Rebel without a Cause
What are they fighting for? Are they fighting for an ideal, or they just 'chion' blindly because someone asked them to do so? We have two parties fighting. The new exco's agenda is very clear, clearer than anyone with eyes but cannot see. They are fighting against homosexuality. Period. The old exco, what are they fighting for? To reclaim their seats because they were ousted from an association they built and owned? Or are they fighting the new exco for their anti homosexual cause? I read Constance Singam's letter in the forum and it posted another angle. The new committee 'does not represent Singapore's racial and religious diversity'. So, is it a racial and religious issue now? That the new exco must have an acceptable racial and religious mix. Is this in the constitution? Wait a minute, Constance also agreed with Vivian that religion should be kept out of petty politics. Where are they heading? Many people are going to 'chion' in the EGM. Some with eyes wide open, some wide close. What are they fighting for, may I ask again? It is nice to fight for an ideal and die for a cause. It is quite silly to fight for no reason, fighting without a cause. Or is fighting a new exco for the way they budged in to take over an association a worthy cause? Hey, they won the election legitimately. Or is the new exco unworthy because they did not have the right racial/religious mix? What is the right racial/religious mix? Under whose definition or whose terms? I think it is better to fight for something more tangible, like money. What is it in for me? How much? People running charity organisations are demanding hundreds of thousands to do so. Monks and priests are asking for equally huge sums to lead the sangha and congregation. These are more real, more useful cause to fight for isn't it? Interesting proposition?