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.
The Economist writing about the media situation in Singapore last month (‘Zip it‘, 24 Jun) talked about Singapore bloggers getting into trouble with the government.
The Economist described a peculiar situation where the prosecution was pushing for rehabilitation and counselling while the defendant, in this case 16-year-old teenage blogger Amos Yee, wanted a jail sentence.
Amos was found guilty of circulating an obscene image and insulting Christians, reported The Economist.
“As it turns out, both sides will need to wait,” it said. Amos is remanded for another 2 weeks to undergo psychiatric assessment. The Economist then quoted Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Rights Office, which called for Amos’ release.
The Economist also mentioned that on 3 May 2015, The Real Singapore (TRS) was shut down by the Singapore government. The Media Developement Authority alleged that TRS had “fabricated articles [and] published prohibited material… objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public order and national harmony [and] sought to incite anti-foreigner sentiments in Singapore”.
Another blogger, Roy Ngerng, has paid Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s Prime Minister, S$29,000 ($21,653) in legal fees and expenses, and may pay more in damages, The Economist further reported. This is with reference to the current defamation lawsuit brought by Mr Lee against Roy.
The Economist concluded:
It comes as no surprise then that, in the most recent World Press Freedom Index, Singapore ranked 153rd of 180 countries, falling three spots from last year’s rankings.
Any hope that Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party would loosen controls over the media—as part of efforts to present a softer public face after its relatively poor showing in the last election—now seem misplaced.
Singapore’s government has proven itself as willing as ever to use the colonial-era Sedition Act as well as the 2014 Protection from Harassment Act to stifle dissent.
It also quoted Cherian George, a former NTU professor now teaching in Hong Kong, as saying that the Singapore government “still acts as though it can’t win an argument on the merits, nor trust the public to reach wise conclusions through open debate”.
High Commissioner Foo Chi Hsia rebuts The Economist
In a letter published in The Economist today (4 Jul), Singapore High Commissioner to UK, Foo Chi Hsia, sought to rebut The Economist’s article.
She accused The Economist of publishing an “unbalanced” article. Taking the moral high ground, Ms Foo said that in seeking “wise conclusions through open debate”, integrity and honest reporting are as important as the right to speak freely.
Ms Foo’s letter as it appeared in The Economist:
Your piece “Zip it” (June 24th) is unbalanced. It champions unfettered freedom of speech without providing the context of cases mentioned. Amos Yee was convicted for insulting the faith of Christians. In a small, highly diverse society like Singapore we guard our social peace jealously and make no apologies for it. We cannot allow people to denigrate or offend the religious beliefs of others: the result is anger and violence, as we have seen elsewhere. Protection from hate speech is also a basic human right.
The Media Developement Authroity (MDA) suspended TRS because it had published articles deliberately stirring up anti-foreigner sentiments. It fabricated stories to boost traffic and advertising revenue.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s defamation suit against Roy Ngerng is a completely separate matter. The Court found that Roy Ngerng had defamed Mr Lee Hsien Loong. Freedom of speech does not extend to freedom to defame others. Yet despite Mr Ngerng’s questionable tactics, the government has not shied away from debating questions about the Central Provident Fund. Ngerng himself engaged Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on the topic at a public forum, an exchange carried by the national broadsheet.
In seeking “wise conclusions through open debate”, integrity and honest reporting are as important as the right to speak freely.
FOO CHI HSIA
High Commissioner for Singapore
London
Who is Foo Chi Hsia?
Ms Foo Chi Hsia joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in September 1994.
She was Director in-charge of the International Economics Directorate responsible for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and WTO matters from 2008 to 2009 and concurrently Senior Deputy Director in the Southeast Asia Directorate (April to September 2008).
She was Second Director in the Southeast Asia Directorate from 2008 to 2010 before her appointment as Director-General of the Americas Directorate from August 2010 to July 2014.
Ms Foo served at the Singapore Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York from 1997 to 2003, including as the Political Coordinator during Singapore’s term as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council from 2001 to 2002.
Ms Foo graduated with a Bachelor of Law in 1994, and obtained a Master in Public Management in 2005, both from the National University of Singapore. She was conferred the Public Administration Medal (Silver) in 2008.
Ms Foo assumed her post as High Commissioner to the UK on 1 September last year.
