No To Rape

Parliament debated the Penal Code amendments in 2007. That debate was dominated by the non-repeal of Section 377A. But another important issue was the partial abolition of the marital rape defence, under which it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. My thoughts on this injustice are in my speech.

A few Singaporeans have now started a campaign to repeal the remainder of the marital rape defence that remains on the books. I signed the petition earlier today, and I would encourage everyone to join me in expressing your disagreement with the Government's stand that in most situations, it is actually OK for husbands to force their wives to have sex against their wives' consent.

NMP results are out

I received a notice from Parliament a couple of hours ago -- it was the Second Report of the Special Select Committee on Nominations for Appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament, which I've reproduced below. In short, I was not re-appointed, and the new NMPs (who will be sworn in on 20 July) are:

1. Mr Calvin Cheng Ern Lee
2. Mr Terry Lee Kok Hua
3. Mrs Mildred Tan-Sim Beng Mei
4. Assoc Prof Paulin Tay Straughan
5. Mr Teo Siong Seng
6. Mr Viswaroopan s/o Sadasivan
7. Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong
8. Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen
9. Ms Joscelin Yeo Wei Ling

I am of course disappointed that I was not re-appointed; I felt and continue to feel that I could contribute meaningfully to Parliament for a second term, which is why I applied for it in the first place. Having said that, I am glad that I had the opportunity to serve, and I hope that I had contributed to Parliamentary debate (as the NMP scheme was intended to). Beyond that, it is really for Singaporeans to judge my time in Parliament for themselves.

I do want to make one point. There have been some who have said that I misconducted myself as an NMP during the AWARE episode, and/or that my involvement in AWARE was unwise. I am sure that they will say that again, now that the results of the NMP process are out.

I have said this before, and I will repeat it here: my involvement in AWARE was in my personal capacity and not as an NMP, and in any case I do not think that I did anything wrong, improper or inappropriate at all. Presumably, those who feel that I was unwise, thought so because of the adverse impact that my public involvement in AWARE would have on my chances for re-appointment.

Well, I would like to think that if I had not been re-appointed because of the AWARE incident, and I had known that things would turn out this way, I would still not have done anything differently.

From day one, I've promised myself that I would not say or do anything, or refrain from saying or doing anything, simply because it would or might affect my chances of a second term as an NMP if I wanted to re-apply. I felt that that would have defeated the purpose of being an NMP. I wanted to be true to myself, and I did not want to pull any punches. So just as I did not allow the possibility of offending the Government stop me from asking tough questions and making difficult points, I also did not allow the possibility of adverse publicity stop me from my involvement in civil society causes and organisations that I believed in.

So my answer to these folks who thought I was unwise, is that perhaps it reflects more on you and your readiness to compromise, than it does on me and my naivete. It is not that I did not think of the possible consequences of my actions; I was fully aware, and I consciously chose to do what I believed -- and continue to believe -- was the right thing.

Finally, I would like to wish the new NMPs all the best in their term, and hopefully they will enjoy their time in Parliament as much as I did!

SECOND REPORT OF THE SPECIAL SELECT COMMITTEE
ON NOMINATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT
AS NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

The Special Select Committee, appointed pursuant to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to nominate persons for appointment by the President as nominated Members of Parliament, has agreed to the following Report:

Introduction

1 On 14 November 2006, Parliament resolved in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore that there shall be nominated Members of Parliament during the term of the Eleventh Parliament. On 18 January 2007, the President, on the nomination of the Special Select Committee of Parliament, appointed nine persons as nominated Members of Parliament for a term of two and a half years. The term of service of the nine nominated Members of Parliament will expire on 17 July 2009 and, under section 4(1) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, the vacancies that will arise shall be filled by the President by making appointments on the nomination of the Special Select Committee.

2 The Members of the Special Select Committee were nominated by the Committee of Selection, with Speaker as ex-officio Chairman. The Committee comprised the following:

Chairman: Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Speaker)

Members:
Mrs Lim Hwee Hua
Mr Low Thia Khiang
Mr Mah Bow Tan
Mr Masagos Zulkifli BMM
Mr Michael Palmer
Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong
Mrs Josephine Teo

Invitation to the General Public to Submit Names of Persons for Consideration by the Committee

3 Under sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, the Special Select Committee decided that an advertisement inviting the general public to submit names of persons for consideration by the Committee be inserted in the Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian, Tamil Murasu and The Straits Times on 6 April 2009. Publicity to the information was also given in a press release.

