• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

The Age of Consent - 14 years is the central line of PAP Viv attack.

exSINgaporean

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bz4TiRuhFNU

Looking at the youtube again it is very clear that Ravi wants to challenge the constitution from all fronts...including men having sex with young boys of 14 as this is practiced and OK in some parts of the world.....he kept uttering India, so I assume in certain parts of Indian villiages the law and customs do allow adult men to have sex with boys as young as 14......but hello, this is Singapore and I am writing in Canada! We do not condole even PEDOPHILE thoughts, period!

Dr. Vincent Wijessingha was there in the forum. He even spoke and went along with the flow BUT did NOT rebute on this part of "adult men having sex with 14 years old boys". What excuse has he got for not registering an objection on such clause.

He is supposed to be a poltician and thus must be sensitive to sexaul exploitation and pedophile. Not objecting in such a public meeting imply he indirectly consent! Let me give you and eg. I was at a large Catholic teacher-parents meeting with the Alberta Minister of Education His Right Honourable Mr. Dave Handcock last winter, 2010. During his presentation he mentioned that he just visited the Singapore for a education conference. In the Question and Answer session I was the first to speak and I warned him NOT to follow the Singapore education system bec. of the level of stress and lack of creativity among students. Present were the Mayor of Edmonton, Catholic school supertendents, teachers, parents and my 14 yr old son....120 of us. I registered my disapproval.

If a lifeguard finds a dangerous act he will register his disapproval to blow the whister twice. A politician must also right away register his disapproval when Ravi cited this challenge to the constitution for allowing adult men to have sex with 14 years old boy. How can Dr. Vincent Wijessingha not able to catch the flaw. Well his excuse could be he is not as smart as me as I am graduated with a Masters degree from Imperial College...granted then.

I have now formed my judgement! I am NOT supporting SDP anymore! What damn "principle" he is talking about....he did not even stand up to protect kids! I am damn mad with such homosexual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Dr. Vivian is more upright than you.....many times over!!!!!!What sort of moral teaching your father has given to you....he was the Principal of RI...shame on you and shame on your father!!!!!!!!!!!

I am prepared to fly back from Canada to Singapore and raise my voice in all conference and rallies this Dr. Vincent is in to ask him why he did not register his disapproval of lawyer citing adult men having sex with 14 years old boy......using it as one of the clause to challenge the constitution....pro-pedophile!?
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
I am not so sure that VB's smear is not about VW's sexual orientation. Altho it is no longer contentious for people in civil service to be gay, I believe Singapore society has yet to accept or embrace political leaders who are gay, so VB's tack is ugly gutter politics alright.

This is what VW said:

VINCENT: I don't think it's for Ravi by himself to rally the gay community. I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. So perhaps one outcome of today's forum could be 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. Maybe we should exchange numbers, have a bit of a more informal kind of conversation in days to come. See where we go from there. So, can I put that on the table as a proposition?

Notice how VW used the personal pronoun "ourselves", "us", "we" etc every time? Would it not have been better if he had been more careful and said "themselves", and "them" if he were not to give the impression that he has a personal stake?

I mean it may sound trivial and petty to split hairs like this and he may want to sound inclusive in enjoining the gays to take up cudgels.

I think VB is trying to force VW into saying he's gay or not gay. It's a catch 22 here. If VW says he will pursue, then it implies that he is gay. Innuendos have a powerful way with voters' conservative bias. VW should come out and say No he's not gay but he will/will not take up the gay agenda etc. Unless he is.


Looks like most forummers have missed the central point of attack. The gay issue is secondary and the govt has long ago has decided that Gays are no longer a contentious issue or subject of discrimination within the civil service and GLC. There are also a number of prominent gays within the establishment.

The issue is age of consent which has been divisive in many parliamentary debates of the west.

That video has been circulating the moment VW appeared on stage in Hong Lim.


Watch - they are going to ask VW to categorically state his position on the age of consent.
 
