I am writing to you, as the Muslim community in general feels very distressed that not only is an immoral activity about to take place contrary to the democratic wishes of the silent majority but also an illegal one too. Illegal in the sense that it infringes on Section 377A of the penal code against homosexual practices in our country (and that of neighboring Malaysia, Indonesia & Brunei)!
What is particularly alarming is that Mediacorp Artistes under your watch are being appointed as their licentious ambassadors as well. Is this the best you can perform as the minister in charge of both communications and Muslim affairs? Never mind that you have failed for decades to fight for Malay/Muslim rights in this country but you have now failed to stop plain challenges to Islamic principles and its holy definition of what constitutes normal, healthy functioning families likewise?
In a lot of areas are Muslims already being deprived, from loudspeakers in mosques to readily available Halal food in NTUC Foodfare/government institutions to total segregation of hawker food stalls and wet markets selling Muslim foods to prevent contamination from Haram stuffs and not forgetting, the Hijab issue at workplaces. Instead, we have witnessed more and more gay themed spas being opened across the island along with their fornicated pubs and HIV rates have shot up as a result. Is this not a clear enough indication to halt such abomination?
Therefore, I cannot understand how you and your PAP leaders can allow this kind of lewd event to take place at Hong Lim Park when the law clearly stipulate prohibitions of matters on “Race, Language, Religious and illegality”? Since this present government is afraid to uphold the wishes of the conservative majority and maintain the status quo of a decent, virtuous “Asian society” like Mr Muhamad Faisal of the Worker’s Party did by participating in the “wear white event” then I think its for the long term good that we the people including your good self, prepare for shake ups starting from Moulmein Kallang where Mr Faisal’s party previously contested and obtained quite a good result.
Pink Dot, the annual gay celebratory event of “the freedom to love”, will take place this Saturday at Hong Lim Park for the seventh time since its inauguration in 2009.
Each year, the event is headlined by celebrities and has attracted global brands as sponsors. It has also seen an increasing number of people turning up to give it support. Last year’s event reportedly attracted 25,000 people.
“Pink is the colour of our ICs,” the group’s Facebook page says. “It is also the colour when you mix red and white – the colours of our national flag. Pink Dot stands for an open, inclusive society within our Red Dot, where sexual orientation represents a feature, not a barrier.”
An inclusive society is also the aim of the Lee Hsien Loong Government which has repeatedly urged Singaporeans to see one another as one people, and has boasted of its inclusive policies.
Mr Lee, however, raised recently some ire among those in the gay community for comments he made about same-sex marriage and the gay community.
In an interview with ASEAN journalists in Singapore earlier in June, he said Singapore society “is still conservative although it is changing gradually” and that it is “not ready” for same-sex marriage, as the Straits Times reported.
But, Mr Lee said, the gay community have the space to live their lives in Singapore.
“We do not harass them or discriminate against them,” he explained.
This seemingly more conciliatory position of the Government first came into the spotlight in 2003, when then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong caused a bit of an uproar among conservative circles when he said the government was employing openly gay people in the civil service.
Mr Goh famously said then: “In the past, if we know you’re gay, we would not employ you. But we just changed this quietly.”
Critics, however, point to the presence and retention of Singapore’s anti-gay law, section 377a of the Penal Code. The law criminalises sex between adult males.
Mr Lee said that the gay community “should not push the agenda too hard because if they push the agenda too hard, there will be a very strong pushback.”
“And this is not an issue where there is a possibility that the two sides can discuss and eventually come to a consensus. Now, these are very entrenched views and the more you discuss, the angrier people get,” he said.
Pink Dot, in response to Mr Lee’s remarks, said that while it acknowledged Mr Lee’s concerns – given Singapore’s unique position as a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious society, there will be a plurality of viewpoints, some deeply entrenched – it nonetheless feels that “it is not a topic that can be swept under the carpet and allowed to fester.”
