Andrew Loh
People’s Action Party (PAP) candidate for Holland-Bukit Timah Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, made comments about a YouTube video that would raise “awkward questions” for the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). His comments were reported in the Sunday Times, 24 April.
Dr Balakrishnan and his team from the PAP are being challenged by the SDP team in the upcoming elections. The SDP team is led by Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, Mr Tan Jee Say, Mr Ang Yong Guan, and Ms Michelle Lee.
Following Dr Balakrishnan’s remarks, the SDP asked him to clarify the video he was referring to.
Today, Monday 25 April, Dr Balakrishnan and his GRC team issued a statement on the matter.
The PAP statement, which was undersigned by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and candidates Liang Eng Hwa, Christopher de Souza and Sim Ann, reads as follows:
“A video has been posted on the internet showing Vincent Wijeysingha participating at a forum which discussed the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore.
“The discussion at the forum also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age.
“In the video, Wijeysingha was introduced as being from the SDP.
“In addition to other comments, Wijeysingha stated: ‘I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. Perhaps one outcome of today’s forum would be, for those of us who are interested, to come together to further consider how we can address the 377 issue as well as further rights issues in relation to gays and lesbians.’
“We believe that candidates should be upfront about their political agenda and motives, so that voters are able to make an informed choice.
“The issue is not Wijeysingha’s sexual orientation. That is a matter for him.
“The video raises the question on whether Wijeysingha will now pursue this cause in the political arena and what is the SDP’s position on the matter.”
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
YOG budget balloons – S$104m to S$387m
This is true? If it is true, the project management is very bad. Within Budget is part of the objective. If you can run a project, how can you run a country?
it was a closed door PRIVATE EVENT.
t wikileak person has NO social grace or ethics.
dr vincent is NOT sdp-
there may b lesbians in PAP too-who koes?/
listen to LKY speech/hint
I’m shocked and appalled at Vivian Balakrishnan’s remarks to Dr Vincent Wijeysingha. Obviously Dr Vincent did not articulate whatever Vivian Balakrishnan is suggesting as per the video. In any case, voters do not cast their votes based on the sexual orientation of the potential candidate, at least not for me. More importantly is the candidate’s capability, integrity and passion in serving the people, which obviously Vivian Balakrishnan has shown to be lacking in this instance. He couldn’t even defend his profligate spending on the YOG which no other countries were keen to host anyway. Instead, he is using this opportunity to cast doubts on Dr Vincent Wijeysingha as a form of smear tactics. This just smacks of desperate and underhanded politicking.
I think this guy has not been sleeping well lately.With sleep deprivation come this.
…….. also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age.”
ALSO TOUCHED ON meaning a add on. By “lang or by kui”.WTH! waste my time.I watched the video from start to end and remembering the Hotel Carlifornia thingy,i watched from end to start! Still nothing on boys 14 what,where got ?i think u got play out le.
Please get some sleep and response to the live debate challenge.then you shall be call VIBIAN,more manly like taiwan ah bian!u can run but you cannot hide?btw what SDP SUPPRESS ?i first watched the video thru a link on the SDP website.
This gay thing is a political move on PAP’s part – hoping to ‘smear’ SDP and turn a largely conservative electorate away from the SDP. Pls pple – put your personal beliefs on sexual orientation aside and focus on the long term issues of Singapore – gay or not – its a personal matter. And gays are humans too .As an aside – i do believe LKY is not anti gay – and understands the realities – but is not repealing the law bec conservative Singaporeans want it to stay. Gay is not impt to me – more impt is the person’s sincerity for running. If he represents the gay community – better still since they should have a voice too – all minorities need a voice in society and respect by fellow Singaporeans. I hope all gays who can vote vote for Dr Wijaya.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan doesn’t look man enough to me to discuss about sexual orientation haha…
Zero, your assertion…”Therefore it is quite clear to me after being educated by the netizens here, that SDP official stand is to liberalise sex laws pertaining to gay sex acts…”fell of the slippery slope fallacy.
It is the same replica as…Dr Balakrishnan said the SDP is “trying to suppress” the video and that it “raises awkward questions about the agenda and motivations of the SDP and its candidates.”
