Sunday, 10 May 2009

Something that may be making the rounds

This was forwarded to me by an acquaintance. I have partially anonymised the only name that appears in this email.

In particular, it appears that I am now being singled out for targeting. I will only make these 3 points:

  • As I said at the EGM, I have been an AWARE member since last year, pre-dating most or all of the Josie Lau exco. I got involved because I wanted to restore the society to the values that I supported when I joined, and I was involved in my personal capacity, as an associate member of AWARE, and not as an NMP. At no time did I mention or seek to rely on my position as an NMP.


  • The sheer hyperbole used to describe the day's events are astonishing. "Disorder and mayhem"? I've never seen a queue forming, in the scenes of "disorder and mayhem" that I've seen (on TV). Repeating an exaggeration does not make it true.


  • The rules at a meeting of a society are open for determination by the members in a general meeting. The exco has no right to dictate the rules for the EGM, in the face of expressed disagreement from the majority of members present. I think many members did express their disagreement with the house rules that Josie Lau and Lois Ng tried to impose, at least with respect to whether I was allowed to sit with the original members. It does seem that some people, who keep harping on this point, simply do not wish to accept the reality of the law and practice of meetings.


Apart from the above points, I have no further comment on this email, and will leave readers to form their own opinions. This also means that I will not respond to any comments made (and to pre-empt any trolls, my non-response does not mean any admission or agreement to any comments that may be made).

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

I was at the AWARE EGM and it was rude shock to me that such bully and hooliganism behavior from the old guard and their supporters could be allowed in such a civilised society like Singapore. Below I attach a letter from Ms XX written to the prime minister on the incident. Many of you who were there witnessed it with your own eyes also. I heard this was the biggest gathering of lesbians and gays at the EGM of a civic society in Spore.

We want to complain to the govt that an NMP Siew Kum Hong was not only openly taking sides in this internal affair of a secular organisation, but was part of the orchestrated disorder and mayhem on that day. He showed no regard for protocols until challenged by a member from the floor.

We also want the govt to know that Straits Times has been blatantly stroking the religious flame and deceiving all their readers when the real issue was about homosexualism and not about a religious `takeover' of a secular association. For the record, I have since cancelled my subscription to the newspaper. Why should I pay to be told half-truths and be insidously `persuaded' to their point of views?

I urge all those who were there that day to write to our PM, to MHA, REACH and ISD to tell them what you witnessed on that day. Let your voice be heard before it is taken away one day right before your eyes!

PS: The PM's email address is: lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

It is indeed time for concerned individuals to play their part in shaping the future of our nation.

Below, I attach a letter I have sent to the PMO.

Cheryl XX

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing as a concerned Singaporean and a mother to request official scrutiny into press reporting of the AWARE saga.

I'll share my first-person observations at the AWARE EGM in relation to Straits Times coverage of the event.

1) My 18-year-old daughter and I went to the AWARE EGM on Saturday, 2 May 2009, to observe the proceedings of a civil organisation but the progression of events left us with much disquiet.

a) We noticed a large contingent of men upon entering the meeting hall as we were directed to the 'overflow area' in Hall 403 where we sat in the front portion (we were among the last 200 to enter at 2.50pm after queuing from 1.30pm). The men formed about a quarter of the meeting, occupying seats in the back half of the 'overflow'. My daughter observed that this was a meeting for a women's association and was surprised at the substantial male turn-out. I reserved my comments.

b) We were accosted by ear-deafening 'boos' and jeers as we passed the section, but realised that they were not directed at us as much as at the speaker onstage. We were quite unable to hear the opening speech being given by Ms Josie Lau, then President of AWARE, as the heckling went on unabated in tenor and base. In fact, the aggression was so vehement that my daughter was in tears from the sense of intimidation and oppression, even though the hooliganism was not directed at us.

c) It could be clearly observed that a number of men in the front of the section were attired in white 'We are AWARE' t-shirts or pink tops.

d) There were also more than 20 foreign men and women in their midst.

e) Then as the meeting progressed, more than half of them moved to stand with and around the 'old guard' of AWARE, and at the floor speakers' area, continuing to disrupt the proceedings despite calls for order.

e) What really flabbergasted us was that soon some of these associate members with no voting rights took the stand to proudly declare their homosexual status to loud applause from the 'old guard' camp as they spoke in support of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme. In fact, it was impossible for ordinary members like me to try to ask any questions on the floor (as I tried to queue up to do so) as the 'old guard' with half of them men effectively 'barricading' the area and monopolising the microphones in a raucous commotion.