4 Submission of names was required to be made on forms obtainable at the office of the Clerk of Parliament. Each form had to be signed by a proposer and a seconder and by not less than four other persons, all of whose names shall appear in a current register of electors. The person to be proposed was also required to complete a curriculum vitae form in which, inter alia, he was required to write an essay on the kind of contribution he hoped to make as a nominated Member of Parliament and to submit written references from two referees sealed in separate envelopes to the Committee. The closing date for the submission of names was 11 May 2009.

Formation of Functional Groups

5 The Committee decided that it would continue the practice of inviting the six functional groups, namely, business and industry, labour, the professions, tertiary education institutions, social and community service organisations, and media, arts and sports organisations, to submit names of suitable candidates for the Special Select Committee to consider.

6 The names of the coordinators appointed by Mr Speaker for each functional group and an invitation to organisations identifying themselves with any of the functional groups to contact the coordinators to propose their nominees were publicised by the Committee in a press release issued on 5 April 2009.

Consideration of Persons Proposed

7 By the closing date, the Committee received a total of 46 proposal forms (including those from the functional groups) of which 3 did not satisfy the eligibility criteria.

8 Section 2(3) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution provides that, before making any nomination for appointment by the President as nominated Member of Parliament, “the Special Select Committee shall, wherever possible, consult other Members of Parliament in such manner as it thinks fit”.

9 On the advice of the Committee, the Speaker wrote to all the elected Members of Parliament on 19 May 2009, informing them of the names of the persons proposed for consideration as nominated Members of Parliament and asking the Members of Parliament if they had any comments on these persons and if they knew of any reason why any of them should not be considered for appointment as nominated Members of Parliament.

10 The Committee assessed the suitability of all the 43 eligible candidates. In assessing their suitability for appointment as nominated Members of Parliament, the Committee took into account the criteria set out in section 3(2) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution which provides that the persons to be nominated by the Special Select Committee “shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have brought honour to the Republic, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service or the labour movement; and in making any nomination, the Special Select Committee shall have regard to the need for nominated Members to reflect as wide a range of independent and non-partisan views as possible”.

Nominations of the Committee

11 The Committee found many of the candidates to be well qualified to be appointed as nominated Members of Parliament. However, as stipulated under section 3(1) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, not more than nine nominated Members of Parliament can be appointed. The Committee has therefore nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as nominated Members of Parliament:

1. Mr Calvin Cheng Ern Lee
2. Mr Terry Lee Kok Hua
3. Mrs Mildred Tan-Sim Beng Mei
4. Assoc Prof Paulin Tay Straughan
5. Mr Teo Siong Seng
6. Mr Viswaroopan s/o Sadasivan
7. Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong
8. Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen
9. Ms Joscelin Yeo Wei Ling

Speech on the President's Address: 25 May 2009

[UPDATED: videos added, and see transcript of PM's speech here]

I spoke today in the debate on the President's Address in opening this new session of Parliament. Parliament was prorogued last month, meaning the previous session of Parliament was ended and a new session would begin. It does not mean that Parliament was dissolved, and is not related to the calling of a general election. It also does not mean that my term as a NMP is over, as the duration of my term is fixed at 2.5 years (or until Parliament is dissolved), and is not affected by the prorogation.

The video and the text of my speech are below. I had to scramble this morning after reading the reports of the Senior Minister's remarks on changes to the political system, basically re-writing a big chunk of my speech. But I think it was good, because his comments provided a reference point for what I wanted to say.

Motion of thanks on President's Address: 25 May 2009

Part 1



Part 2

1. Mr Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. I support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

Economic situation

2. It has been about four months since the Budget debate. Since then, the economic picture has gone from a despairing consensus view of doom and gloom for the world's economies, to the ongoing mixed signals of “green shoots” of growth struggling to overcome “brown weeds” of contraction. It seems that there may now be some room for cautious optimism . While the economy may still take a turn for the worse, nevertheless things do not seem to have gotten as dire as some had feared. And that is something we all need to give some thanks for.

3. Now that there is greater clarity on the economic situation, people have started looking to a potential upturn. The Finance Minister had, in his Budget speech in January, already mentioned the need to position Singapore to take advantage of the inevitable recovery. That was wise, and demonstrated much foresight.

