Just.

So. Did you go to the AWARE EGM to stand up for your stolen rights? There were good people who went, wanting to stand up against the fundamentalist tyrants, wanting to do some good. There were of course, those who went just so that they can twitter and blog about it to an audience craving for updates (I heard the no 1 twitter trend for that day was #awaresg). And then you have your lemmings.

Of course I didn’t. Bo eng lor, I spent the whole day kite-flying and cycling with my girls.

Not that I didn’t think that the way the group wriggled themselves into the hot seats were any decent, mind you. Subterfuge behaviour is not any self respecting Christian will endeavour towards, and I believe there were more than a few Christians who took exception to such funky tactics.

OK the thing is this. I never thought AWARE to be any organization to be representative of my rights or my beliefs. They did some good things for some people,  no doubt about it, but even in my moments of literal blue and black inflicted by the ex, AWARE had not one sliver of relevance in my life.

I am aware that this might not win me a popularity award (like that would stop me), but I make no apologies for saying this. How I stood up again and moved on with my life, how my mum carved a niche for herself a male-dominated workplace and the educational opportunities paved for my daughters etc etc. had not a fig to do with AWARE.

I respect the goal of equal rights, choice and opportunities, but the beauty of feminism and standing up for one’s own rights is exactly that – a personal empowerment and an individual responsibility. There is strength in numbers perhaps, but still, it is an individual responsibility. Not the empowerment of an organization to do it on your behalf. And certainly not to support the flawed argument fronting the hidden agenda of the old guard, which is to seize on the anti-gay element of COOS and work it with a frenzy to their advantage.

To sum it up, Josie Lau and group lost primarily because of their subterfuge tactics, the delusionally grandiose Thio Su Mien and most importantly the non action of a people who couldn’t bring themselves to support stealth tactics and who believed that religion had no place in a secular organization that aimed to cater to all women across race and religion. Not that we were all rooting so badly for the old guard.

Iif Josie and gang had not been sneaky from the start, had not been burdened with the Feminist Mentor (snort!) and had padded up on their media savvy, the old guard probably did not stand a chance. Indeed, going by the public sentiment and general comments in blogs, a lot of people seemed to think that the old guard are being a bunch of sore losers and were inclined to give the new (now old) exco a chance to prove themselves. Too bad they shot themselves in the foot with the ’sit down and shut up’ phrase (which the whole world repeated to death thereafter) and the antics demonstrated throughout the whole circus act.

And a circus act it was. Looking at the videos on youtube was painful, to say the least. Ladies who behaved unlike ladies (yes I know they were provoked, but still), tolerance and manners were left outside the locked doors, infantile snatching of microphones, shouting, shoving, threats and other ugliness which should not have seen the day were strangely celebrated in a proclaimed feat of victory for liberation, democracy and human rights.

I wonder.

The few who came out smelling like roses were people like Irene Ang who managed to put forth her argument in a most articulate and thankfully, non hysterical way, Braema Mathi who tried to put some sense into an unruly crowd and Josie Lau – yes, she carried herself in a dignified and collected manner throughout the ruckus despite being heckled and booed at, which is more than I say so for the rest of the fight club.

If you were there, and you remained calm and in control despite the circumstances and the environment, kudos to you too. Drop me a note, won’t you.

What was also interesting was the gay crowd’s response to the whole debacle. Except for a very vocal minority (though by the amount of noise they made, you would have thought they are the majority) who seemed to delight in a victim mentality and for whom ‘pro-family’, ‘Christian’ and ‘fundamentalist’ are dirtier profanities than ‘fuck’, the rest of the gay people seemed to take the view of the majority of the female population who did not attend the EGM – it had neither relevance nor impact and they probably don’t give a damn too.

I also don’t fathom the victim mentality. The last time I asked around, most people have gay and lesbian friends, some of whom we are even tight with. There is not one person in our circles of friends, extending beyond six degrees of separation, of whom we know to be ‘pro-family homophobes‘. Maybe I am moving in the wrong circles. Heck, even my mum who is so conservative that she blushes at the sight of my thongs hanging out to dry has this to say about gays – ‘they are also human, what‘.

