By Cheryl Lim, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 18 April 2009 2140 hrs
SINGAPORE: President for women's advocacy group, AWARE, said the organisation has lost its focus and has become too diversified.
In an exclusive interview with Channel NewsAsia's Talking Point on Saturday, the recently appointed president, Josie Lau, spoke on why she chose to run for her post.
"I was the last woman standing. And I felt that I had to pick up the baton, to run and to continue to lead this organisation that has been marred in controversies in the last one, two weeks," she said.
Without mincing her words, she said the group has lost its focus.
"What the new committee wants to do is that, like any good corporation, if you've diversified too much, consolidate. And as with any new committee, we know that resources are always limited, let's take a look and review what's done in the past that's good, let's keep (that), and what new ideas we have to bring on," said Ms Lau.
She stressed that while members may focus on different things, at the end of the day, they are all fighting a common cause.
Over the past three weeks, the saga between the new and the old guard has escalated into a war of words, with each side accusing the other of harbouring hidden agendas.
So the question everyone is asking is whether the two sides are able to reconcile their differences and move forward.
Ms Lau said that is one of the first tasks she is planning to work on. She wants to create an environment where all members can disagree in an agreeable manner.
But this could be easier said than done.
Dana Lam, former AWARE president, said: "What are we supposed to reconcile if we don't know what you're about? AWARE is not about whether we are for or against Christianity; AWARE is not about whether we are for or against homosexuality."
Veteran members are also concerned that the current saga may have damaged the group's reputation.
Old and new members have petitioned for an extraordinary general meeting to call for a vote of no-confidence in the new exco. This will be held on May 2.
Channel NewsAsia viewers can catch the full interview with Josie Lau on Talking Point this Sunday at 10:10pm.
- CNA/so
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/423295/1/.html
Saturday, April 18, 2009
New Aware head's job at DBS at risk
The Eletric New Paper - April 18, 2009
After just one day, she faces flak from bank and Aware veteran members
By Benson Ang
ONE day into the presidency of a women's group and DBS bank officer Josie Lau Meng-Lee, 48, is feeling the heat of the seat.
FEELING THE HEAT: Ms Lau disregarded the bank's advice to not join Aware's executive committee.
Ms Lau, who was elected president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) late on Wednesday night, faces heat from her employers and questions from her Aware predecessors and members.
Ms Lau is DBS' vice-president and head of marketing, cards and unsecured loans.
Shortly after her Aware election, DBS issued a statement saying that although the bank supports her involvement as an Aware council member, it believes that the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy.
Yesterday, when it became clear that Ms Lau was president, DBS issued another statement - this time for her disregard of the bank's staff code of conduct twice.
The bank said it was reviewing the matter.
The first time was when she became an Aware committee member without informing the bank; the second when she ran for Aware president.
The heat from the other side comes from Aware members who told The New Paper that they were unhappy over comments made by the new committee on Wednesday night.
Ms Margaret Thomas, 57, a founding member of Aware, felt that the press statement did not address the key concerns of the 160 members who signed a requisition to the new committee.
It called for an immediate extraordinary general meeting to clear the air over the way the new members were elected on 28Mar.
It also voiced members' concerns that Ms Claire Nazar, who was initially elected president, resigned barely two weeks later.
Ms Thomas, a media consultant and a former Aware vice-president, listed the concerns: 'Who are they? What do they want?
'If they remember and honour the work of past Aware members, why did they see the need to come in those numbers, to come and take over the executive committee?
'What are they going to do that is so different from what is being done now, that they felt they had to gain control?'
She suggested that the new committee could have worked with, and alongside, the old guard.
'If you join Aware, we take it that you support our principles, our views, feel we're doing a good job and you want to participate.'
'The press release, if anything, just raises more questions.'
Even former Aware president Constance Singam, 72, who was to have sat in at the meeting of new committee as its adviser, was initially kept out.
She told The New Paper that when the meeting began, she was not allowed into the room. She just sat outside.
She said: 'They (the new committee) said they had to deal with some sensitive issues and didn't need my presence there.'
Ms Singam was there to ensure continuity between the old committee and new one.
Ms Lau is married to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang, a medical doctor, and has two daughters, aged 17 and 15.
According to Ms Lau's CV, she is most concerned about work-life balance and the role of mothers as a stabilising factor in the family.
At press time, she could not be contacted for comment.
When the employer drops by
Today Online -Weekend • April 18, 2009
Dharmendra Yadav
When the employer drops by
VERY rarely does a private sector employer comment publicly about what its employee does in his or her personal time. It is even rarer for a private sector employer to express disagreement about its employee's voluntary commitments.
DBS did both when it came out to express its view on the personal and voluntary work of its vice-president of credit cards, Josie Lau, who was appointed this week the new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).
