Tag: Kirsten Han

  • Kirsten Han: Ong Ye Kung’s Ownself-Praise-Ownself A Sign Of How Blinded Majority Privilege Chinese Singaporeans Are

    Kirsten Han: Ong Ye Kung’s Ownself-Praise-Ownself A Sign Of How Blinded Majority Privilege Chinese Singaporeans Are

    This sort of patronising smugness stops us from being more reflective and self-aware of systemic racism in Singapore. The very act of patting ourselves on the back for a job well done shows just how blinded by majority privilege Chinese Singaporeans can be.

    “When necessary, the community has made important compromises to protect Singapore’s values of multiculturalism and multiracialism,” said Mr Ong in Mandarin, as the House entered Day Two of the debate on proposed changes to the elected presidency.

    One example of the community compromising was when it agreed to have English as the state’s working language, he added.

    This is why he believes the community will understand the need to safeguard minority representation in the president’s office.

    “All races need to have the chance of being elected president. This is the only way that our president can be a symbol of multiracial Singapore,” he said.

     

    Source: Kirsten Han and www.straitstimes.com

  • The Myanmar Times Journalist Fired After Reporting On Military Rape In Rakhine State

    The Myanmar Times Journalist Fired After Reporting On Military Rape In Rakhine State

    A journalist was fired from The Myanmar Times after she reported on military rape in Rakhine State. More staff might be fired; others have resigned/are considering resignation. See: http://frontiermyanmar.net/…/reporters-sacking-followed-moi…

    To publicly indicate their anger and dismay, The Myanmar Times editorial staff took out an ad in their own paper.

    When you face censorship, quiet negotiations don’t address the systemic issue. Closed-door dialogue doesn’t challenge power; you’re playing by the rules of the powerful. You might get a story in the paper this time, or prevented a sacking another time, but it doesn’t mean you’ve won freedom. Here’s to journalists who aren’t afraid to take a stand together, and to let the public know about it.

     

    Source: Kirsten Han

  • Kirsten Han: The Hypocrisy Of The Wear White Campaign

    Kirsten Han: The Hypocrisy Of The Wear White Campaign

    Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.

    “I want to pray that we will continue to wear white as long as there is pink, and we will wear white until the pink is gone, and even if the pink is gone we will continue to wear white.”

    The above statement comes not from some sort of ill-conceived advertisement for laundry liquid, but from conservative magician-pastor Lawrence Khong of the Faith Community Baptist Church.

    Khong and his fellow anti-LGBT followers have once again revived the Wear White campaign, positioned as a counter to the annual gay rights rally Pink Dot.

    This vocal conservative group are incensed by what they see as a threat to the “Natural Family” posed by the LGBT equality movement. More than adultery, more than domestic violence and problem gambling, it is for some reason LGBT rights – or, as a commenter on a previous blog post put it, “Gayism” – that threatens heterosexual family units and the fabric of society. Presumably because once LGBT rights are recognised, a big glittery tidal wave of gay will wash over Singapore, leaving nothing but tight leather and Grindr in its wake. Because hey, who doesn’t want to be gay, if only they could?

    The Wear White campaigners and folk over at We Are Against Pinkdot in Singapore (WAAPD) are deeply committed to their cause. Nothing, not compassion, not kindness, nor facts can stand in their way.

    They are willing to yell until they are blue – or white – in the face about foreign interference in domestic debates, while conveniently ignoring the origins of their own brand of right-wing evangelical Christianity. In fact, the term “Natural Family”, featured so prominently in Khong’s letter, was itself borrowed from American anti-gay rhetoric. Their version of blessed “Asian Values” is as Singaporean as mee siam mai hum: IT’S NOT ACTUALLY A THING.

    Wear White and WAAPD are up in arms over foreign interference because the US embassy congratulated Pink Dot on Facebook, and because some pink-clad white people were spotted in Hong Lim Park on Saturday. They say that these foreign elements (because, obviously, there is no such thing as a white Singaporean or Permanent Resident) should butt out of “domestic affairs” – what Singapore does within our borders is none of their concern.

