I am glad that only Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) can attend Pink Dot from this year onwards, and only local companies can sponsor it.
It is important to disallow foreign individuals and organisations from interfering in Singaporean politics and social issues.
We must stop foreigners from abusing values such as democracy, freedom of speech and human rights in Singapore, and from spreading their agenda here.
The Pink Dot organisers should fence off Hong Lim Park and employ security officers and registration staff to ensure that only Singaporeans and PRs attend the event (NGOs seek clarity on organisers’ role at Speakers’ Corner events; May 17).
Talking about intolerance, we Singaporeans have been a very tolerant society.
When a Muslim goes to a non-halal eatery and ask for halal food but none could be served by the eatery, we don’t see Muslims in Singapore suing the owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. In fact, there’s no distress whatsoever.
Likewise, when a non-Muslim goes to a halal eatery and ask for pork or liquor to be served, we don’t see non-Muslims in Singapore suing the Muslim owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. And really there’s no distress at all.
Why?
Because we respect each other’s beliefs and value systems.
Alcohol drinkers don’t go around suing Muslims just because the latter believe and say that drinking alcohol is wrong based on their religious belief.
Likewise, we don’t find Muslims in Singapore suing others who say that polygamy is wrong. We don’t. We simply don’t find that in Singapore.
Why?
Because this is Singapore, and we are Singaporeans who are very tolerant to different beliefs so long as they do not tear down our basic familial and social fabric. But the moment anyone or any activism is going all out to undermine that familial and social fabric, we Singaporeans will stand up and unite together to defend it at all costs. Defending that familial and social fabric that have been the bedrock of Singapore’s development and progress all these years cannot be deemed as intolerance, cannot be defined as bigotry and cannot be accused of propagating hate speech.
Instead, those labels should be directed at those who undermine that familial and social fabric that we Singaporeans cherish and protect.
Why?
Because they are the ones that are intolerant. Any form of disagreement will be immediately labelled as bigotry and accused of propagating hate. And that is happening now even with the 377A still around. It is not hard to imagine the kind of absolute intolerance we can face if 377A is abolished from the Penal Code.
How come?
Well, just look at what is happening right now in the US. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage results in a legal suit. Refusing to solemnise gay marriages is now a crime. And yet lgbt activists here claim that legalising same-sex marriages will not affect anyone at all. It is instead absolutely clear from that legalising same-sex marriage will result in the absolute intolerance on the part of the lgbt activists. The slightest disagreement with them will result in lawsuits or even being charged in court for alleged crimes.
So, to those lgbt activists and sympathisers, don’t go round saying that we are intolerant as a society in Singapore. Singaporeans have been and will continue to be tolerant so long as the familial and social fabric are not threatened. Once threatened, we will defend it. PERIOD.
And Singaporeans are neither stupid nor illiterate. We know what the lgbt activism has done to other parts of the world once same-sex marriage is legalised.
Same-sex marriage has become the demon that is out to destroy the institution of marriage and family in those countries. If ever 377A is abolished and same-sex marriage is legalised in Singapore, the same level of intolerance or more will also set foot. SSM will then be used to knock out anyone, any organisation, any religion and any law (including AMLA – Administration of Muslim Law Act) that is against same-sex marriage.
So, don’t ever say that pinkdot is an innocent movement just for a group of lgbts and their supporters to celebrate diversity and the freedom to love. Pinkdot is a political movement that is intolerant of the familial and social values so dearly upheld by Singaporeans all these while. These are the very familial and social values that have seen us through the ups and downs of Singapore’s development and progress. Pinkdot wants us to abolish Section 377A and legalise same-sex marriage. And should that be allowed to happen, the pinkdot will transform itself into a demon that will be so intolerant to any form of disagreement to same-sex marriages and to its lifestyle choice of freedom to love anyone and anything at all.
And by the way, Singaporeans have long been tolerant of lgbts living in our midst. They live, work and play together with all of us for as long as we can remember. The Government also acknowledges that they are in almost every sector of the economy, including the public sector and public service. And for the record too, no lgbts have been persecuted in Singapore by the Courts just because of them being lgbts. But the lgbt activism at the level we are seeing right now, especially in the form of pinkdot, is a recent phenomenon fuelled by external parties, and has now become brazen and emboldened with the recent US Supreme Court ruling. We Singaporeans have been a tolerant society all these while. The very existence of pinkdot now in our midst is testimony to that. But that does not negate our right to say that it is wrong and that we are against pinkdot in Singapore.
