Furniture retailer Ikea Singapore will not pull out of a tie-up that offers members of its loyalty programme discounted rates for a show that features a pastor known for his views against homosexuality.
The decision to continue the promotion comes after a thorough review, said the company in a statement on Tuesday.
It said: “We have spoken directly with the organizers, reviewed the content and confirmed that the Vision show offers high family entertainment value and, on that basis, we are continuing our promotional collaboration.”
Vision, a magic show performed by pastor Lawrence Khong of Faith Community Baptist Church and his daughter Priscilla, will be held at the Esplanade in July.
In its statement, Ikea Singapore added that it respects the diversity and equality of all people in the community.
“We also respect that all individuals have a right to their opinions and personal choices, including the freedom to choose their preferred entertainment,” it said.
The company thanked customers for their patience as the company deliberated over an issue that had “raised sensitivities in our community”.
Mr Khong is known for his strong views against homosexuals. Last year, he pledged support for a campaign to “wear white” in protest of the LGBT picnic Pink Dot.
INTOLERANCE AND BIGOTRY BY THE GAY MAFIA MILITANTS AGAINST IKEA’S SUPPORT FOR PASTOR Lawrence Khong‘s Show, VISION
Dear Muslim, Christian, and all other religious brothers and sisters,
It’s now time for concerted action and UNITY in Speaking Up and NOT silence or fear or indifference !
IKEA caving in under calls of “Boycott” pressures and Bullying tactics by homo Mafia militants and lobby groups.
IKEA Singapore reviewing support for pastor’s magic show after backlash from gay rights groups
But Ms Jean Chong, the co-founder of women’s gay rights group Sayoni, said that Ikea’s support for the event “raises the question if Ikea is truly committed to diversity worldwide”, according to an article published on international LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) news portal Gay Star News.
In response to an unhappy customer on its Facebook page, Ikea said: “We are really sorry for the unhappiness this has caused. We have taken it to our management and they are reviewing it. We’ll come back when we have more information.”
On Wednesday night, along with thousands of other Singaporeans, I lined up to pay my respects to Lee Kuan Yew. I was a little surprised at myself for doing this – after all, I’ve been involved in countless activist events over the years, few of which the man would have approved of: Against censorship, against the Internal Security Act, against the death penalty and the general whitewashing of national history.
Still, I did have something quite specific to be grateful for. Pictured above is what I wrote as a condolence message for the wall outside Parliament House: “Thank you for speaking up for the gay and lesbian community.”
I’m referring to the fact that Lee Kuan Yew consistently stated in interviews that he believes homosexuality is natural and should not be persecuted. His statements on this issue have been documented and praised on SG Wiki, as well as the Chiongs’ blog (a same-sex parenting site run by two of my friends) and this very news site.
He was the first Singaporean politician to say anything supportive about gay people, beginning with a CNN interview in 1998 where he replied to a gay caller’s concerns about his future in the country with an assurance that “we don’t harass people”.
In 2007, he reiterated these views at a PAP Youth Wing event: “[Y]ou are genetically born a homosexual… So why should we criminalise it?” The same year, he denied that there was any censorship of art depicting homosexuality in Singapore. In his infamous 2011 book Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, he went so far as to say he’d be OK with a lesbian daughter or MP.
These statements mattered a hell of a lot to us LGBT activists. We’ve been trying for years to improve Singapore’s laws and social attitudes, against a tide of religious opposition and rhetoric about “Asian values”.
Lee Kuan Yew on homosexuality in interview with the Sunday Times.
But whenever things seemed hopeless, we were able to hearken back to those words and remember that the most conservative, curmudgeonly, establishment figure in the Singapore government was OK with our existence. And that meant that maybe, just maybe things might just turn out all right.
Given these facts, you might be wondering why a number of Singapore’s queer intellectuals – Alfian Sa’at, myself, and others – have mostly been sharing articles critical of Lee Kuan Yew on social media.
The biggest reason, of course, is that we’re not single-issue activists. We also care about the fact that he sued opposition politicians into bankruptcy, made offensive statements about Malays, Muslims and women, and caused the destruction of much of our pre-independence architecture and culture. These things matter, and we don’t want people to forget this, even in the midst of mourning.
But then there’s the fact that, deep down, we don’t feel like we were been handed a fair deal by the government while Lee was alive. While I wouldn’t say he was homophobic, he certainly had a hand in creating the culture of homophobia that exists in Singapore today.
From the very beginnings of his rule as Prime Minister in 1959, he was determined to police the morals of his citizens. That very year, he launched his attack on “yellow culture”, placing a ban on jukeboxes and pinball machines. By the 1980s, he was espousing the idea of “Asian values”, claiming that male-dominated nuclear families were the basic unit of our society.
