A 24-year-old Singaporean man was on Thursday charged with trafficking in persons under the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act.
The is the first case to be prosecuted under the Act since it took effect last month.
According to court documents, the accused, Muhammad Khairulanuar Rohmat, had allegedly recruited a 15-year-old teenager with the purpose of exploiting her last Wednesday afternoon at a Starbucks cafe in Orchard Road.
Later, he supposedly had consensual sex with her at a men’s toilet in Cuppage Plaza. For this offence, he faces a second charge of having sex with a minor.
Khairulanuar has been remanded for a week for further investigations. The case will be heard again on April 29.
Under the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act, anyone who recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receives a child for the purpose of exploitation, whether here or abroad, is guilty of an offence.
If convicted for trafficking, Khairulanuar could be fined up to $100,000, jailed up to 10 years and caned a maximum of six strokes. For sexually penetrating a minor, he could be jailed up to 10 years or fined, or both.
One of my daughters and her husband recently adopted my precious and beautiful grandson. He is from the mountain aboriginal people of Taiwan. His beautiful black hair, long legs and broad shoulders are amazingly like his daddy’s. But his bronze skin is very different from that of my three-year-old granddaughter’s, who when she saw a picture of her new baby cousin said, “He looks funny.”
We are all different yet…
There will come a time when your children will be exposed to children and adults from other countries and continents. Their color, dress, habits and language will be different than what they consider normal.
These cultural differences should not be viewed as embarrassing or inappropriate by you. Instead you should view their questions as an opportunity to broaden their horizons and educate them on the differences that make us all unique and special.
…the same
It is important to teach your children that though their skin may be lighter or darker than the child sitting behind them, they are both very much alike in the fact that they both need to be loved, both need to be treated with kindness and respect and both enjoy doing all the things kids love to do.
It is important that you teach your children that cultural diversity is not a reason to exclude, demean or even bully someone. A child in Singapore is a child throughout the world.
Experience is the best teacher
When it comes to understanding and being comfortable with cultural differences, the best thing you can do is to give your children a variety of cultural experiences. This can be done by:
Visiting exhibits and various cultural events such as festivals and ceremonies
Eating a variety of foods favored in other countries
Reading about different places or origin and cultures of people you and your children come in contact with
Befriend the parents of children from other cultures in your child’s classroom, sports team or dance class
Focus on the similarities rather than the differences-help your child realize that different clothes, accents, etc. don’t change the fact that both children enjoy soccer or that both children struggle with spelling
Set the bar
In spite of the fact that our children test our patience and push our buttons, they look up to us. They mimic our attitudes and actions. So by being respectful and accepting of people from all walks of life, we will be teaching our children to do the same.
(Trigger warning for homophobia, transphobia and suicide mentions.)
By reading this article, you agree to the following statement, in its entirety:
“Robert Bivouac (alias of the author) does not consent to any part of this article and/or the entirety of it being reproduced in any Mediacorp and/or SPH-owned media outlet or by any journalist or personality affiliated with Mediacorp, SPH and/or the Government of the Republic of Singapore, in any form, as well as on other online or offline platforms, without his express permission, delivered solely via email. You (the reader) may, however, share this article on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, in its unaltered form, provided you do not allow any aforementioned individual or media outlet to circumvent the terms of this agreement using your “share”, and make them aware of this agreement. No attempt to contact Robert about this article via any means besides his Twitter account (@boygainvillea) and the email[email protected] shall be entertained. No attempt by any individual(s), company, religious institution or other organisation not explicitly authorised by a court of law or other suitable institution in the Republic of Singapore to contact Robert’s family, educational institutions (including those he has been accepted into but has not yet commenced studying at), colleagues/employers and/or place(s) of employment shall be made, via any means or for any purpose, about this article, or on the subject of Robert’s sexuality. This agreement may be modified without notice by Robert Bivouac alone.”
With that out of the way (phew),
“I find it totally confounding that Pink Dot is allowed to promote its agenda,” Mr Khong said in a statement issued yesterday. “I find it even more disconcerting that the event is being used as a platform of public persuasion to push its alternative lifestyle.”
— Lawrence Khong, pastor of Faith Community Baptist Church, in response to Singaporean LGBTQ+ event “Pink Dot” announcing in 2014 that it intended to change Singapore’s attitude towards LGBTQ+ people.
Look, I only kind of know who Bertha Henson is. I know she used to write for the nationally-owned paper, the Straits Times. I know she transitioned later on into running the now-defunct Breakfast Network, a site which commented on local political affairs. I know she’s rather famous and respected in the local literary and political scene, but she dropped off the radar after that, or at least my radar.
That is, until today, when I came across this article on Facebook.