Hi, I would like to raise an awareness. I was using Woodlands Checkpoint few days back. When I was the Car’s queue at the Immigration counter, I saw the Immigration Officers PC serving the opposite of my counter.
In their PC Monitor, Left Side states HOT LIST and all wanted person picture will be moving upwards. Then I saw Amos Yee(in Yellow T-shirt) picture in it.
It was a shock of my life. A young teenage boy picture in the Hot List while he is IMH. How can pass thru Immigration while under custody. And lastly just for speaking the truth and what a normal born Singaporean feel in his heart got him in to Politically Intimidated/Bullied. I am now really terrified of the Ruling Party/Government/PAP/LHL. I am shocked that nobody reported it.
Homosexual activists have always claimed that there is no gay agenda. However, by watching how homosexuality has gained acceptance elsewhere, especially in some Western countries like the U.S., we know that this is a blatant lie.
Moreover, U.S. President Barack Obama has criminally pushed its LGBT agenda worldwide by making use of the United Nations as a platform to further its goal. In fact, the Obama administration has made the acceptance of homosexuality one of its prime foreign policies. In a memo to his State Department and US agencies, he said: “Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action . . . . . as we in the United States bring our tools to bear to vigorously advance this goal”.
As have been seen, the U.S. and some of its Western allies have tried to bully African nations into accepting homosexuality by withholding foreign aids. However, kudos to these impoverished nations, they stood their ground. In April 2014, the African, Pacific and Caribbean Group of States (ACP) released a strongly worded resolution condemning wealthy Western nations for their repeated attempts to blackmail African nations into legalizing homosexual behaviour.
Nevertheless, we must not let our guard down as the scourge of the LGBT agenda continues to spread like wildfire, backed by major U.S. corporations. For example, the wealthiest and most powerful LGBT activist group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is funded by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Citibank, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Coca Cola, Pepsico, Starbucks and IBM, just to name a few. (Access the full list here:http://www.massresistance.com/docs/gen2/14c/hrc-attacks-on-pro-family/hrc-corporate-sponsors.html).
Funding by such mega corporations can have a big impact in advancing homosexual rights. A good example is Ireland which just voted “Yes” to same-sex marriage. This is done with the financial backing of U.S.-based Atlantic Philanthropies which reportedly invested between 17 to 25 million U.S. dollars between 2004 and 2014 to effectively catalyse the homosexual-rights lobby in the Catholic country.
Considering that Ireland had only passed a law decriminalizing homosexuality on the basis of equality in 1993 and overturning laws dating back to the 19th century that prohibited homosexual activities, the victory by homosexual activists is indeed stunning.
To understand how the homosexual agenda has advanced so rapidly, we shall examine the strategies being crafted and meticulously carried out over the years. This was first highlighted by the article “The Overhauling of Straight America”, which was later published in a book titled “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.”
The strategies are detailed in a simple stair-step fashion that turns homosexuality from a “prohibition” (against natural norms) to “acceptance” (through deceit, deception, propaganda and ambivalence of the silent majority) and then to “dominance” (funding politicians in key government positions to enact LGBT-friendly laws that persecute anyone deemed to act against “human rights”, “equality”, “non-discrimination”, “tolerance” and “freedom to love”).
We shall also draw parallels to what is happening in Singapore with the Pink Dot LGBT movement.
“Step 1: Talk About Gays And Gayness As Loudly And As Often As Possible.”
Make homosexual behaviour looks normal by exposing it as much as possible. When there is enough exposure in close quarters, for example among acquaintances and colleagues, almost any behaviour begins to look normal.
In the early stages, homosexuality is projected softly to avoid shocking the masses and by downplaying the imagery of sex.
In The Context of Singapore
Pink Dot, the homosexual movement in Singapore has been trying to gain as much exposure as possible. Besides organising the annual Pink Dot event at Hong Lim Park, they have also held smaller events in other parts of Singapore throughout the year. For the 2015 Pink Dot event, they even plan to work with the eateries along North Canal Road (just beside Hong Lim Park) to “turn it into a pink street”. The purpose is obvious – pushing the boundaries to expand their reach. However, they may be breaching Singapore laws if their activities spill beyond the confines of Hong Lim Park. If so, they must be taken to task.
