The story started with the AGM of last year. Last year the president tried to table 7 amendments.
1. To remove the following "membership of the Association shall consist of a majority of Visually Handicapped members."
2. To raise the membership fee of life members from $150 to $500 and Sighted members from $15 to $100.
3. To add the following "any member with less than one year's membership shall not be entitled to vote at any Annual or Extraordinary general meeting."
4a. To remove "7 visually handicapped and 6 non visually handicapped", "as will give them a simple majority on the Executive committee" and "of whom 3 has to be visually handicapped." To add "up to 5 visually handicapped"
4b. If 4a above is passed then amend "co-opt 6 members" to "co-opt 10 members".
5. To add "to be signed jointly by designated sighted member".
6. To add the following "In this Constitution, a person having best corrected visual acuity of less than 6/60 in the better eye shall be a person who is defined as being “visually handicapped.”
There were heated exchanges during last year's AGM. On the one end, the president tried to remove some constitutional statements that is deemed to be obstructive to the expansion of the association. On the other end, the members think that the amendments threatens their very rights. In the end, the amendments all could not pass the two third majority vote requirements.
This year the president again tabled 5 amendments. There were 3 amendments that is of particular interest.
1. Item 1 of last year's proposal is tabled again.
2. Item 3 is tabled again exactly the same.
3.. Item 4a and 4b of last year's proposal is modified to "no less than 30%" in place of "up to 5 visually handicapped". This translates to 3.9 visually handicapped.
This time the meeting is not that heated. All the 3 proposals above did not pass the two thirds majority mark.
From the two years' proposal, one cannot but to think that the president is trying to do the following.
1. To remove the simple majority of Visually Handicapped in clause 5 of the constitution.
2. To prevent groups in the members trying to push their views by getting new members to join just to get their votes passed or rejected based on their liking.
3. To reduce the visually handicapped presence to the minimum required by the constitution clause 6.8 of "at least 3 visually handicapped."
The president even attached a personal message dated 28/7/2017 in the notice of AGM. In which he emphasized that the purpose is to "attract fresh, motivated and talented individuals, regardless of whether they are sighted or not...We will not be able to do so if there is a quota place on the number of sighted members". If his intention is neutral to both sighted and visually handicapped why then he advocate a quota of "30% or more" on Exco membership and complains about the "simple majority" in the same constitution clause in article 6 of the constitution and on "membership" of article 4 of the constitution? There is obviously a conflict in what was said by the president. Or maybe his statement is only applicable to the "membership" section and need not apply to the "Exco membership" section.
I have queried on the reason for proposing "30% or more" in the meeting. I did not get a direct answer. I guess the reason is to give some assurance that visually handicapped has at least a minimal representation otherwise it makes the amendment sound very intimidating. It is also to satisfy clause 6.8 of the constitution. I was wondering why that 3 visually handicapped clause is not removed also according to the "regardless whether they are sighted or not" statement of the president. But by removing that clause, it will make the proposed amendments looks even more threatening.
The overall tone of his message is that he wanted to get more sighted into the association. That is already biased. The society is already biased against visually handicapped. Disabled peoples of Singapore are sill struggling to get "Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" to be fully rectified and he thinks that a simple majority clause is a hindrance while putting so much emphasis to getting sighted members into an association meant for visually handicapped.
By getting more members from both sides to join the association, there is no issue of not being able to get talented individuals right? There are roughly 3000 visually handicapped in Singapore. I am sure 2999 sighted member is enough to fill the talent pool. If visually handicapped are not able to pay for membership fees, why not make it free or just a token of $1? Does it drains a lot of resources by providing a yearly $15000 for it? Coincidentally 2999 sighted members pay close to a whooping $45000 membership fees. It is not enough to cover for visually handicapped membership fees?
Even if it is a financial strain, I am sure those "talented" visually handicapped can be a member without problem and equal number of sighted "talents" can be urged to join too. Do you need to have a large pool of 'talents' when the number of exco is 13 at max and co-ops are 6 at max. Its not even 20 members.
Prior to the AGM, the president also hold a dialog session that stress the same message as the letter attached to the Notice of AGM. It is perhaps in the view of the president that he see the limitations set by the constitution to give visually handicapped the simple majority. It is in his view that visually handicapped cannot perform to the standard of sighted members thus he tried to remove the clause that limits the number of sighted members so that he could get in more sighted to serve in the association.
Now, SAVH is an association of the visually handicapped. One would think that it should comprise of overwhelmingly visually handicapped members. However, the association was actually started with the name "Singapore Association FOR the Blind" in 1951. By its name, it is assumed that it was formed by sighted members to help visually handicapped. It is not surprising that membership consists of both visually handicapped and sighted then and now. The following significant changes took place with the change of constitution (some taken from the president's letter).
