Blog

Xiaxue: Gay Marriage And All The Reasons To Oppose It

The topic that’s on everybody’s lips these days is the legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states in America. For non-Americans who don’t know, many states have already allowed gay marriage prior to this, but now the Supreme Court have decided it is a constitutional right, meaning anywhere in the United States, gay couples can now get married.

It was a big win for the gays, who celebrated exuberantly.

Many straight people, who empathize with the discrimination gays go through, celebrated with them.

Facebook brilliantly created a rainbow filter for everyone’s profile picture, and overnight everyone’s facebook feed looked like a thousand unicorns rampaged through it.

At first, all I saw was approval at this new judgement. Nobody seemed anti-gay at all!! The overwhelming response seemed to be that everyone was pretty pleased.

I marveled to myself how very far the gays have come in the last decade.

I told my gay friends as much, that the fight is finally over, but they said it’s far from it… The silent majority in Singapore probably are still homophobic. But with the very vocal anti-homophobic crowd, they don’t dare to say much for fear of being labelled a bigot.

Then, after all the celebrations died down, the anti-gay marriage arguments begin to appear, and I realised my gay friends are right. There is still a long way to go.

9gag, for example, changed their logo to rainbow and posted this picture, which is pretty neutral.

The comments were largely anti gay.

9gag also experienced a huge unfollowing from the angry fans. From the comments, we can see that of 9gag’s audience (mostly straight men), many may not have openly voiced their anti gay marriage opinion, but still will express them in little things like comments.

From my own facebook feed, a famous food blogger who is also a doctor posted numerous anti-gay marriage articles, some of which are truly appalling.

Like this one, which is the most condescending, holier-than-thou crap I’ve ever read.

Quote from the article:

“Just we have shown compassion toward those who have gone to the abortion clinic and to the divorce court, so must we do the same for those who go to the altar of gay marriage.” — WTF just fuck off, gay couples who get married don’t need your sympathy or compassion!

The blogger also shared this article, which says paedophiles now want the same rights as gay people.

*roll eyes to the back of my head* Totally no evidence of this in the article… As if paedophiles will dare to ever speak up and say “I AM A PROUD PAEDOPHILE I WANT RIGHTS!”. Please!

Anyway, whatever, he is entitled to his views no matter how skewed by his religion they are. And out of respect for him because I really liked him before this, I won’t mention his name.

I wanted to point out the articles he posted because he is the only person on my facebook feed to be anti gay marriage.I read all the articles because I wanted an alternative point of view, a good LOGICAL reason to tell me why people can be opposing this new judgement so strongly. He is a doctor right? He is a smart guy, he must have some good reasons. I wanted to know.

But article after article I read, trying my best to keep a really open mind.

After reading all, I came to the conclusion that NONE of the arguments hold water.

Here’s my response to all of them.

Bur first, before that, let’s get something clear. Legal unions and sex are different things. You can approve of homosexual sex or be ambivalent about it but not agree with legalizing gay marriage, and similarly, you can approve of gays getting married but don’t agree with their sexual habits. Although I guess the latter is a bit weird because most married couples have sex. Let’s discuss both.

1) God doesn’t approve

Religious people say this as if it is a good reason for everyone to change their minds.

Firstly, the bible (or any religious text) can be interpreted in many different ways, and many religious people have chosen to believe that their God is about love and acceptance, not hatred and judgement.

Secondly, for the vast majority of humans who don’t even believe in your God, that’s like saying the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t approve. ERM, SO?

2) It isn’t natural. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Congratulations on your clever rhyme on Eve, which is a totally logical argument. NOT.

So sick of hearing this stupid statement said as if it is so witty wtf. Btw if God created only two humans from the start, how did they populate the Earth without being incestuous? So now incest is ok but gay sex isn’t?

Anyway, speaking of natural… Homosexuality occurs in animals all the time. It’s really quite natural.

3) The government only gives a legal hoot about the union of two people because it usually results in children. And they want those children to grow up with responsible parents who are legally bound together.

Of all the arguments, I guess this one sounds the most logical. Since gay couples are naturally sterile, why do they need to get married? Marriage is for the sake of children, not the adults.

Erm hello? Firstly, many gay couples get married because they DO want to have children.

They may not be able to do so naturally, but they can adopt or use surrogates or get a sperm donor.