Last edited:

leoman

Alfrescian
Loyal
pap succeed in sweeping all other current sg issue n worries under d carpet with tis gay issue

well done pap .....but ..... i not supid
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bz4TiRuhFNU Dr. Vincent Wijessingha was there in the forum. He even spoke and went along with the flow BUT did NOT rebute on this part of "adult men having sex with 14 years old boys". What excuse has he got for not registering an objection on such clause.

To be fair, Vincent did stand up and say: "I don’t think it’s for Ravi by himself to rally the gay community. I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. . .”

He didn't need to rebut any specific issue because he felt that Ravi had no right to represent the gay community in the first place. Period.

If you think that not addressing a specific issue = consent, then I think you'd better take up English lessons.

Anyway, it's homophobic votes like yours that Vivian was courting (see my response to Scroobal above). So well done, he's succeeded in part.
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I think VB is trying to force VW into saying he's gay or not gay. It's a catch 22 here. If VW says he will pursue, then it implies that he is gay. Innuendos have a powerful way with voters' conservative bias. VW should come out and say No he's not gay but he will/will not take up the gay agenda etc. Unless he is.

You read it wrong. I quote the actual PAP statement:

“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.”

They've stated that Vincent's sexuality is not an issue.

What the Pappies are attempting to do indirectly court the homophobic Christian vote in Holland-BT by hinting at VW's homosexuality while denying that that is an issue. Typical doublespeak.

BTW, Vincent is openly gay. Hence the use of words like "ourselves", "us", etc.

Also Lee Kuan Yew has openly stated his stand on homosexuality:

On homosexuality

Asked where censorship is headed in the next two decades, MM Lee’s response gave his take on homosexuality, which fueled a public debate.

“If, in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual because that’s the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes, you can’t help it. So why should we criminalise it?”

He was referring to the law which penalises acts of “gross indecency” between men.

So, he said: “I think we adjust… don’t upset (our people) and suddenly upset their sense of propriety and right and wrong. But at the same time, let’s not go around like this moral police… barging into people’s rooms. That’s not our business.

He surmised: “So you have to take a practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable force of time and circumstance.”
 
Last edited:

ChaoPappyPoodle

Alfrescian
Loyal
What is sickening is VIvienne's deliberate manner in which he not only attacked Vincent but he also attacked the other SDP members in Vincent's GRC team.

DO take note that VIvienne deliberately did not want to make any specific assertions but made a number of innuendos. Such behavior only hardens one's convictions against such a frail and callous individual.

We await for the events circa November 12 1993.
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
I see yr point about the doublespeak. By not coming across as anti-gay, the PAP wants to court the homophobic Christian vote. And by hinting/implying/highlighting VW's sexual orientation, they also hope to harvest the resentment from the conservative heartlandersto gay sex against the SDP in general?


What the Pappies are attempting to do indirectly court the homophobic Christian vote in Holland-BT by hinting at VW's homosexuality while denying that that is an issue. Typical doublespeak.

BTW, Vincent is openly gay. Hence the use of words like "ourselves", "us", etc.
 

ChaoPappyPoodle

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bz4TiRuhFNU

Looking at the youtube again it is very clear that Ravi wants to challenge the constitution from all fronts...including men having sex with young boys of 14 as this is practiced and OK in some parts of the world.....he kept uttering India, so I assume in certain parts of Indian villiages the law and customs do allow adult men to have sex with boys as young as 14......but hello, this is Singapore and I am writing in Canada! We do not condole even PEDOPHILE thoughts, period!
...

After reading your post what is clear is that you have added 2 and 2 and came up with a ridiculous number known as infinity! I read it as Vincent intervening Ravi and making it a point that not only Ravi but others should have a say in their issues. IOW, Vincent was in disagreement with Ravi's 14-year old issues.

And please take note that under Syariah Law, for Muslims in Singapore, age of consent is regarded as the age of puberty.
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
Welcome back bro. Havent heard from you for a while.

Fully agree with you. That will cover all bases.

All it takes is for VW to make a categoric statement denying any association and his stand on the age of consent and the wind will be out of PAP 's sail real quick. Not to hard isn't it.
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I see yr point about the doublespeak. By not coming across as anti-gay, the PAP wants to court the homophobic Christian vote. And by hinting/implying/highlighting VW's sexual orientation, they also hope to harvest the resentment from the conservative heartlandersto gay sex against the SDP in general?

