As a journalist, Balji is clearly cognisant of the wider civil society in which AWARE operates. He comments on the recent stealth takeover during its AGM by a group whose motives, agenda, and rationale for launching the takeover have not been revealed to the media, ordinary members of AWARE, and least of all to attendees at the AGM. Claiming that "the ladies at AWARE do not seem to get it", Balji does a David Carradine, reminding everyone that it's all about clash of ideas!
The silly old guard who got outfoxxed and outgunned should not be "furious" "sore losers" - if they want to take back their organisation, they should engage in a clash of ideas! If the old guard are upset at the sneaky nature of the takeover, they must take them on and show why they are no good for the future of AWARE.
Silly, silly old PN Balji obviously doesn't get it, despite shaking his avuncular finger at the "old", "sore", "upset" "losers" (btw, NICE JOB slamming the old guard and casting them as emotional whacko females, MR BALJI!!!!1111 I luvs how subtle you can get!).
One wonders why he's preaching the good old civil society value, the clash of ideas, to the old guard. If I'm reading the esteemed Mr Balji right, the onus is on the old guard to commit itself to a clash of ideas and show AWARE members that it deserves to get the organisation back.
As opposed to having the onus on the new guard to commit itself to a clash of ideas at the AGM itself - instead of stacking the meeting with their minions and getting themselves elected without a candid discussion of what they stood for, how they differed from who they sought to replace, and why they were no good for the future of AWARE.
But just so you know, PN Balji has more issues with the old losers than the new interlopers.
2. Clash of ideas - once more into the fray
But bless the pox-ridden heart of PN Balji! Deep down in his black soul, the man realises the sanctity of civil society and its core values.
Let's review: civil society is the conglomeration of free, uncoerced human association and its set of relational networks, formed for family, faith, interest, ideology. These networks would include interest groups, various clubs, labour unions, social movements, citizen advocacy groups and others.
The health of civil society depends on its constituents to freely and civilly engage in the clash of ideas that PN Balji so cherishes. It doesn't matter who you disagree or agree with, out of whichever ideology or faith - what matters is the freedom to engage, disengage, to foster patterns of civility in the polity, to create a sphere of social action independent of any totalising force.
Let us apply to the case of the AWARE takeover, the concept of civil society and its basic requirement for an open, honest, protected clash of ideas.
Much of the online wanking tossers - gays, conservatives, pseudo shock jocks, or fashionistas simply trying to grab recognition as serious political commentators - have come up with praises for the takeover - it worked, things like that happen in condo committee AGMs, this shows they're organised and effective (AND READY ON DAY ONE!)
I would not have believed that there are people who could be more blind than the esteemed PN Balji. But what we have here, is a failure to understand the concept of civil society and its underlying fundamentals. Civil society cannot exist if people stop talking to one another. Civil society cannot exist if people resort to violence. Civil society cannot exist if people are more interested in secretive, numerical-based power struggles instead of the clash of ideas.
The new AWARE exco did not behave as if AWARE was a civil society group. They behaved as if it were some condo committee. The new AWARE exco were the opposite of open, refusing to explain themselves in the AGM, or to offer what they saw was wrong with the old gang, or right with themselves. The new AWARE exco gave perfunctory speeches about their belief in the tenets of feminism, so perfunctory no one believed it was their real agenda. The new AWARE exco shot first, then promised to talk later. We're still waiting for them to give a clear account of who they are, what they believe in, and what they intend to do with AWARE.
On a side note, I would like to express my profound regret about Charlotte Wong Hock Soon and Peggy Leong Pek Kay. Wong was a former sociology and anthropology lecturer at NUS, while Leong was a sociology graduate. It is extremely embarrassing for the Sociology Department of NUS, as for its graduates, that these two persons hail from the same department. One would expect, from the wealth of wisdom and teaching from sociology and anthropology, that this sort of hostile takeover is just not done, and runs counter to the spirit of everything we have been taught about urban society and the civic space. Shame on the both of you!