And why are we against pinkdot in Singapore?
Because pinkdot is pushing for the repeal of Section 377A and the legalisation of same-sex marriage. These two pinkdot agendas will undermine the very familial and social fabric that Singapore has been based on in its years of development and progress. And if we can sum up what PM Lee Hsien Loong has said in recent weeks, it would be this: The society in Singapore is deeply religious. The social sphere has developed taking into account the religious and ethnic beliefs of the multireligious and multiracial societies found in Singapore. So don’t push it.
To many, Pink Dot SG is probably the figurehead of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights agenda in Singapore. It is, to some extent, the local equivalent of Gay Pride.
Pink Dot has been held at the Speakers Corner at Hong Lim Park since 2009. But only this year has Pink Dot faced significant opposition, particularly from a campaign known as Wear White.
Why is this so?
Why Pink Dot 2014 has faced greater opposition
The reasons why Pink Dot 2014 has faced greater opposition have been concisely summed up in the following statement on the Wear White website:
The movement’s genesis was from our observations of the growing normalization of LGBT in Singapore. However, we recognize the conduct and it’s support among Muslims is due to the lack of understanding and connection with Islam and our fitrah. We thus came together initially with the expressed purpose of reminding Muslims not to participate in the LGBT event on 28th June.
The first reason lies in the growing efforts to normalise LGBT lifestyles in Singapore, together with efforts to sanction certain forms of disapproval. Although controversies have arisen over the years, such as the debate in Parliament over section 377A of the Penal Code in 2007, and the AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) saga in 2009, several events have intensified the debate in 2014. Early this year, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) stirred controversy in its FAQs on Sexuality by claiming that “[a] same-sex relationship is not too [different] from a heterosexual relationship”. In the debate that ensued, complaints were lodged against National University of Singapore (NUS) Professor Dr Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied for describing “alternative modes of sexual orientation” as “wayward”, and as “cancers” and “social diseases” to be “cleansed”. According to NUS, he acknowledged “poor judgment in the tone and choice of words” after he was counselled by the university.
The second reason is the preservation of religious identity. While the debate has often been portrayed as one between religious conservatives and secular liberals, the video promoting Pink Dot 2014 explicitly threw religion in the mix by featuring a hijab-wearing Malay-Muslim woman and an individual wearing a crucifix. A number of Muslims took offence at this. Among the responses included an open letter titled, “A letter to Muslimah Sister Regarding her Support for PinkDotSG2014“. The Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS), Fellowship of Muslim Students Association (FMSA), and Masjid Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) have since drawn a line in the sand, whether directly or indirectly. Likewise, the Catholic Church and the National Council of Churches in Singapore have made statements calling upon Christians not to support Pink Dot.
What is at stake here
At stake in the LGBT debate are competing notions of human dignity, sexuality and the family. Although both sides of the debate hold unequivocally that human beings are rights-bearing individuals, there are marked differences in their appreciation of human nature.
On one view, marriage – the comprehensive, exclusive and permanent union based on the sexual complementarity of a man and a woman, which is intrinsically ordered to produce new life – is a personal and social good. It fulfils and enriches human personality, and provides the foundation for procreation, family and society. Human dignity is attained by taming desire and directing it according to reason. Therefore, there are both substantive and procedural norms governing sexual expression.
On the other view, an essential aspect of human dignity is that of self-actualisation or self-realisation, part of which is sexual expression. Reason is instrumental to desire, and the only norm governing sexual expression is consent. Marriage and family, then, are emotional unions based on commitment.
These two competing conceptions strike at the heart of society and cannot simply be relegated to one of mere opinion or preference. At the moment, the former view is the dominant one in society. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in 2007:
Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the basic building block of our society. It has been so and, by policy, we have reinforced this and we want to keep it so. And by “family” in Singapore, we mean one man one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit.
Recent surveys conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies have shown that Singapore continues to remain conservative.
Given that “[the] family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society”, as affirmed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there will be significant impact on society, whether society adopts one view or the other.
In fact, the Singapore Government has recognised the social benefits and costs when family is affected. The Shared Values White Paper (Cmd. 1 of 1991) writes:
12. The sanctity of the family unit is not a value unique to Singapore. All major faiths consider this a cardinal virtue. The family is the fundamental building block out of which larger social structures can be stably constructed. It is the group within which human beings most naturally express their love for parents, spouse and children, and find happiness and fulfilment. It is the best way human societies have found to provide children a secure and nurturing environment in which to grow up, to pass on the society’s store of wisdom and experience from generation to generation, and to look after the needs of the elderly.