Spot on.

And instil fear by implying that a gay activist might pursue a gay cause in parliament.

Hence the need for SDP to come out and say categorically, No, we will not pursue a gay agenda.
 
Last edited:

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
PAP slime alright. VB will receive kudos from Old Man.

Spot on.

And instil fear by implying that a gay activist might pursue a gay cause in parliament.

Hence the need for SDP to come out say categorically, No, we will not pursue a gay agenda.
 

sense

Alfrescian
Loyal
u mean the sam old delphi forum? yeah i find it funny because scroobal was very pro-pap then. when the forum was transferred by admin here, scroobal like change man. start to whack pap.
now he change again. :eek:

Perhaps he has boys at home and thus able to understand the situation here better.

You may understand this issue better when you have children of your own.

Forumers who are pro-Opposition, anti-PAP and anti-Singapore pitch differently - only obvious to the discerning ones.
o Anti-Singapore forumers hate anything that got to do with SG, think Nair (which btw, would be most surprising to me if he is not lurking in this forum)
o Anti-PAP forumers hate PAP, eg. CSJ
o Pro-opposition forumers are more balanced, they recognised that not all PAP policies are good for them and their loved ones.

Community.jpg
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Perhaps he has boys at home and thus able to understand the situation here better.

You may understand this issue better when you have children of your own.

What bollocks! You mean opposition supporters (whether pro-opposition or anti-PAP) have no children of their own?

BTW, I have kids too.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
The PAP did a detailed survey over and above what AG legislative draftmen did over the 377 affair. Gay or being Gay is not issue in this modern society. The bigots and the conservative lot are already within the 30% of hardcore PAP supporters and voters. The young ones who now form a significant portion of those with votes regard gays as part and parcel of society. In the PAPsurvey the desire was to reach out to the Gay community but were put off by the old time cadres.

What Viv B and the PAP are doing is called dog whistle politics and looks like Chee fell for it. As I said, the gay issue is not the issue or a showstopper. Its the age of consent.

Obviously VW wants to appeal to older and more conservative generation by not disclosing his orientation but it the consent/age issue that he has to address.

The trick is to take the issue out of PAP hand by having VW firmly stating that he is against the lowering the age for consent without even touching the gay issue. He should also state that from his very first speech in Hong Lim to now, he spoke and championed for the have-nots in society at large and at no time addressed any factional or specific issues pertaining to a single community. He should also go on the attack and castigate Viv B and the other 3 idiots about casting aspersions on his character.

Instead of stating the above, Chee straight went and addressed it as a gay issue.




I think VB is trying to force VW into saying he's gay or not gay. It's a catch 22 here. If VW says he will pursue, then it implies that he is gay. Innuendos have a powerful way with voters' conservative bias. VW should come out and say No he's not gay but he will/will not take up the gay agenda etc. Unless he is.
 
Last edited:

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Check out Vivian's statement again:


“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 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.


Chee had no choice but to come out and state categorically that SDP will not pursue the gay cause.

Vivian said Vincent's sexual orienation wasn't an issue. So Chee did not mention Vincent's sexuality at all.

Finally, the PAP team DID NOT ask the SDP or Vincent to clarify their stand on the age of consent. Chee could have added it in, but he didn't.

Doesn't matter. If Vivian pops the question on age of consent, I'm sure Vincent and Chee would gladly clarify where they stand.
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
[video=youtube;g21rxbH2nEU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g21rxbH2nEU[/video]

Text of speech:


Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has asked whether the SDP is pursuing a gay agenda. Let me state categorically, we are not pursuing gay agenda and none of our MPs will.

Our candidates have been selected because of their ability to serve you, the people of Singapore, as your representative in Parliament. They have stepped forward because they love this country, and they know Singaporeans yarn for an alternative voice in Parliament. That's the only agenda.

I know each and everyone of them and I am so proud of them. They are people of integrity and capability.