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/sdp-hits-back-pap-criticisms-141142593.html
Can either you or VB substantiate one aorta of truth of this scurrilous attack of….”awkward questions about the agenda and motivations of the SDP and its candidates…”
Who can prove in the court of law in evidence of the motivational imprints ( i.e. proving of the mind at law in evidence) of ALL members of SDP and its candidates? Many of the SDP candidates are married “straight” couples like the majority and it is public knowledge already published in the Straits Times.
I believe MM Lee and SM Goh and members of the PAP Ministerial cabinet might now be obliged to come out with a public comment on this sensational accusation spread beyond VW.
The allegations you and VB is contrary to known facts about all the other SDP candidates beyond VW. VW might be gay but how could one extrapolate to ALL OTHER CANDIDATES OF HAVING SIMILAR MOTIVATIONAL THOUGHTS?
I am DEEPLY CONCERNED about the fuel poured into the fire of wild allegation in this election which has FAR BIGGER AND IMPORTANT RELEVANT ISSUES NEEDING URGENT DEBATE AND ATTENTION..
SDP’response:
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4764-chee-soon-juan-responds-to-vivian-balakrishnan
How low can you get Vivian?? I dun care if Vincent is gay or not.. I do care if he can represent us properly in Parliament.. Unlike you and your colleagues who only care about your bank accounts. This below the belt smearing further reinforces my view about PAP’s election tactics. Low down, despicable, desperate and pathetic. I hope fellow singaporeans can see your true colors and vote you out.
Isn’t it sad and almost pitying that both Vivian Balakrishnan and Chen Show Mao are from the same year back in their school days yet the former has to resort to underhand shamless tactics to try and get ahead; while the latter is full of humility and humbleness. Shame on you Vivian! It doesn’t matter what Vincent is but who he is and what he stands for, and to date, he has proven he is a far better man than you, refusing to take up the SDP challenge of a debate and instead running to hide behind the PAP-controlled media. You are not a man at all!
The only issue I see here is the PAP candidates playing dirty.
I don’t see why Vincent or the SDP owe Vivian Bala an explanation. The PAP’s motives is crystal clear – it is creating an excuse for character assassination of the SDP’s team by taking the discussion out of its context for political purpose.
Of all thing, Vivian Bala of all people thinks others owe him an explanation when he has yet to come clean regarding the YOG various fiascoes – the 300% budget over run, the mass food poisoning whose report is still not publicized.
A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black is what we all see here.
Perhaps, Vivian Bala would consider revealing all about the YOG in exchange for any info from Vincent?
It only shows that you are truly rattled by the presence of the SDP team.
Instead of convincing voters why they should vote for him, how he and his party can address the current issues and the achievements of his party since the last GE, he distracts voters’ attention to non-critical matters. sigh… I only have a word to describe him and his party, “IMMATURE”!!
The SDP team has very good policies.
Looks like Vivian is afraid to stick to debating policies.
No where in SDP manifesto does it say SDP is pursuing gay-rights.
The issues facing us is the high cost of living, rising HDB prices, hyper-inflation of many goods and services, poor service of public transport.
THE SDP SHOULD NOT BE DRAWN INTO THE TRAP SET BY VIVIAN. JUST ADDRESS THE ISSUES, THE EXPENSIVE YOG AND VIVIAN’S INCOMPETENCE.
LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. VIVIAN AND HIS TEAM WILL BE VOTED OUT, FOR SURE.
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4764-chee-soon-juan-responds-to-vivian-balakrishnan
Unfortunately for all the pro gays and gay rights activists, Dr Chee has categorically stated Sdp does not stand for gay rights and will not be pursuing gay agenda. End of story.
@ Daft sinkie, AGREE totally wit ur comments.
VB & his team are just sidetracking on the REAL issues that affects singaporeans, based on their dogged perserverance I do believe the SDP will want to deliver on what they wrote in the shadow budget.
