PAP's statement on Wijeysingha disappointing
Letter from Li Shi-En, Lisa
02:55 AM Apr 26, 2011
I refer to the TODAYonline article "PAP on Wijeysingha video: Candidates should be upfront about motives" (April 25). The PAP team, led by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, said in a statement on April 25 that a YouTube video shows SDP candidate Dr Vincent Wijeysingha at a forum discussing gay issues. Dr Balakrishnan added that the video "promotes gay causes" and that this "raises the question on whether Dr Wijeysingha will now pursue this cause in the political arena and what is the SDP's position on the matter".
Firstly, I am surprised that Dr Balakrishnan does not know SDP's position on the matter because the party has always been upfront about its stand. Its vision is that "as a nation, we must not only show tolerance but also acceptance of our fellow citizens regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or political persuasion". In October 2007, the SDP also publicly supported the call to repeal 377A in accordance with its party principles. All this information is on their website, and Singaporeans who take their voting seriously already know this.
Secondly, I am not sure what Dr Balakrishnan means by "pursuing this cause in the political arena". If he is referring to the possibility of Dr Wijeysingha (or any other politician) raising the issue of 377A in Parliament, that is only to be expected at some point in the future, not because of Dr Wijeysingha's personal sexual orientation or alleged personal cause, but because of SDP's clearly-stated vision for an inclusive Singapore.
I am keen to elect politicians who are able to articulate sound, thoughtful and diverse views for discussion on any number of issues in Parliament, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. As such, I am disappointed that Dr Balakrishnan paints such a negative picture of MPs "pursuing causes in the political arena". Isn't that what we are voting them in for? In any case, one Dr Wijeysingha in Parliament will hardly swing the votes and abolish 377A, if the majority of politicians and Singaporeans are against this move.
Thirdly, Dr Balakrishnan describes the video's forum discussion as having touched on topics like "sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age". This is a very misleading description. Viewers of the video will know that the forum speaker mentions the different age of consent for different countries, for example Sweden, where the age of consent for sex is 15 years (the speaker mistakenly says 14 years). However, not a single one of the forum participants proceed to discuss whether Singapore's age of consent should be lowered or not, which suggests that this was never their aim.
Finally, Dr Balakrishnan says that the video "promotes gay causes". What exactly is the "gay cause"? If gay men wanting to remove the clause that criminalises their private behaviour is the "gay cause" that Dr Balakrishnan refers to, this video could equally be described as one that supports basic human rights - the right for gay men not to be classified as criminals in Singapore. In the days of apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela was jailed for fighting for the "black cause"; nowadays, we refer to this as equality.
During the April live political debate on Channel NewsAsia, Dr Wijeysingha showed Singaporeans that he is an articulate, capable speaker who is passionate for social justice. My opinion of him has not changed.
However, I am saddened by the appearance of such gutter politics from one of our Ministers and his PAP teammates, Mr Christopher De Souza, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Sim Ann, who signed off on this misleading statement. Instead of showing us why they are better leaders for Singapore or engaging the Opposition on policy differences, they have resorted to a smear campaign based on a Youtube video posted by an anonymous netizen.
<noscript>
</noscript>
<ins style="display: inline-table; border: medium none; height: 60px; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 468px;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="display: block; border: medium none; height: 60px; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 468px;"></ins></ins>
<input value="PAP's statement on Wijeysingha disappointing" id="hdnArticleTitle" type="hidden"> talkback
1 - 3 of 23 responses to "PAP's statement on Wijeysingha disappointing"
Hah?
Updated 08:59 AM April 26, 2011
"Gays are people after all. BUT I am against gay rights like gay marriage,sex etc."
If gays are people and people have sex and get married, why can't gay people have sex and get married?
Your thinking is warped!
Report Abuse
Matt
Updated 08:55 AM April 26, 2011
@Lawrence
For me human rights are simple...freedom of speech and not to be discriminated against at work, and equal opportunities etc. Gays are people after all. BUT I am against gay rights like gay marriage,sex etc. I do not want the party I vote in to fight for this cause. I want to hear DIRECTLY from Dr Ang Yong Guan, Ms Michelle Leea and Mr Tan Jee Say on what they feel on this matter, and if Dr W should pursue gay rights (defined above), would the 3 of them follow suit or go against him. I want to vote for them because I think they are capable more than Dr VB's team and I agree with the plans they have for sg. But I also have personal convictions that I do not want to compromise.
Report Abuse
Charles
Updated 08:52 AM April 26, 2011
Vivian Balakrishnan first broached on the subject (of the video) as a reference to Tan Jee Say not exercising due dilligence before joining the SDP. Now that the subject matter is out, it really begs the question - is Vivian B. trying to tell Singaporeans NOT to join or support a party that is open-minded enough to discuss gay rights?
