Announcement:
The Online Citizen welcomes Donaldson Tan to the editorial team! Donaldson is our new Deputy Editor. He is also the Head, TOC International. Welcome on board, Donaldson!
Despite strong Christian connections, SingaNews CEO Mathew Yap appeals for netizens to judge the news portal by its content.
Terence Lee / Deputy Editor
DESPITE having all $90,000 of its seed funding coming from Singaporean Christians, SingaNews CEO Mathew Yap has rubbished any notion that the online news website will serve a “Christian agenda”.
Also, none of the funds have been raised from local or foreign churches or Christian organisations, he added. Without giving specific names, Mr Yap said that the contributions have all come from individuals who had given from their personal capacities.
While only set to launch in mid-October, SingaNews has already drawn flak and garnered widespread attention from netizens and the mainstream media. The grouse: Speaking on the same platform as former NMP and law academic Thio Li-Ann at a Christian event held last Wednesday.
Ms Thio is well-known for being outspoken about her Christian-based beliefs against homosexuality. However, she has so far denied any involvementwith the news portal. Mr Yap has also denied that Ms Thio has provided funding for the news portal.
When quizzed by The Online Citizen about the decision to hold the “soft launch” at a Christian event, Mr Yap said that it was not a launch at all. Instead, it was a “market presentation to a private business networking group to introduce the idea.” He revealed that many details about SingaNews are far from finalised, such as how the news portal aims to sustain itself monetarily over the long run.
Against allegations of habouring a Christian agenda, he emphasised that SingaNews is a secular organisation promoting a diversity of viewpoints. Mr Yap has also cautioned against using the “religious card” in criticising SingaNews, calling it “discriminatory and dangerous”.
Speaking out strongly against SingaNews’ critics, he said: “Are you suggesting it is wrong for people of the same faith to come together and do something for Singapore because they care? Why are Christians treated differently? Is that not a form of discrimination? Why not wait and read the product and evaluate after that?”
Despite the tough questions asked online, at least one blogger is sympathetic towards the news portal: “to hinder and silence SingaNews, while being indicative of the intolerance most of us seek to battle, will be bad for dialogue.”
However, the blogger, who is called Sam, has expressed other concerns about the website. He is afraid that when “Christian folks try to pass off their ideology, doctrine and values as universal, [there will be] severe implications. Some get left out of the picture, while the presence and ideas of others become invalidated, delegitimised.”
A check with the SingaNews Charter sent in by Mr Yap reveals that Sam’s concerns may not be unfounded. The document states that the news portal aims to be “a credible source of independent and objective news and commentary for the Singapore public, reflecting mainstream values, interests and concerns.”
It also plans to promote “mainstream values that our society shares and which regards the generational family structure as the bedrock of the nation” as well as “truth, peace, compassion, harmony and justice which we all share, whatever our ideological persuasions.”
When asked in The New Paper to elaborate what mainstream family values mean, Mr Yap said that he meant a “generational, natural family which focuses on procreation”, or more explicitly, “a man, his wife, with a view to procreation.”
While some, such as prominent blogger Alex Au might construe such rhetoric as being “anti-gay”, Mr Yap argues that believing in the family as the basic unit of society is not something exclusive to Christians, but a belief held by people of all races and religions.
Furthermore, he has also emphasised that the website will be open to alternative views.
“Any meaningful debate must involve examining issues from different points-of-views in an intellectually honest and civil manner, without fear of labels,” he said, citing the example of the repeal 377A debate, which has driven a schism between many Singaporeans. Mr Yap has voiced no objections about putting up an article that supports a repeal of the controversial legislation.
Despite the criticisms, Mr Yap seems sure that SingaNews will be able to fulfill its stated mission.
Portraying an air of confidence about the professionalism and neutrality of his news staff, he dismissed the idea that SingaNews would succumb to bias in its news reporting and commentary. Despite the Christian background of many of the editors, Mr Yap reiterated his staff’s commitment to “fair, accurate and objective” reporting.
Other than having some non-Christians on the editorial team, he further revealed that Singanews will be approaching several Muslim candidates for the Malay section.
Nonetheless, when asked by The Online Citizen about any sort of checks and balances that would be in place to ensure objectivity, he simply said:
“I think it’s clear from the Charter what the principles and approach of SingaNews will be. Again, I am afraid you seemed to be pre-judging.”