Lee
“We firmly believe that dialogue is our best way forward,” Pink Dot said. “As such, we would like to invite Prime Minister Lee to join us in celebrating the Freedom to Love, this Saturday, June 13, at Hong Lim Park, and meet with the individuals, families, and loving couples who form a vibrant part of Singapore’s social fabric.”
Mr Lee’s office has not responded to the invitation publicly.
Pink Dot also noted that racial and religious minorities are protected under the constitution.
“Whether Singapore will eventually abolish Section 377a and create a society truly based on justice and equality, that values all contributing citizens regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; a lot will depend on fostering goodwill and encouraging respect among groups and individuals.”
Will Mr Lee accept Pink Dot’s invitation and turn up at Hong Lim Park on Saturday, in the name of inclusiveness or fostering an inclusive society? Should he?
Well, if we go by what his government itself has said – that it wants to build an inclusive society – and what is declared in our National Pledge – that we “pledge ourselves as one united people… to build a democratic society based on justice and equality” – then there is no reason for Mr Lee to decline the invitation.
But of course if Mr Lee accepts the invite, it will be seen by the conservatives as a sign of support, or at least of tacit endorsement of the gay community.
Indeed, Pink Dot’s invitation could also be seen as putting Mr Lee on the spot, perhaps nudging him to take a stand, instead of the fence-sitting one he currently adopts when it comes to gay issues.
Whatever it is, it will an interesting Saturday indeed.
A regular swimmer was worried when he spotted holes on the walls of the cubicles of Woodlands Swimming Complex, which looked like they have been drilled in by someone.
After a swim session just last Saturday (Jul 12), Stomper Richard noticed a hole on the wall of the showering cubicles of the men’s toilet .
Upon closer look, he realised three of the cubicles had the same hole and that one could peek through them.
He wrote:
“I am a regular swimmer in Woodlands Swimming Complex and my son also attends swimming lessons regularly in the same pool. There are times he will attend the lessons by himself because we are staying opposite the swimming complex.
“When I was showering in one of the cubicles at the male changing room that is furthest from the exit, I noticed some greyish spots on the cubicle wall.
“I took a closer look and realised it is a small hole that one could peek through to the adjacent cubicle. The greyish spots looks like cement that had been used to cover the hole but was dug out again.
“The location of the peek hole is purposely positioned at the crotch level and one can only imagine the “uses” for this hole.
“I checked the walls of other cubicles and was shocked to discover the other cubicles walls all had similar peek holes.
“As a father, how can I let my primary school age son use the shower facilities in the men’s toilet with a peace of mind when there are potential sick perverts peeking at their private parts? Our children’s modesty is at stake.”
I refer to the report, “Conservative S’pore ‘not ready for same-sex marriage’” (June 6).
Law-making premised simply on the majoritarian position is dangerous. Democracy is not simply about majority rule; it is also about protecting minority rights. This is why we have the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.
This principle, however, should apply to all minorities, including sexual minorities. In fact, to be truly impartial, the State should just protect individual rights. Minority rights are individual rights, as the individual is the smallest minority.
Legalising same-sex marriage means respecting individual liberties. It does not mean promoting same-sex marriage. Singapore society may frown upon adultery, gambling or prostitution, but these are all legal.
Scientific studies have shown that being inclusive improves public health. The New England Journal of Medicine even published a recent editorial supporting same-sex marriage. Is our Health Ministry not ready to improve public health?
Also, research by economics professor M. V. Lee Badgett shows that anti-gay laws have an economic cost. Is our Trade and Industry Ministry not ready to grow our economy more?
Singapore society may indeed be conservative and not ready for same-sex marriage. But is that justification for the state itself to dash any citizen’s dream?
Many Singaporeans readily paid tribute to founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew after his death. As we celebrate our Golden Jubilee, let us honour his legacy of being a pragmatist and empiricist.
The evidence is clear: Singapore stands to benefit when all its citizens are treated equally.
This article, written by Bryan Kwa Jie Wen, first appeared on Voices, Today, on 10 Jun 2015.
