What Did She Do to Deserve Position?

The New Paper ran this article on 20 April 2009:

'What did she do to deserve position?'
by Benson Ang

IT ALL began when a hand was raised, innocently enough, by a new member.

Ms Jenica Chua wanted to nominate Ms Charlotte Wong for vice-president.

And so began the takeover.

That 28 Mar annual general meeting (AGM) was to spark a bitter feud between new office-bearers and the old guard of the Association of Women For Action Research (Aware), one that has split the 24-year-old association.

What exactly happened that day? Four different sources present at the meeting have revealed the twists and turns that led to what amounted to the carpet being pulled from under the Aware stalwarts' feet.

Ms Wong's nomination raised eyebrows among veterans. A newcomer for vice-president? It was unheard of.

When Ms Wong made her pitch and listed her credentials, she hardly mentioned a word about feminism.

Said a source yesterday: 'Many of us wondered what has this woman done for Aware to deserve to be second-in-charge?'

How do her accomplishments compare to an incumbent, Ms Chew I-Jin, who has been volunteering for more than a decade. How does she compare to someone who has pounded the streets handing out flyers, and manned the phone for hours counselling desperate women?

How much did Ms Wong even know about Aware? Did she stand a chance?

She did.

In hindsight, the first indication that this election would be a watershed was the large turnout.

By 2pm, the Aware Centre was teeming with women. In previous years, only about 40 people would show up. But this year, there were over 100 - 80 of whom were fresh faces.

Almost all of them were middle-aged Chinese women. They appeared unfamiliar with the Aware Centre.

Both the air-conditioned conference room and the lobby had to be used to accommodate the large turnout.

Shock for veterans

Ms Constance Singam, 72, the outgoing president and chair of the AGM, nominated Mrs Claire Nazar for presidency. She spoke glowingly about Mrs Nazar's work on the sexual harassment committee.

Mrs Nazar was elected unopposed.

Next was the vice-president's seat. Ms Singam nominated Ms Chew, who gave a speech about her involvement with feminism.

After 15 years in Aware, this was her time to shine.

Then Ms Wong was nominated.

When both of them left the room, and it was time to vote, Ms Wong won by a huge margin.

The veterans were shocked.

They did not know Ms Wong. Neither did they know the women who voted for her. That was how Aware's No 2 spot went to an unknown.

This process - whereby a new member would nominate another new member, who was then voted in by new members - repeated itself when Ms Jenica Chua was elected honorary secretary.

By this time, older members were becoming alarmed. One said she felt uncomfortable with the new members running for positions because they did not understand Aware enough, and had not done enough for Aware.

But a new member replied that Ms Singam was looking for new faces, and they were new faces.

The pattern continued. All but one of the key positions were won by large margins - through new voters. Only another key position - assistant honorary treasurer - went to Ms Chew, and it was a walkover.

When it came to voting in committee members, each of the 13 nominees gave a speech, and the ones with the top six votes were to get in.

During the meeting, some veteran members started searching the Internet for background on the more vocal new members. They discovered that many of them had written strongly-worded letters to the press against gay lifestyles.

This, combined with the increasingly obvious voting pattern, prompted the veteran members to start asking a lot more questions.

A veteran member pointedly asked a new member what she felt about homosexuality. Her reply: She didn't accept it.

The veteran member rebutted: 'But in Aware, we do not discriminate.'

The new member said she just did not agree with gay lifestyles. Eventually, she got voted in.

One nominee, a veteran member, spoke passionately about the need to educate teenagers about safe sex and the dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases.

She got one of the lowest number of votes.

Throughout the meeting, several veterans said they were happy that so many people were interested in Aware, but advised these members to familiarise themselves with Aware before running for key positions.

Their advice went unheeded.

When the meeting ended at 5.30pm, only three of the 12 were veterans.

And that was how 28 Mar became the day the old guard of Aware was caught unawares.