Whether they are legally able to get married or not, gay couples who want children will go ahead and have children. Being unwed isn’t going to stop them.

So if you want the whole “for the child’s welfare” thing, you better let their parents get married so they have a harder time splitting up.

Secondly, being legally married ISN’T solely for the children.

There are other things like tax or wills that are different for legally married couples. If one part of a gay couple is hospitalized and only immediate family can visit, his or her partner, even if they have been together for decades, simply cannot enter. At the airport, Mike and I can get our passports stamped together at the counter because we are a family unit. A gay couple cannot.

Marriage means that if your partner is a foreigner, they can must more easily get permanent residency or a green card.

In Singapore, gay couples cannot apply for a HDB flat. Houses being as expensive as they are, are not-so-affluent gay couples destined to rent forever or stay with their parents?

All these legal rights and privileges are denied to gay couples, which is pretty unfair, unless you are saying that marital rights should only be given to couples who have children.

But that’s not the case, is it? Many heterosexual couples are sterile or do not plan to ever have children. Then why should they be entitled to all these privileges?

If only people with children should be considered legally married, then let all couples be only engaged until they have a child. Only WHEN a child is born should they be awarded the certificate of marriage.

Until then, I think it’s only fair for gay couples to be given equal rights.

4) Children SHOULD grow up in a 1 man 1 woman household.

People who say this sweeping statement come out with it from nowhere except their reluctance to stray from tradition. Research has shown that same sex parenting do not have adverse effects on children. (source 1)(source 2)

If you think about it logically, who will be better parents?

Parents who actually WANT a child… They thought things through and decided that they are ready to be parents, they are ready to take on the responsibility. They made their decision because they are financially able, and their relationship is stable. (Rhymes!)

OR…

Parents who stupidly shoot the sperm inside and accidentally got pregnant so they hastily get married and begrudgingly keep the child? Even if they have only been dating for a month, or if they don’t have the financial capability to raise a kid? After that they throw the kid to grandparents to take care.

Gay parents will always be the former, because their sexual urges will never mistakenly result in a baby.

If they want one, they have to jump through hurdles to actually get one. Adoption protocol will put them through tests to make sure they are suitable parents.

Many heterosexual parents, on the other hand, are parents only due to a mistake. Sure, some may belong to the former. Many aren’t.

I’m sure you have heard of many shotgun marriages around you which ended in divorce or an unhappy marriage.

If you ask me, children from same sex parents are probably better off, statistically speaking, that those of heterosexual parents. So many heterosexual parents are so terrible, just think of ghetto parents with a dozen kids they cannot afford!

Not saying that all gays must automatically be rich or great parents but at least they won’t get a child just because they are horny and stupid, which is so often the case nowadays!

Besides, this argument isn’t against gay marriage, it is against gay parenting.

Since gay parenting will happen whether or not they are allowed to get married, then I say it’s better for them to be able to get married, right?

Argument over, next!

5) Who is supposed to be mother and who’s the father??? This will confuse the child.

A child isn’t born knowing that he is supposed to have a father and a mother.

These are gender roles we appoint after many years of tradition. As long as gay parents educate their child properly (“your Mommy and Mama are different from other children’s Mommy and Daddy but don’t forget we love you just as much as they love their children”), fulfil all the appropriate roles in the kid’s life, I don’t see what the problem is.

Besides, single/divorced parents often have to take up the mantle of being both father and mother. Loads of these children have turned out fine.

Children don’t need parents to be 1 female and 1 male. They simply need parents who love them and care for them.

6) Same sex marriage always denies a child of either a mom or a dad.

Wrong. Same sex marriage denies a child of a BIOLOGICAL mom or dad. People who use this argument act like gay couples cruelly tear a child away from their natural mother or father, but the truth is that these mothers and fathers often don’t want the child.

The child is either adopted (both biological parents don’t want the child, or maybe orphaned), or a surrogate is paid to give birth (rare case), or there is a sperm donor somewhere who most likely doesn’t want anything to do with the kid that his sperm created. You can’t deny someone of something that actually doesn’t want them.

Mom and Dad are more than just the egg or sperm donor – they are also terms for the main caretakers of the child.

Heterosexual adoptive parents can have their children call them figuratively mom and dad, so why can’t gay couples? They can be called dad and dad but they can actually take on mom and dad roles. It is just a name.

7) Homosexuals, especially gay men, are often infidel, which will harm their children.

