Aware

Being a male, the ferocious catfight (pun intended) amongst the new and old Aware Ex-Co have little to no impact on me.

However, I still follow the Aware ruckus with some interest since there’s some hints of an underlying conspiracy in the ‘brazen’ power-grab by the ‘new team’.

Allegations that the coup was ochestrated by people belonging to a particular religion is of particular interest. While I am a Catholic, I always believe that some things are best left to secular decision-making and that the Church can always deliver its differing message or teachings through its own formal channels.

Thus, I find it rather inappropriate, and dangerous, if a group of persons with similar religious inclinations, not to mention, attending the same church, takes over a secular organisation, with the objective of imposing their religious values/beliefs on the organisation, if that’s proven to be true over time.

While the verdict is still out. I find myself drawn towards the arguments of the ousted so-called ‘old-guards’.

The new Ex-Co members have so far failed to account, unless simply worded replies are to be taken at face value, for some of their actions/deeds. Nor their allegations that Aware is turning into a single-issue organisation, read pro-homosexuality/lesbianism, is clearly elaborated nor justified in their latest press releases.

Aware’s in-fighting problems are unlikely to end quickly nor amicably.

 Despite many stating that the election process in Aware as democratic, I would liken the current situation to a country being suddenly flooded by foreign immigrants, whose enbloc voting powers unseats the government that welcomed them. Imagine Singapore being governed by ‘citizens’ who had entered the country for only months/or weeks.

The lesson for the old guards perhaps is to give new members a period of assimilation as a “PR” before deciding if these new member truly buy into the values of the organisation. Those that disagree should (a) voice their concerns, and (b) move on, i.e. get out, and form their own organisations if their views differ greatly from those of the organisation’s.