Employers generally restrain themselves not because it may come across as downright unprofessional but for other sound reasons. As indicated by DBS' statement on Wednesday, in which it said the bank requires all employees to obtain approval before running for or taking on an external appointment, most employers have internal policies about such matters.
An internal policy usually allows an employee to do most things with his or her personal time so long as these do not create a real or an apparent conflict of interest by interfering with officially assigned duties.
A 1993 study, `The employer as social arbiter: Considerations in limiting involvement in off-the-job behaviour', by the School of Labour and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University encouraged an employer "to act conservatively in invoking mandatory policies that affect employees' personal lives unless there is a clear individual employee performance problem or the personal behaviour imposes harm on employees or customers".
Such internal policies tend to encourage employees to consult their immediate supervisors when in doubt about their out-of-office activities. Legal advice can be sought from relevant counsel where necessary.
In the financial sector, there are governance requirements that require employees to disclose their activities or sources of income outside work on a regular basis.
Employees are often trusted to act in a manner not prejudicial to the interests and reputation of their employers. For example, some years ago, I was involved in a constitutional matter outside work. I knew that my then employer, a cooperative of the National Trades Union Congress, would not tolerate my participation in opposition party activities, as the NTUC unwaveringly backs the governing party.
But certain individuals alleged that I was helping an opposition party. Questions about such involvement naturally flowed from my bosses. It turned out I had in fact helped a politician from the ruling party.
To the credit of my former employer, I was never questioned about my personal activities again. I would like to think my actions had assured them that I had their interests and reputation at heart.
Similarly, cases such as Ms Lau's are usually privately dealt with by well-oiled internal checks and before they become a public relations nightmare. Thus, when Sylvia Lim of Temasek Polytechnic or Brandon Siow of Singapore Airlines Cargo joined the Workers' Party before the last elections, no equivalent performance concerns were raised by their employers.
What then are the options available to Ms Lau, now that her employer has said its piece? She can prepare for a baptism of fire. Her employer will scrutinise her more closely to ensure her Aware presidency does not affect her performance at work.
By ignoring DBS' advice, she appears to have signalled that her presidency at Aware is more important than her work at DBS.
One of my personal advisers best summarised my position when I was subject to unusual scrutiny as such: "You should ask yourself if the values of your organisation complement your own values. If they don't, the honourable thing for you to do is to resign." Indeed, if Ms Lau is not prepared to rough it out or finds her personal values diverging from that of DBS, she should leave the bank.
The easy way, of course, is for her to conduct herself like nothing has happened. Arguably, some may submit this is a foolish thing to do.
Over time, however, this incident may pass. But it may be opportune for employers to review their guidelines for the personal activities of their employees. It may also be a good time to revisit one's personal closets, just in case the employer drops by.
By ignoring DBS' advice, is Lau saying Aware presidency is more important?
When the employer drops by
VERY rarely does a private sector employer comment publicly about what its employee does in his or her personal time. It is even rarer for a private sector employer to express disagreement about its employee's voluntary commitments.
DBS did both when it came out to express its view on the personal and voluntary work of its vice-president of credit cards, Josie Lau, who was appointed this week the new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).
Employers generally restrain themselves not because it may come across as downright unprofessional but for other sound reasons. As indicated by DBS' statement on Wednesday, in which it said the bank requires all employees to obtain approval before running for or taking on an external appointment, most employers have internal policies about such matters.
An internal policy usually allows an employee to do most things with his or her personal time so long as these do not create a real or an apparent conflict of interest by interfering with officially assigned duties.
A 1993 study, `The employer as social arbiter: Considerations in limiting involvement in off-the-job behaviour', by the School of Labour and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University encouraged an employer "to act conservatively in invoking mandatory policies that affect employees' personal lives unless there is a clear individual employee performance problem or the personal behaviour imposes harm on employees or customers".
Such internal policies tend to encourage employees to consult their immediate supervisors when in doubt about their out-of-office activities. Legal advice can be sought from relevant counsel where necessary.
In the financial sector, there are governance requirements that require employees to disclose their activities or sources of income outside work on a regular basis.
Employees are often trusted to act in a manner not prejudicial to the interests and reputation of their employers. For example, some years ago, I was involved in a constitutional matter outside work. I knew that my then employer, a cooperative of the National Trades Union Congress, would not tolerate my participation in opposition party activities, as the NTUC unwaveringly backs the governing party.
But certain individuals alleged that I was helping an opposition party. Questions about such involvement naturally flowed from my bosses. It turned out I had in fact helped a politician from the ruling party.
To the credit of my former employer, I was never questioned about my personal activities again. I would like to think my actions had assured them that I had their interests and reputation at heart.