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
You can appeal to netizens to give your site a chance.
That is what you like of course.
This does not mean the netizens should just accept what you try to disseminate to the public not scrutinise your contents.
49) gemami on September 14th, 2009 4.44 pm Sloo,
No problem. I have just lost my appetite for SingaNews – after learning that it is another government portal in disguise.
\\\\\\\\\\\\
but how can we be sure which blog is not ? this is a technical question.
http://tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,213533,00.html
When interviewed, Mr Yap repeatedly stressed that the news portal does not have any Christian agenda.”
“He said that SingaNews will be written from the perspective of mainstream family values, which he defines as ‘a generational, natural family which focuses on procreation’.
This, he clarified, means ‘a man, his wife, with a view to procreation’.”
that sound’s pretty standard christian idealogy to me.
–
“Mr Ho is also a director of Bright Arrows, an investment company. Checks showed that the Anglican Church of Our Saviour has a 40 per cent share in the company.”
“Prof Thio said she did not know of the news portal before the event and had not met Mr Yap before Wednesday.”
==
sounds familiar doesn’t it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uif2eQwbXo4
3.41-3:55
i didn’t know her till we starting working on er…
–
oh wow..
what’s the odds of the same church being in the loop twice?
Like P65 blog, I strongly believe it will be downed prematurely. It is not easy to gain popularity thru blog without the “OM” or “WOW!!” factor. SingaNews sound too dry to be of any interest in the populace. Simply another boring stuff, either too religious, too rhetorical or…anywhere in-between. *yawn*
I like reading Catholic News. They can also be found online.
I don’t understand. If somethng is already mainstream, what’s the point of ‘promoting’ it? Also of all socio-political issues, why pay special attention to “generational, natural family which focuses on procreation” – is it trying to increase the birth rates? And what have all the veteran journalists got to contribute to increase the birth rates?
in most cases where fund come from for such organisation will likely be agenda of original funder’s ideal. no doubt about it!
Dear Mr Matthew Yap, if you allow Christianity to rule Singapore, then it’s from 1st world to 3rd world. Religion is something you can’t see and touch, but only imagine. It’s best to believe in science or something physical, at the least sense, because at least you can see and touch it.
This is a non-issue imo. They’re own editorials and articles will reveal their biases in time and if it has its own agenda, people will leave on their own accord.
sorry to disagree with you germani but i really think that thio and coos do not represent all of christianity. So it’s really too big a leap to call toc anti christian. We must be more careful with our words in these sensitive times. Let’s not forget that some of toc’s contributors are themselves christians.
26) Donaldson Tan on wrote in Post 26:
You have probably read Timothy Seah’s report on ATRIA’s “New Media Breakfast” at the Temasek Review. That report is inaccurate and does not reflect the ATRIA event, Singanews or Thio Li-Ann accurately.
Donaldson, I would be very interested for you to elaborate on what parts of Timothy Seah’s report are inaccurate. That report has been passed around so many times over the weekend… I really want a second opinion on that since I’ve nothing else to compare it to…
#Amitaba
Are u sure your name is Amitaba?
Lord Buddha was never anti-gay and his preachings of truth, peace, harmony apply to all men (& women, gay or straight). He did not waste time on having hang-up on sexual issues other than mutual respect.
Therefore, I wonder is your name really Abe or Adam? Or maybe Thio Li-Ann?
I say gives them a chance to prove themselves.
TOC has taken off only this year and without much funds.
I know that Andrew – editor of TOC, has to self fund himself for the last 3 years so that he can focus full time on the site news. It is a self sacrificing unenviable job that brought TOC to it’s present height.
Every site deserves a chance but whether they can make it is up to alot of factors.
Time will tell where they will stand.
62) Gilbert Goh on September 14th, 2009 6.49 pm
Agree with you….just give them a chance….and if they don’t keep to what they have said in the first place, then they will get it…
Imagine if they say A in the first place and do B. What does that tell us? it will just tell us that their news ain’t worth it
Actually how many chances should we give them?
This is not the first time, its basically the same group of fundies, just with a different face and name everytime.
Their message has always been the same: xtian fundie values disguised as wholesome family/societal/moral values.
They have a very clear agenda: insert xtian values into all levels of the society and influence important decision and policy making process. These aims are clearly articulated at the recent xtian conference held in Sg.