All this emphasis on a singular vision of morality trickled down to create a policy of harassment against LGBT people: the efforts to chase transgender women out of Bugis Street (culminating in its demolition in 1984), the entrapment operations on gay men, the censorship of queer-themed plays and movies, the dismissals of gay teaching staff, the fact that in the late 1990s, the police actually spied on People Like Us, Singapore’s first LGBT organisation. (If you don’t believe that last point, check out Lynette Chua, Mobilizing Gay Singapore, p 55-56.)
Mind you, there’s no evidence that Lee Kuan Yew directly ordered any of these actions. There’s no evidence he held any animosity towards us, ever. But because he was so central to the creation of modern Singapore, it’s hard not to feel that most of our current problems are traceable back to him.
And there’s a further charge I want to lay at his feet. In spite of all the gay-affirming things he said, he never did anything for us. He had the power to get rid of Section 377A (our colonial anti-gay sex law) and to retire our anti-gay censorship policies, but he didn’t.
You can’t claim he was ignorant. He knew there were dissatisfied queer Singaporeans – they were the ones who prompted his questions during his CNN interview and his PAP Youth Rally. We know he read the papers, so he would have known about current affairs, and in Hard Truths, he reveals that he had researched homosexuality and found it natural. But when we urged him to do something about the censorship of gay art, his response was to claim it didn’t exist.
This is why I am supremely skeptical of Trevvy.com’s tribute to him, which claims, that the “repeal of Section 377A would probably had been a success had he been the Prime Minister then.” If he had wanted to, Lee could have chucked out this law at any of a number of moments in the past, simply by slipping a note into his now-fabled red briefcase.
Gender symbols (image – Wikimedia Commons)
But he didn’t. Perhaps he didn’t think we were very important. Perhaps he never felt we were worth the trouble.
This is why, like so many other Singaporeans – members of racial minorities, unmarried women, and many others – we LGBT citizens will always feel like we were among his least favourite children.
Yet at the end of the day, I’m grateful for Lee Kuan Yew’s comments. I know this for a fact, because in the wake of his death, I find I’m worried about the future of Singapore’s LGBT rights.
When gay rights came up for debate over the constitutional challenge to 377A, PM Lee Hsien Loong refused to acknowledge the psychological, institutional and concrete harm that the law perpetuates, blithely telling the world, “Why is that law on the books? Because it’s always been there and it’s best if we just leave it.” Discussing gay rights, he said, “These are not issues that we can settle one way or the other, and it’s really best for us to leave them be, and just agree to disagree.”
Why wouldn’t he stand up for us LGBTs? Regardless of his personal beliefs, he faces a much higher cost to defending our rights. He needs to win the support, not just of his citizens, but also of Parliament, of which a disproportionate 32% are Christian. Nor does he have the authority of a founding father to back up his position.
Beyond the PAP, we have the Workers’ Party, which refused to condemn the retention of 377A during the Penal Code revisions of 377A. It also boasts the only MP to take part in the anti-LGBT Wear White campaign: Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap.
The National Solidarity Party, the Reform Party and the Singapore Democratic Party have made statements that they believe in equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation. But what hopes have they of forming a government? NSP even felt compelled to add, “we do not think Singapore is ready for equal promotion of alternative lifestyle.”
With Lee Kuan Yew gone, there is no mainstream politician we can point to who is willing to even defend our natural right to exist. And with the balance of power shifting, who knows what may happen in the coming elections? Might a specific politician, or even a whole party, use anti-LGBT rhetoric as a means to rally votes? Might we become the new scapegoats for the countries’ woes?
But I have to remind myself: These are things that could have happened even when the old man was alive. Life was pretty bad for us in the days of his administration; growing acceptance amongst the young would suggest it’s going to get better.
For years now, Lee Kuan Yew has been more of a symbol than a man, more of a philosopher than a politician. His death came slowly, with forewarnings. Even without his grudging support – as the song goes – we will survive.
Things are going to change. But then things have always been changing, even before he came along.
He had a few kind words for us. Now comes the time for action.
Hi everyone, thank you for taking time to reading my article, and your comments and advice is most appreciated!
I am in a dilemma. I’m turning 20 this year, currently serving in the army as a full-time NSF and struggling with same-sex attraction.
Life thus far has never been smooth. I lost my biological father when I was just 5 years old, since then I’ve been living with my mother and 2 elder sisters.
I began realising my orientation towards men when I was in primary school – I would sit in the assembly hall in the morning looking at the guy in the opposite class and hoping to make friends with him. Since I was pretty young then, I didn’t realise any issues with me, in fact I didn’t even see this as something that’s “abnormal”. But a few years later, I begin to understand that it is all wrong: growing up in a traditional church, I know Christians hate the sin but we love the sinner. So.. I thought to myself: “It’s okay I’m still so young! I can always work on this later in life and I’m sure these things will change over time and I’ll like girls eventually!”