What did Bertha have to say? With an at most milquetoast condemnation of Lawrence Khong’s views, she turned almost immediately on the justifiably indignant members of the queer community who raised the outcry about IKEA’s promotion, calling them “as intolerant of other people’s views as they say other people are of theirs”.
Excuse me?
First, some facts.
Fig. 1, preference between rejecting vs accepting “gay lifestyles” in Singapore. Data taken from REACH’s “Our Singapore Conversation Survey”, page 9.
Leaving aside for the moment the points Fikri makes in her essay on why this data doesn’t mean the majority of Singaporeans are homophobic and the criticism of the term “gay lifestyles” itself, 47% of Singaporeans “reject gay lifestyles”, whatever that means. 47% isn’t a majority, but 47%+27% is. 27% of Singaporeans are neutral on the “gay lifestyle”, but that doesn’t mean fuck-all. Being neutral on a human rights issue is as good as being against it; it means you contribute to the silent majority brought out by those against, in this case, acceptance of queer (represented here by gay) people. So yeah, fuck neutrality, a full 74% of Singaporeans are, by the looks of this survey, against queer rights in one way or another.
Where does IKEA’s support of Lawrence Khong, and our subsequent reaction to it, fit in? I’m not sure how many of the respondents REACH interviewed were actually queer, but assuming the same fraction who support “gay lifestyles” are queer, that puts us in the minority. The minority that’s been legislated against by laws like Section 377A, condemned, and demonised by homophobes with large platforms like Lawrence Khong and his ilk.
The word “platform” is key here. Lawrence Khong, as an individual homophobe, might be pretty vile (as seen here, he firmly believes in a homosexual agenda and likens gay sex to incest and drug-taking). He might have a family, and they might be homophobic. That’s vile too. What makes the difference, then, is “platform”; Lawrence Khong boasts a 10,000 strong church and chairs LoveSingapore, an alliance of 100-odd churches that seeks to “TURN [Singapore] God-ward”.
“Platform”, then, comes from all public activities of Lawrence Khong, be they religious (sermons and other officially church-related events) or secular (magic shows). Wherever Lawrence is in public, he builds his personal brand as a dedicated Christian pastor and cool stage magician; through this, then, he not only profits, materially or otherwise, but he gains the means and the audience for his messages.
And those messages are distinctly harmful; from local LGBTQ counselling organisation Oogachaga’s March 2012 survey, 60.2% of the respondents to that survey reported experiencing homophobic or transphobic abuse and discrimination, leading to an overall higher rate of suicidal thoughts and attempts. What does it mean, then, to assist the people responsible for such abuse in growing their platform?
Sounds a lot like bullying to me; and yet, the way Bertha describes it, you’d think we were the bullies here. According to Bertha, for the understandably offended to ask fellow queer people and their straight and/or cis allies to “vote with their money”, as it were, and register protest against any attempt to help Lawrence Khong or the like increase the reach of their potentially lethal abuse, is now “intolerant” and “bullying tactics”, and puts us at risk of “start[ing] a culture war”.
Bertha Henson has fallen for illusions about free speech that seem to be afflicting much of the liberal Western media today. Hers is an admittedly less virulent version of the stance GamerGate, the terrifyingly racist, sexist, transphobic and homophobic American hate group that has harassed marginalised people in the gaming and media communities, holds; namely, that all views can, should and must be heard, and that it’s censorship to claim otherwise.
Well, fuck you and your illusions, Bertha. Us queer people, even with our 21,000-strong turnout at Pink Dot 2014, can’t muster the same platforms as bigots like Lawrence Khong and his 100-church-strong LoveSingapore network. We can’t “bully” a company with EUR €29,293,000,000 (that’s 29.293 billion euros, or SGD $42,308,747,100.33) in revenue and 351 stores in 46 countries that chooses to “reward” its loyal customers with discounts to watch a homophobe’s magic show.
You know what? I don’t believe Bertha.
I don’t believe it’s censorship to demand a view, backed up by institutional prejudice, be kept from gaining traction, and I don’t believe in any value of “free speech” that allows hate speech and its endorsement to walk free.
I don’t believe it’s “bullying” to organise a boycott, a sit-in, a loud outpouring of fury over the Internet at an act that quite literally threatens to harm us, and I don’t believe it’s “pushing too hard”, as Bertha so ungenerously puts it, to stand up for our rights.
I do believe, though, that she needs to snap out of it. Bertha, wake the fuck up, and smell the coffee. We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re going to do something about this sorry situation.
Robert Bivouac is a queer Chinese man living in Singapore. He is an advocate for social justice and diversity in media, and believes in the right to be free from hate speech. He can be reached on Twitter at @boygainvillea or at [email protected].
I read with concern the reports on IKEA Singapore’s decision to continue its tie-up with a magic show performed by Pastor Lawrence Khong.