Their target is the gays now, but soon it will be the others.
I say don’t give them the chance to subvert our society. Root them out once and for all.
“Speaking out strongly against SingaNews’ critics, he said: “Are you suggesting it is wrong for people of the same faith to come together and do something for Singapore because they care? Why are Christians treated differently? Is that not a form of discrimination? Why not wait and read the product and evaluate after that?”
Actually dear Matthew, no on said it was wrong at all!
Since you have articulated so clearly, we just wished that your site, filled with people of the same religion, would just declare themselves as a Christian site with editorial and commentary on secular issues.
And why are you only seeking muslims? what about buddhists who happen to form the majority of our society? are their comments or perspectives not in line with SingaNews secular direction?
You would think that when planning this site and its presentation, SingaNews would have anticipated these negative reactions. But no. These people seem to have extremely short memories. Just look at TLA – she contradicts herself at every speech!
No54 loops,
Thanks for reading Catholic News.
ST is still my choice.
Let’s give them the chance but don’t force me to read it. I couldn’t be bothered with their news.
Look, does it really matter what agenda they have? They themselves have said that they do no have any religious agenda. How about we wait for their launch and then decide for ourselves as discerning citizens who can think on our own? All I’m saying is that we should give them time to prove themselves.
Furthermore, even if they do have a religious agenda, what is wrong with that? An agenda is ultimately motivated by something. Why is it that society has to discriminate against those who promote an agenda based on whatever views, be it spiritual or ideological, one has. The most important thing here, actually two, is that we are given the room to express out thoughts and opinions and secondly, not impose it on anyone.
It is rather ridiculous to suggest that a news letter with an editorial board consisting mostly of people of the same faith and who worship together at the same facility every week are actually trying to brainwash the public with an online newsletter! After all, are we not all discerning people with a capacity for intelligent and independant thought?
I am of the opinion is that we should let people speak whatever they like, and if others do not like what is being written, the choice is always their’s to not read. Give Singanews some time to prove itself. We would all do well to judge at a later date.
Cut the crap lar, Matthew Yap.
“Matthew YAP
I am a crisis communication consultant, graduated from NUS with BA in English Literature, Politics & Philosophy (1982). For 25 years, I worked: as a journalist in Singapore’s The Straits Times, as an advertising executive in Standard Chartered Bank, as a media spokesman for the Singapore Government and as a communications director for BP (UK) plc. I have also taught in Murdoch University, Newcastle University (Australia) and NTU’s Wee Kim School of Communication & Information.
“I worked as a media spokesman for the Singapore Government
http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/cnm/research%20students/2007_grad_matthew.htm
guys, gays and gals,
lets remember that TOC also had a lot of free media publicity in the MSM radio, TV, websites.
do not forget this happened.
Religion or more appropriately Spiritualism in itself is not bad, its something good for every intelligent human being to aspire, explore and SEE what reality is.
But religion has got a bad name due to the Abrahamic faiths.
All the problems of the world, for over 2000 years, until today has been caused by those 3 Abrahamic faiths.
All spiritualistic faiths from any other part of the world (excluding the Abrahamic faiths) are all peaceful and aspire towards the UNITY of all sentient beings.
Thats why anything to do with those Abrahamic faiths bring out the worst in man.
Though Singapore does not have Malaysiakini, it is good in muy opinion to have a “2100 The People Speak” kind of system where intellectuals come together to debate, discuss and voice up . Through this arrangement, the people who may not be as well informed, educated nor as analytical and vocal and well articulated can learn from them and understand or see a clearer picture and decide for themselves based on the information provided.
have a look at the following example of how analytical these people are :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZjAfEoIQM8
These are also able to demonstrate they are non-partisan by criticising with logic both the ruling and opposition of taiwan.
I think TW is a very REAL system. People have their own opinions and not all are homogenous thinking.
would they bite the hand that feeds it, and put forth ideas contrary to that of the people who provide the funds? I find that hard to believe.
the attempt to disguise their site as a “mainstream” media. is no different from trying to sneak intelligent design into science in our schools.
their thinly veiled hateful statements, either we’re with them or we’re against them. either we must be pro family by their definition; like them or we are promoting gay lesbian lifestyle ( doesn’t matter if you’re neutral on this matter, if you don’t support their stand, you’re a gay loving sinner.)
ps: I fear the Greeks, even when they bear gifts.