Honestly I doubt SDP’s underlying motive all these years is to fight for gay rights only…
In any case, they are pursuing a majority mandate & this is clear fr the beginning. If we let this cloud our judgement, the joke will really be on singaporeans in the end. The current policies are too elitist & panders too much to foreign monies… Singaporeans are really getting left behind.
so far,in the arena of politcal activism,DR VINCENT has been quite MANLY.
and,that’s is what matters here.
we want politicians who ‘KEEP THEIR WORDS’ and not ‘twist and turn’ or cowardly psuh blame to others when they are paid not only to serve but to serve correctly and to the best of their abilities unless such ability was non-existent in the first place?
i much prefer anyone who takes care of the common citizens especially the poor and needy and those ‘made needy and poor’ than the ones who prefer to squnader on the ostentatious when countless true blue singaporeans are going hungry.
‘gay’ is also ‘human’ just like gals and guys are,aren’t they?
in so long as men and women and even gay-men or gay-women who choose to stand for ELECTION for PUBLIC OFFICE fulfill their duties and responsibilities,that is what matters most.
we need politcians who keep their words as people’s leaders,POLITICAL LEADERS.
Black dog B, pls use new ” Political Game” . anti-gay agenda doesn’t make point for u !!!
Is this as low as you can go, Vivian?
Seriously? Does our orientation mean anything in this day & age? Is this really how low you will desperately go for a vote?
Or just a reflection of how the PAP has gone? Perhaps, just you? Covering for all the shortcomings that you have clearly displayed.
Every dog has its day and you have very obviously shown that your bark is not even relevant anymore!
Somehow I pity the other three “signatories”. Awkwardly united front anyone? But unity or not, this is way below the belt. I am utterly astounded. This smacks of sheer desperation. I hope we can all refocus to the bread and butter issues.
I stand corrected, but I see a camp that has lost composure and its air of cocksureness. Fumbles and gaffes galore the more they blast off. The incumbents are well and truly fretting in their pants. I think they have, until now, grossly underestimated:
1) the increased calibre of the opposition
2) the level of discontent on the ground
3) the prospect of them losing their jobs as MPs
May the most deserving candidates win.
This outburst from vivian may have cost the PAP quite a significant amount of LGBT votes
Singaporeans do not want to be sidetracked again by this smearing unethical tactic.
There are more important core issues that need to be dealt with, and the growing disaffection among the citizens is an indication that these have not been adequately dealt with by the present govt.
SDP, as far as I can see, has no secret gay agenda and is not interested in furthering it, and the innuendo suggested by VB will backfire on him.
I hope all parties (and I pray that the MSM does the same) do what Dr Chee has done and let this issue die down. What PAP wants is to let the gay rights issue divide us and distract us from the real matters at hand. TOC and SDP and everyone else must not allow the PAP to drag the message into waters where it is comfortable. Keep them in the zone where the PAP is most vulnerable – housing, overcrowding, transport, prices, immigration, Ministerial pay, poor candidates, wasteful expenditure, etc. What the PAP would love is for the average heartlander to go online and see page after page of “pro-gay” write-ups. Gay rights are important – but it is not a matter for today.
For those who are now holding Vivian Balakrishnan accountable to Goh Chok Tong’s desire – and let’s note that it is just a desire, and not a practise – for a clean fight: Did you really believe ANY PAP MP when they make that claim? The PAP is ONLY comfortable in the gutter; that’s their favourite haunt, if you look at their illustrious track record for gutter politics.
The PAP also tries to portray themselves as “rational”, but by this half-breed, Hindu-hating, Christian Taliban’s false and defamatory statements, it should have been clear that it was an appeal to emotinalism, because that’s what dealing with any gay issue is bound to provoke. Or have we forgotten what it was like in the leadup to the S377a denates in 2007, and the AWARE episode?
It is from knowing that, that I made a decision that if the gutter is where the PAP inhabits, then I am more than willing to descend into their comfort zone and play gutter politics with them. It is an important strategy to use with a bunch of idiots who sorely lack that one important quality that every politician should have: empathy. They are completely clueless about how it feels like to be in others’ shoes. When the quality of empathy is lacking, we are left with only one option, and that is to give them a taste of their own medicine. That’s the only way that they will learn, and that’s exactly why I have been harping on this Hindu-hater’s Christian Taliban religion.
when one has screwed up big time on YOG by being over budget and pandering to some ang mos in IOC and not addressing the needs of the youth and needy which his ministry ie MCYS is profess to oversee, the tactic is to detract from the substantive issues by relying on fragrant below the belt, desperate, and hopeless measure. gays are not the issue but inept government ministers are. btw, who is to say there are no closet gays in the PAPAYA ? i pray Viv loses big time ..