And in all honesty, Singaporeans are quite a tolerant and even accepting bunch of people when it comes to gays and gay rights. At least we all co-exist peacefully though sometimes not so comfortably in a social context, which is more than I say for homosexual acceptance in countries like Iran, UAE or even our dear neighbour, Malaysia. So what if you have a few haters in a population of millions?

So, the way I see it, the whole saga had nothing to do with gay or anti-gay agendas (though it was cleverly made use of by the old guard) and religion (those nasty Christians!). It was all but a  painfully grace-less exit grandiosely peppered with different agendas and masterfully orchestrated by some.

So what if Josie and gang won? Do they have any real power to impose their anti-gay agenda? Well, they do if we let them. And that’s what I am saying, people.

Really at the end of the day, it’s a non issue. It doesn’t affect me in any way who controls AWARE. The rest of the female/ gay/ straight population who did not turn up at the EGM probably think so too.

And for those who fought so hard for the Josie Lau group to be removed and for the old guard to be reinstated – your tenacity and commitment in fighting for what you believed in were admirable. But. What now?

**

UPDATE

What do you know, the President of AWARE, Dana Lam has written to the press to protest about the ‘objectification of women’ and the ‘cost suffered by other women’. Again, I understand the unspoken expectation to write in and make some form of official objection given her position, but frankly I think it is more empowering to feel that women don’t need to be stood up for (even by another member of the sex) and to respect other women’s decisions and rights, though you might not agree with them. Unfortunately, despite her best efforts, there is that underlying current of one gender being pitted against the other.

Don’t get me wrong – I think the strength of women who come together for a common goal and purpose should not be underestimated. But as opposed to making a stand against a worldly sexism, how about the amplification of a stand for the healthy respect and appreciation of a woman’s beauty and strengths?

And trust me, men know the very difference between the women who welcome being valued proportionately to the size of their breasts, and those who want to be valued for their character and contribution.

In any case, how do you lose your own self worth, respect and dignity based on another’s behaviour?

To say that the ‘indignity is suffered only by one gender’ was probably stretching it a little. To be brutal, the very existence of women who ‘welcome being valued proportionally to their breasts’ is to make women who ‘want to be valued for their character and contribution’ look that much better.

After all, you must have stupid to showcase clever, non?

When it comes to defending my rights of self expression and freedom of blogging, I would be the first to tell anyone who wants to regulate my blogging to take a hike (and I am sounding nice here).

Having said that, I can hear you screaming, “Then what are you doing on the committee of an association that

1. regulate how bloggers blog;
2. has the chutzpah to represent all bloggers in Singapore;
3. teaches bloggers how to or what to blog?!”

The answers are ridiculously simple.

1. We do not presume to regulate or help people to regulate.
2. We do not want to, have never claimed to nor can we represent anyone. The Singapore tag is an indication of location and not territory.
3. We may organize workshops and seminars facilitated by qualified professionals but the choice is always up to the individual to attend.

There have been a few assumptions and questions over the last few days. The team has answered here and the below are my personal thoughts.

Protection

It is ludicrous to assume that any association can protect you if you commit an offense. Try asking a lawyer if the Law Society can protect him if he embezzles or slanders. Very clearly, the answer is no.

Validation

People are also asking why they should join the association to validify their status or existence as bloggers. My answer again is painfully simple. You don’t. You don’t join the Chinese Association to prove you are a Chinese. You don’t join AWARE to prove you are a woman. You join any association purely and simply because of either interest or passion. And if it’s not your cup of tea, don’t.

In fact, I was very surprised this question even came up.

Why set up an Association?

Then you may ask, so what is this Association for?

Plainly, and without the stuffy language of Constitution talk, here goes.

There is unity and strength in numbers. Simply, it is easier to organize any activity or workshop if the numbers are there. It is easier to get projects, opportunities and what nots if the numbers are there. Sure the ‘top bloggers’ get their projects, opportunities, their free wine and dine events, their freebie gadgets – but are they sharing it with you? You might argue that not everyone is interested in perks and opportunities but even celebrities are not exempt. To each their own, I say.

When we talk about educating bloggers, it is not about telling them how or what to blog. For example, I was a tech idiot and never knew how to use HTML, much less do blog templates or what nots. I wished that there were some kind of workshops where I can glean such hands-on knowledge, but there were none when I started out. It appears that I am not alone. Sure, you might be so smart that you never need any help, but there are others who do. Why be selfish and decline them the opportunity? Why stop us from building up a community of newbie or fledging bloggers? Why must we fill it with A list bloggers? Question, questions.