Frankly, I am hugely disappointed.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Letter from Li Shi-En, Lisa
02:55 AM Apr 26, 2011
I refer to the TODAYonline article "PAP on Wijeysingha video: Candidates should be upfront about motives" (April 25). The PAP team, led by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, said in a statement on April 25 that a YouTube video shows SDP candidate Dr Vincent Wijeysingha at a forum discussing gay issues. Dr Balakrishnan added that the video "promotes gay causes" and that this "raises the question on whether Dr Wijeysingha will now pursue this cause in the political arena and what is the SDP's position on the matter".
Firstly, I am surprised that Dr Balakrishnan does not know SDP's position on the matter because the party has always been upfront about its stand. Its vision is that "as a nation, we must not only show tolerance but also acceptance of our fellow citizens regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or political persuasion". In October 2007, the SDP also publicly supported the call to repeal 377A in accordance with its party principles. All this information is on their website, and Singaporeans who take their voting seriously already know this.
Secondly, I am not sure what Dr Balakrishnan means by "pursuing this cause in the political arena". If he is referring to the possibility of Dr Wijeysingha (or any other politician) raising the issue of 377A in Parliament, that is only to be expected at some point in the future, not because of Dr Wijeysingha's personal sexual orientation or alleged personal cause, but because of SDP's clearly-stated vision for an inclusive Singapore.
I am keen to elect politicians who are able to articulate sound, thoughtful and diverse views for discussion on any number of issues in Parliament, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. As such, I am disappointed that Dr Balakrishnan paints such a negative picture of MPs "pursuing causes in the political arena". Isn't that what we are voting them in for? In any case, one Dr Wijeysingha in Parliament will hardly swing the votes and abolish 377A, if the majority of politicians and Singaporeans are against this move.
Thirdly, Dr Balakrishnan describes the video's forum discussion as having touched on topics like "sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age". This is a very misleading description. Viewers of the video will know that the forum speaker mentions the different age of consent for different countries, for example Sweden, where the age of consent for sex is 15 years (the speaker mistakenly says 14 years). However, not a single one of the forum participants proceed to discuss whether Singapore's age of consent should be lowered or not, which suggests that this was never their aim.
Finally, Dr Balakrishnan says that the video "promotes gay causes". What exactly is the "gay cause"? If gay men wanting to remove the clause that criminalises their private behaviour is the "gay cause" that Dr Balakrishnan refers to, this video could equally be described as one that supports basic human rights - the right for gay men not to be classified as criminals in Singapore. In the days of apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela was jailed for fighting for the "black cause"; nowadays, we refer to this as equality.
During the April live political debate on Channel NewsAsia, Dr Wijeysingha showed Singaporeans that he is an articulate, capable speaker who is passionate for social justice. My opinion of him has not changed.
However, I am saddened by the appearance of such gutter politics from one of our Ministers and his PAP teammates, Mr Christopher De Souza, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Sim Ann, who signed off on this misleading statement. Instead of showing us why they are better leaders for Singapore or engaging the Opposition on policy differences, they have resorted to a smear campaign based on a Youtube video posted by an anonymous netizen.
<noscript>
<ins style="display: inline-table; border: medium none; height: 60px; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 468px;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="display: block; border: medium none; height: 60px; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 468px;"></ins></ins>
<input value="PAP's statement on Wijeysingha disappointing" id="hdnArticleTitle" type="hidden"> talkback
1 - 3 of 23 responses to "PAP's statement on Wijeysingha disappointing"
Hah?
Updated 08:59 AM April 26, 2011
"Gays are people after all. BUT I am against gay rights like gay marriage,sex etc."
If gays are people and people have sex and get married, why can't gay people have sex and get married?
Your thinking is warped!
Report Abuse
Matt
Updated 08:55 AM April 26, 2011
@Lawrence
For me human rights are simple...freedom of speech and not to be discriminated against at work, and equal opportunities etc. Gays are people after all. BUT I am against gay rights like gay marriage,sex etc. I do not want the party I vote in to fight for this cause. I want to hear DIRECTLY from Dr Ang Yong Guan, Ms Michelle Leea and Mr Tan Jee Say on what they feel on this matter, and if Dr W should pursue gay rights (defined above), would the 3 of them follow suit or go against him. I want to vote for them because I think they are capable more than Dr VB's team and I agree with the plans they have for sg. But I also have personal convictions that I do not want to compromise.
Report Abuse
Charles
Updated 08:52 AM April 26, 2011
Vivian Balakrishnan first broached on the subject (of the video) as a reference to Tan Jee Say not exercising due dilligence before joining the SDP. Now that the subject matter is out, it really begs the question - is Vivian B. trying to tell Singaporeans NOT to join or support a party that is open-minded enough to discuss gay rights?
Frankly, I am hugely disappointed.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
