Reflection on AGM of SAVH

Recently I attended an AGM of the Association of the Visually Handicapped (SAVH). It is just a typical AGM where a president of a society is trying to drive in a direction but the members have other thoughts.

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.

Caldecott to King Albert Park

It was quite some time since I last blog about walking trips. This trip is from Caldecott MRT to King Albert park MRT.

The trip starts at Caldecott. Walking along Thomson Road to reach MacRitchie Reservoir. Bought a drink at Mushroom Cafe and immediately noticed this Cymbidium finlaysonianum orchid.

After walking along the lake side for a while, a Malay Viscount start to flash around so I am obliged to take a picture of it.

Further down, there is a maimed Multiline Sun Skink.

When I turned inland, a black bird perched on a barren tree trunk. But I cannot identify it before it flew away. Guess it is a Drongos.

A bit further down, an Archduke settled in front of me. Again I am obliged to take a photo of it.

Walked across the golf course with nothing much to see but meet quite a number of hikers coming from opposite end. Further down, I saw Purple Heron. This one is probably the same one I saw earlier but flew away before I can take a photo.

An Oriental Macpie Robin can't resist to show off in front of me again.

Before I move away from the reservoir, a bright colored Common Posy flashing its way around. I had to stop and wait for it to settle down. I seems to be attracting all the living things in the reserve, it settled right within my camera shot distance.

Further in land, there is a young plant that is full of  Branded Imperial. They are so engrossed that I can even walk very near them.

A few steps away, two species of damselfly came by. These are large species. I can't tell its specie name but got a hint from a fellow observer who took a picture nearby on the next day. It is probably a Vestalis amethystina. It should have very nice purple wings but this two are either dull brown or clear wings.

The next animal I come across is at the dirt track which is still labelled "Riffle Range Road". It is probably a Robber Fly. Interestingly there are a number of observation of this specie in Singapore but no one can positively identify to specie name. Just look at the muscular legs.

Nearby a Mycalesis appears. I have problem distinguishing between species so just stay at gender level.

Near the Army camp, saw a family of Treehugger. A male and a female resting side by side.

Just before reaching the real Riffle Range Road, a Yellow Vein Lancer makes its debut.

Along Riffle Range Road till King Albert Park, there is no other sighting. The trip ends at King Albert Park MRT.

Total distance covered is 11.48KM.

Almost all the photos are already shown so there is no album link.
Since this is a repeat trip, it is not uploaded to Wikiloc.

北京故宫中轴线偏差

上图是一个YouTube视频。 论点是“元代人为中轴线偏差”。后来又看了郭晓强的文章（http://idea.cas.cn/viewdoc.action?docid=42614）觉得后者有理由。

郭晓强说夔中羽是用北京时间不是北京当地时间。这话没错。元朝时都还没格林威治标准时间那理有北京统一时间？

每四年都有多一天。因为是用阳历。元朝用阴历。阳历是辛亥革命后才用的。夔中羽用2004年的天文日历。会不会有时差呢？

夔中羽自己做了日晷。用2004年的天文日历为准。视频没说怎样调准。会不会是太不科学的量法吧？正确的做法应该用日晷确定何时是零地点正午后才来与故宫中轴线比较。元朝人大概也是如此量法。

当然与700年前的正午标准时间比现在正午时间那可要一切都不变。事实是如此吗？我们连元朝人哪月量的都不知道。地壳一直在移动。地球又不是正园形绕太阳转动。轴心也不是与太阳成正角。而且宇宙都一直在膨胀。用如此简陋的量法真的很难说服人。

当然以一个外行人来批评学者是不对的。不过外行人都觉得不大对，其他学者又没说那又是谁对呢？

Doing a Filemaker PO

Doing a PO is quite simple thing. It gets a bit tricky when you want to create PO number and do sums that is stored in the main table while the PO items is in the related table and fill in the items one by one. Each record is related to the main table by the PO number.

First the main table must have a self increment field. This will act as the PO number. You can add prefix or post fix with it. And to add in the fun you can do "Right('00000' & table::idfield;6)" to get a nicely formatted 0 pre-pended text and store it in another calculated field.

The first thing to do is create the relation. Drag the previously mentioned calculated field to join to the sub-table field. Now click on the link itself and it will display a pop up like this

The trick is to check "Allow creation of records in this table via this relationship". When you check this you are actually telling FM to create the record with the specific PONo::POID value inserted into PO::Po Number automatically if you start to fill in PO fields. The relation will be automatically created this way. PO table will also add new record for you automatically. Lets go to the layout to do a practical.

In the layout You add PO Date and Supplier from PONo. You will then create a portal and choose PO as the relation table. It will prompt you for what fields in PO to add to the portal. Just choose any fields other than PO Number. Add the appropriate field name title. Exit editing after that.

Now you can add records. First click "Add Record" from the menu. It will add a new Record in PONo table. Fill in PO Date and Supplier. Click the top left end of the portal and you can enter the PO table fields without having to create the record. It will self create and automatically add the relation field info to establish the relationship. You can continue to click on the area below the last record to create more records.

The next trick is to do calculations. The PO table have a Unit price and a quantity field. There is a field that do the sub price by multiplying Unit price with Quantity. There is also a summary field that sums the sub price (not incremental). This is the field that we are suppose to update back to PONo table. The PONo also have a GST calculation that add a specific percentage of tax. Finally, there is a total sum field to show the total sum.

Now getting the summary field back to PONo is no issue. Just do a calculated field at PONo to get the PO summary field value. The GST and the Total value is then calculated from there.