We came away from the whole event rather disillusioned by AWARE and what it professed to stand for. They may still be helping women, marginalised or needy, but they are also involved in the political agenda of some minority groups, even with covert foreign interference.

2) I'm also surprised and deeply troubled that the reporting in The Straits Times has not been honest in presenting the full picture to the public, especially concerned parents following the AWARE saga. There was a concerted effort by both the press and TV coverage not to mention the significant presence of the homosexual community. If I had not been there, I would never have known the truth.

a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story (Wong Kim Hoh) hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.

b) Some members of the press and TV were candidly jubilant as they celebrated the passing of the 'no confidence' vote by punching their fists in the air and hugging the 'old guard' they were standing with.

c) In the sweep of fervent support, the constitutional amendments were also made to allow men and foreign women full voting rights (in a local women's association that makes the CEDAW report on the state of women in Singapore). In the perspective that such an amendment was thrown out in the previous AGM, the motives may be called into question. The press made no mention of this important development.

I question the cover-up in the press.

In review of newspaper coverage of AWARE developments, I'm also beginning to think that press focus on the sensitive issue of religious involvement was but a calculated red herring thrown out to manipulate public sentiments.

Sir, I am pleading for the authorities to look into this matter as I am becoming increasingly alarmed that minority groups with a political agenda may not have just reached its grasp into a vulnerable women's group, and through it attempt to distort our children's views on sexuality, but has actually infiltrated the press to block out news and prevent the public from accessing the truth. I actually feel frightened that the press in Singapore can attempt to shape my views as it wishes by misinformation or partial information.

24 comments:

solo bear said...

Hi everyone,

I have not come across the letter above, but I am quite sure it would be circulating round the internet sooner or later. As for the letter being addressed to the PM, IMO, he is too busy to pay any attention to such matters. The sender should have sent directly to the Registry of Societies, and marked it as attention to the Registrar. That would have given the sender a quicker response - if that is what she was looking for.

Other than the above, I have no comments on the letter itself. Now I just want to give a more detailed and accurate picture about what happened at the EGM.

Kum Hong posted:
>> The rules at a meeting of a society are open for determination by the members in a general meeting.
>>

I strongly disagree. The house rules that were implemented by the then president was typical of any EGM

>> I think many members did express their disagreement with the house rules that Josie Lau and Lois Ng tried to impose, at least with respect to whether I was allowed to sit with the original members.
>>

It must be remembered that it immediately after Kum Hong INSISTED to sit where he chose, against house rules, the crowd started booing and jeering at Josie - and it was after Josie's decision to bend the house rules, that got the boorish crowd simmered down. That is a FACT that was witnessed by nearly 3000+ people at the EGM.

>>It does seem that some people, who keep harping on this point, simply do not wish to accept the reality of the law and practice of meetings.
>>

The reality of meetings is that there are house rules in ANY EGM. Kum Hong and the boorish crowd did not respect house rules, and finally Josie decided to bend those rules.

conscience said...

Thanks. Perhaps now we should just view the videos in the internet to determine if the "facts" mentioned in the letters square with recordings. Some people really do their best to give their faith a bad name and drag the innocent down with them. You cannot achieve purity through tainted means. It is incongruent that one claims to be pure in the heart/soul but is not so in deed. Count on me to oppose such people.

Alan Wong said...

After reading the letter by the concerned mother to the PMO, I really cannot believe that there are some people out there who will not hesitate to resort to half-truths & lies to create a climate of fear and hatred under the pretext of a predated family unit (in this case a concerned mother and her 18 years-old daughter in tears). How exaggerated can one goes, may I ask?

The letter was obviously written in exaggeration to take revenge against AWARE, The Strait Times as well as trying to incite fear and hatred towards homosexuals, all with hidden agenda under the pretext concern of a mother. May I also ask would an ordinary mother under normal circumstances be so overly alarmed with so many issues all at the same time as if the world is coming to an end for her child.

Of course, unless there is several axes to grind. The more I look at it, it is probably the vindictive work of or instigated by one of the ousted exco members.