13. In recent decades many developed countries have witnessed a trend towards heavier reliance on the state to take care of the aged, and more permissive social mores, such as increasing acceptance of “alternative lifestyles”, casual sexual relationships and single parenthood. The result has been to weaken the family unit. Singapore should not follow these untested fashions uncritically.
How the Government has contributed to the culture war
The Government has repeatedly cautioned against “culture wars”. For example, then-Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng cautioned in 2009, “We must not import into Singapore the culture wars between the extreme liberals and conservatives that are going on in the US.”
However, in 2014, the Government has itself fanned the flames of the culture war in Singapore by its own doing.
The first was the controversy over the HPB FAQs on Sexuality, which both conservatives and liberals recognised as a significant shift in the Government’s stance. Gay Star News praised it as a “groundbreaking move”, while PERGAS and Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) senior pastor Lawrence Khong made similar observations, to great consternation. The Government’s defence of the FAQs that followed can only be described as weak and self-contradictory (see “Welcome to the Animal Farm: MOH’s response to HPB FAQs on Sexuality“).
The second was the Government’s statements in response to the Wear White campaign. Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim said that those who “express support for a cause or a choice of lifestyle should express it in a way that does not divide the community”. These statements were perceived as Government bias against conservatives, sentiments which were perhaps best expressed by Lam Jer-Gen in a letter to TODAY, “Expressions of pro-family support are not divisive” (25 June 2014):
I disagree with Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim’s views…
Why should the Government allow groups, such as the one that organised the Pink Dot event, to promote alternative lifestyles, yet criticise pro-family groups and consider their expressions of support for a cause or a choice of lifestyle divisive?
During the debates on section 377A of the Penal Code, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said:
… I do not think it is wise to try to force the issue. If you try and force the issue and settle the matter definitively, one way or the other, we are never going to reach an agreement within Singapore society. People on both sides hold strong views. People who are presently willing to live and let live will get polarised and no views will change, because many of the people who oppose it do so on very deeply held religious convictions, particularly the Christians and the Muslims and those who propose it on the other side, they also want this as a matter of deeply felt fundamental principles. So, discussion and debate is not going to bring them closer together. And instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our society.
I should therefore say that as a matter of reality, the more the gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push back from conservative forces in our society, as we are beginning to see already in this debate and over the last few weeks and months. And the result will be counter productive because it is going to lead to less space for the gay community in Singapore. So it is better to let the situation evolve gradually. [Emphasis added]
As noted in a previous post, the least the Government can do is to level the playing field in a democratic society by guaranteeing equal rights of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
There are two possible approaches to realise this:
Ban all forms of lobbying. While this is a possible approach, this would raise serious questions about the state of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in Singapore. It is not a preferable option.
Permit lobbying by both sides. This is an approach which best comports with democratic principles though, in the Singapore context, the Government will most likely have to mark out the boundaries in such debates with clear and bright lines.
Any effort perceived as being biased towards one side or the other is likely to provoke a backlash against the Government.
At the rate things are going, it is foreseeable that both Pink Dot and Wear White will remain a part of the Singapore landscape for a long time.
At first glance, the statement issued by “members of civil society”, which is signed by 217 individuals and 9 organisations like Maruah, AWARE and the Free Community Church, appears to stand for a side advocating for the love and care of LGBT individuals.
In their statement, they quoted values like democracy, justice and equality; called for a dialogue to foster understanding and tolerance; used words like compassion and knowledge and contrasted it against ignorance, hatred, prejudice and discrimination.
They make a Samaritan out of everyone who attends PinkDot and vilifies those who have campaigned to wear white.
Welcome to the art of persuasion, called rhetoric.
Only thing – rhetoric might not always be true. As its purpose is persuasion and not truth, it does not have to base itself on facts.
Being scientifically grounded or truthful is not the goal of rhetoric.
Hence, as great sounding as it can be, it is often meaningless and insincere, if you are willing to examine in-depth what is said.
With persuasion as an end in itself, rhetoric is also often exploitative.
Yes, feelings will be stirred, words associated with human rights and dignity like discrimination, prejudice, equality and justice will often be used. With little discernment or lack of understanding to a certain issue, most people would almost certainly be persuaded.
If you aren’t persuaded, then you might be made to feel guilty, ignorant or bigoted for going against humanity.