Problem appears once you try to do this. The calculated fields in PONo will just go blank once you add some Unit Price and Qty. I don't know whether it is Filemaker bug or not but it gets irritating to not be able to see the calculated value.

Luckily there is a way out. The method used is "script triggers". On the Unit Price and Qty field, add a trigger "on Object Exit" for both. The trigger script will do a object refresh by name. You should name Unit Price and QTY plus the overall total field. Refresh all three fields in sequence and you solved the issue. You may want to do "commit" first before doing refresh.

On the report layout just use a list form and put PO fields in the body with the PONo fields in header or footer accordingly. You just got yourself a nicely done PO report.

Filemaker Conditional List

There is often a need to limit the lists that is available for selection in an input field. Normally we would use a list that is based on a related table. User either selects a value from the first table or key in a value in the first field. That input value is linked to a related table. On a second field it uses drop down list and the list is taken from the related table. The list will only show the related data based on the relation.

Now there is this condition that requires multiple selection with conditional lists. Lets say a world wide company wants to know a particular group of sales person's performance from a particular state in a particular country in a particular region. Normally it would means that the user chooses a religion like Asia first. Then from the list of Asian countries, choose the country. Then the user narrow down further by choosing a state from the country before he can get a list of sales person's performance.

The first try is to create the fields to do the different selection. Therefore, there will be three input fields 

1. Region
2. Country
3. State

Using the method described in the first paragraph above, It will be easy to choose Region from a unrelated table (sales table). The country field list will then be obtained by joining the Sales table to the input table linked by Region. The question will then be how to get States list based on the Region and Country chosen. Well, you guess it right. It is by joining the sales table with another instance of the sales table linking by Country. Normally this setup will be perfect because Country will be unique. There will not be two Countries that has the same name. However, in real life, there will be instances of duplication.

For example, we want to categorize hardware based on its configuration and make. So we have Brand, Processor, Screen Size, HDD, Ram. Now Brand is unique but Processor might not be. Neither did the rest of fields. Using the Sales method mentioned above, it will be impossible to choose Screen size based on Processor selection. It looks logical to self join the tables like Product::Brand->Product 2::Processor->Product 3::ScreenSize... In actual fact, by the time you choose ScreenSize list, The list is only based on Processor and not by Brand and Processor. It could be a Filemaker bug but that is what I found out.

In order to avoid such confusion, there is a need to revert back to the first paragraph method by just a simple join between two tables. First we have a list from Product::Brand without relation. The Processor input field will then have a relation using "Brand" and the list is taken based on the input table::Brand relation.

The ScreenSize input field then requires a separate product table instance that is joined to the input table by Brand and Processor. The HDD input field list will then have yet another instance of product table that is joined by Brand, Processor and ScreenSize. Finally the Ram input list will be based on a third instance of product table joined by Brand, Processor, ScreenSize, HDD.

By doing this method of joins, user can be assured that the result is exactly as what was defined in the various input fields.

To Condemn City Harvest Leaders or Not

Recent reduced sentence for City Harvest caused quite a stir. NewNation published an article on 9th April 2017 titled "No Highly Religious S'porean Condemn 6 City Harvest Leaders for Going to Jail". A commentor said "The leaders of our conservative religious leaders do not know what to say...".

On a FB share on the above report, I commented that "Other religious (faith) leaders will refrain from condemning to preserve religious harmony. Christians do not condemn (John 8:11). Indeed there is no one who condemn."

The topic is actually whether to condemn the church leaders. John 8:11 is a typical verse on the topics of condemnation. However, the story is about Scribes and Pharisees trying to trap Jesus. Jesus said "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". After all have left, he then confronts the real issue person to person - the sin committed by the woman.

John 8:11 is the very verse that is applicable to the NewNation article for Christians. Why must we condemn people in public? Gal 6:1 says "You who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently".  Matt 18:15-17 starts with "if your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you". 1 Tim 5:20 fits the description of Mat 18:17 but not before other previous measures (vs 15-16) is done. James t:19 says the same thing as Gal 6:1.

Forgiving is better than condemning. 2 Cor 2:7. "so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him". Luke 17:3-4 puts forgiving even further.

Ultimately, if a person refuses to listen, Matt 18:17 should be used rather than condemnation. 2 Thess 3:14 says the same thing. However, that is not the end of the story. Eph 4:32 say to forgive. 2 Cor 2:6-7 also says "forgive".

Boycott the Earth Hour Stunt?

Read the article "If you really care about climate change, you should boycott the ridiculous Earth Hour stunt" on "Independent" by Adam McGibbon.

He thinks that "Earth Hour" is a stunt. It is a stunt. It is a drive that bring the awareness of climatic changes to the public. The aim is not to actually make an effort to reduce the climatic change effect during the hour. It is just as a "symbol" (according to Wikipedia). Without the mass drive, many don't even get to be aware of such efforts without WWF drive.

I have not heard of the author or his activities before. He might be doing a great job to bring awareness on his part. However, his effort is limited to what he can do. Whatever he is doing has not reach to my end of the world yet. At least WWF is driving towards general awareness worldwide. Both are doing something towards bringing awareness of climatic change to the people. Why try to discredit what WWF is doing?

In is article he said "just 90 of the world's largest companies are responsible for 2/3 of all carbon emissions." What can he do to stop these companies? Isn't that the companies produced based on demand? Without bringing awareness to the general public, small bands of environmentalists could not even touch them.  

Let's just work on climatic change reduction in each's own way without trying to discredit other's effort.