I think VB is scared and threatened to the point of trying to insinuate ideas that we, the electorate, cant be bothered less.
We see through your attempts at smearing a person’s standing. Please debate and discuss why we should vote you instead of focusing your energies on bringing another person down. This might have worked with previous generations but not ours.
I used to think that VB was a man of eloquence and confidence – now I have no respect for a person who can stoop so low to defame and smear a person’s name and reputation. Scared that he is going to be voted for/against for the first time. He and a few others, scared s*it hence, throwing s*it at others in order to distract us. We see through IT!
VIVIAN BALAKRISHNAN JUST DID HIS FIRST PAP SMEAR!
@we the people:
“…who is to say there are no closet gays in the PAPAYA?”
This doesn’t really answer the question, but EW Barker’s son – Brendan or Brendon – is gay, and it has been known to the PAP for a long time. I heard long ago that he migrated to the UK.
SDP had all these while supported the repealing of S377A, and the only way to repeal it is to do it in parliament. Hence, it’s no secret anymore that they have every intention to pursue this agenda as promised to the LGBT community!
On the contrary, I noted that CSJ had issued a video this evening categorically denied that they have no intention to puruse a gay agenda…is he backtracking on SDP’s stands as stated in SDP website: http://singaporedemocrat.org/articlegayrights3.html
@ James tan
Haha.. Basket balls.. Good one!
Here comes the personal attack. The usual way practised by the PAP Ministers who are on the losing ground.
Hope they can sleep well. Wonder how their children feel?
BTW, this issue is NOT over until the Hindu-hating, Christian Taliban half-breed Vivian Balakrishnan and his co-signers retract the blatant LIE about the lowering of the age of consent to 14 being discussed in the video.
The LGBT track record everywhere in the world has shown that when any gay age of consent issue is discussed, it is always done so to equalize the position to the hetero age of consent.
But that’s the Singapore Christian Taliban for you: it is all about continuing the smear campaign that their American counterparts started.
Vivian is not thinking with his head lah…. must be thinking using some other part of his anatomy.
It definitely shows that he is quite desperate and not knowing what else to do. By making this latest accusation, he has lowered himself , pissed off the gays, pushed some sympathy votes to Vincent, and will probably inspired the internet brigade to dig up PAP candidates’ sexual orientations.
How to be a minister if you cannot think/perform under fire?
Given a choice to choose between VB and a gay to represent me in Parliament, I would choose a gay who can fight passionately for the cause of the people wholeheartedly. So what if he has political motives.
To quote LHL’s statement:- “Let me remind party members to be servant to the public”. If the gay can be servant to the public, do I care if he has other political motives. Even if our PM is a gay, but his heart and mind are totally dedicated to the cause of the nation and not to himself, why not?
http://opinionasia.com/article/print/311
Push and Shove in Singapore’s Gay Scrum
Au
Controversy about gays has become an annual feature in Singapore.
In 2003, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong told Time magazine that Singapore’s civil service would accept gay employees. This prompted a tsunami of letters to the press, both for and against.
In 2004, the government banned the Snowball and Nation parties, which were focal points for the gay community. Again, headlines were made.
In 2005, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in answer to a question at a Press Club luncheon, said that his government was not homophobic, leading to derision by many who thought he didn’t know what he was talking about.
In 2006, Lee’s government proposed repealing the law against oral and anal sex – for heterosexuals only. However, another part of the law, known as Section 377A, which makes sexual relationships between men, even if consensual and in private, would be kept. The Law Society in Singapore was moved to say, “the retention of s.377A in its present form cannot be justified.” Noting that the government had previously said they had no intention of enforcing this law “pro-actively”, the Society pointed out that “the retention of unprosecuted offences on the statute book… runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute.” The Law society was hardly the only party speaking up. Many others did, generating another wave of controversy that had hardly died down when….
