I am among those who attended the EGM on Saturday. I must say I have witnessed a demonstration of 'whoever is louder wins', because by sheer volume, one side has many times deprived the other of its right to deliver statements and even to reply to questions posed to them. While I am impressed by the pro-Old Guards party for their passion and firm belief in inclusiveness, I cannot say the same for the behaviour. I think it is basic courtesy not to interrupt when another person is talking, what's more, answering a question that was posed by themselves. Don't they want to hear the answer to their question? Or were they are only interested in shouting out their displeasure and fanning the emotions of the crowd? Throughout the meeting, there were cutting-in, booing and jeering while the Ex-Co was trying to reply. Josie did not even get a chance to deliver her President's Message in peace. I am appalled. I wonder what is the indication of this for the civic space in Singapore. I really have to applaud Josie's team for their courageous effort, standing up to the thousand plus people, railing and yelling at them for a full 7 hours. I for one, would not have been able to withstand it.

One other issue that bothered me was besides the 3000 who turned up, I wonder how informed the rest of the Singaporeans are about this matter. I recalled a survey done by the papers during the month-long report of this entire saga, majority were either not aware or not bothered. I think this is a cause for concern because everyone has to realise that their stand matters. We cannot rely on another person to make a choice for ourselves because logically, the other person may not make the choice that we want. If we have a choice, we should make it. If not, we have robbed ourselves of that right. And if the final result is not what we wanted, then we only have ourselves to blame because we did not voice out what we want. It is a consequence that the entire society has to bear because of apathy.

Thirdly, I have great reservations on the impartiality of the reports we have seen so far on the papers. One would have noticed a severely unbalanced 'air time' given to the Old Guards compared to the New Guards. Day after day, reports of perturbed, upset and disappointed Old Guards were splashed across the prime pages. May I ask, is this stirring up for sympathy votes? Is this stirring up of anti-New Ex-Co feelings? In my humble opinion, it really looks like it. Why do I not see the same treatment for the new Ex-Co members who received threats to their life and careers just because they stood up to fight for the good of our next generation! What is this! For as far as I can remember, when the first report came out on Good Friday papers, the New Guards were portrayed as power-grabbers who overthrew the overly-trusting Old Guards, the report likening it to a merciless coup. May I ask, which is merciless – a civilised and legitimate voting in of new people into the Ex-Co on the 28 March AGM or that unruly and unreasonable yelling and jeering for full 7 hours at the 2 May EGM? By the way, does the Constitution say that they can vote in a replacement Ex-Co right on the spot? Perhaps someone can clarify this.

Finally, as a parent to-be, I am most concerned what will be taught to my son in school. The unearthing of the contents of the CSE programme is the most harrowing yet consoling thing that has come out of the entire issue. Harrowing because of the questionable values that the programme imparts to unsuspecting young minds. I remember the astonishment I felt when I read that anal sex can be healthy so long as it is practised with a condom and with consent. The statement that pre-marital sex is actually neutral also sent a chill to my heart. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but for me, even to see such statements in adult magazines would have been mind-boggling, what more for 12 to 18-year olds? What is the point of telling them that? Nevertheless, it is a consolation that the programme is being investigated now, and I think this episode has awakened many parents to take more interest in their children's lives. They are after all our precious ones, do we not want the best for them?