Similarly, cases such as Ms Lau's are usually privately dealt with by well-oiled internal checks and before they become a public relations nightmare. Thus, when Sylvia Lim of Temasek Polytechnic or Brandon Siow of Singapore Airlines Cargo joined the Workers' Party before the last elections, no equivalent performance concerns were raised by their employers.
What then are the options available to Ms Lau, now that her employer has said its piece? She can prepare for a baptism of fire. Her employer will scrutinise her more closely to ensure her Aware presidency does not affect her performance at work.
By ignoring DBS' advice, she appears to have signalled that her presidency at Aware is more important than her work at DBS.
One of my personal advisers best summarised my position when I was subject to unusual scrutiny as such: "You should ask yourself if the values of your organisation complement your own values. If they don't, the honourable thing for you to do is to resign." Indeed, if Ms Lau is not prepared to rough it out or finds her personal values diverging from that of DBS, she should leave the bank.
The easy way, of course, is for her to conduct herself like nothing has happened. Arguably, some may submit this is a foolish thing to do.
Over time, however, this incident may pass. But it may be opportune for employers to review their guidelines for the personal activities of their employees. It may also be a good time to revisit one's personal closets, just in case the employer drops by.
WEEKENDVTRA
The writer, a trial lawyer in training, is writing in his personal capacity. He thanks his past, present and future employers for encouraging him to continue writing.
http://www.todayonline.com
The writer, a trial lawyer in training, is writing in his personal capacity. He thanks his past, present and future employers for encouraging him to continue writing.
http://www.todayonline.com
Why she quit
Today Online, April 18, 2009
Ms Claire Nazar told Today, it became clear after the exco's first meeting that they "were not going to follow my direction". "The exco and I didn't see eye to eye. It was unfortunate. It was pointless for me to carry on as I didn't want to waste time in politicking."
.
For instance, she wanted the current sub-committee chairs to retain their posts; the others felt differently. And, when she wanted to release a statement saying she would focus on working mothers during her one-year term, the exco "wanted to deliberate another week".
.
Ms Nazar said she wished Ms Josie Lau all the best and remains an Aware member.
http://www.todayonline.com
Ms Claire Nazar told Today, it became clear after the exco's first meeting that they "were not going to follow my direction". "The exco and I didn't see eye to eye. It was unfortunate. It was pointless for me to carry on as I didn't want to waste time in politicking."
.
For instance, she wanted the current sub-committee chairs to retain their posts; the others felt differently. And, when she wanted to release a statement saying she would focus on working mothers during her one-year term, the exco "wanted to deliberate another week".
.
Ms Nazar said she wished Ms Josie Lau all the best and remains an Aware member.
http://www.todayonline.com
Form your own group, why take over another?
Straits Times forum letter by Mr Harvey Neo, 18 April 2009
I REFER to the dramatic events surrounding the shocking outcome of last month’s election of officials of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).
The new executive committee might have won the election constitutionally, but it was hardly won with dignity and honour. Any group that is taken over completely by newcomers should cause worry and arouse critical questioning.
Moreover, the takeover was highly coordinated and ruthlessly orchestrated by members who joined barely three months ago, which gives rise to the suspicion that they are out to fundamentally and swiftly change Aware’s core beliefs.
Several members of the new committee hold strong opinions on homosexuality that are rooted in particular religious beliefs and equally strong beliefs about gender roles in the family.
There is nothing wrong with this. But a group with such a strong desire to overwhelm an organisation with like-minded people, whose views may sit uncomfortably with the fundamental visions of the organisation, would be better off starting their own.
I fear that while Aware’s new leaders have won control, they have lost legitimacy. Legitimacy is gained by trust and hard work, not by stealth. A procedural victory that capitalises on an organisation’s naivety is hollow and nothing to be proud of.
Harvey Neo
I REFER to the dramatic events surrounding the shocking outcome of last month’s election of officials of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).
The new executive committee might have won the election constitutionally, but it was hardly won with dignity and honour. Any group that is taken over completely by newcomers should cause worry and arouse critical questioning.
Moreover, the takeover was highly coordinated and ruthlessly orchestrated by members who joined barely three months ago, which gives rise to the suspicion that they are out to fundamentally and swiftly change Aware’s core beliefs.
Several members of the new committee hold strong opinions on homosexuality that are rooted in particular religious beliefs and equally strong beliefs about gender roles in the family.
There is nothing wrong with this. But a group with such a strong desire to overwhelm an organisation with like-minded people, whose views may sit uncomfortably with the fundamental visions of the organisation, would be better off starting their own.
I fear that while Aware’s new leaders have won control, they have lost legitimacy. Legitimacy is gained by trust and hard work, not by stealth. A procedural victory that capitalises on an organisation’s naivety is hollow and nothing to be proud of.
Harvey Neo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