1. 1983 - "the constitution was revised to restrict the number of sighted members to be majority of the overall membership". Constitution 4.1 was changed to include the clause "Membership of the Association shall consist of a majority of visually handicapped members".
2. 1987 - The name of the association changed to "Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped". It is noted that this was not mentioned in the president's letter.
3. 1994 - "change severely limits our ability to attract and recruit qualified professionals and talents to serve in the Exco due to the quota". Constitution 6.1 specified the number of visually handicapped against the number of sighted in Exco members and states "as will give them a simple majority on the Executive Committee."
The president mentioned that "for reasons that is not recorded" when referring to items 1 and 3 above. It is quite strange that the two date was discovered without discovering the reason behind it. I though all minutes of AGM are kept in archive otherwise how would the president find out exactly which year the amendments were made. Even though the records are just about some one proposed the amendments and two third member approves, it speaks a lot already.
From the amendments itself it is not ambiguous that the change is meant to provide visually handicapped the simple majority in both membership and Exco in a world that is very biased against visually handicapped. The amendments did not seek a vast majority clause. It is just to give a slight edge towards visually handicapped. It is, after all, an association meant for the visually handicapped as mentioned by one member in the AGM. The president attempts to revert items 1 and 3.
Lets look at some of the Objectives of the Association
3.1 To serve as an Association for the visually handicapped.
3.3 To facilitate and encourage greater participation of the visually handicapped in the administration of their affairs and activities and in the management of the Association.
3.4 To work towards the abolition of architectural, attitudinal, social, cultural, educational, employment and any other barriers that prevent the total integration and equal treatment of the visually handicapped in the community.
Now the previous amendments are inline with the objectives stated above whereas the president's proposal seems to go contrary to the objectives above. He is trying to get "talents" from sighted instead of "providing means for the visually handicapped to excel" as mentioned by a member during the AGM.
It is indeed more productive to tap from existing talent pools of the sighted but without grooming the visually handicapped to participate, it is counter to the objective of the constitution thereby defeat the whole purpose of the Association. Why do you want to have a overwhelmingly majority of sighted in Exco while diminishing the visually handicapped to a bare minimum when your objective is to "facilitate and encourage greater participation of visually handicapped... in the management of the Association"?
The president's idea of getting more talented sighted members to join the Association by removing the membership limitation is also off the scope of the objective. The association is "for the visually handicapped" as per its objective 3.1. By removing the simple majority of visually handicapped, he is trying to usher in more sighted to participate in the affairs of the association. How does it serve the objectives of 3.1 and 3.3? Does sighted need to be members in order to contribute. They are only required to be members if they want to be in Exco. As mentioned by yet another member about sighted that "you don't need to be a member to contribute to the association."
The president is worried that sighted talents will "move on to other VWOs". One member noted that the existing constitution has been in place since 1983 and there has not been a lack of sighted volunteers. Indeed some sighted moved on but there are others that volunteered.
One member mentioned that "there is not a single visually handicapped being co-opted into exco" during the president's tenure. Here you can see clearly the choice of getting people to help out in the exco. And the president stated clearly that he wanted to remove the limitations of having visually handicapped as co-ops.
One question to ask is "can visually handicapped operate on its own without sighted." In older days, it might be true but in modern days, it is not uncommon to have an association that comprises of visually handicapped only. Hong Kong Blind Union is one such example.
SAVH seeks to have a balance by including sighted. Sighted should not be trying to work it towards their advantage. They should keep the objectives of the association in view and works towards having more visually handicapped participation instead.
The results of the voting on the "removal of majority members" and "not less than 30% exco members" amendment speaks a lot about the sentiments of the members. 20 members are for "removal of majority members" amendment. It is less than one fifth of the number of members present in the AGM. 31 members voted for the "not less than 30% exco members". It is about one third of the number of members present. The former shows members are overwhelmingly against removing the visually handicapped majority member clause. Whereas at least 30% are in favour because the clause is still subjected to members' vote to elect individuals. There were stories about this latter fact but I shall not dwell on it.
On the election of new visually handicapped exco members, it is interesting to note that a PhD research level member lost to a masseur on revote. It looks like members does not care whether exco member are 'talents' contrary to what the president is driving. It will be interesting to see whether the president or exco members will co-opt such 'talent'.
One member tried to move a motion to "prevent defeated motions from being raised ever again". It is a bit to the extreme in such idea. Exco member denied such motion since it is not tabled in advance according to constitution. It is interesting to note that the legal adviser said "there is nothing to hinder members from raising an amendment". The president already raised two same issues in consecutive years, I guess he will table it again and again till it is passed. Legally he can do so over any ethical and moral considerations. It will be interesting to see if he will do it again next year thereby continuing the same saga and putting the interest of the association and the sentiments of the members aside.
Ultimately, like one member mentioned in the AGM, all members should work towards the good of the visually handicapped instead of bickering on who should have the majority.
The Chinese version of the BLOG.
No comments:
Post a Comment