News Report: Government’s position on homosexuality unchanged
Source: Channel NewsAsia 14, May 2009
Mr Wong said: “The government was not going to be pressured into changing its position on homosexuality before the takeover of AWARE. Nor does the government intend to change its position now that the Old Guard has recaptured AWARE.”
He added that as Singaporeans become more educated and informed, and more space is being opened up for people to express alternative views, there will be more tussles between people holding different points of views.
If any group pushes its agenda aggressively, there will be strong reactions from other groups.
As for the AWARE controversy, the government was worried about the disquieting public perception that a group of conservative Christians – all attending the same church, which held strong views on homosexuality – had moved in and taken over AWARE because they disapproved of what the organisation had been doing.
—–
—–
Mr Wong said the government has to maintain order impartially. It encourages the development of civic society, and gradual widening of the out-of-bounds (OB) markers. But it will not stand by and watch, when intemperate activism threatens Singapore society.
—–
Previous video: FEER interview JBJ in 2008
Finance Minister Tharman Shanguratnam said that Asian societies in general have a weak civil society initially, and that as time goes by, however, the younger generation becomes less risk-averse and it is up to the people to push for civil society. Home Affairs Minister said that the Government encourages the development of civic society, and gradual widening of the out-of-bounds (OB) markers. Clearly, it is up to the People to develop civil society in Singapore but the rules of engagement has been spelled out clearly: S-E-C-U-L-A-R-I-S-M
This morning (15th May), as I was having BF reading TODAY, I almost choked on my BF! Siew claimed that he never said that he acted as the legal adviser, it was the AWARE who went around saying it! Comeon Mr Siew, you are trained legally, even a layman knows that:
1. Silence means consent – why did you not clarify earlier?
2. You can also be guilty by acting as legal adviser even if you deny that you are one?
The funniest part is Siew’s claim that there is a conspiracy (or rather, organised efforts) against him. Usually, when someone loses an argument, he will:
1. Boo & Jeer (you know what I am referring to?)
2. Claim victim
3. Use violence
Mr Siew, you are a trained lawyer & eloquent speaker, win your arguments via point to point factual rebuttal, be a real man. Otherwise, apologize and bow out gracefully.
To To SKH #2,
Is it better that he claimed there is an organised effort to oust him, or he provides evidence in a court of law that there is a religious group trying to oust him? What would be repercussion be on religions in Singapore? All I am saying is that religious institutions must back down or they will face unnecessary persecution.
Please avoid using abbreviations. Referring to last post I thought To SKH almost choked on her BF while he was reading TODAY paper. My sexually aware mind went on over drive.
But back to the point, I agree with smallvice585′s views and it augurs well for the development of civic society. Just look at the posts in TOC. Obviously anti establishment views are being tolerated and evidence that OB markers are being widened.
I couldn’t help but notice that Lee Hsien loong was wearing pink…
A certain religion needs to know that there’s only that might sh*t we non-X will tolerate. Enough is enough. Personally I am tired of all these petitions, takeovers and nonsense dominating our political arena. Why must anyone who’s not with you = against you?