Atria Project Team Organisation Chart
Atrial Project Team is the group that organise the event
http://www.nmg.sc-a.googlepages.com/atria
ATRIA (Apologetics Through Rich Internet Applications) is a New Media Group (NMG) project for 2008 that focuses on empowering Christian bloggers and New Media publishers in life2life witness through offering a customized and complementary suite of Rich Internet Applications (RIA) for various forms of e-vangelism. RIAs, and more popularly widgets, are changing the way information is accessed on the Internet, from centralised repository (i.e. fixed URL and domain) to decentralised and distributed access (e.g. blog-hosted widgets and feeds).
Evangelical apologetics focuses on presenting biblical realities evident in life is a reasoned explanation, and involves a researched defence of biblical truth. ATRIA widgets will invite an exploration of the foundations of faith that touch on areas as diverse as archaelogy, astronomy, biblical prophecy, spiritual experience and Christian lifestyle.
Both TOC & SingaNews get funding from one or two sources. ST is different, is a money making cash cow whom do not need funding from hands out and if you have ST shares you should keep it for retirement.
Everyone here is judging and questioning the source of funds coming from, yes this are questionable and you guys are indeed very smart people. So beware of SingaNews so as TOC.
ST is still the choice of the smartest.
If we want to take civil liberties seriously, we should respect Singanews’s space to publish its socially conservative points of view online.
Although I have to add that it’s about time TOC recognises the fact that its readership is pretty much a bit more left wing in terms of economics and social policy. This does not mean that its reporting is biased in the sense that it distorts the facts. Rather its reporting stems from a certain philosophical foundation. So for instance, TOC’s readers and contributors may be more likely to agree that “we derive our common morality through shared experience built up over time”, while Singanews readers may tend to agree that “morality has been revealed to mankind through a Divine source”. And so on.
Anyway, in a Singapore we are all trying to make more free, we have to remind ourselves that we won’t necessarily agree with someone else even if he or she isn’t very pro PAP either.
It would be nice though to remind Singanews that TOC has no desire to censor, ban, or expurgate from the internet different points of view just because they are different points of view.
If homosexuals community can have their own website to push and promote their
unhealthy lifestyles and its agenda,then why can’t conservatives have theirs too?
You guys can’t have it both ways.Preston.
Zefly,
You are being overly gracious with your comments. There is no denying that even though Thio and COOS do not represent the whole of Christiandom, that does not stop most from drawing to the conclusion that it does.
Because of Thio and COOS, the figurehead of Christianity has been dragged through the mud. If only most are as discerning as your good self, I won’t have much to worry about. Unfortunately, (as I am sure you do realize that) we have seen and read some very disturbed opinions and comments being thrown about all this time.
Hi Hoong Ann Chia,
There is nothing technical about SingaBeer, er….SingaNews – gosh! I’m getting drunk already. Point number 10 spells out quite clearly where the new site is coming from.
Mainstream. Now, isn’t that the word that extremists who occupy the ultraconservative-to-fascist band on the political spectrum always like to claim they are?
This is actually not inconsistent with an aspect of ultraconservative ideologies (which include conservatism, ultraconservatism, and fascism but not right-of-centre conservatism) where its proponents tend to hold one group up – usually themselves – as the ones whose values the rest of society should aspire to.
By taking a nice-sounding word like “mainstream” for themselves, what they attempt to do in effect is to leave the rest of us with no nice names to call ourselves; mainstream people are well balanced, and even perfectly-centred individuals not given to extremes.
There are three fact-based reasons we should be rejecting Singanews claim of being ‘mainstream’;
1. SPH and Mediacorp, where Singanews is drawing their ‘mainstream’ writers from, only reflect PAP thinking which the PAP has always wanted to be the thinking that would be characterized as the statistical norm in the Singapore population. That way, the PAP can then go on to claim that the statistical norm is also the “mainstream” view, which oh, just so happens to coincide with their political ideology. The people who are starting up Singanews have all of that same sense of arrogance about their moral superiority, “moral superiority” being the true subtext of the word “mainstream”.
2. The PAP does in fact subscribe to a political ideology despite pious protestations to the contrary. That ideology is anywhere between ultraconservatism-to-fascism exactly like the Thio Li-ann-type Christians – this is a strictly academic view.
