TR EMERITUS

Written by Darkness & Missy Dotty of the brotherhood / AWARE has a brand new leadership. They were voted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the charter governing associations. The matter should be cut and dried, right?   Apparently, not – far from it, it seems. As many of the ex AWARE committee members are calling for a special assembly to table a vote of no confidence?   Is that right? I am not asking you whether that’s legally right; rather is it morally right to throw out the ballot box and resort to the battering ram – when one doesn’t get one’s way?   Coming to think of it – why is it so hard for the ex committee members of AWARE to accept outcome of the vote? I am well aware, a few issues have been bandied around; suggesting even the manner in which the new exco committee came into power may have been staged managed. Others have even labeled it as an outright case of the moral right asserting its Christian values on all of us – I shan’t go into those thorny areas; only because they have been discussed at length in certain quarters of blog-o-sphere.   My preoccupation with AWARE centers on the question whether we should all respect the system which produced the new leadership – or should we instead circumvent the result produced by the system by leveraging on the broader question of "fairness?"   I guess if we boil down the entire debate in AWARE; all we are really asking whether we should keep to the rule book (system) or plumb for the seat of the pants approach? (fairness)    One problem with reducing the whole argument to just two competing set pieces – is it assumes the "best solution" lies somewhere between these two dichotomies; observation suggest it may not - for starters, all of us know even the best system can be flawed sometimes; in some cases blindly following it may even produce undesirable aberrations? Like when soldiers are asked by their commanding officers to obey orders to further genocide and ethnic cleansing. The same goes for the seat of the pants approach; that was why systems were original developed - to rein in the human condition that typically produces subjective results.   Having said that, notions of fairness alone should never be allowed to substitute the system entirely; as when we talk about fairness in the social context it refers mainly to values and moral principles such as equality between humans and impartiality when solving conflicts. Fairness is thus often associated with a genuine concern for other people's well-being – the problem is one man’s idea of fairness, may well be another’s idea of tyranny.   So we are back to square one again; as neither fairness or the system alone can guarantee us all a satisfactory outcome to placate the interest of two or more sides – one reason why I felt it appropriate and necessary to differentiate the competing elements between the system and fairness – is to illustrate how both camps really pitch their case too vigorously; as both “solutions” by themselves don’t really offer a coherent and logical way to winnow the good from the bad.   My main gripe with fairness usurping the system (what should have been the outcome for AWARE, instead of the actual result) lies in the failing common to all arguments colored with perceptions of fairness – observation suggest: what’s fair is really a matter that lies in the eye of the beholder. Hence, what people believe to be fair may very well depend on what people want to believe to be fair. It is therefore likely that when confronted with a disagreement, people will have the tendency to evaluate those solutions as fair that happen to benefit themselves rather reflecting the concerns of the broader interest.   To paraphrase judgments about fairness are invariably egocentric (self centered) decision and they turn exclusively on the way people perceive the social situations that they encounter.   This inescapable hubris in human perception has notable consequences for people's fairness judgments. And it can even be argued that was why humans originally came out with systems in the first place - to gut out the human condition – and mitigate our natural predilection to veer towards subjectivity. Instead of relying on gut feel or instincts to make decisions – systems, be they laws, regulations, standard operational procedures or even a rule book help us all to keep focused: instead of intuiting fear, good or bad; we are instead compelled to stick to what’s relevant and cogent.   This is not to say, there is no place for ‘genuine’ morality to play any possible role in fairness judgments. Most certainly scope for intervention must and should be provisioned to nourish every system and prevent it from fossilizing and calcifying - that's why, we regularly hired humans to preside over murder cases instead of outsourcing them to computers. Only these drivers of change should emerge from within the integrity of the established system and not from outside the system by leveraging let's say on the power of lunatic fringe.    My feel remains on the balance of probabilities while people often display a genuine effort to act fairly in the face of moral dilemmas, and may even claim to act in the best interest of others. What cannot be denied is, such “genuine morality” can only successfully shape fairness judgments in situations where people are truly independent and objective evaluators, who have no interest at stake in the situation at hand.   That unfortunately, does not appear to be the case with the former members of AWARE – as its conceivable the old guard may even harbor a vested interest to do and say the things, they do to shape our understanding on this impasse. They may even harbor a personal moral outlook which may even be at odds with the moral majority? Consequently on the balance of probabilities, their fairness-based reasoning is likely to be influenced by egocentrism and personal experiences as well e.g sexual orientation etc, presumably without them even being very much aware of it.   Personal views may thus be a very potent factor to explain why people can differ so immensely in what solutions to social problems they consider to be fair or unfair to prevent them from finding a happy middle ground to seek resolution to the AWARE impasse; as such if I had to plumb – I’ve still support the new exco in AWARE – only because against the system and fairness; the former must surely be the lesser of two evils - granted, it's not perfect, but throw it out and what are we really left with?   Dotty   The Brotherhood Press 2009   Check out another Brotherhood story about AWARE   The day DBS read, “Don’t Be Silly! Volunteering is hazardous to your career!     Further updates on AWARE   - Glass Castle Blog: Anti-LGBTQ is anti-feminist - Musings : Some comments on the Aware thing. - geraldgiam.sg: A government out of order - Fresh Brainz: Update: AWARE Exco Remains Silent - TOC: 150 call for vote of no confidence  Read More →