    They, unfortunately, appear unable to take their own advice: LGBT people have for years been trying to tell conservatives to butt out of their domestic affairs, because what two consenting adults do within the four walls of their bedroom is none of their concern. But I guess that would bring us back to the leathery Grindr glitter tsunami of gay.

    According to mothership.sg, Khong ended his Dynamo sermon over the weekend with the promotion of his upcoming totally-not-gay magic show, which promises to transform “illusion to reality”. Perhaps he will bring a same-sex family onstage and try to make them disappear.

    Jokes aside, the activities of Wear White and WAAPD cannot be dismissed. Both LGBT activists and conservatives might be vocal, but it would be a mistake to imagine that there is balance in the way the government is dealing with the issue.

    The government is willing leave enshrined in law state-led discrimination and prejudice against LGBT people. This means that LGBT people are largely blocked from public health initiatives that might teach safe sex or provide counselling for mental health issues. Gay youth – particularly boys – are taught in schools that they are technically lawbreakers. By not allowing same-sex marriage, LGBT people are by default excluded from the many social benefits that the state ties to marriage: HDB grants, childcare subsidies, or even the power to act as next-of-kin for their partners in case of injury or illness.

    According to Khong and his followers, the rights of the heterosexual family unit *include* these oppressions against others, even though the existence of these oppressions have zero impact on the lives of heterosexuals. The government, for all its insistence on compromise and balance, appears to agree. After all, it is more than willing to erase LGBT stories and experiences from the media, even while it professes neutrality in the debate.

    But all is not lost, and we who believe in equality and acceptance should take heart. This bigotry has an expiry date: we’re seeing it around the world, from Ireland to Mozambique to Mexico.

    Despite what Khong says, you cannot white out the pink; it merely creates more pink.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Kirsten Han: Time To Make Singapore A More Inclusive Space

    Kirsten Han: Time To Make Singapore A More Inclusive Space

    Ireland – a largely Catholic country which only decriminalised homosexuality in 1993 and divorce in 1995 – voted resoundingly to amend their constitution and approve same-sex marriage last weekend. They have become the first country in the world to approve gay marriage by popular vote, and at a count of 62 per cent to 38 per cent, no less.

    This piece of news stood in stark contrast to another development circulating on social media in Singapore: that the Media Development Authority (MDA) had apparently banned from radio and TV a song and music video by Jolin Tsai, presumably because its pro-gay message would encourage a push for same-sex marriage here.

    It feels a bit as if the MDA has jumped the gun; there *is* no push for same-sex marriage in Singapore, mostly because everyone is still wondering how to shift the supposedly-not-enforced-but-somehow-still-important-to-keep Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men. On top of that, many in the LGBT community find themselves struggling against the fact that some Singaporeans don’t even recognise that discrimination exists.

    That conservatives exist in every country is beyond doubt; I’m sure there were some fundies praying for the Lord to chuck rain down on gay people in Ireland too.

    But while we’re riding high on the inspiration generated by Ireland’s stellar example, it’s time to think of how our own country could be so much better for everyone living in it. To not just dwell on hate and fear, but on love.

    The repeal of 377A would have little to impact on the lives of heterosexual – or even religious – people. It would, however, mean a lot for LGBT people in Singapore, all of whom have parents, siblings, relatives and friends who would in turn be affected. It would be a strong signal that Singapore’s government will no longer be in the vanguard of discrimination against LGBT people, that it will no longer support the symbolic legislation that validates countless forms of bullying, dehumanising language and prejudice.

    It would be a step towards telling young LGBT persons that they *are* accepted in Singaporean society; that they don’t have to be ashamed of who they are and that they can have a future without stigma and fear in Singapore. It would tell the parents of these LGBT persons that they are not alone, that they don’t have to worry about their children being branded as deviants and criminals. Conservatives aren’t the only ones who care about family; gay people have families too. Love, even familial love, is not exclusive to heterosexuals.