I believe IKEA’s explanation that it respects diversity, equality and the right to opinion has not seriously considered the fact that Mr Khong has been vocal against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
I respect the fact that there are safe platforms in Singapore for people such as Mr Khong to express their opinions. However, I cannot endorse the nature and intention of his views because they are harmful, discriminatory and demeaning to sexual minorities, some among whom I consider my friends.
IKEA’s decision here appears to be different from its global stand that the company welcomes all families and is LGBT affirming, as stated in its sustainability report last year. Also, IKEA Singapore should understand that the right to opinion comes with the responsibility to observe that the expression of that opinion does not come at the expense of the rights and welfare of others.
We should especially consider that principle in a case such as this, when we have an influential religious leader with a noted history of publicly discriminatory speech against sexual minorities.
The views advanced by leaders in socio-religious communities have implications on social perceptions and policies, and this, in turn, continues to systematically disadvantage sexual minorities and non-heterocentric families.
The magic show that Mr Khong headlines deserves support only from businesses that share those views. In supporting the magic show, I see IKEA Singapore as supporting not only Mr Khong, but also his views. My family and I hope IKEA Singapore will carefully consider its position on similar matters involving such individuals in the future.
Ho Chi Sam
*Comment was featured in Voices, Today, 23 Apr 2015
I am so glad that IKEA did not change its mind about sponsoring pastor Lawrence Khong’s magic show despite the objections of the LGBT community. I am also pleased that the pastor has NOT said anything. If he did, there would never be an end to the fracas….
I looked at the protests about the show which basically centred on Mr Khong’s uncompromising public attitude towards those of a different sexual orientation. Like many, I wondered what his magic show had to do with his views, unless he chooses to use it as a platform to “convert’’ others to his point of view through some magical brainwashing technique. Or maybe his magic show is so bad that IKEA should be ashamed to support it.
I guess it was not so much Mr Khong’s show as the fact that it was a Swedish store that was involved. Sheesh! The Swedes support Lawrence Khong? How can? Shouldn’t it be more “inclusive’’ and embrace diversity? Aiyoh…this company from a wonderfully advanced country doing this?! How can?
Actually, the LGBT lobby shot itself in the foot by talking about diversity. IKEA made a pointed reference to its support of the Wild Rice production of Public Enemy, helmed by a prominent gay man, Mr Ivan Heng. It looks as though IKEA had been rather even-handed in its choice of activities and organisations to support.
It is normal for consumers to put pressure on corporations because of their perceived failings. Boycotting those who use child labour to produce their products, for example. Here, there was even an abortive attempt to not buy palm oil during the height of the haze to hurt unscrupulous plantation owners who use slash-and-burn techniques to clear land in Indonesia. Whether companies succumb depend on how much they value their reputation and whether they can withstand the effects of a boycott.
In this case, IKEA incorporated Mr Khong’s magic show as part of its loyalty programme of discounted rates for members. That, it seems, is enough to rile the LGBT activists who show themselves to be as intolerant of other people’s views as they say other people are of theirs. Does the community intend to hound Mr Khong’s magic show wherever he goes – and will corporate sponsors pull back because they don’t want any heat from the vocal lobby? Will the lobby claim victory then, never mind that it acquires an image of being strident and, hmmm, intolerant?
There’s another point which the community should consider. If the boot was on the other foot and the pro-traditional family lobby comes out in force to do the same, what would it do for its cause of getting the community recognized as part of the mainstream? What if, for example, the members of the lobby decide to boycott all the organisations who sponsor the annual Pink Dot? Would the LGBT lobby then start denouncing them as intolerant homophobes? Even worse, what if they start petitioning the civil service not to hire gays, because their employment runs contrary to the State’s pro-traditional family stance? In the case of IKEA, what if the pro-Lawrence Khong supporters and traditional family groups decide to boycott the store BECAUSE it sponsors Mr Heng’s play or pulls Mr Khong’s show?
There is some wisdom in the official advice to not to take things too far or to push too hard. The Pink Dot organisers have been superb at keeping its event low-profile; they can’t help it if more and more people converge on Hong Lim Park. Still, the ever-growing crowd has already prompted a backlash with the Wear White campaign last year.
Never mind the LGBT numbers here, no one will say that they are in the majority. Yet there are many people who emphatise with the LGBT community and wish the members well. They are not anti-gay and go about their business quietly. Bullying tactics, however, will make them sit up and take sides. Might it not be better to let things happen naturally than start a culture war?
This is not to say that the LGBT lobby should shut up and sit down. It should not tolerate discriminatory acts against one of its members, such as employment termination because of sexual orientation. It should raise an outcry if, say, a homophobic play is put up for audiences – although I think the censors would get to it first. It will find many supporters if it works for the well-being of its members rather than push its agenda on others who might not be ready for it.
Bullying won’t work – or there will be bullying back. How is this good for anyone?