I have a few questions to raise about the observations made by the concerned mother and daughter in her letter to the PMO :

1) Based on what facts did she arrive at her conclusion of the 'significant presence of a homosexual fraternity or community'.

2) Why is it then that she makes no mention of the fact that most of them coulbe be the husbands who were present to give moral support to their wifes?

3) Did she carry out a survey to really identify the husbands from the gays before concluding at her observation ?

4) Why was there a need a need to mention of 'covert foreign interference' and the presence of 'more than 20 foreign men and women' unless her intention was that there was an implicit hint that Aware has not been infiltrated by foreign activists which would raise the alarm of our Govt authorities ?

4) How in the first instance was the concerned mother able to identify the 'more than 20 foreign men and women' at the EGM given the fact that nowadays it is so difficult to distiguish Singaporeans from other foreign nationalities.

The above are just a few question which raises more doubt about the real concern of this particular mother.

However, I am more concerned that this mother has many more hidden agendas especially in the manner that she raised about the ST reporter mingling with the homosexual crowd. How on earth is she able to distiguish that a particular crowd is homosexual unless she personally knows the sexual preference of each member of the crowd.

Just as like our infamous feminist mentor who claimed that Singapore was saved from the Tsunami because she personally prayed hard, I just conclude that this concerned mother does not seem to have any IQ or EQ in her brains by writing such a letter.

Salary said...

e) What really flabbergasted us was that soon some of these associate members with no voting rights took the stand to proudly declare their homosexual status to loud applause from the 'old guard' camp ....There was only one young local guy "proudly declared his homosexual status".

Salary said...

d) There were also more than 20 foreign men and women in their midst.

e) Then as the meeting progressed, more than half of them moved to stand with and around the 'old guard' of AWARE, and at the floor speakers' area, continuing to disrupt the proceedings despite calls for order.
There were foreigner who were associate members but I can't be sure if there were 20 of them. Understand some are long time AWARE associate members.

Yes, some of these foreign associate members queued and spoke up along with local members (did not see any foreign male associate members queue up to speak).

The associate members have to right to speak up. Josie and team never raised any issue against these foreign associate members.

Chrisloup said...

I'm rather surprised that Jean Grey the telepathic mutant turned up to the AWARE meeting, apparently with a glance, she was able to determine the allegiances, motivations and sexual identity of all persons present..

Salary said...

a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story (Wong Kim Hoh) hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.I really wonder what the writer means homosexual fraternity? I hope the writer did not imply that all those male associate members were the homosexual fraternity.

Is this typical example of leap of logic of this type of people?

Xtrocious said...

To Salary...

This leap of "logic" for this type of people is based on blind faith - regardless whether if they are right or not...

Just like death threats coming from "masculine gay" who is also a "jihadist sleeper"...hahah

solo bear said...

Salary
>> There was only one young local guy"proudly declared his homosexual status".
>>

That is correct. And he got about the one of the loudest applauses of the night. There were quite a few lesbians who declared their sexual orientation and there were loud voices of approval too.

Compare that to the Chinese family man who got heckled because he didn't appear to support the old guard.

And compare that as well to another family man, a Malay, who got applauded when he praised the CSE by AWARE.

Salary said...

solo bear said: There were quite a few lesbians who declared their sexual orientation and there were loud voices of approval too.-- I have to disagree as I did not witness any lesbian declaring sexual orientation from the floor.

Can solo bear give more specific description of the individual and the time of such lesbian declaration?

One thing for sure, the meeting was recorded on video. All details can be verified if needed.

Salary said...

Solo bear, try to understand that the real host is the collective of AWARE members attending the EOGM, Josie and team were servant leaders serving the members. They failed their servant leaders role when they failed to observe the will of the real master of the meeting.

As the lawyer said about "courtesy, custom, and common senses", Josie and team did not get it until at the end they agreed to step down.

solo bear said...

Salary,

You can clearly remember the gay guy but not the lesbians that follow IMMEDIATELY after the gay guy?

Don't blame you. You wanted to have him, didn't you? (Oops, sorry for that swipe - he he)

As for the master servant crap you are talking about, the fact is that Kum Hong wanted and did break the house rules and that is when crowd became boisterious, while Josie allowed those rules to be relaxed and that made the crowd simmered down.

Salary said...

solo bear said...