4. Nevertheless, the global environment has changed. Overseas regulatory changes pose challenges to the continued success of Singapore's economic model. For instance, the US is currently considering tax changes that could eliminate the advantages of our tax regime for US MNCs, directly threatening our model of economic growth which is heavily reliant on attracting MNCs to invest and set up shop here. Similarly, recent international pressure on jurisdictions like Singapore to subscribe to OECD-prescribed standards of banking secrecy could adversely impact the private wealth management industry here. I hope that the Government will clarify its position on these issues, and its proposed responses if any.

5. At the same time, Singapore continues to struggle to produce homegrown world-beating private enterprises with global reach and global profiles. The other so-called Asian tigers have all succeeded in doing so – but we can still only point to the same few examples like Singapore Airlines, most or all of which remain Temasek-linked companies. This is a striking symbol of our ongoing struggle to develop indigenous entrepreneurs. We need to fundamentally re-engineer our economy to solve this problem, and I look forward to more radical and innovative proposals from the Government on this, embodying the “fresh rethinking and creative answers” mentioned by the President.

Principles governing political system, and changes to the system

6. Sir, the President also said, “Sustaining economic growth will always be a high priority.” It is heartening to hear the President acknowledging, even implicitly, that economic growth is not the only priority and it is not the highest priority. One important non-economic priority highlighted by the President was the evolution of our political system. As he said, “Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals, and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.”

7. The Senior Minister has set out three fundamental principles for these changes: firstly, they must be fair to all contesting parties and not be biased in favour of any party; secondly, they must result in a strong and effective Government, and not a weak coalition Government; and thirdly, they must facilitate representation for diverse views in Parliament, including Opposition views.

8. Sir, I have three comments on these principles laid down by the Senior Minister. Firstly, it seems to me that these three principles implicitly accept that fairness in the electoral system is critical for its legitimacy, and also that it is in the interest of Singapore to have a diversity of views in Parliament, including Opposition views. I applaud the Senior Minister, and the Government, for taking this stance. The rules must be fair, and must be seen by Singaporeans as being fair, for the electoral system to have the necessary legitimacy and for the elected Government of the day to have the moral authority to rule.

9. My second comment is that any principles that we seek to apply to the electoral system must be limited to principles on the ground rules and the processes and procedures for elections. These principles should not prescribe outcomes in Parliamentary representation, which should be determined through the ballot box.

10. Taking the second principle, about the system resulting in a strong and effective Government, I would agree with it to the extent that it argues against pure proportional representation. But we need to understand, and to accept, that even in a first-past-the-post system, it is possible to have an outcome where no single party wins an absolute majority, thereby necessitating a coalition government.

11. We should also remain open to the possibility of a hybrid system, where the majority of seats are determined by a first-past-the-post system, but with a limited number of seats allocated by way of proportional representation. Such a system would be consonant with the Senior Minister's third principle, of facilitating diverse views in Parliament, and would do so in a manner based on voting patterns, which makes it more consistent with democratic principles than a scheme like the Nominated MP scheme.

12. My third and final comment, Sir, is that these principles should be applicable to the system as a whole, and not just to the changes that will be unveiled this week. These are important principles that go to the fundamentals of our system, and hence should permeate the entire system. Fair and just changes tacked onto a system viewed as lacking in legitiamcy, would not save the system itself.

Political apathy and disengagement

13. But before we go into the changes themselves, we should first examine why we are seeking to change the political system. The President has explained that it needs to evolve, to respond to changes in circumstances and goals. I think globalization may have made our longstanding problem of political apathy and disengagement amongst Singaporeans so critical, that we now have no choice but to squarely address them.

14. Why is it a problem, that Singaporeans are apathetic about and disengaged from the political process? To begin with, Singapore is, and must be, fundamentally for Singaporeans. That being so, Singaporeans have to be responsible for shaping the Singapore story. We cannot leave it to anyone else to do so. And to shape the story, Singaporeans need to participate in politics.