So marriage will make them think twice about being infidel right? How is this an argument against gay marriage?!

Next.

8) Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children.

“After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.”

I actually copied this chunk from some website. It is one of the dumbest shit I’ve ever read, substantiated by nothing.

Asshole men ditch their kids and wives because they want to fuck other women, have freedom and no responsibility.

What has it got to do with lesbian couples???! Lesbian parents ain’t gonna make asshole men any less assholey by not existing!! Ridiculous!

If you think lesbian parents will affect dad abandonment because they see that 2 women can raise a child, why don’t you also say the opposite is true? That a man seeing that two men can also raise a child, perhaps he will be heartened and think he can do it too.

Lame. Next.

9) Comparison to Incest

One of the arguments that people love to put forth is that supporters of gay marriage should not be hypocrites and should also support incest.

After, incest is also attraction to what is different from the norm. It could also be between two consenting adults.

Firstly, INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES ARE LEGAL.

Yes, you can marry your family members, legally and legitimately. Surprise!

So arguing that people who are pro gay marriage also also support incestuous marriage is redundant. It is legal, never been illegal, so there is no notion to support.

However, once that marriage is consummated, the sexual act itself is illegal. You cannot have sex with your nucleus family.

The law exists to protect an innocent child from being born out of that union because it probably will end up with genetic deformities.

When a sex act involves harming a minor, then obviously nobody supports it. Is it fair to draw a parallel to gay sex, where nobody is harmed?

What about incestuous sex which doesn’t result in pregnancy? Like if both parties went for sterilization?

My personal opinion is that if brother wants to fuck/marry sister, that’s their business, as long as they don’t get pregnant. I don’t really give a crap as they aren’t harming anyone. None of my beeswax. Of course I find the idea distressing and disturbing, but after reading Middlesex (it’s an awesome book) and watching Game of Thrones and seeing my hamsters go at it, I guess such attraction does happen. O_O

I draw the line at parents having sex with their children because I find that the children, even if they are consenting adults, must be in some way manipulated or educated by the parents into thinking this is ok.

So yup. Conclusion: No need to support incestuous marriage as it is legal; if people want to have incestuous sex that’s their business if they aren’t harming anyone and don’t get pregnant.

10) Comparison to sexual deviants/fetishes

People also love to compare gay sex to various sexual fetishes, and how the public will soon be forced to also accept these fetishes as “normal”.

Besides, they say, if gays can marry gays, then what’s to stop paedophiles from marrying children or a man from marrying his dog?

10a) Paedophilia

I don’t even understand why I have to explain this.

The glaring difference is CONSENT.

Children cannot make life decisions that are supposed to last for a lifetime (marriage), nor are they emotionally developed enough to say yes to sex without understanding the consequences, ok?

HOW IS THIS THE SAME AS GAY SEX/MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO CONSENSUAL ADULTS?? HOW??

I can’t, I just can’t. People are too stupid.

As for the idiots claiming that because gays are asking for equal rights to get married, paedophiles will now do the same?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE PAEDOPHILIC ASSOCIATION WILL COME OUT AND ASK FOR RIGHTS TO FUCK PEOPLE’S YOUNG CHILDREN, TODDLERS AND BABIES?

Do you HONESTLY believe that?

If yes, you need to jump off a cliff.

10b) Bestiality

Again, a man cannot marry his dog because his dog is incapable of giving consent. Even if the dog shows it obviously loves its owner, the dog cannot possibly understand the notion or consequences of marriage. So no, no animal marriage, ok?

With regards to sex with animals… Now here is where it gets a little iffy.

The mere idea of this will probably set most people gagging. I guess it’s safe to say that this isn’t to everybody’s taste. Bestiality is illegal in most countries. It is considered animal cruelty to do sexual acts to an animal, because they cannot give consent, right?

I must admit that when I was younger, there was no doubt in my mind that bestiality is wrong, it is beyond disgusting, and everyone who does it is a pervert who should be locked up in jail (and probably not allowed to be near the animals in the jail if any).

Reddit changed everything for me. Two of my friends linked me to an IAMA article about someone who has sex with his dogs.

(Article 1)(Article 2)

If the dog is the one humping him, isn’t it consent? For further discussion, read THIS. It is very interesting.

