
hmm but i think what disturbed me during egm were the christians who term the new exco as "unchristianly" and said that with such disgust. how much do we know of what they were trying to do? why are we so quick to label and condemn them just merely after watching and reading all the TV and newspaper reports? is this act very christianly then?
also... “I am gay and I am concerned about the new exco saying homosexuality is not okay. I feel terribly insulted. Please do not impose your values on everybody. Sorry, this is not personal.” this was what one of the speakers said. i believe the new exco were merely voicing their religious beliefs. but they did not say they would discriminate, but instead, repeatedly assured everyone that they would still attend to the needs of homosexuals who need counselling. so i wonder, who's imposing whose views?
ok i shall not continue any further. goodnight world.
but anyway i just want to clarify that the old guards tabled the vote of no confidence for 3 reasons actually. your first one being quite right, second one, not really.
1. has not acted and is not acting in the best interest of the Society; and/or
2. does not appreciate or share the values of the Society; and/or
3. does not have the requisite experience of carrying out the Society’s work or is otherwise inadequate to further the Society’s objectives
i totally agree with the 3rd reason. but for the first two, it's really quite a mystery. why? because they weren't even allowed to voice their stand. seeing them getting blasted continuously by the old guards and their supporters, my heart really went out to them.
and yes i agree that the new exco did takeover aware in quite a tyrannical fashion. i still disagree with what they did. but i do not think the old guards were any better during egm. absolutely no grace and no respect. they busied themselves with nitpicking and insult throwing. so hmm.. they spoke of earning respect. well they did have my respect but it's all lost now.
as for tsm, yeah i was quite amused by what she said during egm. super off point and provocative to the old guards. bad bad bad approach.
hmm but i think what disturbed me during egm were the christians who term the new exco as "unchristianly" and said that with such disgust. how much do we know of what they were trying to do? why are we so quick to label and condemn them just merely after watching and reading all the TV and newspaper reports? is this act very christianly then?
also...
“I am gay and I am concerned about the new exco saying homosexuality is not okay. I feel terribly insulted. Please do not impose your values on everybody. Sorry, this is not personal.”
this was what one of the speakers said. i believe the new exco were merely voicing their religious beliefs. but they did not say they would discriminate, but instead, repeatedly assured everyone that they would still attend to the needs of homosexuals who need counselling.
so i wonder, who's imposing whose views?
ok i shall not continue any further. goodnight world.
Reply
thanks for clarifying! haha i think i just wrote this cos i was kinda troubled by the whole thing so i didn't really write very factually. |:
Reply
Leave a comment