In 2007, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew mused that “eventually”, Singapore will need to scrap 377A. “If this is the way the world is going,” he said, “and Singapore is part of that interconnected world – and I think it is – then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it.” Letters to the press on this subject continued for four months after he spoke.
If anyone is looking for a single word to describe the state of affairs, perhaps the most apt would be “confused”.
There has never been any published survey exploring attitudes to the gay question in depth. The few surveys that have been published have been superficial, e.g. comprising a single question among many unrelated questions, or poorly designed.
In May this year, Mediacorp, a local state broadcaster, published the results of its telephone survey of 300 people living in public housing, aged 15 and older. Asked to react to the statement that “homosexuality should be legal in Singapore”, 62 percent disagreed. 12 percent said yes, and 26 percent remained neutral.
A few months earlier, Singapore Polytechnic, a local tertiary institute, announced the results of a survey of 800 Singaporeans aged 15 – 29. One of the questions revolved around the statement “I find homosexuality acceptable”. 50 percent agreed with the statement, 42 percent disagreed and 8 percent said “Don’t know”.
Other than a difference stemming from surveying different age groups – which could have been a major factor – the two studies demonstrate that how a survey question is phrased is critical to the answers obtained.
In any case, surveys like these disguise the fact that the gay question is not just predicated on popular acceptability. For some, popularity is hardly the issue. What is at stake, in their view, might be moral standards, economic imperatives or civil rights. The failure to agree on which of these measures should determine the question adds to the confusion.
Six camps
There are six discernible viewpoints coming into play, judging from a content analysis of letters to the press and other anecdotal observations. In numbers, the biggest two groups might be the traditional conservatives and the uncommitted. However, many people straddle two camps.
The Moralists
This is the most vocal anti-gay group. They are mostly driven by a sense that homosexuality is wrong, typically undergirded by Christian, occasionally Muslim, teaching. They have a strong sense of the perfectability of society, and their notion of a perfect society is shaped by their religious views. Their detractors would thus often accuse them of being unable to separate Church from State.
Additionally, the Christian-motivated ones adopt from American churches the tactics of political Christianity: to dismiss modern science, link homosexuality with paedophilia, promiscuity and Aids, and promote the notion that homosexuality can be “reversed” through treatment.
This group will hold their beliefs even if popular opinion changes. To them right is right, wrong is wrong. They are not numerous, but they are extremely vocal and well connected with the Singapore government. Hence, they often seem more numerous than they really are.
The Traditional Conservatives
This large group is not driven by millennial beliefs like the moralists. Like the majority of Singaporeans, they are mostly Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu or free-thinkers, with many moderate Christians and Muslims among them. They see homosexuality as something alien to their culture and their known world. To a large extent, this is shaped by their informational environment – positive depictions of gays and lesbians are routinely censored in Singapore – and the fact that until recently, gay Singaporeans were almost always in the closet.
The traditional conservatives’ opposition to homosexuality tends to be relatively inchoate, mostly derived from discomfort with change and wariness towards the unknown. In this sense, it is no different from any society’s resistance to any kind of social change.
When individuals from this group articulate their feelings, they often adopt language similar to the moralists, e.g. that homosexuality is “unnatural” or “immoral”, but these labels are more culturally than religiously pivoted, more relative than absolute.
The Threatened
This is a small group, almost always male, and generally quite vocal too. Despite being as loud, the difference between this group and the moralists lies in the arguments they make.
Members of this group see homosexuals – almost always, they speak only of gay males, not females – as a personal threat to themselves. In public, however, they tend to project their own insecurities onto others, e.g. by speaking stridently about rape, molest, lewd public behaviour, and so on. Unlike the moralists, whose position spring from their beliefs about what society should be like, this group responds rather emotionally to the question of homosexuality.
Theories abound as to why, in every country, such a segment of the male population can be observed.
Even though their numbers are small and their arguments easily seen as emotional and unsupported by data, their readiness to voice them still has an impact, setting a tone that the traditional conservatives can resonate with.