Government Lap Dog

Then there is the hooha about the government endorsement and about AIMS and Lam Pin in Today. I find the angle of the article regrettable, though the intentions of the reporter might be good. In that alignment and ‘endorsement’ by the establishment, bloggers viewed us as being establishment and government lap dogs.

What a joke. Many of us were openly critical of the government and policies from time to time in our blogs.

As for the conspiracy theory about us wearing white tops (and therefore PAP), I am not even going to justify that. American classics anyone?

Unity and individualism

The  beauty about every blogger is their individualistic entity. Everyone has their own method of expression and their own way of thinking. In seeking unity, we are not looking to make clones of everyone, but to help like- minded people forge a homogeneous identity. From the reactions of some, you’d have thought we are killing little babies.

Website

Some made an issue out of the wordpress free website even though we had already clearly explained that that it is a temporary site. I admit the timing was too tight, what with the Today article being published and the Association being registered just three days earlier.

In fact, this timing also affected many of our other logistics and marketing plans. Without going into too many details, I can just say that some things were beyond our control. We are now working on a proper website.

Nobody and A list bloggers

Ah.. this is my favourite -

‘Who are you to set up an Association? You bunch of nobody bloggers with dunno what credentials.’

I will be the first to admit I am a low profile blogger. You don’t and will never see me posting sex links or jumping on the ’scandals’ bandwagon to whore out for traffic. I also don’t buy into the elitist nonsense of A list, big time, top, celebrity or rock star bloggers and that the rest of us are ‘nobodies‘ or ‘lesser mortals‘.

Endoh asks which one do you prefer:-

Inviting only A-list/top bloggers because they are famous.

OR

Inviting even the commoners among the blogosphere to let them know they need not be A-list/top bloggers to also actively participate.

John McCain’s gracious concession speech – possibly one of his best speeches.

Honestly, though I think McCain is a good old chap with an evil sense of humour, his choice of Palin ultimately did him in good. The gaffes, the cluelessness on foreign policies and the wardrobe – too much to stomach. I shudder at the thought of her being remotely close to being the next President of America.

Also, after what Bush did to America’s economy, what with subprime loans, war policies and what nots, America is ready for a necessary change, a change which might be too radical for McCain and his conservative Republican policies and ideas. And so that change came in the form of Barack Obama.

Though our dear MM Lee once dismissed Obama as being too inexperienced and a ‘flash in the pan’ and that America is not ready for a bi-racial President, he is once again being proven wrong in the landslide votes – America had spoken and had spoken very clearly.

Part 1 of Barack Obama’s Victory Speech

Part 1 of Barack Obama’s Victory Speech

Difference between the two Presidential candidates and our politicans

When I was following the speeches on Wednesday, I was struck by the difference in the two politicians campaigning and fighting with so much passion for the presidency and our very own ministers and leaders, who were, for want of a better description, enticed and bought with money.

The jarring difference is painfully obvious. McCain, in his concession speech, pledges his full support to his opponent who had won. He said “the failure is mine, not yours.”

Our Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, urges us not to vote in too many opposition politicians lest he has to spend more time thinking about how to ‘buy votes and fix the opposition‘.

Obama said to the red voters, “And, to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too.”

Our Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, said ‘we decide what is right. Never mind what people think’ in 1987, while the opposition wards like Potong Pasir seem to have been marked off the property radar of Singapore.

Great world of difference – and we are constantly being fed nuggets of wisdom on how dangerous the Western liberation and democracy is and our MM Lee even said that the ‘one man one vote system is too dangerous’. Just look how dangerous and gracious McCain and Obama became. Don’t worry – our own leaders are not remotely even close to that kind of ‘danger’. Our leaders are incapable of being gracious even when talking about a dead opponent, much less one he would have to spend time ‘fixing’.

Indeed, if the political climate in America was like that of our country, Obama will not be given the opportunity to even serve in Senate. His family circumstances, the race issue, his radical ideas and thinking not in line with ruling party’s – all these would have worked against him here but not in America where the people have spoken.