We can neuter our animals, force them to breed for our profit, slaughter them for meat, but it isn’t ok to allow them to hump us? It does seem a bit unfair, doesn’t it? Afterall, cows would rather have sex with you than to be made into a cheeseburger. Maybe the issue here isn’t really animal cruelty in some cases. (Of course you shouldn’t force yourself on an animal too small for your genitals or is obviously unwilling and shrieking. Or in the reverse hurt yourself by being impaled with giant animal penises.)

Anyway, whatever. I’m not here to champion for the rights of zoophiles or that of animals. I eat the latter, can’t talk so much.

But it is food for thought.

But no, just because gay marriage is now legal in 50 states will not suddenly cause everyone to begin having sex with animals, ok? It remains a very niche sexual preference that few can accept.

10c) Necrophilia

I can’t. Desecrating a corpse without consent. Upsets the beheaved loved ones. Not the same as gay sex. Sigh… It is an insult to Blogger.com’s server space to have to explain this.

11) I feel like gays are forcing gay marriage down my throat and I don’t like that. Why can’t I just say I don’t agree with it without being labelled a bigot? It simply doesn’t feel right to me, can’t that be a reason?

No, it can’t.

If you can’t find a logical reason to oppose it, then simply be ambivalent or apathetic about it. You don’t have to care about the issue. If you are straight, it most likely won’t affect you in any real way. But if you are against it, then you better give a good reason other than an emotional knee-jerk response.

It is very easy for you to say “It just doesn’t feel right” and decide to take away the rights of other people, but for the people affected, it makes a HUGE difference to their lives.

In the past, many have probably voted against abolishing slavery or the right for women to vote simply because “it just doesn’t feel right”. No other reason, except you are resistant to change.

How would you feel if you are fighting for something you feel is the right thing to do and others oppose you just because? Don’t even bother to give you a logical reason, except they don’t like it? Won’t you find that very insulting and get angry?

12) Gay sex is disgusting

This, at the end of the day, is the reason why anyone would oppose gay marriage. They simply find gay sex disgusting.And because of that, they find all sort of nonsense reasons to justify their feelings.

Gays have no rights to be all huffy and offended just because someone tells them that gay sex is gross.

Just as homosexuals have no control over what they find attractive, other people have no control over what they find disgusting – so don’t be hypocrites when asking for acceptance!

Just mention to a gay guy about licking a cunt or a lesbian about male penetration and surely their response is EWWWW. (Witnessed it many times) So if gays can find heterosexual sex gross, straight people are allowed to find your sexual proclivities gross too.

When you first found out what (heterosexual) sex was, what were your thoughts? I was 12 when a friend told me about it, she found her uncle’s porn video tapes and saw it.

“OH MY GOD THAT’S SO DISGUSTING WHY WOULD I WANT TO TOUCH A BOY’S KUKU OMG OMG OMG I WILL NEVER EVER DO THAT!!!! YUCK!!!”

That was my reaction. I had thought people kissed and slept on the same bed and the woman will get pregnant the next day.

Well… Let’s just say that Dash wasn’t conceived that way. LOL… Which goes to show the best of us eat our words.

If you find something disgusting, it is easy to also decide that it is wrong, sick, and shouldn’t be allowed.

And that the people who like it, must be either crazy, perverse, ignorant, or has to be “fixed” in some way.

Grow up. Just because you find celery disgusting doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t be allowed to eat it.

A mature person separates his emotions from his judgement. It is hard to do so, I’ll admit it. Being an emotional person, I still wish there are laws against all the things I dislike (ban parsley and crocs), but a small part of me knows that isn’t right.

Read a sentence on reddit which pretty much sums up this post:

“Just because you find it disgusting doesn’t mean that it’s reprehensible.”

Are your feelings about gay sex affecting your opinion on gay marriage? If yes, you need to take those feelings out of the equation and think again.

CONCLUSION:

So there you have all my response to all the reasons why people are opposing gay marriage. I find each and every reason pretty invalid, but if you can come up with a good, logical argument, I welcome your views on it.

The only reason that cannot be argued with is 12) Gay sex is disgusting.

If someone feels that way, nothing will change their opinion.

Personally, I find anal sex disgusting (whether on females or males), and no amount of reading up on it or talking to people who engage in it will change it for me. I tell my gay friends my opinion and they laugh about it. I don’t like the act; it doesn’t mean I don’t like the people who perform the act.

