Angry Doctor

Monday, April 13, 2009

Support Love


Thanks to fellow Clearthought-blogger Leng Hiong, angry doc now has a way to take over the Singapore Medical Association.

But seriously, folks...

This episode seems to have made people who keep an eye on the issue of LGBTQ rights worried (see here and here and other pages linked to).

angry doc doesn't know if their fears will become true, but he will be watching. It will be interesting to see how AWARE will dress a homophobic agenda as something that promotes "Gender Equality for All".

When angry doc started this blog, he made a conscious decision to not 'show his politics' here, but that came to an end when he decided to rebut a letter to the ST Forum that he believed was misrepresenting medical science - he did not have a horse in the race himself when it came to the issue of LBGTQ rights, but the tactics employed by the anti-gay lobby bugged him at an intellectual level.

But things have happened in angry doc's life since then that makes him now consider the issue of LBGTQ rights as something that concerns him personally, and he is now willing to use the meagre influence of his blog to raise awareness on it and to champion it, even when the context of the topic at hand is not something strictly related to science or medicine.

Even if it will cost him eventually. Even if it will hurt him.

Support love.

Because if it's not going to be about love in the end, then what's the whole point?

Labels: ,

posted by angry doc at 12:00 am

12 Comments:

  • Hi angrydoc,
    I also do not have any horse in this race but what has happened is what happens week in and week out in many AGM's of societies/MCST's/clubs.
    It may seem terrible for new people to suddenly appear and take over but it is perfectly legal ( hey but don't flame me- I am just stating the obvious).
    That is why I always say to one and all, that if we are passionate about our club/society, we must be active in how it run an prevent boardroom's coup de tet like what happened in AWARE.
    When we suddenly see total strangers suddenly put up nominations ( esply en-mass) the rest of members must mobilise and do countermeasures- or else the club/society will go down.
    I have personally been involved in counter-measures where members mobilised to be nominated/concerned members asked to turn up to vote out unsuitable nominees.
    Wake up people.
    If we don't care about the clubs/societies or in the wider picture- the country, other more organised groups can just come in , do a coup ( albeit legal) and run the thingy the way they like.
    Let me say here, bloggers here will make a loud ruckus about this but when you ask them to stand for election or even to turn up to vote , they will rather go shopping!

    By Blogger nofearSingapore, At April 14, 2009 10:54 am  

  • It just occurred to me that our esteemed collague may try the same move at the SMA...

    Anyway, as I commented on Leng Hiong's blog, this kind of thing is an inherent weakness of any association or special interest group that purports to represent a big group of people, but which only require a quorum of fewer than a hundred to elect executives and amend constitution.

    Unfortunately, while it is legal for the chairman to call for a postponement if there are not enough members present to form a quorum, I don't think it is legal for him to postpone an election if there are too many members present!

    By Blogger angry doc, At April 14, 2009 2:36 pm  

  • Hi
    even if there is no quorum by the time the AGM was scheduled to start, there is some kind of rule that says, ( I may be wrong), that the AGM would re-convene half an hour later and be allowed to go on even if no quorum.
    If that is the case, those resolution that requires quorum ( eg amendments of constitutions) cannot be passed but most other admin stuff including elections can.
    As defence against such boardroom coups many societies/clubs require nominations to be submitted before AGM day and some designate higher levels of memberships ie cadre memberships- Communist party/PAP/WP, who will vote for the Exco.
    This is not so democratic but prevents coups ! haha
    Looks like Aware is not aware of all such tricks and was COMPLACENT!
    You heard the old-timers' responses? They thought they can just stroll in ( probably late) and expect the usual perfunctionary like of AGM's. It is their own faults! Cry babies!

    By Blogger nofearSingapore, At April 14, 2009 8:18 pm  

  • "I also do not have any horse in this race but what has happened is what happens week in and week out in many AGM's of societies/MCST's/clubs."

    Hmmm... is this true? I don't know that wholesale ousting of a previous exco is a common situation; I thought that it was unusual, which is why it's newsworthy.

    By Blogger The Key Question, At April 14, 2009 10:52 pm  

  • Hi Leng Hiong,
    The situation I discribed is not uncommon.
    It is easy to orchestrate esply in apathetic and simple-minded committees.
    Beware loop-holes like "proxy" or "absentee" votes.
    Have you heard of people who go round asking members to sign "blank check" proxy forms and letting another member exercise the voting as the attending member deem fit .
    Lim, there are many people out there with ulterior motives ( I am not saying the new Aware's motives are not honorable) who will scheme and plan in order to have things their way at AGM's.
    The Aware was newsworthy mainly ( or only) because of the issue of homophobia.
    The religious right in Singapore is very strong and organised about this issue.
    In my blog posts about politics- I get very measured responses from people pro- or anti-govt.
    But on the issue of 377, the responses were very emotional and very guttural ( I mean irrational).
    Aware's old-guards were caught off-guard because of complacency.

    By Blogger nofearSingapore, At April 15, 2009 4:13 am  

  • well, is there any organisation that actually cross swords with the religious right here? I think that is the bigger issue flashed out by the AWARE incident

    By Blogger socguy, At April 18, 2009 1:30 am  

  • Notice that some Christian extremists tend to use abbreviated names like "George Lim", even though the ST Forum page requires forum letter writers to "include your full name (as in IC)".

    These guys are scared of bloggers like you! Good job!

    By Anonymous Chris, At April 18, 2009 12:46 pm  

  • "is there any organisation that actually cross swords with the religious right here?"

    The law actually forbids crossing swords with the religious.

    Specifically, it states that:

    "Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both."

    Curiously, religion and race are lumped together in this statement, when the former is a creed one adopts, while the other one is something one cannot change.

    Also, it appears that truth is no defence in this case - all it takes for one to be guilty is for a person's religious feelings to be wounded (whatever that means). You may state that a fact held to be true by a religion is in fact false, but it still won't save you if that offends religious feelings.

    Perhaps gays should declare homosexuality a religion, or atheists can call atheism a religion. :)

    By Blogger angry doc, At April 18, 2009 2:31 pm  

  • "These guys are scared of bloggers like you! Good job!"

    I don't think an anonymous blogger like me can call Mr Lim scared. :)

    By Blogger angry doc, At April 18, 2009 2:32 pm  

  • "Perhaps gays should declare homosexuality a religion, or atheists can call atheism a religion. :)"

    Must it necessarily be an institutional religion to be recognized by the law? What about the deists and the pantheists?

    By Blogger The Key Question, At April 19, 2009 12:25 am  

  • I law doesn't state this. I'm not even sure what constitutes wounding religious feelings.

    By Blogger angry doc, At April 19, 2009 10:11 am  

  • I was browsing some rules and regulations regarding the use of NACLI facilities and one of the things that brought a smile to my face was that they had a line saying that activities conducted must not offend religious sensibilities of christians, muslims, buddhists blah blah blah and atheists.

    Honestly I'd be offended by any flagrant invasion of public space by any religion.

    By Anonymous Edgar, At April 21, 2009 8:42 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home