3. However, ultraconservatism-to-fascism can by no stretch of the imagination be considered to be political *centrism*, which is the word we should actually be using instead of ‘mainstream’ in politics and political and socio-political news and commentary; centrism is *the* word that professional journalists use.
(One way to know if you are politically a centrist is to ask yourself if you are appealed to the practises of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and rationality in legislation and its enforcement. Does any of the above describe the PAP and its scions?)
We would all do ourselves and Singapore a favour by refusing to refer to the SPH and Mediacorp stables as the mainstream media (MSM). I’m going to start by referring to them as the UCM (or ultraconservative media when they are ultraconservative) or FM (or fascist media when they are being fascist); I hope others will join me.
We should not even be feeling bullied that we are ‘less than moral’ for not espousing any of the views by the ‘mainstream’ Singanews – the contempt that ‘mainstream’ people have for those not like them, and the punitive ill treatment that awaits their victims *cannot* be called moral.
I’m proud that I’m a political liberal.
Budamaxx1952, I believe you are bordering on sedition down here. Is it unfair to make such broad sweeping statements. Your statement is also deeply disrespectful. Not ALL problems in the world stem from the Abrahamic faiths. Your fourth sentence seems to suggest that the Abrahamic faiths are… not peaceful? The worst in man is brought out through no one but man alone. Pouring clean water into dirty pitchers gives us dirty water.
I urge you to not over generalize. Moreover, let’s keep the debate here to the real matter at hand, namely Singanews.
Gemani,
So therefore by your own admission, TOC isn’t anti-Christian then. But because of its publications of stories about a very intolerant group of people masquerading their agenda as secular, with the inevitable result that some people will take the opportunity to launch tirades against one particular type of Christianity (but for whatever reasons – methinks its just because they are too lazy to define their words properly) and make it sound like they have issues with all of Christianity… so somehow TOC is guilty by indirectly providing a channel for such comments?
And your solution for avoiding reading about such tarnished perspectives of Christians – thanks to work of people like Thio and Coos – is to hope that no news about such movements be published? Kinda like ostrich head in the sand leh.
I really do believe TOC keep following up on such cases because it is a social movement that does affect the rest of Singapore more so than the actions of other religious groups/denominations. Unfortunately the extremists happen to be Christians this time around.
An unhealthy obession would be if TOC starts publishing stories on what Thio Li Ann eats every morning. Oh wait. ST did that with Josie Lau.
So only non-Christians are fit to discuss social issues? You say that Christians are always pushing forward their own religious agenda, but don’t we all? Every time you post a comment aren’t you are imposing your own beliefs on other people? So what if Singanews is written by Christians, does it necessarily mean that it would be biased? So if TOC’s editors were of a particular faith, does that mean they are biased towards their own beliefs? This applies to atheists as well. If the editors were atheists, does that mean everything here is of an atheistic agenda? By saying Singanews would be Christian-centric would be also putting forward your own agenda, what do you have against Christians? In any case, so what if they did? Is it not what all you people are here for? Freedom of the press, freedom of religion (or not to have any) and freedom of speech? Why can’t they say what they truly believe in? I have no qualms in admitting that I am a Christian, so here I am, pushing forward my own agenda. Constructive criticism would be great, but if you only know how to use derogatory terms to put forth your argument (that seems to be the case here), then you aren’t fit to discuss anything here, whether you are a non-Christian or otherwise.
I’m appalled to read the numerous anti-Christian comments here. I’m not a Christian and I do have my reservations about overt proselytizing and narrow mindedness of some Christian groups. But equally if not more dangerous is the emergence of these secular or atheist fanatics — what i would call secular fundamentalism.
” I’m not a Christian ”
that is what you say.
but does this mean you definitely are not?
Can other religion also start the same?
Based on equality?
To Hindu on September 15th, 2009 9.36 am”
Re: “But equally if not more dangerous is the emergence of these secular or atheist fanatics — what i would call secular fundamentalism.”
Unfortunately secularism, whether you wish to characterize it is fundamentalist or otherwise, is the only politically centrist position when it comes to clashes between religion (and easpecially its intention to harm a group) and politics.
If there has been an adamant insistence on secularism of late, it is because both the PAP and Singaporeans have been rather lax on these before; it has to do mainly with being unknowledgeable on the issue of secularism by both State players as well as society.