The Uncommitted
This is probably another large group, and may be associated with the younger generation. They do not see homosexuality as a threat, nor even as alien – they may have a gay friend or two – but neither do they see this as an issue that concerns them very much. They may not have well-formed opinions, and when pressed, are likely to tell the questioner what they think he wants to hear. This group probably accounts for the wide variability in survey results.
The Modernisers
Very recently, we’ve begun to hear a set of arguments that can be traced to Richard Florida’s book, ‘The Rise of the Creative Class’: that Singapore needs to be a lot more accommodating to gays and lesbians because it is important to the country’s economic future.
This group’s belief is that in the next phase of development, Singapore needs to be a centre for intellectual goods. To achieve that, we need to attract and retain talent, and also to provide a climate for such talent to flourish. That means space for differences, even the outlandish. We would be foolish to turn away talent just because they are gay, but more than that, we would put off talent who are not gay merely through a reputation for social and political intolerance.
There are probably very few adherents to this rather utilitarian point of view, but it is likely to be disproportionately represented in the corridors of power, where people worry most about Singapore’s future.
The Civil Rightists
This group sees the gay issue as a civil rights issue. Their views are grounded on the scientific consensus that homosexual orientation is innate and unchosen, and the developing judicial consensus that the gay minority deserves protection from discrimination.
Debate skewed by domestic political context
With six different contending forces, the state of play at any time is hard to make out. Moreover, the Singapore government wants always to be in control of the agenda, rather than be buffetted by clamour from the street. Its well-known prickliness with any sort of political dissent, which includes demands for civil liberties, complicates the debate. Unsurprisingly, prevailing censorship policies, including self-censorship via editorial decisions in the mainstream media, tend to skew the debate towards the status quo, through seeing demands for change as controversial, destabilising, and a threat to public order, and silencing them.
Consequently, a lot of the jockeying tends to take place behind the opacity of government rather than in the public arena. For this reason, political Christianity works very hard at elbowing themselves into positions of influence. In the other camp, the modernists deride the civil rightists, even though both are on the same side, for being unrealistic. The economic argument, the modernisers feel, will make more headway than the civil rights argument, a waste of time.
Yet, a quick survey of other countries that have progressed on this issue will show that almost everywhere, it’s been due to the civil rights case. Changes in laws and policies have typically been either the result of judicial rulings or a sense among the political elite that extending full legal equality to gays and lesbians is the right thing to do – for moral reasons.
Furthermore, in most countries, popular opinion has followed political attitudes, not the other way round. What happens is that legal equality encourages a greater visibility for gays and lesbians, which in turn shifts attitudes among the erstwhile traditional conservatives.
In Singapore, that shifting is already underway. In 2001, the government, through its Social Attitudes Survey, showed that 85 percent of Singaporeans found homosexuality “unacceptable”. Mediacorp in 2007 found 62 percent still wanting to keep it illegal.
The 2001 survey found 71 percent of Singaporeans under 30 disapproving of homosexuality. In 2007, the Singapore Polytechnic found only 42 percent of this age group with a similar view.
For the anti-gay side, it is becoming crucial to stop this erosion of public attitudes. Maintaining the law and censorship policies, and thus a climate of disapproval, is seen as critical to this aim.
For the modernisers, this shift in public attitudes cannot come fast enough. If, as the government has professed, laws will follow public opinion, not lead it, then by the time Singapore becomes tolerant, we may have missed the economic boat.
For the civil rightists, the dilemma may be uniquely Singaporean: how does one sway a government and a society with a civil rights argument, when both remain extremely suspicious of civil rights in the first place?
Thus, the gay debate is almost a proxy for the stresses and strains Singapore is facing as it matures. There is a contest over social change, anxiety over economic directions and a questioning of the political and civil arrangements inherited from the 1960s. It’s a debate that bears watching.
Excepting the credentials,Vivian is an unregenerate hypocrite,a turncoat of thrid-rate politician who has no credibililty at all.
He seems to be sidetracking instead of debating on issues that directly affect livelihoods.
So much for being a public servant!
PS – as for those who hide behind the curtain of I am Christian, I am Jew or I am a Hindu – frankly, one’ sexual preferences has nothing to with religion at all. It is a cop out.