From a letter by Ms Samina Parvez,Press Counsellor,Pakistan High Commission Singapore to The Straits Times dated 20/03/09 [ I refer to Wednesday's editorial,"Grim for Pakistan as rivals contend."I find it surprising for a Singapore daily to take deep interest in Pakistan's domestic politics. True,democracy in Pakistan is facing teething problems especially after a prolonged political vacumn.The reinstatement of the judges should be seen as a strengthening of the pillars of democracy,which you would agree are an elected government,a strong opposition,an independent judiciary and a formidable army in the barracks. The editorial reflects the significance of these but with a preconceived notion that these are probably not in Pakistan's interest.I wish it could be judged as a positive turning point in the chequered political history of Pakistan. Read rest of article here  Read More →

From Wayang Party: Under the new Public Order Act, the police will have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials so that operations are not compromised. Police could even take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. (read report here) The law was put in place to prevent filming of police using force to apprehend unarmed, peaceful protestors which have greatly embarrassed the Singapore police in the past as during the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign and IMF meeting where clips depicting the police's arrest of SDP protestors were widely circulated on the internet. With the passing of the new law, third parties who are not part of the protest proper risked being arrested and charged themselves if they are caught filming the police "operations". The recent death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London illustrates why this law leaves too much power in the hands of the police: Ian Tomlinson, a 47 year old newspaper seller had been on his way home from work when he was confronted by lines of riot police near the Bank of England. He was attacked from behind and thrown to the ground by a baton-wielding police officer in riot gear, dramatic footage obtained by the ­Guardian shows. Moments after the assault on ­Tomlinson was captured on video, he ­suffered a heart attack and died. However, in an official statement on the night of Tomlinson's death, the Metropolitan police made no reference to any ­contact with officers and described attempts by police medics and an ambulance crew to save his life after he collapsed – efforts which they said were marred by ­protesters throwing missiles as first aid was ­administered . Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, referred to Tomlinson's death as "one small incident" on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme. The video was shot by a 27 year old fund manager who submitted it to The Guardian. A day after the video was published, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began managing an investigation by City of London police into the ­circumstances of ­Tomlinson's death. The Ian Tomlinson case has sparked widespread outrage in England with many bloggers writing in to their MPs to pressurize the police to take action against the culprits. Had filming of ongoing security "operations" been disallowed on the grounds of "compromising" them, the truth about Ian Tomlinson's death would never be revealed and he would have died in vain. If the police had acted professionally at all times, then it should not be afraid of having its security "operations" recorded on film. The new Public Order Act will make it easier for police to cover up for any abuse of power and there will be nothing the victims can do to seek redress. Mr K Shan's use of the Mumbai terrorist incident to justify the law is both inappropriate and misleading. In the  Mumbai attack, the mainstream media was the one which filmed and leaked the positions of security forces to the terrorists. It is improbable that films taken by third parties or passer-bys will be aired simultaneously by the state-controlled media to "jeopardize" ongoing security operations. The law should be tweaked to disallow journalists from the mainstream media to film the event instead of a blanket ban on all filming. Reference: The Guardian  Read More →