When we speak up, we do so for all Singaporeans, because we serve all Singaporeans, not just a segment of Singaporeans. At the very core of our country and national pledge is the creed that we do not discriminate against anyone, be it on the basis of the colour of their skin, the faiths in their hearts, whether they are young or old, or what their sexual orientation is.

This is why we are so disappointed that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has raised this issue in such a manner. He didn't have the courage to say what he really wanted to say first, and he was beating around the bush.

We call on Dr Balakrishnan not to continue in this manner. I can only hope that he will not adopt smear tactics in this campaign, and we ask him not to go down this road. We are better than that. We can disagree on policies and not resort to personal attack. Let's lead Singapore to a higher level of politics.

Dr Balakrishnan has asked us the question: Will the SDP pursue the gay cause? I answer forthrightly and without equivocation: No.

Now, I'd like to ask Dr Balakrishnan to reciprocate. Will he now make public the accounts of the YOG and debate our Holland Bukit Timah team? In the interest of transparency and accountability, we hope Dr Balakrishnan will not equivocate and accept our invitation.
 
Last edited:

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
That is the smoke screen to fool simpletons. The loaded dice is what is the gay agenda and that is what PAP wants the public to look. PAP is implying that is stated agenda and one of it carries the incendiary comment about the age of consent. You got to smarter than this when dealing with devious PAP.

I am sure by now you would realise that CPF is not a retirement fund but an escrow for medical and housing payments. But the PAP will tell you its the retirement fund. You need to think and not get caught out by simple paly of words.


Check out Vivian's statement again:


“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 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.


Chee had no choice but to come out and state categorically that SDP will not pursue the gay cause.

Vivian said Vincent's sexual orienation wasn't an issue. So Chee did not mention Vincent's sexuality at all.

Finally, the PAP team DID NOT ask the SDP or Vincent to clarify their stand on the age of consent. Chee could have added it in, but he didn't.

Doesn't matter. If Vivian pops the question on age of consent, I'm sure Vincent and Chee would gladly clarify where they stand.
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
People here generally associate the gay cause here with repealing Section 377A.

If, as you say, there's a connotation of age of consent, then let Vivian come out and say it. And let the SDP answer. No big deal.

As it stands, since they asked about the 'gay cause', Chee just answered to the point about the 'gay cause'.

Likewise, since Vivian said sexual orientation wasn't an issue, Chee refrained from referring to it too.

Address the issues raised concisely and dispassionately when dealing with PAP challenges and you'll avoid the Tang Liang Hong pitfall.
 
Last edited:

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
This was in 2003. As I said the govt have been very savvy and the issue is not gay. Look at the comment below. This has been the position of the Govt.

If VW is smart he will come out and state categorically that he is againts any lowering of the age for consent and he is not into parochial or sectarian issues. This is all the buzz and that is the intention of PAP and Viv. Only the less sophisticated think that we are still grappling with gay issue.

Guess what? There are also gays in the PAP.

Singapore will do "whatever it takes" to attract talent, says Vivian Balakrishnan, the government official in charge of the Remaking Singapore Committee. As part of that effort, repressive government policies previously enforced in the name of social stability are being relaxed. The city now boasts seven saunas catering almost exclusively to gay clients, for example, something unthinkable even a few years ago. There are a sprinkling of gay bars, and many dance clubs set aside one night each week for gay customers. Prime Minister Goh says his government now allows gay employees into its ranks, even in sensitive positions. The change in policy, inspired at least in part by the desire not to exclude talented foreigners who are gay, is being implemented without fanfare, Goh says, to avoid raising the hackles of more-conservative Singaporeans. "So let it evolve, and in time the population will understand that some people are born that way," Goh says. "We are born this way and they are born that way, but they are like you and me.
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Your take is that the PAP is concerned about the age of consent. Well, let them state it openly and let Vincent clarify.

My take is that there's no gay issue with the PAP, but Vivian is using it disingenuously to remind homophobic fundamentalists in his constituency about the dangers of voting for a gay guy, and the gay agenda he might bring with him. And throw in the 'strange bedfellows' bit for good measure.

That's the thrust of the smear campaign - to secure the conservative, largely Christian vote.
 
Top