Whatever Pink Dot is doing, their aim is obvious – EXPOSURE. By increasing their exposure, they seek to incrementally desensitize the public. They have also sought local celebrities to grace the event and use them to reach out to the older generation of Singaporeans who are mostly conservative. Again, the motive is to achieve even more publicity.
On the event day itself, which falls on 13 June this year, many performances are also lined up. This is done for the sole purpose of changing the negative perception of homosexuality. By portraying themselves as friendly, fun-loving and “normal”, they hope to project homosexuality in a favourable light. Their theme of “Freedom to Love”, “Non-Discrimination” and “Inclusiveness” is simply to project themselves as victims of the wider society and gain sympathy from the less informed, which unfortunately, remain quite sizeable on the issue of homosexuality.
As can be seen, they have been completely silent on the adverse effects of homosexuality and same-sex marriage on society. This is deliberate as studies have shown the advancement of LGBT rights have serious repercussion on society. Some of these are as follow:
The destruction of traditional marriage. As we know, marriage is the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman. It is the fundamental building block of a society and therefore, upholding marriage is in everyone’s interests.
Same-sex marriage leads to the casualization of heterosexual unions and separation of marriage and parenthood. It may be the end-game of long-running anti-marriage, anti-family policy typified by Sweden.
Same-sex marriage and commercial surrogacy deprive children of either a father or mother, which is detrimental to their psychological, emotional, intellectual and physical well-being. Commercial surrogacy also treats children as a commodity that can be sold and bought with money.
Higher rate of domestic violence and child molestation compared to heterosexuals
And for people who live a homosexual lifestyle, the following are found:
Indulge in risky sexual practice
Have high numbers of sex partners in their lifetime, even when married
Have high relationship and mental health problems
Suffers from substance and alcohol abuse
Have disproportionately high numbers of HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases
Have higher suicidal tendencies and mortality rate than heterosexuals
“Step 2: Portray Gays As Victims, Not As Aggressive Challengers.”
In an effort to win over the public, gays are cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector.
To be effective, the visual media, film and television are plainly the most powerful image-makers in the Western civilization. By reaching out to the straights using such medium, a Trojan horse might be planted without them knowing consciously. Such efforts to desensitize the mainstream can be seen in gay Hollywood.
To further portray gays as victims of society, graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, and public humiliation are being brought to the fore of straights in an effort to soften their stance on homosexuality.
In The Context of Singapore
One of Pink Dot’s main trusts is to promote its “Freedom to Love” regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation. Anyone who does not subscribe to their definition of “Love” will be accused of “discrimination” and violation of their “human rights”.
To achieve this objective, Pink Dot has produced videos portraying homosexuals not only as victims of society, but their family as well. In fact, they have produced numerous videos with such themes, with some featuring school children. All these are premeditated in an attempt to draw sympathy from the masses.
And of course, social media, television and the internet have been used to milk as much publicity as possible. By playing up the plight of homosexuals, they hope to soften the stance on homosexuality by the wider public.
“Step 3: Give Protectors A Just Cause.”
By casting gays as society’s victims, they hope to encourage straights to become their protector. However, it is found that there are few straights who would want to defend homosexuality boldly.
Instead straights would prefer to attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, as well as to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society.
Hence, the homosexual lobby would not demand direct support for their agenda. Instead, they focussed on anti-discrimination as its theme – the right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws.
It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. When the homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, the defenders of gay rights will counter dogma with principle.
In The Context of Singapore
An Institute of Policy Studies survey has found Singaporeans to be mostly conservative and does not accept homosexuality. So are major religions here like Christianity and Islam.
Therefore, to gain acceptance, Pink Dot has constantly portrayed LGBT people being discriminated against. This can be seen following the failed Constitutional challenge to repeal 377A of the penal code that criminalizes sex between two men. In its statement, Pink Dot said: “It gives carte blanche for discrimination and reinforces prejudice, leading to censorship in the media and the aggravation of negative stereotypes, and impacting the health and well-being of a significant segment of society”.