Rhetoric is so powerful that it can make good look evil and evil look good. One of the best examples of how rhetoric was used, “or misused”, in the history of mankind was Hitler. Hitler was a charismatic speaker skilled in rhetoric. He was so good that he used religion to justify the holocaust.
But remember, rhetoric has no care for sincerity and truthfulness. If I can claim a religious affiliation to lend support to my cause, why not? I can be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Humanist, or a mix of everything! But my professed faith is not a true faith that I practice in sincerity.
In one of the statements from the “civil society”, they said that pitting religious believers against those holding secular beliefs is a “false dichotomy”, as many religious leaders and organisations both in Singapore and around the world have expressed support for LGBT equality.
I do not intend to contest this statement, but I find it real funny that just months ago, it is likely that these same activists were ostracizing the religious, and polarizing the HPB’s FAQs saga as an “us” vs “them” debate.
The same activists were probably the ones who portrayed this dichotomy in the hope of getting Singaporeans on middle ground to be disengaged in the HPB saga – telling the average Singaporean that unless you are a religious fanatic, you should not be bothered with public morality.
Now, the stakes are changed. In an attempt to win more to their side, they are now all encompassing, welcoming all Singaporeans, from the middle ground to the religious, unto their side. Inclusivity, so it claims.
But is there any real meaningful sense we can take home from the pink rhetoric – inclusivity, diversity and tolerance?
To be truly inclusive, why not invite the wearwhite participants to PinkDot?
If you are truly diverse, why unrelentingly seek to redefine marriage and change the natural fact that family is made up of one man, one woman and their offspring/s?
If you are really tolerant, why force upon society your views and jump on those who disagree by labelling them as homophobes, bigots or ignorant, uneducated people who discriminates?
The answer is simple. There is no real meaning or sincerity to the terms inclusivity, diversity and tolerance. It is just rhetoric meant to persuade, impress and sound “high class”, so people would feel they are educated, informed and compassionate by agreeing with it.
The whole PinkDot movement, done carnival-style to attract, with performances, music and speeches; self-reported attendance; on the surface promotes diversity, inclusivity and the freedom to love, but deep underneath, is really garnering support to change our social mores by altering our law and policies.
And the organisations and individuals pushing for it are likely believers of the sexual rights movement. It is a movement that began with America’s sexual revolution in their 1960s, based on the fraud science of Alfred Kinsey. Proponents of the sexual rights movement prize sex as a right, and believe all forms of moral restraints on sex are ridiculous. They stand on the opposite end from those who prize morals as a critical pillar for societal well-being.
Proponents of the sexual rights movement do not accept the proven historic fact that public morality affects society gravely. They also do not agree with the principle that since a society is made up of people who appointed a government to maintain order and harmony, law therefore exists primarily for public good. From this perspective, the famous philosopher H.L.A Hart declared the state’s important role to legislate for or against morality: “The aim of making an act criminal is to announce to society that these acts are not to be done and to secure that fewer of them are done.”
Therefore, it is no wonder that the 3 named organisations of the “civil society” – Maruah, AWARE and Free Community Church – are all well-known activist groups that push for sexual rights and sexual freedom above other forms of human rights. These organisations will definitely be tolerant towards any extent of sexual freedom, but expect their tolerance to end with any suggestions of values, societal restriction or moral restraints. Here’s a post on how tolerant sexual rights activists can be if they do not agree with you.
So don’t be fooled by mere appearances, even if one might appear like a loving Samaritan. The thing they really love is the sexual rights agenda. It wouldn’t matter if you are an LGBT – if you stand for morals, or if you could compromise their agenda, be prepared to be ostracized by them.
As in the words of a faithful PinkDot attendee, who revealed that there are “hierarchies within the ‘LGBT community’”: “It is unfortunate that (as exemplified by Pink Dot) the ‘LGBT community’, in its pursuit to be accepted by mainstream society, has chosen the less noble path of presenting an elite… At last we now know what is meant by the stated vision of an “inclusive” society – that the gay/lesbian elite be “included” by the mainstream. The celebration of true diversity – the non-elite within the “LGBT community”, is sorely lacking and, in this case, deliberately avoided.”
Now, to distinguish my speech from rhetoric, I shall provide some facts, meaningful analysis and evidences that informed groups of Singaporeans have raised as concerns regarding the agenda to promote “freedom to love”.
For example, an often heard but under analysed point of paramount concern, is the fact that the rates of STD and HIV infection among the gay community remains unimaginably sky high.
It must be noted that these are not statistics that happen out of the blue.