15. We can import workers and professionals: construction workers, domestic workers, nurses, IT professionals, engineers, bankers, even CEOs. But we cannot import our politicians and our leaders. We are an immigrant nation, but we are also a sovereign nation. We can take advice from foreign advisers and consultants, but only we ourselves are capable of truly understanding the unique challenges facing our country and making the right decisions for Singapore. The destiny of Singapore has to lie in the hands of Singaporeans, and of Singaporeans only. There are only 4 million odd Singaporeans, and even one Singaporean opting out or being excluded from this collective process of decision-making called politics is one too many.

16. Today’s globalised world has made it easier for Singaporeans to pack up and leave this country. People leave for a combination of reasons, and economic opportunities are certainly a key consideration. But some research has shown that the perceived political climate in Singapore is also a relevant factor. More importantly, only Singapore can truly give Singaporeans a sense of political rootedness and full participation in the political process, and such a sense of political stakeholding could go a long way towards keeping them here.

17. Meanwhile, technology has made it easier and more tempting for Singaporeans, especially the younger ones, to plug in and tune out. We have to engage these Singaporeans and help them understand the importance of staying anchored in the offline world, so that they can have a say in moulding the Singapore that they want to live in, one that provides them with the freedom, stability and security needed for their continued immersion in online social networks, computer games and Internet video, if they so choose.

Changes to the GRC system

18. So what can we do? What changes should we look at?

19. I think there are many things that can be done, and there is no single magic bullet. But in this speech, I will touch only on the most fundamental act in a democracy: the vote.

20. The act of voting represents the core of democracy and political participation. Yet, a large number of Singaporeans do not get to vote at each election, thanks to the prevalence of walkovers. Many Singaporeans have told me about their dismay at never having voted in their lives. While there may be other reasons for walkovers being so common, the size and number of Group Representation Constituencies is obviously a key reason. We cannot deny that the incidence of walkovers has been accompanied by the proliferation of five- and six-member GRCs.

21. For many Singaporeans, past changes in electoral boundaries, often pertaining to electoral wards that have just witnessed a close contest in the preceding elections, have also undermined the sacred act of voting. The oddity of Braddell Heights being part of Marine Parade GRC is merely the most striking example of such changes. I must point out that the changes to electoral boundaries leading up to the 2006 elections were not so egregious, and for that I thank and commend this Government. I hope that there will again not be any drastic changes when it comes to the next general elections, whenever they may be called.

22. Even if we accept that GRCs are necessary to ensure minority representation in Parliament, which is consistent with the Senior Minister’s third principle about diverse representation, there is nevertheless room for reducing the size of GRCs. I believe that there is also room to introduce more Single Member Constituencies, above the Constitutional minimum of 9 SMC wards. These moves, together with clear commitments to refrain from the constant re-drawing of electoral boundaries and to openly publish the reasons and justifications for any such re-drawing, will all go a long way towards restoring Singaporeans' respect for the political process in Singapore, and hence increasing their desire to participate in and engage with the political process. The act of voting embodies participation in democracy, and seeing and experiencing the potential for impact imbued in their vote will naturally lead to renewed political consciousness and empowerment amongst citizens.

23. The process of awakening Singaporeans' political consciousness and getting them to become more politically engaged is a long-term undertaking, and there are many things that can and need to be done. But given the central role played by voting in a democracy, that has to be the starting place if we truly want Singaporean politics to evolve and Singaporeans to participate. The sheer symbolism of a reduction in the size of GRCs and the introduction of more SMCs will go a long way towards convincing Singaporeans that the PAP is serious about political change, even if it may potentially put its absolute dominance of this House at risk.

24. Sir, the next elections have to be called by 2011. Even as we work on overcoming the economic difficulties facing us, we cannot run away from the immutable reality of the electoral timetable, and we should not close our eyes to the long-term challenges facing Singapore as a society, a polity and a nation. There is no better time to start facing up to them than with the next elections, and I urge the Government to make the right choice for Singaporeans, even if it may be at a potential cost to the ruling party. Only then, can we truly fulfill the Singapore Promise, and create our Home, our Future and our Singapore.

25. Sir, with that, I support the motion.

The line has been crossed

The attacks have continued since my last posting on this blog. In particular, the latest attacks have alleged and/or insinuated that (a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and (b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.

Both of these allegations are untrue and false. They are vile, vicious and malicious attacks on me, and nothing short of character assassination. I consider them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature.

I did not at any time ask for, and have not at any time been offered or accepted, any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity, including the Swedish politician named in the latest attack. The only sources of income (or funding) that I have, are my employer and the Government of Singapore (in the form of my monthly NMP allowance). Furthermore, I am not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and am certainly not their representative or “mole” in Parliament.