I remember falling for a classmate of mine when I was in primary 4. She was the first, and I believe, would be the last girl I’d fall for. I thought about her quite regularly and even sent letters and bought her gifts. I even remembered feeling jealous just because another classmate of mine was seemingly wooing her. But again… as much as I’d like all that feeling and experience to relive, it seems impossible… and that will all be history…
Now, almost 10 years later, I’m still struggling with this issue. I’m from a relatively pious family, we’re all regular church goers and I spend most of my time serving in church and participating in ministry works. I know it’s wrong, and I want to change, I want to work on this same-sex attraction issue and eventually be oriented towards women…
You’d probably ask: “I bet you had sexual relationships with man then!”
You’re right.
And I regret it very much. When I was in secondary school, I met a senior of mine on Facebook and that was when we started a budding relationship. I gave all of my first times to him. Almost everything you can imagine – we’ve done it. The relationship we shared was not based on love, but on the “sexual” component. It was definitely what the society would tag as a “puppy relationship”.
(P.S: to youths out there who are in a relationship, trust me, I know you and your partner, at some point in time, have already engaged in some of the many intimate sexual acts, but may I kindly urge you to stop immediately. Really, just STOP although it may all seem “fun” and “trendy” now. Don’t let your raging hormones and immature minds cause you regret in the future. It’s NOT worth the temporary “fun”.)
After all, our sexual relationship lasted not more then a year and we unofficially broke out. This experience has caused me to cut myself, hit my head against the wall, suffered from mild depression… etc. but I thank God for a counsellor who courageously condemned my actions and asking me to stop.
And since that relationship, I never had any. But once in a while I’d still go to online dating sites to “get a feel” of how it is like to get loved – although I know I shouldn’t.
Being in a single-parent family, my mother had to put me in an after-school care centre (primary), and I remembered once during naptime where a senior of mine started touching my genitals. Though this scene is still rather vague in my mind, but I believe it was then when I begin learning how to masturbate. I detest that person, very very much, though I have no idea who he is or where he is now.
Whatever it is, I’m in a dilemma right now. As much as I believe Christianity is the true religion and God has His plans for me, I really don’t know how to continue my life. I think my experience has, in one way or another, distorted a healthy development a child should enjoy. I’m feeling a lot more insecure in front of men, and I tend to have low self-esteem. I fear rejection and everytime I speak to a stranger or a new guy friend, I’d unconsciously analyse every single word he speaks, every single move – and derive my own conclusion (which many a time, is negative and pessimistic). As much as I hate to acknowledge this, but I think most of men out there are jerks, including myself.
In what prosecutors described as the “worst case of sexual offences against pubescent males”, a 31-year-old engineer was today (March 20) sentenced to 30 years’ jail and 24 strokes of the cane, the maximum number of strokes allowed under the law.
Yap Weng Wah sexually groomed at least 31 boys, aged 11 to 15, after meeting them on Facebook. He is diagnosed with hebephilia, a term used to describe sexual interest in pubescent individuals.
Between November 2009 and June 2012, Yap, in all but one case, either sodomised or had oral sex with the boys at his rented flat, in hotels or at swimming complexes.
His actions came to light when one of the victims’ sister checked her brother’s mobile phone.
Yap was arrested in September 2012, and more than 2,000 videos of his sexual acts, including those with the 31 victims, were found on his laptop and phone.
On Jan 16 this year, he pleaded guilty and was convicted of 12 charges of sexual penetration of a minor, with 64 other charges taken into consideration.
Describing Yap’s offences as “particularly heinous”, High Court judge Woo Bih Li said apart from a deterrent sentence, the punishment should also reflect the sentencing principle of “retribution” and the degree of harm he had caused.
“It is not just the physical harm caused to the victims which is relevant. The actual and long-term emotional and psychological harm must also be taken into account,” said Justice Woo.
His sentence corresponded with the minimum 30-year jail term and 24 strokes of the cane — the maximum permitted under the Criminal Procedure Code — sought by the prosecution. Justice Woo also said he was unconvinced Yap was genuinely remorseful.
When first interviewed by the police, Yap had tried to downplay the extent of his offences by indicating that he only engaged in oral and anal sex with three boys.
“(His plea) did not spring from genuine remorse, but from a realisation that his goose was as good as cooked,” Justice Woo said.
He also gave little weight to the defence’s argument that Yap has been diagnosed as a suicide risk. Judicial mercy, said Justice Woo, will only be exercised in “most exceptional circumstances” of ill health, such as where the offender is suffering from a terminal illness, or is so ill that a prison term will risk endangering his life.
Yap’s suicidal tendencies are “phrased in tentative terms”, Justice Woo said, and will have to be properly managed by the prison authorities.
Justice Woo also noted that Yap’s offences were premeditated. To satisfy his urges, Yap first befriended his young victims online, earned their trust and breached it.
Justice Woo added that Yap’s use of the Internet was an aggravating factor, in that there is a strong public interest to deter potential sexual offenders from using the medium to lure their victims.
By recording his acts, Yap also exposed his victims to the risk of the videos falling into the hands of third parties and being circulated, Justice Woo said.