So if you find homosexual behaviour disgusting, so be it.**

But those who oppose gay marriage for this reason…

PLEASE DO NOT HIDE BEHIND SCIENCE AND MORALITY TO OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE.

That, I really cannot stand.

Don’t act like you are so much more morally upright, educated, informed than others.

Don’t share articles that use fake science and statistics to get invalid arguments across.

DON’T CLAIM YOU ARE OPPOSING GAYS FOR THE BETTER OF SOCIETY.

Don’t act like it is for the children.

Worst of all don’t tell me you pray for the gays and will show compassion towards them despite your disgust with them. JUST FUCK OFF.

Just say it as it is.

You don’t like it because you find it disgusting.

Great, then people will know to simply dismiss your opinion as it is a personal one with no bearing on society’s welfare.

Or they can let you know frankly that they find you disgusting too.

(**Of course, you shouldn’t be unkind or insensitive about your disgust, just like it isn’t nice to tell someone an outfit makes them look fat, even though you truly feel that way and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way)

Source: http://xiaxue.blogspot.sg/2015/07/gay-marriage-and-all-reasons-to-oppose.html<

July 5, 2015
I’m Gay And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

Gay marriage has gone from unthinkable to reality in the blink of an eye. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that support for gay marriage is now at 61 percent—the highest it’s ever been. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case that many court-watchers believe will deliver the final blow to those seeking to prevent the redefinition of marriage. By all measures, this fight is over. Gay marriage won.

As a 30-year-old gay man, one would expect me to be ecstatic. After all, I’m at that age where people tend to settle down and get married. And there is nothing in this world I want more than to be a father and raise a family. Yet I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this.

I’m not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo.

Marriage Is More than a Contract

The wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.

This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman.

But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract.

Government Is Involved in Marriage Because It Creates Babies

People have forgotten that the defining feature of marriage, the thing that makes marriage marriage, is the sexual complementarity of the people involved. Marriage is often correctly viewed as an institution deeply rooted in religious tradition. But people sometimes forget that marriage is also based in science. When a heterosexual couple has sex, a biological reaction can occur that results in a new human life.

Government got into the marriage business to ensure that these new lives are created in a responsible manner. This capacity for creating new life is what makes marriage special. No matter how much we try, same-sex couples will never be able to create a new life. If you find that level of inequality offensive, take it up with Mother Nature. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.

A Good Dad Puts Kids First

Same-sex relationships not only lack the ability to create children, but I believe they are also suboptimal environments for raising children. On a personal level, this was an agonizing realization for me to come to. I have always wanted to be a father. I would give just about anything for the chance to have kids. But the first rule of fatherhood is that a good dad will put the needs of his children before his own—and every child needs a mom and a dad. Period. I could never forgive myself for ripping a child away from his mother so I could selfishly live out my dreams.

Same-sex relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother. This hardly seems fair. So much of what we do as a society prioritizes the needs of adults over the needs of children. Social Security and Medicare rob the young to pay the old. The Affordable Care Act requires young and healthy people to buy insurance to subsidize the cost for the old and sick. Our schools seem more concerned with keeping the teachers unions happy than they are educating our children. Haven’t children suffered enough to make adults’ lives more convenient? For once, it would be nice to see our society put the needs of children first. Let’s raise them in homes where they can enjoy having both a mom and a dad. We owe them that.

At its core, the institution of marriage is all about creating and sustaining families. Over thousands of years of human civilization, the brightest minds have been unable to come up with a successful alternative. Yet in our hubris we assume we know better. Americans need to realize that same-sex relationships will never be equal to traditional marriages. You know what? I’m okay with that.

Source: www.malaysiandigest.com

July 5, 2015
Unnecessary To Sue Roy Ngerng – Just Answer Our Questions On CPF

By his own admission, Lee has been following Roy’s blog and decided to SUE when he thought the latter had ‘crossed’ a line.

If Lee had been taking his responsibility and duty as the prime minister seriously, why did he allow bloggers and other citizens to continue if he sincerely felt that they had got their facts wrong in their quest (for transparency among others) that Roy and others have doubts, questions and queries regarding their CPF which is no less than their nest egg and savings for their retirement and twilight years.

I find it incomprehensible and insincere that he should find it condescending to provide proper replies and responses to such doubts which he is duty bound to do. He could have EASILY instructed his subordinates in charge of the CPF to lay out the details being legitimately sought after by the citizens of Singapore who have a very fundamental right to knowledge and facts about what is happening to their CPF money.