While I have not previously taken any action in response to the attacks to me on the Internet, I feel that this latest attack crosses the line and goes beyond any attacks that I am willing to countenance as being fair game for a public figure. I do not think that it is appropriate or acceptable for any MP, including an NMP, to accept any funding, whether local or foreign.

Accordingly, I made a police report on this matter tonight. I have also requested those forums that I am aware are currently hosting these falsehoods, to take them down.

In the interests of full transparency, I did meet with certain Swedish gentlemen recently. Details of those meetings are set out in my statement to the police. I met them at their request, just as I have met other foreigners from time to time, including staff from the various High Commissions and embassies in Singapore (such as from Australia, the US, the UK and other EU countries) and visiting foreigners, such as academics doing research on aspects of Singapore. At these meetings, we discuss matters related Singapore, in particular current affairs and the political situation in Singapore. From my perspective, these meetings are to help the foreigners obtain a better understanding of Singapore. I do not think that there was anything wrong with those meetings, and I have nothing to hide.

While I continue to believe that it is, on the whole, beneficial for Singaporeans to speak up for what they believe in, and I certainly hope that this wish and desire will continue and extend beyond the current discussions around the NMP re-nomination process and homosexuality, I also do believe -- and have always believed -- that rights and freedoms have limits.

I have to date refrained from taking any legal action in response to the lies and falsehoods that have been levelled at me. But this latest attack goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech, and I certainly will not tolerate the latest rounds of character assassination from cowards hiding behind the perceived anonymity of the Internet.

TODAY article tomorrow (well, Friday)

There will be an article in tomorrow's (Friday's) TODAY. This article will be about what is essentially a complaint to the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Law Society, the Singapore Academy of Law, and the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association, insinuating that my actions in relation to the AWARE EGM had breached the Legal Profession Act.

I gave some comments to TODAY, and I only want to reproduce the following in point form:

• I hope that this complaint is not part of the ongoing organised campaign targeting me.


• I am confident that my actions did not breach the relevant provision of the LPA. My conscience is clear and I sincerely believe the law is on my side.


• I am currently considering whether to write to these 4 groups, to clarify my position.

It's been a long day and it's late. So I'm going to sleep on this tonight, before deciding what/whether I will do anything else. Much as I want to move on with life, it seems that some folks simply cannot put what happened with AWARE behind them.

Observations of a lapsed citizen

Someone forwarded this to me, and I thought it was well-written and well-thought-through. The writer describes herself as a "lapsed citizen" -- not that she had let her citizenship lapse, but that she has ceased to be active in civil society. She was quite active in the late 90s and early 00s, but I had not heard from her for many years, until she sent me these observations last week.

Also, unless another significant event takes place that I want to write about, this will be my last post on what happened with AWARE.

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

There are many lessons to draw from the AWARE episode. While areas like steeplejacking or religious versus secular space in NGO are pertinent but I see also other more interesting aspects from my perspective of a "lapsed citizen"'.

2 worlds of Singaporeans collided at the Aware EGM. Not religious versus secular but 2 types of citizenry and their differences were so glaring it was blinding.

Legitimacy and authority

Josie, TSM, and their supporters were clearly more deferential to authority and hierarchical in their approach in life. Josie and the exco first expected to be shown this deference by their official position and by their credentials (as opposed to their passion, conviction or clarity of their own views whatever those are). I have read some comments by others that this is a miscalculation on their part. I dont think its a miscalculation, They may genuinely think their credentials alone would remove any doubts on their capabilities and were caught off guard when it did not resonate with the crowd. Some of the original AWARE members have equally impressive credentials but I dont think that is how they define themselves.

Josie and co are certainly not alone in this view of what gives them legitimacy. Verifiable or otherwise, it is widely accepted that Singapore society values academic excellence as a proxy for intelligence, success, wealth and therefore a higher right to rule and to lead over others.

Josie and co assumed their official postions allowed them to dictate how the meeting will be conducted without taking into account the original impetus for the mtg - that more than half of the original April AWARE membership had petitioned for their removal and that was the nature of the EGM they were presiding over. The underlying arrogance resulted in a team that was clearly unprepared to manage the meeting, mount their own offense/defense or even plan for an unfavourable voting outcome.