Salary,

You can clearly remember the gay guy but not the lesbians that follow IMMEDIATELY after the gay guy?

Don't blame you. You wanted to have him, didn't you? (Oops, sorry for that swipe - he he)
LOL

Salary said...

In fact, it was impossible for ordinary members like me to try to ask any questions on the floor (as I tried to queue up to do so) as the 'old guard' with half of them men effectively 'barricading' the area and monopolising the microphones in a raucous commotion.-- The RazorTV video and others from YouTube shows Josie's supporters were able to make speech from the floor. No one really know what the speakers were going to say until they say it. Remember the few funny male Josie supporters made it to say their funny stuff? LOL.

Donaldson Tan said...

Please ignore Solo Bear the Internet Troll.

Starbucks said...

Strongly agree with Donaldson. Best way to handle an irritable child is to leave him in the corner and let him fume.

Nicholas said...

hi mr siew

thought u might be interested in seeing what the alternative media is saying about your participation in the AWARE saga:

http://wayangparty.com/?p=9218

personally, i feel that as a member of parliment and a de facto politician supposed to lead and represent us, you should not have taken sides in the conflict and fanned the flames in the volatile situation

that is simply irresponsible as a member of parliment

Siew Kum Hong said...

To Nicholas: I clicked on that link, before I realised who the writer(s) was/were. I do not read the Brotherhood Press, and have no desire to, so I did not read further.

As for your comment about what I should and should not have done -- I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I've been an associate member of AWARE since Oct 2008, pre-dating most or all of the Josie Lau exco that resigned on 2 May. I felt the need to stand up for the values that I supported, to (re-)establish the society that I had joined. That was why, when some of the original members came to me for help after the AGM on 28 March, I agreed to work with them.

That was in my personal capacity as an associate member of AWARE. It was not in my capacity as an NMP. Indeed, there was a Parliamentary sitting on 13 April 2009, and I did not make any note of or mention AWARE at all.

So I do not really understand why you seem to think that I am not allowed to hold a view or to act on that view, in my personal capacity. I also do not understand why you allege that my involvement had "fanned the flames in a volatile situation" -- I think that exaggerates what took place that day, exaggerates my influence, and misrepresents what I did on the day.

Finally, I continue to be surprised by comments that suggest that MPs (or NMPs) should not "take sides". But that is another topic for another day, especially given that I had not acted in my capacity as an NMP in this case.

Donaldson Tan said...

I am sure Cheryl and her daughter must have realised by now that they didn't turn gay after hearing someone's declaration.

I must point out that the right to speak at any general meeting is merely a procedural motion that is granted equally to ordinary and associate members.

The only difference between an ordinary and associate members is that the ordinary member has the right to vote on substantial matters such as passing a resolution.

Son of Singapore said...

Hi,
in my humble opinion, the roles of MPs, NMPs is to offer different views and perspectives based on their beliefs and conviction..not sure if it is helpful to use the term "taking sides".. the diversity of views and such healthy debates are crucial for a democracy... and also while MPs and NMPs are public servants, they also have their personal rights to be in the civil society in their personal capacity.

BTW, was the constitutional amendments really passed during the EGM or was it covered up as claimed by the writer of the email above? If it was not passed as claimed, the email content would lack some credibility as a result..

Siew Kum Hong said...

To Son of Singapore: The constitutional amendments were not passed -- they were not even discussed at all. I have no idea why the writer seems to think they were passed.

Tan Chong Kee said...

I just want to say that Kum Hong, you have been an exemplary NMP and I put your achievements up there with Kalwanjit Soin. Regarding "taking sides" I note that no one has taken Thio Li Ann to task for so obviously taking a side. It is not "taking sides" that these people are against, it is "not taking their side" that they are attacking you for.

dfadf said...

Microsoft Office
Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Office 2010 key
Office 2010 download
Office 2010 Professional
Microsoft outlook
Outlook 2010
Windows 7
Microsoft outlook 2010

blog seven gokil said...

Thanks for information :

Berita Yang Melintas, Informasi Terkini, Berita Online, Ramalan, Info Terupdate Terkini, Ramalan Terbaru, Info Terbaru Hari Ini, Sekilas Warta, Warta Terbaru, Pos Berita, Kabar Terbaru, Seputar Warta, Berita Terbaru, Tyo89, Complex90, Game Online Indonesia