It belies this – an insecure human being fraught with bigotry and prejudices. it belies fear, it belies a threat to one’s sense of self.
I doubt Jesus discriminated, I doubt Mohd or Krisna discriminated,Christianity discriminates, Islam discriminates, Hindus discriminate.
Existence preceded essence. Trying to find essence in existence is neurosis and it is sad that so many seem to be sleep-walking and worse still is this : instead of reconciling to the insecurities within oneself – they always impose their divisive (cos one is inherently split!) selves and sow seeds of discord.
Pardon me for my inexperience, but I believed I remember my grandad always uses a phase from famous Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, it does not matter if it’s a black cat or a white cat as long as the cat catches the mouse! So there should be no discrimination against ones’s sexual orientation. Let us have a fair fight! Btw, my granddad is longer with us, for if he is still here he would have defended the PAP.
@Gen Y,
I am very pleased that you had a wise grandad lah. Good for you and hope many around u and those who come across you can unlearn their neurosis!
Has the PAP become so desparate, or has Vivian Balakrishnan become so challenged by Vincent Wijeysingha’s candidacy that he cannot debate on the hot button issues that concerns Singaporeans and raised by Vincent Wijeysingha, but will worry himself about the political agenda of Vincent Wijeysingha ?
The PAP Standard of Politics led LKY has been shockingly dismal since 1959, surely Vivian Balakrishnan must take the cake to sink it to the lowest depths from here on ?
Whatever happened to the examplary schoolboy debater in Vivian Balakrishnan, now that he is a grown person ?
Surely since joining the PAP, Vivian Balakrishnan cannot possibly believe that he can be the elitist talent that the PAP designer label has hung on him ?
This is especially if he is honest about his real abilities seen in the few national events that he had led with such shockingly disappointing results ?
Clearly, PAP Standards in it acceptance of Singaporeans as their new candidates have fallen short for GE-2011, and its dependence on recruiting NEW Citizens to be candidates are just as dismal.
Singaporeans are watching, and will surely know how to handle frauds, hypocrites, and double-headed venomous snakes that hissspeak with fork-tongues.
Until yesterday I had believed that Vivian Balakrishnan is a good person, although with many faults, and perhaps not a good Minister. Today, I am bitterly disappointed. As a fellow doctor, I am disgusted by his under-the-belt attack on another person. Where is his humanity? As a citizen, I am disgusted by his attempt to stoke anti-gay feelings among Singaporeans. How could he promote discrimination against fellow citizens?! Thank you Dr Chee for the answer. Now, for his reply.
One can interpret Dr Chee’s statement of ‘not pursuing a gay agenda’ as not outwardly pushing for gay rights aggressively’ once the SDP enters Parliament.
Dr Vivian wanted the public to assume that the SDP will march in and overturn the conservative laws if they are elected.
He very much wanted us to link the SDP with the AWARE saga, where anti-gay Christian fundamentalists overtook the old committee overnight and tried to implement their own agendas on the organisation.
The SDP believes in equal rights for all and does not discriminate against anyone. That being said, it is aware that Singapore is not very ready to embrace homosexuality openly, due to the older generation.
I believe the SDP will still speak up on LGBT issues especially if they become the subject of outrageous anti-gay bullying. But the reason of them contesting for the election is not primarily based on fighting for gay rights.
Credentials are not credibility. Vivian has credentials Can one assume that his credentials in any way enhanced livelihoods of Singaporean? Idiocy is to equate credentials with credibility lah. The latter is a shadow of one being ethical.
The likes of Vivian seem to be woefully lacking such human values. It is inherent in all of us. Perhaps, the smell of power and money eclipsed and anything justifies that end. Even sidetracking and deflecting flak (which has always been special for Vivian – in TORRENTS!) for past ineptitudes and mismanagment.
testing
In Vivian Balakrishnan’s statement along with those three who signed it, it is stated:
“The video raises the question on whether Wijeysingha will now pursue this cause in the political arena and what is the SDP’s position on the matter.”