Until the gay rights movement appeared on the scene and sorted out the issue for both the public and the government. of course.
In the meantime, I can assure you that terminology like “atheist fanatics” and “secular fundamentalism” will not catch on; to gain currency terms have to resonate with reality.
Ha Ha Ha Zefly,
I used to fall prey to your kind of argument but not anymore. I admitted nothing. Neither did I say TOC is not anti-Christian.
It is oh so convenient for you to justify the comments of the anti-Christians by reasoning that “ methinks its just because they are too lazy to define their words properly”. No, no my friend. There are many who had given clear and precise articulations to their views. There were no such indication of laziness.
“… so somehow TOC is guilty by indirectly providing a channel for such comments?” :Zefly.
Yes.
“… the extremists happen to be Christians this time around.</i<” :Zefly.
It was the during the Aware saga. The protagonists have long changed. You can see that TOC articles that have Christian connotations are so swiftly taken up as Christian fundies attempting to rule the world. C’mon, surely you do know the wisdom of the speck in the eye?
Tyrael
“By saying Singanews would be Christian-centric would be also putting forward your own agenda, what do you have against Christians?”
We can say it once or a thousand times and the same arguments and accusations are still used.
We have no problems with christians who want to advance their own world view. The sg christian post does that well with features and editorial slanted towards christianity but no one has a problem with the site as IT IS a christian site.
The issue here is the attempt to portray SingaNews as a secular ‘mainstream’ site when practically everyone behind it is from the same faith. Its just the same tactic thioliban and her clique have used repeatedly throughout their agenda to politicise their beliefs in our political sphere – from her 377a speech, to AWARE to her rejection of NYU students stand on her anti-gay rights issue. They have repeatedly potrayed themselves as the protectors of ‘mainstream’ values, speaking for our majority here when in reality, their background profile and beliefs form a small percentage in Singapore.
We would all have the same cynicism and suspicions if any other relgious group was to form a site like Singanews and call it secular. So no, I for one do not discriminate against christians; i am against the sneaky tactics used by this particular group of people.
Actually the sg christian post has a nice interview with Pastor Kong of City Harvest chruch. I admit that I have heard numerous stories about the church but have changed my preception of it after reading his account of PM Lee speech. Of course there may be areas within it that other might find disagreeable, but what i support in his speech is his stand for tolerance and respect – something other Christianists (a term i learned from a TIME mag feature to describe extreme right and left christian from mainstream christians) lack.
Everyone here knows someone who is christian, muslim, hindu or buddhist. I am sure no one here is intolerant of their acquanitences from different religious backgrounds that they discriminate them viciously in real life. People who post comments should refrain from generalising when they speak of a group of people. Religious right, extremists and fundies would be a more clearly defined term to use to avoid misunderstanding and confusion.
Gem,
you wrote “yes’ to my qn-
“… so somehow TOC is guilty by indirectly providing a channel for such comments?” :Zefly.
So how would you suggest TOC handle such issues more sensitively, without compromising its journalistic integrity?
Zefly,
Remove the purposeful intent to be sided when offering such articles for discussion. A disclaimer would be good too e.g. “comments are not representative of TOC’s position” etc.
You see, the problem is this; TOC chipping in with its own one-sided opinion. When it does this, it cannot be helped but seen to be propagating and advancing its own agenda, very much like the MSM and the PAP. If you can see the co-relation, you’ll then understand what I am saying.
Take Donaldson’s article on the GLBT as an example. As much as I have the utmost respect for him in the many other articles he has written, I cannot lend support to this one which is extremely slanted toward a personal intent under the shadow of TOC. This cannot be allowed to happen to TOC.
TOC is doing extremely well when issues do not involve Christianity. It should strive to behave the in the same manner when dealing with Christian issues. Go support the gay and their agenda if it wants to, but surely there is no need to put another group down just to promote the other.
“They have repeatedly potrayed themselves as the protectors of ‘mainstream’ values, speaking for our majority here when in reality, their background profile and beliefs form a small percentage in Singapore” : Sloo.
Prove it!
Hi Gemami #92,
Did you mean that it is wrong to put down the arguments of certain religious groups? Putting down their arguments will inevitably lead to putting down these groups to a certain extent, especially when these groups based their arguments on religion. Surely you don’t mean nobody should engage in debates if putting down religious groups might be an unintended by-product.