It is pertinent to repeat that the queries about our CPF are a DIRECT RESULT of the aftermath of the hundreds of billions of losses incurred by the GIC and Temasek, Singapore’s sovereign funds, that are managed by Lee, his father and their gang.

IMHO, this entire sorry episode and expensive law suit that Lee has chosen to drag Roy into could have been completely avoided had Lee has felt it duty-bound enough to provide proper responses. It is evident and appalling that it is entirely of Lee’s making when he is in the best position to allay the fears of Singaporeans with concrete facts and figures about how our CPF is being managed and invested.

The fact that up till TODAY, many doubts remain and many questions about the CPF remain unclarified and unanswered underscores this inexcusable reticence and reluctance to inform Singaporeans. Citizens could hardly be faulted if they harbour mistrust and suspicions about the handling by the govt of our CPF.

It changes NOTHING of this mistrust and suspicion even if Lee were to sue a hundred Roy Ngerngs successfully. He may win all the legal battles but surely he is going to lose the war for the hearts and minds of Singaporeans.

george

* Comment appeared in TRE article: Roy: Mr Lee didn’t suffer lower standing due to my articles

Source: www.tremeritus.com

July 4, 2015
Reform Party Demands Full Accounting From Lee Hsien Loong On The Use Of State Resources In Connection With Ongoing Legal Proceedings In Personal Capacity
Reform Party is concerned that the Prime Minister in his personal capacity as Mr Lee Hsien Loong is currently engaged in a defamation suit against the blogger Roy Ngerng. When any Minister, let alone the Prime Minister, is involved in legal proceedings in a personal capacity there may be implications for them in their official position.

By his own admission, the PM’s lawsuit, where he is seeking a significant sum in excess of S$400,000 against the unemployed former health worker blogger is a private matter and has nothing to do with the official duties of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Can the PM assure the citizens that he can carry out his duties as a public servant funded by the taxpayer and simultaneously be engaged in a legal wrangle which has now reached the high court, without significant impact on those official duties? If so, we ask for those assurances to be made public.

Because of the potential implications for conflict we believe the PM must give a clear and detailed accounting of all or any taxpayer funded state resources, official resources, official machinery and official personnel used in the period starting with the monitoring of bloggers, research and information gathering through to the issuing of legal letters, the follow-up, the subsequent legal action and the current hearings to assess damages and the media and PR management throughout. We believe we should also be informed as to how much time and what resources were expended by state legal officers and civil servants in advising the PM on the implications of legal proceedings in his personal capacity.

We respectfully request answers to the following questions:
1. How much time has your Official Press Secretary -a civil servant whose salary is also tax payer funded –spent in meeting journalists, researching, composing and writing letters on your behalf to foreign newspapers such as the Economist, defending your position over your personal lawsuit ? What economic value would you put on this or if it is not possible to assign a dollar value how many man-hours have been expended so far?
2. Did the PMO bill you personally for the total cost of using your Press Secretary on your private business?
3. Did you pay the cost of other resources used to assist you in your suit against Roy Ngerng?
4. State Media photos show you arriving at court in a chauffeured limousine. Did you use your own car or an official car to transport you to the hearing when you gave evidence at that hearing?
5. If it was an official car, did you pay for the use of the car, the driver, the petrol?
6. Who paid for the cost of your bodyguards or any police escort to accompany you to the hearing?
7. Was any extra security in place and who paid for that?
8. Did you take official or unpaid leave for the day you spent in court fighting your private matter or do you expect taxpayers to finance it?
9. You are paid at least $2.4 million p.a. out of state funds as PM to run the country and for your MP duties. How much of your working time has been spent on your private lawsuit against Roy Ngerng? Again can you assign a dollar value to this and will you be refunding the taxpayer?
10. We are further disturbed by your admission in court under cross-examination by Roy Ngerng that you had been watching him for some time “making more and more outrageous allegations about the CPF, stopping short of accusing me of doing bad things personally, but coming closer and closer to saying that.” Please clarify how much time, for some time is, in real terms. Mr Ngerng for example, started blogging in 2012. How much of your working time would you estimate has been spent in “watching” what bloggers are saying or might be about to say? Do you watch these bloggers on official machinery? Do you consider that you can monitor all these bloggers over a period of time and still run the country efficiently? Would you say this is the best use of taxpayers’ money?
11. Maybe you do not watch the bloggers personally. Do you in fact watch them personally or do you have private or state funded staff watch them for you? Have you set up a special unit within the PMO to monitor bloggers and social media including Mr Ngerng for comments that you do not like personally or that you consider defamatory of you in your personal capacity? Is this being paid for out of State funds?
12. You are presumably aware that Tan Tock Seng Hospital dismissed Mr Ngerng for among other things, misusing hospital resources. Similarly NUS sacked Chee Soon Juan in the early 1990s for using office stamps for a personal letter even though he had sought permission. Would you not agree that if you have used state resources for your own personal interest such as this lawsuit against Roy Ngerng, then you are guilty of the same misappropriation? At the very least would you not consider that you are giving the taxpayer poor value for the salary they provide?
Reputational Damage

