Here is what I have to say about hecklegate (as some bloggers so aptly put it):
1. Not happy with protest does not equal pro-PAP
Just because someone gets pissed off with or disagrees with RN and HHH and #ReturnOurCPF protest because of the perceived heckling during a charity event, doesn’t make them a PAP lackey or sympathizer. Even if they are just pissed off with the protest itself without the incident, it still doesn’t make them pro-PAP. There are many reasons why people don’t agree with the protest, even though they may agree with some of the issues with our CPF and even the proposed solutions. I find it astounding (but not surprising) how some immature folks can draw such conclusions just because one dislike what happened. Continue reading
This issue has gone cold, but pinknews recently picked it up again. Again like many LGBT issues there are legends and myths around the stories created, mostly by dissenters… but let’s get back to the basics.
Goldman Sachs published one of their diversity events on their company website with the following message
Goldman Sachs’ LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender) Network invites you to attend this networking event to enable you to find out more about our firm, the LGBT Network, and discuss issues and concerns regarding being “out” in the workplace. The event will include a brief introduction to the firm and our culture and an opportunity to network with employees across the firm’s various divisions. Drinks and dinner will be served.
Goldman Sachs recently received an Asia Pink Award for “Extraordinary contribution to the LGBTI community” by Element Magazine at its ceremony in Singapore and will be a proud sponsor of Singapore’s Pink Dot event this June. The firm has also earned a perfect “100” score on the Human Rights Campaign’s 2014 Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies on corporate policies and practices related to LGBT employees and their families.
Spots for this event is limited, please register before April 25, if . you are LGBT Students graduating in year 2015, 2016 or 2017 interested in attending this event. Successful applicants will receive a confirmation email with event details and location in early May
Throughout the saga of the red dot (AKA FamFest) versus pink dot, a lot of accusation was thrown at both government and pink dotters, but I think it is important to step back for a clearer picture.
First of all, as admitted by Pastor Khong himself:
“#FamFest 2014 is about defending the family against the onslaught of sexual infidelity, divorce, family violence and media that promotes sexual immorality including the homosexual agenda.”
This very much is an exclusive event. Of course, everybody is against family violence, but the event is out there to shame people who may have sexual relationship outside marriage (for more complex reasons), divorcees and single parents as much as LGBT folks. Even if pink dot is not held on the same day, such an event may not be permitted to be held in the Padang, which Khong himself freely admits, as a place for national event. The event is anything but a national event because of its exclusive nature. Unless the dissenters were to tell me that past events like Rugby Sevens, Singapore Marathons, etc, have exclusive clauses against divorcees, single parents, disabled or LGBT, then their argument just don’t hold water. As to whether or not, the government did consider that it was held on the same day as the pink dot, it is everyone’s guess, but I am sure that they are aware.
The recent news about a British tourist being deported by the Sri Lankan authorities due to her Buddhist tattoo in the arm certain cause some of use to thing deeply what Buddhist teaching really represents.
A few statements coming out from the news feed that makes me question if Sri Lankan themselves really understand what it means to be Buddhist or what reputation they are giving to others about Buddhists or its teachings. Certainly I am no saintly Buddhist myself, but I am very confident of at least a few of its basis teachings. Continue reading
FB was abuzz with likes on Hri Kumar’s recent comments on the HPB issue. Many people appreciated that he supported HPB’s publication from a health perspective objectively.
But there a few points in his comments that we often hear or read politicians or fence sitters make that sounds like concern and supportive but is really as good as not saying anything. The way PAP govt. commented on the “hijab” issue is what comes to mind.
Look, I appreciated the fact the he and 2 other MPs were supportive of repealing 377a, even though for him it was only an academic exercise rather than an actual passion for equality in society. However, we know that the PAP would very often identify some MPs to make opposing point of views just to show that there are “some debate” during parliamentary sittings. So whether one makes a point of free will or was made to do so by their masters, it is anyone’s guest. Continue reading
There is something about religion that makes seemingly nice and smart persons turn into complete brainless sheeps. Mountbatten MP Lim Biow Chuang is one good example. From some feedbacks from friends, it appears that he is a pretty nice MP, however, now they are utterly disappointed by this “disappointed” MP.
For me, the disappointment is not that he disagrees with homosexual persons, but rather the brainless and less than factual reasoning that he uses to justify his position, whilst trying to present them as facts. What is more disappointing is him trying to wave his Christian values as secular and factual. I don’t mind if one’s argument is based on religious values, but to be dishonest about it shows a lack of integrity on that part of the person.
Waving the straw men, he is quoted to have said: “homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual ones”. Exactly what is the difference is probably mentioned somewhere later; that homosexual relationships are not normal and there are no facts to say that they can form lasting relationships and that heterosexual relationships are based on values like trust, love, commitment and support, which to him, a same-sex one does not. Continue reading
In 2014 new AVA licensing conditions for pet shops come into effect. One will bar those below 16 years from buying pets and the other is that pet shop owners must assess potential pet owners for their suitability to own a pet. Of course, it a good step ahead to prevent impulse buying, but we know that this won’t stop horrible treatments of animals and conditions in puppy mills and abuses of animals by pet owners.
The AVA requires the pet retailers to conduct a mandatory pre-sales screening of each transaction, but already the comments are abuzz as to how this is going to be enforced and what kind of questions to ask. When the tire hits the road, profits for the pet shops will be the first line of consideration. Also are pet shops already doing this currently? If not, this change will only make the comply to as much as it enables to sell the next pet. I honestly don’t think pet shops’ first priority will be the welfare of the animals, if not they will not be selling pets. Instead they will encourage people to adopt pets instead!
Nevertheless, this is a good tiny step in the right direction. It would have been better if there is a pet ownership license; all potential pet owners must go for the appropriate course to get license. Only then can they adopt or buy a pet. The licenses can be revoke due to confirmed abuses, neglect or abandonment. This way, basic pet education is standardized instead of leaving it to profile making pet shops to make up iffy questionnaires.
Lastly, it would have been great if HDB can totally repeal the out-dated no-cats rule (I know its in pilot) or selective toy dogs rules. Both these rules prevents people from adopting cats or dogs (which are not those toy breeds) that really need a home and in a place like Singapore where majority live in public housing, this means only a tiny minority selection of folks can afford to adopt them.