Hi Donaldson,
This is where sensitivity should have came in.
Your article came in the wake of a saga that not only saw the main players, who had proclaimed themselves to be Christians being castigated for what they had done, but the whole of Christianity being portrayed as one big evil beast.
Your article came along to glorify the GLBT by questioning the role and purpose of Christianity as a whole. One does not need to be overly clever to see that your article found favour with the many commenters simply because you sang the tune they wanted to hear.
The Christians found it impossible to even open a level-headed line of discussion.
Now what makes the GLBT minority group any bigger than the Christian minority group? What makes the GLBT thinks his opinion is more mainstream than the Christian? These are just some questions to underline what I am saying. The answer is plain and simple: We are in TOC land.
gemami,
Please be reminded that the article is about Singanews and not about TOC.
Gemani
Just a brief history:
The Thios and their cophorts are all highly educated, from the same religious backgroud, attend the same church, make public speeches using the exact same phrases, all play the victim card in all of the above mentioned sagas and from what i see of Josie, Thios and the other rmembers from the AWARE new team – rich. Judging from the Thios themselves as well as Lau, her husband and now the team behind SingaNews, these people also hold high positions in companies as directors or even own them.
How is this representative of the majority of singaporeans who live in HDBs, do not wear Marc Jacobs to work or who are not christians? How are they mainstream?
In fact I would challenge you to prove that the views they or the govt holds are mainstream. When was the last survey done on mainstream values within our society? And who gave them the right to speak on behalf of the majority? The elected govt and their representatives can certainly make a case for representing the voice of the people. But who are these people to claim that mandate for themselves and who gave them the authority?
With their background profile and affiliations, they can claim to speak for chirstians or elitists groups; but even then can they speak for all christians and all rich and elitist groups?
If you want to be specific, then ask these people to be specific about their agendas, backgrounds, intent and motives. They have not been so repeatedly, again and again. Only when the lines are drawn clearly then can u see see and understand clearly who speaks for whom. For now, Singanews, even before it’s launch, cannot claim to speak for anyone but themselves.
And with regards to journalists expressing their opinions in an editorial piece, thats what you call a commentary. You have it in every news publication and online site. There is a reasons why commentators put their byline in a commentary. The subject matter and content is reflective of his or her own opinion. As a site open to diverse views and opinions, anyone can contribute their opinion piece but it is up to the editors of TOC to determine whether they want to publish it or not. To ask for a disclaimer and editorials devoid of any perosnal, logical or rational viewpoint makes any site pointless. TOC stands for alternaticve viewpoints and like it or not, they have the right to publish anything they see fit. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
And if you think that TOC and others here are targetting the christianists, have you wondered why? If we switched the religious affiliations of the people responsible for all the fracas recently, i am sure the response would be the same of that group’s particular religious beliefs.
So lets not play the victim or discrimination card when all everything that has been said and done is a reaction and pushback to the actions of others.
gemami,
The article too is not about Donaldson’s earlier article. Neither is it about Christian-bashing.
Please stick to the issue. Otherwise you give us no choice but to put you under moderation.
Hi TOC,
I realised that too and was just thinking how not to continue with the line of argument I had taken. My apologies.
gemani
“Now what makes the GLBT minority group any bigger than the Christian minority group? What makes the GLBT thinks his opinion is more mainstream than the Christian?”
Now the christains are a minority? Thats the first i heard of it. What a clever play of words.
And no, the GLBT does not think their views are the mainstream – how can we when we constantly reminded with insults, trodden down with govt and social policies and branded as criminals. Criminals can never be mainstream, even with the yellow ribbon project.
But there certainly are a lot of people who think that human rights is a secular issue, something to be discussed and deliberated about in a secular space that we profess to have.
And no, TOC has not made christiany to be a ‘beast’ – a term you coined yourself. The features here have repeatedly referred to a group of christianists who belong more to the christian right. TOC has never generalised the christians fundamentalists as being representative of all christians in singapore. Like the US or any other religion, there is the Christian Right and the Left, the conservatives and liberals.
So pls do not put words into TOC’s mouth or attempt to potray them as extremists when they have been very specific in ther editorials
And pls stop with your GAY obssesion – it’s tired, dated and reflects just so badly on you.