The battle @ AWARE
I followed the twists and turns of the recent AWARE exco changeover with a wide range of emotions. Surprise turned to revulsion to optimism to alarm and dismay.
Many ugly accusations have been thrown up - religious zeal, sneaky takeover, hidden agenda, pro-homosexual or anti-gay leanings. All carry some element of truth. All are distorted and exaggerated claims.
The battle lines are drawn. The present exco is facing an EOGM this weekend that has been called to vote them out of office. Both sides are shoring up resources through mass recruitment. Emotions run high as each camp try to explain what is at stake according to their personal belief value systems.
I do not expect the current exco to be unseated. And, believe it or not, AWARE will continue to do its work no matter who runs the organisation.
It is a false argument that AWARE will cease to be a secular organisation if it is overrun by members headed by an exco that are of a particular religious bent.
AWARE is and will always be secular because it is governed by the consititution and laws that created it. What will change is the flavour of the organisation.
I am not moved to join the campaign to wrest authority away from the current exco because I see the mass recruitment exercise as a hysterical irrational call to restore bruised egos.
Regardless of the outcome of the EOGM, no woman will be deprived of whatever support or service she may be getting from AWARE now because there are alternative support and help groups that do similar work.
Now, let the battle begin.
6 comments:
I didn't think voting out the new exco will help either. After all, who would then form another new ex-co? And would their agenda have to be the same as the old to be non-suspicious?
wildgoose - both are good questions. which raises another question - besides voting to throw out the current exco, what will i be voting for?
I feel that names calling are just childish. On both sides. And touching on sensitive issues like religion and sexual orientation shows how much civil mindedness both parties have. Do they have to stoop so low? I mean its embarassing. It is worse than pri sch petty quarrels....totally hilarious and immature!
Nothing, I guess. It's just saying, not-X, but not saying what is to replace X.
i think i'm very much concerned about what happens at Aware even though i think it's ridiculously childish. because the movements they represent are far greater than the sum of these individuals. there're nuances of relgion vs religion, civil society vs civil society. and unfortunately, many are not willing to step into that position to take sides. but if there is silence now, there will come a day when civil society has no more voice. and that's exactly what i'm standing against.
bunny - the bickering as reported is childish and unproductive.
wildgoose - people presume if not-X then Y. then the question is whether Y is better than not-X.
imp - i understand your argument. i think this is an interesting case to see how much who wants what for whom. i am not moved to get involved in this particular instance because i don't think the original crew at aware is worth saving esp when the appointed president walked away when things got troublesome.
Post a Comment