1. Why weren’t the Vivian-led Four as interested in making a public statement expressing their concerns when their toxic party appointed a STRAIGHT man like Siew Kum Hong as NMP knowing full well that ‘this cause’ was ONE – yes, count that: just ONE! – of the issues that he was going to pursue in the political arena?
Is it only different – ie.DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS – if a GAY man pursues ‘this cause’ so much so that they wage a campaign against him for his sexual orientation in their low-life attempt to keep him out of Parliament?
If this is not a discriminatory attitude against gays by the Vivian-led Four, then what is?
2. On what is the SDP’s position regarding this, as politicians, it is THEIR business to find out the positions of other parties on any issue, and the SDP has been open about it? Why do the Vivian-led FOUR pose the question as if the SDP had a hidden agenda, and as if it was their sacred Christian duty to alert the Singapore public to it?
3. Why are the Vivian-led Four pretending that they are unfamiliar with parliamentary procedures, especially when all four of them already have had that parliamentary experience? The overwhelming majority of debates on bills or amendments are initiated by the members of the Executive, and NOT by backbenchers, who only very, very rarely initiate debates by introducing a private member’s bill.
The SDP has only 11 candiadtes contesting in the GE, which is not enough for them to form the government, much less the Executive. If VW is elected, or even if he were an NCMP, he is not even going to have much of a chance to ‘pursue this cause’. So why the anxiety, or is this yet another instance of the PAP disinforming and misleading the public in an attempt to mask an ulterior motive, this time their homophobia?
Please pay special attention to this because this is about how the PAP can break laws and get away with it because they have made the supposedly-neutral civil service beholden to them.
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2011/04/disgust-and-loathing-in-singapore.html
“At this point, I hope that those responsible for posting the video and the misleading description about “lowering age of consent for sex with boys aged 14″ are aware that they may have contravened Section 61(d) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. And I certainly hope that the Elections Department will be fair and investigate this case, and prosecute if the culprit is found.]” – Siew Kum Hong
Just VOTE IN Dr Vivian Wijeysingha & his team into Parliament to be the VOICE of the people! I have seen him personally at Hong Lim Garden. He have my greatest respect! VOTE all OPPO into Parliament.
Oops! I mean Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and NOT Vivian! Thanks.
dear anonymous,
May i repeat a stand which i said numerous times. I don’t care at all if DrVincent is Gay or Mr XYZ is gay or Ms ABC is lesbian. I WILL STILL VOTE FOR THEM IF THEY CAN CHAMPION THE CAUSE OF THE PEOPLE AND CORRECT tHE numerous shortcomings inflcited by PAP in this land.
Please understand that my main concern is with the SDP direction, because SDP website stated clearly that they are intending to ask the state to repeal sect 377A law which forbids men-men sex (adults).
Again, it is the bigger issue of the sdp stand i want to udnerstand. I don’t care about individual persons sexual orientation, it is none of my business and completely irrelevant.
zero
Vivian, you are really a scumbag. I have nothing against gays or whatever and I will never respect you for trying to incite discrimination against another human-being and fellow singaporean just because he is challenging you in politics and you fear for your votes.
Remember you are a “chap cheng kia”, something that some of the older generations may still frown upon. you want to play dirty, I can also play dirty. You want me to describe to the whole world what “chap cheng kia” means and sound like visually? Let me warn you, your mother won’t forgive you. You are suppposed to represent all singaporeans as Minister of MCYS, instead you are a DISGRACEFUL SCUMBAG.
In 2007, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew mused that “eventually”, Singapore will need to scrap 377A. “If this is the way the world is going,” he said, “and Singapore is part of that interconnected world – and I think it is – then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it.” Letters to the press on this subject continued for four months after he spoke.
=======
very soon he’ll call in the tanks !!!
as for vivian, it just shows what sort of school debater he is, why not try,
“RETARD”
losing millions in yog, why not used his brain, seduced, induced, american idol to stage a show here for full term and fly in all contestants, or the evening family show,where everyone spins a wheel and answer a question, the potential is 300 million high income americans, cost, LESS than 300 millions of tax payers money.
but vivian prefers to blew away all 300 million and then talk about blowjobs, vivian, try blowing mine !!!