Curiously, when homosexuals make up less than 2 per cent of the population in Singapore, how can this be considered “a significant segment of society”? Also, by portraying LGBT people as being widely “discriminated”, they hope that special provisions, rules or even laws must be enacted to protect them. A good example is seen in the University Scholars Programme in NUS that specifically spelt out what “sexual respect” is. (See link:http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/community-college/sexual-respect-in-the-usp.html)
No surprisingly, Pink Dot has been deafeningly silent about the adverse impact of LGBT rights on society. The following are just some examples why LGBT rights must never be allowed to advance:
In the U.S. and some Western countries, people of faith have been persecuted by so-called anti-discrimination laws when they refuse to do business related to same-sex wedding.
Therefore, in order to change public perception, words such as “freedom to love”, “diversity”, “non-discrimination”, “tolerance” and “diversity” have been ceaselessly broadcast. They have also reached out to straight friends for support to show that those against homosexuality are “right-wing or religious fanatics”, “homophobes”, “bigots” and “haters”.
Many LGBT groups have also been established in our tertiary institutions in an attempt to raise their visibility. The purpose is to desensitize the wider student population and to show that LGBT people are “normal” like everyone else. Eventually, it is hoped that homosexuality will be more widely accepted by the next generation.
“Step 4: Make Gays Look Good.”
In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights, portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset any bad press about homosexual men and women, paint gays as superior pillars of society.
In The Context of Singapore
As mentioned above, Pink Dot has been trying to change the perception of LGBT people. By courting straight allies, they hope to show that homosexuality is “normal” and LGBT people are just like everyone else.
On a more aggressive move, they have brought together LGBT student groups from our tertiary institutions to participate in this year’s Pink Dot event for the first time with the stated purpose of “helping student groups support the LGBT community and promote a better school environment”. Again, they are portraying LGBT people as a discriminated class, even in Singapore’s education system.
As in previous Pink Dot events, sponsors include mega U.S. corporations such as Google, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Bloomberg. By having such corporations supporting them in the name of “diversity”, they want to show that being “inclusive” (which include employing LGBT people) is a necessary ingredient for their successes.
“Step 5: Make The Victimizers Look Bad.”
At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace — it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.
To achieve this, the public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust Middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the ‘fags’ they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.
In The Context of Singapore
Luckily for Singapore, we have not reached this stage of development yet. However, we must not let our guard down amid the constant barrage of misinformation from LGBT activist groups. As can be seen, newspaper forums have seen an increased number of articles on LGBT issues. Reporting by our mainstream media on homosexuality issues has also tended to be more liberal than necessary. In fact, we have not seen any reports that portrayed homosexuality in a negative light.
Comments in newspaper forums have also seen pro-LGBT activists vilifying anyone that do not agree with them, calling them “bigots”, “homophobes”, “haters” and even “dogs”. They will make use of every single opportunity to attack people who do not accept homosexuality. A good example is the recent uproar over Ikea’s offering of discounted ticket prices to its members for the Vision magic show by Pastor Lawrence Kong who is known for his stance against the sin of homosexuality.
Lastly, deception that there is a growing acceptance of homosexuality is very much at play. Last year, Pink Dot claimed that 26,000 people participated in its event. But, judging from the space constraint of Hong Lim Park and making a comparison in which 26,000 runners participated in a marathon, you decide which is the BIG LIE!
More than two-thirds of the 20 countries around the world that have legalized same-sex marriage are in Europe. Yet two of the biggest Western European states – Germany and Italy – do not allow gays and lesbians to wed. And all Central and Eastern European countries continue to ban gay marriage.
That makes Ireland the 14th European nation to change its laws to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. This number counts England and Wales as one country and Scotland as a separate entity, since those parts of the United Kingdom passed two separate pieces of legislation on same-sex marriage. (Northern Ireland, the other U.K. constituent state, has not legalized such marriages.) The list also includes Finland, which approved a same-sex marriage law earlier this year, although it will not take effect until 2017.
It is unclear whether any other European countries will soon follow. Germany is among several European nations that grant civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples, but is not seen as likely to allow gay marriages in the near future. Some Italian politicians, meanwhile, are calling for the passage of a civil partnerships law. Italy, with its historical ties to the Roman Catholic Church, does not currently recognize same-sex unions of any kind, and a senior Vatican official recently called the result of Ireland’s referendum a “defeat for humanity.”
