Well aware

Guess this is a hot topic all over Singapore. Doesn't matter if I do not put my few cents worth on my homepage, I'm sure there are others with similar opinions. But i felt a need to summarise the pertinent issues...

In my own view, the main cause of the whole saga, is in fact, the old Singaporean mentality - lack of concern over issues not concerning us, even when we are members. Let me give you an analogy using every day example - a situation that is present even in the schools. It is time to elect the executive committee of a CCA, say Chinese Orchestra. So many members did not turn up, either they're "busy" or simply, cannot be bothered. Therefore, only those who're genuinely interested turn up. Notice that how most eager beavers are friends with eager beavers and how the "slack" or apathic ones stay out. (birds of the same kind, ya?) so these eager beavers that turn up naturally will vote for eager beavers which they know (hello, surely you won't vote for a stranger if you can help it) and so most of the executive committee elected are eager beavers.

Now the slack ones come along and realise that they have no slack people in the exco, so they make a big fuss about it. (imagine a friend you don't really like gets elected, you'd start talking about them, expressing your discontent, smearing their names) Most times, these slack people only talk, don't do much. But once you do something which they cannot stand it, like on issues that they're not open about, you're triggering the time bomb, for these people then will not see the whole issue, not see how they've irresponsibly given up their chance and right as a member to vote and cry foul. so they rope in their friends to join in and help them tear down the whole exco. They've got more new members, that's how they won. They've joined not because they are interested in helping others through their CCA, but they cannot stand certain viewpoints put forth by individuals of the exco.

Simple as that. So who're the ones then who're usurping? The newly elected exco or the members who didn't turn up?

So now the journalist comes along and sees this is a news-worthy thing. So he/she sensationalises certain facts that they know will stir the readers. Notice how certain issues naturally surface - the hotter issues - like religion (like hello, this is something that stirs everyone, from the first man till now), homosexuality, racial issues. The issues that segregate. Where are the issues about the abused women, the incomplete families, women's rights. (ha, tongue in cheek question - how about women in NS?) Why don't the ones who make so much noise ask the new exco what they have in mind for these issues? Is it really necessary to keep on highlighting the fact that these women came from the same church and put them in a light that as if they were trying to do something bad? The journalist knows how to tweak their words to imply what they want to imply and people believe everything they hear as gospel truth.

And to have 2700 new members (9 times that of the original) voting for the exco, would you be confident that whoever they've elected are really up to the mark? Come on, you just sign up outside the AGM venue, you don't know how the organisation works, you've not seen what their committee's doing, you listen to sensationalised news and you vote, thinking your choice is right? And so after this saga, you're not going to fulfill your responsibilities and right as a member and continue to let the select few run the show as they deem fit.

So how have things changed before and after the saga? Nothing. Only hype and ugliness of women (and men) shown.

You join because you don't agree to the xyz view of these people. You join not because you want to help those who're in need, but join because you wanted to "prove" your view is "right" or rather, more popular. Victory is yours, but is it really a victory?

It is true that this saga came about also partly due to how the way people behave and do things. These eager beavers were too eager to do what they aspire to and forgot that change needs time. Yet, if we look to the root and cause, it is nothing more than the juvenile primary school kid reply, "I don't friend you."

Crying foul when you lose isn't quite the right way to go.

Perhaps, after writing this, many will blast this page, but this is my personal viewpoint on the matter. I may not be correct, but i don't think i should be persecuted for my views. (Eg much as i don't agree to what Jackie Chan said about Chinese and singaporeans, i definitely do not think people should issue death threats. Can people just be less juvenile?)

Note that I am not saying this because of the issues involved, or my faith, or my affiliated institutions. Rather i feel that as adults we have to act in a less juvenile way...

By the way, just read Dr Lee Wei Ling's comment in Sunday Times again. I wonder, what's her view on this saga? perhaps, she might share my sentiments! Ha!