Why the glaring difference

I believe it lies in one single factor – passion. Obama and McCain may have had different convictions and political beliefs but the common denominator was that they campaigned hard for the presidency. Obama particularly, harnessed a creative use of social media to speak to the masses. Were they enticed with a million dollar salary to run for presidency? Were they promised a nanny in the form of the GRC protection in their election? Nothing was handed to them on a silver spoon.

They battled hard and in some instances, fought dirty and showed grit and tenacity in their quest of ‘may the best man win’. I respect that deeply.

Our ministers, who have to be persuaded in tea sessions and monetary offers so that they will leave their ‘lucrative practices’ and promised candidacy where a heavyweight big brother will take care of you in the elections – forget it. What passion? What fiery oratory can these people be capable of? MM Lee loves to justify the ministerial salary to how much ministers like Ng Eng Hen and Vivian Balakrishnan were making in their practices before. Were Obama and McCain not wealthy before they chose to run for presidency?

When Obama spoke, the hair on the back of my neck stood and I felt awed, hope, comforted and inspired by the power of his conviction and the change that is to come. When McCain spoke, I felt humbled by his graciousness and respect for his consideration of the bigger picture.

When our ministers spoke, I usually feel nothing but anger and contempt, or at best – nonchalance.

Dr Terence Chong of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies told ST that ‘while Singaporeans cheer and dream along with Americans as global citizens, when it comes to local politicians, they just want them to make sure that the street lights work in the evening and there are jobs in the morning‘ and that we ‘accept that Singapore leaders don’t do inspiration, they do competence and reliability‘.

Really? Why is there a mutual exclusivity between ‘inspiration’ and ‘competence and reliability’?

Also, with the recent financial saga and with Singapore being the first Asian country to go into recession, it seems that the claim of ‘competence and reliability’ is pretty dody, much less the hope of being inspiring.

Yes, we can

In a nation where the mantra of the leadership is ‘we decide what is right. Never mind what people think”, we have to accept that there will only be concessionary change – Speakers’ Corner, political films (like we care, they were being distributed anyway) etc, just to wayang a little. The leadership style, the iron arm tactics, the ‘we know what is best’ authoritarian style  – I doubt these will change.

But we can. We, as a people, can change to be less apathetic and more socially conscious. When will we ‘cast off the slumber into which you have been led into for the last 10 years. Wake up to your rights as a human being, to your proper role as citizens of this country.’ – in the words of JB Jeyaretnam?

I believe that we, as a people, do want change. Just look at the turnout in the WP rally in the 2006 elections.

When will our people speak? When will we stand out and stand as a people, ‘Yes, we can’ or most importantly, ‘Yes, I can’?

But I didn’t blog about it cos I didn’t the title of the show, the head or the tail of it. Only caught a glimpse of the “proposing” part before I switched to the video channel to watch my SATC.

What really caught my attention was, the guy really took the effort to surprise his girlfriend, and he also said something to the effect of:

You may find another who you may like more than me, but you will never find another who loves you more than I do.

That’s really the most touching thing I have ever come across. No wonder the girl said yes.

****

You know some people who just get married just because they “have been dating for so long, might as well get married” or just follow the herd of courtship, marriage and the 2.3 kids?

I really cannot imagine living a mundane life like that, having life lead you around the bushes just because.

I heard some stories about some prominent families and socialities here in Singapore in the course of my work, and some just make me feel so sorry for them.

Imagine if you cannot marry the one you love, but the one your parents pick out to strengthen the family ties and business strategic alliance.

Imagine that you cannot have recourse of any sort, and must hide behind a facade of faux sophistication and worldliness when you husband is cheating on you right and left.

Imagine having to make decisions on who you marry based on not the capacity of your love and emotion towards the person, but on cold logic on how the person can contribute to your social standing and to your idea of what fits in.

I feel nothing but sympathy for these folks.

I don’t know about others but for me, I simply cannot be with a person for whom I have little or no love, and that’s regardless of how rich he is or how he cna contribute to my family’s business. If I am not happy in a relationship, I would waste no time on status quo or just dragging on aimlessly. No, I would cut my losses and move on. No point wasting either parties’ time. And if I am still seeing a guy after six months, that’s basically good news, because I have a very short attention span, and a even shorter fuse..