In 2006, HIV infection through heterosexual sex was 222, more than double that by homosexual sex, which was only 109. By 2011, infection by homosexual sex has overtaken that by heterosexual sex.
This trend where HIV infection among an extremely small community overtakes the rest of the population has persisted since then.
Last reported, in 2013, HIV infection rates by heterosexual sex have dropped to 181, while that by homosexual sex has risen to 247 – HIV infection among this subculture is now 35% more than the rest of the population!
If the statistics have not already shocked you, I invite you to take an analysis of this picture, so you may imagine the details.
Firstly, these are not ordinary statistics. They are statistics with direct behavioural causes. Think – what kind of behaviours, attitudes or lifestyles, could have caused such unimaginable statistics? A lifestyle which promotes love?
How much love today do we see among heterosexual communities? How many couples do we know really lead exemplary lifelong loving relationships?
Most people I have talked to would say that there are few. Most people are aware that among heterosexual communities, there is a great amount of cheating, betrayal, promiscuous behaviours.
If this is the love portrayed by the heterosexual community, what would you expect to be the “love” in the gay subculture – considering their rate of HIV infection is more than 20 times that of the heterosexual community?
Remember that statistics don’t lie. And these are statistics that tell a story – stories that are truer than that told by PinkDot’s advertising campaigns, propaganda videos, rousing speeches and plain rhetoric published all over media. Freedom to love is never really about the freedom to pursue monogamous lifelong relationships as what their rhetoric and propaganda portrays. It has always been to legalize sodomy so that all that is desired sexually by this subculture can be expressed in unrestrained manners, legally and freely.
But it will not stop here.
Once sodomy is legalized, expect genderless marriage to be pushed. Some activist claim that they are only fighting against the criminalizing of sodomy. Don’t be fooled by this insincere rhetoric. Fact is, not one activist will be able to promise that genderless marriage will not be pushed if 377A is repealed. Why is this so? Because it is not in anyone’s prerogative to decide what other activists would do. Even if one activist decides not to push for genderless marriage, he can’t say that for all activists.
While all minorities, including the LGBTs, are as entitled as anyone else to basic human rights, it is quite a different thing altogether to promote any group’s private beliefs or preferences – culminated into practices and cultural behaviour, into mainstream society. Every form of practice and behaviour promoted into mainstream affects the society; hence, in all fairness, must be subjected to objective analysis and scrutiny.
Fact is, there can never be a total acceptance of all kinds of beliefs and behaviours. Some beliefs clash fundamentally.
Non-acceptance of a group’s practices or behaviour does not necessary mean intolerance or discrimination.
377A discriminates against an act (not a person). It is an act which should be judged based on its own merit – an act of which whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, you are capable of committing, hence not discriminatory to homosexuals alone. And by its own merit, sodomy is an act that raises real health issues, as already highlighted above.
Freedom to love? What if the Geylang community comes out and demands for it? No limits! Legalize every sex. Reduce the age of consent of sex with minors (and this is exactly what will be pushed for if 377A is removed)! What if they hold carnivals in colours and get celebrities to endorse their events. What if they meet with government officials and push for our laws to be removed. How would society react? Accept their proposal? Embrace their ideology?
Of course we will say no. Because we know that the love that they are talking about, is not quite the monogamous, lifelong, wholesome and healthy love that we imagine it to be.
Likewise, we have to look beyond the pink rhetoric, and note how incredibly little evidence, facts or statistics they bring to the table of dialogue. And how quick they are to dismiss the facts we bring to the table – with rhetoric. They cite reasons like stigma, lack of condom awareness, as the reasons for their high HIV infection rates – all of which are invalid and false arguments.
If I can blame someone for all my problems, I will never have to take any responsibility for my attitude and actions; I will be able to advance my agenda without ever needing to account for these problems I cause.
Not as if society wants to stop them from having their fun privately, but they choose to, very publicly, impose upon society to embrace their “freedom to love”; unrelentingly push for changes to long established social norms and mores; seek to redefine marriage and family that will bring harm to children and religious liberty.
They cry foul and demand for public acceptance, while refusing to accept public accountability for the implications of their actions e.g. health concerns. Normal citizens like you and I are made to pay, while they unceasingly lobby and push their agenda.
For this reason, I believe wearwhite has to exist. Largely also because conservative Singaporeans have no confidence that our ministers and MPs still do care for the moral fabric of our nation.
I personally too, will be wearing a white top as a private protest this 28 June. In fact, for as long as PinkDot is held each year, I will wear white on the day of pink.