When their legitimacy was not accepted by the crowd (exasperated by their own mismanagement early in the mtg), they clearly crumbled and did not know how to regain any semblance of control of the EGM - the task of controlling the crowd ceded to the petitioners who ended up stepping into a void and took over to try to marshall and calm the crowd from the floor.

TSM make a similar mistake as Josie and her team, perhaps only amplified by the higher expectations on her given her self outed role as the puppetmaster.

They were very Singaporean in their view of how they thought the world should work and where is their rightful place in the world. It was just that there are apparently more than one definition of being Singaporean.

Submissiveness and (overly) respectful of hierarchy

While impassioned speakers come to the mic one after another and spoke their mind, Josie and the exco repeatedly asked for the "right of reply, coz its only fair" instead of just taking the mic time they had to actually reply! They were strangely waiting for the crowd to give an ok signal for them to start replying. I was amazed - it was perversely submissive behaviour. None of Josie's exco look or behaved like they were comfortable leading in any environment other than in a hierarchical manner where they can govern by official authority or within clear structural framework.

They spent more mic time asking for the right of reply than actually seizing the opportunity to respond to any of the criticism leveled at them. Not hearing a reasonable defence from them is probably the anticlimax of the whole afternoon.

By their behaviour, they strangely deferred to the crowd which became the more dominant force in the room. Josie and team effectively bowed to authority and waited for permission to speak, a permission that never came. They were meek as sheep in spite of their daring coup de'tat that culminated in the need for an EGM.

I doubt many of the people who spoke or were in the crowd would have quietly sat there if the roles were reversed. We would have fought back instead of being cowed.

They were meek like what Singaporeans were supposed to be. Again, the Singaporeans on the floor provided the contrast that not all Singaporeans are meek.

Individuals and the Independent Spirit

The supporters of the petitioners were boisterious and of independent spirit. The original petitioners thru We Are Aware had sent information ahead of time requesting that supporters let the petitioners lead and raise topics at the EGM. I read that as they were asking us to refrain from going to the mic and give the mic time to the official petitioners.

I recall having an instinctive resistance to the idea of anyone telling me not to speak or presuming to speak on my behalf. From the queue of people going to the mic, I was glad to see that many other people at the meeting were ignoring that suggestion.

I queued for about an hour and 45 mins to get into the hall. I also had my queue broken up once and had to rejoin another part of the queue before finally making it into the room. People came singly or in groups of about 2 to 3. Anecdotally, most do not seem to know any of the original AWARE members. They were individuals.

They supported the original AWARE's position on the vote but they did not necessarily deferred to their authority either. They cheered when they hear familiar names (and then strained their necks to see the faces coz they dont seem to be able to recognize the familiar AWARE faces) but were not about to sit quietly and only let the "old" AWARE speak on their behalf. They had something to say and they were making a beeline to queue for the one open mic on the floor.

For those of us who had hosted and sat through countless meetings/conferences where we beseeched people to ask questions at the mic, it was remarkable how the queue of people who wanted a turn at the mic never seem to end. They queued, spoke their mind and were more eloquent than anyone could have hoped or expected.

For civil society to continue to develop, our citizens need to participate in a contest of ideas and be willing to (re)imagine what is the society they want to live in and that they wish their children to inherit. The ability and willingness to step forward to express themselves as individual citizens who have a collective stake is key for ideas to surface and to persuade others to coalesce around a definition of society acceptable to all. I was reminded by sharp contrast public figures and politicians in Singapore who could not articulate their views or form arguments with clarity, passion or conviction, let alone persuade and inspire citizens.

Individual citizens rising beyond the concerns of daily bread and butter issues to bother about something that does not hit the pockets directly. I was reminded of the energy you find in schools, energy and passion we are often expected to lose as we graduate to adult life and hunker down to focus on earning a living.

The lapsed citizen in me always believed such Singaporeans exist in sufficient quantities because it is in the human spirit, I just never experienced an occasion of physical gathering of such scale (campus society, hall meetings and electionns not withstanding).

AWARE has been handed a great gift - the gift of potential renewal if they can harness the energy of these new members.

The lessons though I think are all political. In the larger political sphere, where they are not just women but Singapore citizens, what do they care about, who represents and leads these citizens and who can represent and lead them?

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.