    The court has rejected the constitutional challenge to 377A, essentially pushing the responsibility back to the legislators. Yet legislators have often pointed to Singapore’s conservatism as a reason for maintaining the status quo. As we see from the MDA’s move, the state is not only unwilling to change, but actively restricting the conversation.

    Ireland has done something wonderful and historic in this past weekend. Let us Singaporeans not be caught on the wrong side of history; let us not wait for court cases or politicians to bring us the equality that we should have.

    Make it to Hong Lim Park for Pink Dot. Write to your MP about LGBT rights and the need for anti-discrimination legislation. Talk to your friends about acceptance and diversity. Reach out to LGBT people around you who might need support. Do what you can to create a safe space for them to be who they are and say what they need to say.

    377A continues to loom over us all – a symbol of prejudice and discrimination. Yet we cannot simply wait for it to disappear; we as Singaporeans can do our part to start making Singapore a more inclusive place. Today.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Singapore Needs To Look Beyond ‘Swamp To Skyscraper’ Narrative

    Singapore Needs To Look Beyond ‘Swamp To Skyscraper’ Narrative

    It’s good for a country to look back on its history once in awhile. Good to stop and take stock of how far we’ve come, how much more we’ve got to go. It makes sense that we’re doing this on a massive scale during Singapore’s Jubilee year, but there’s one myth that really, really needs to be busted: the narrative of “fishing village to sparkling metropolis”.

    A recent BBC article framed Singapore’s growth as “swamp to skyscrapers” – a narrative most Singaporeans are familiar with by now. It’s a story we were told in schools, reinforced by numerous National Day Parades and referred to so regularly that it’s often left unquestioned.

    Yet it doesn’t take very long to find the flaws in the story. Colonised by the British in the early 1800s, Singapore was a major hub of entrepôt trade. It was an important wealth-spinner for the colonial masters; they would never have left it primitive and under-developed. Infrastructure needed to be built to support all the administrative and commercial activities that came with establishing a major port, and build it they did.

    In fact, the British were only the latest – and most remembered – to have carried out significant activities in Singapore. Textbooks in schools have been revised to go beyond the 1800s, so as to better reflect the richness of Singapore’s history. They now include, for example, Singapore’s role as a trading post in the 1300s – over six centuries before Singapore became a sovereign nation-state.

    The importance of dismantling the “swamp to skyscrapers” myth is not just about correcting historical accuracy. It’s also about politics.

    This narrative – with all its connotations of “swamps” being rough, poor and undesirable, while “skyscrapers” are modern, wealthy and impressive – suggests that Singapore had nothing when we were first required to stand on our own two feet in 1965. If we accept that premise, it then follows that everything we have today came from the efforts and genius of the political leaders who governed this country.

    By the time we get to this point of the story, the politics of gratitude and obedience would have already kicked in. Implicit behind all this is also that fearful, anxious voice, whispering: “How easily all this can be lost, if we make the wrong move, if we vote for the wrong party, if we allow too much dissent!”

    There’s no denying that, for better or worse, the PAP has had a huge impact on Singapore’s development. That our political leaders – especially those in the early years of independence – have accomplished a remarkable feat of forward-looking city planning.

    But to buy into the “swamp to skyscrapers” or “fishing village to metropolis” narrative is to fail to see the full story. It’s to fail to see that by the time Singapore achieved full independence it already had an established legal system and penal code, with administrative centres and even Southeast Asia’s first air-conditioned skyscraper (as pointed out on Twitter). It’s to fail to see that Singapore is, and has always been, far more than the PAP, far more than the colonial masters, far more than any partisan politics or economic philosophy or political ideology we have ever encountered.

    That’s a perspective I find far more honest and exciting than the that of sudden transformation from tropical swampland to glass-and-steel megacity. It’s the idea that Singapore has endured, can endure,will endure far beyond what we can conceive for it – and that leaves us with so much more space to dream, to imagine, and to dare.

    Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com