We are further concerned that the Prime Minister’s responses in Court to questions set to him by the unemployed former health care worker and blogger Roy Ngerng show him in a poor light. Even though he is suing the blogger in his personal capacity he cannot escape the fact that he is Prime Minister of Singapore and as such his snide and sarcastic ripostes in a Court of Law may be deemed by many to be unseemly for a man in that position. Particularly given the huge disparity in income, status, power, influence and wealth between the Prime Minister and the blogger he is suing. Has the Prime Minister not considered that he risks bringing the office of Prime Minster into disrepute with such actions?

For example, his admission that he monitors bloggers watching for them to step over a line and be clearly defamatory. Does he not consider that this will appear unseemly for a man in his position? Additionally his response to Mr Ngerng’s analogy about a knife and a cut finger “knowing you it may be” reveals a personal animosity unbecoming of the leader of a developed nation.

We do not challenge the judgement that has already been made in his favour but we would like to know whether with all the legal and media handling advice at his disposal, the Prime Minister was not warned of the dangers of the Streisand Effect.

We trust that the Prime Minister is not too busy monitoring the worldwide web to respond and look forward to a clarification that no official resources have in fact been expended or if that is not the case to a full and frank accounting.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

Secretary-General

Source: Reform Party
July 4, 2015
Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I Won’t Be PM Unless They Forced Me To

In a public forum about what lies ahead of Singapore at the SG50+ Conference held by the Institute of Policy Studies, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shamugaratnam unreservedly said that he will not be the next Prime Minister unless the ruling PAP Government forced him to. DPM Tharman said that he is neither interested in the PM role nor believe he is suitable for it:

“Let me put it this way, we all have our preferences. And I was always, in sports, a centre half rather than centre forward. I enjoy playing half back and making the long passes, but I am not the striker.

Unless I am forced to be, and I don’t think I will be forced to it, because I think we have got choices. It is not bad that we think so hard about succession, and we don’t always get it the way we expect it to be, but we think very hard about succession in Singapore.”

The forum host, CNN journalist Dr Fareed Zakaria, also asked DPM Tharman if Singapore will get to see a non-Chinese Prime Minister one day, of which DPM Tharman became politically-correct and ambiguously said “it is just a matter of time”.

The issue on a non-Chinese Prime Minister has previously surfaced to the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong where he said it will not happen any time soon and that Singaporeans are not yet “totally race-blind and religion-blind”:

“Will it happen soon? I don’t think so, because you have to win votes. And these sentiments – who votes for whom,and what makes him identify with that person – these are sentiments which will not disappear completely for a long time, even if people do not talk about it, even if people wish they did not feel it.

…attitudes towards race had shifted in the last two to three decades as English provided more of a common ground, but said to get to “a position where everyone is totally race-blind and religion-blind, I think that is very difficult. You will not find it in any country in the world.”

The Singapore Government has sparked heavy criticisms over the positions of the family and friends of the first PM Lee Kuan Yew. His eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong, became Singapore’s PM in 2004 and even until today, most people remains unconvinced Lee Hsien Loong attained his PM role without the help of his father. Lee Hsien Loong’s leadership has faced much criticisms as the PM leadership inherited the controversial aspect of his father’s (i.e. restriction of free speech), but none of the economic and social progress Singaporeans enjoyed during his father’s days. Lee Hsien Loong has been PM for the past 11 years, but unlike a real democracy, there is no legislated limit on the number of years he can be Prime Minister.

Source:http://statestimesreview.com

July 4, 2015