The News
(Until further notice, all references here shall be made to the print edition of the newspapers.)
On this April Fool's Day, here are the more interesting things gleaned
Pg. 33: Chua Mui Hoong argues for "No double standards please, we're S'poreans". Thinks that the government gives leeway to foreigners to express themselves, while denying the same to Singaporeans. I quote:
"It's obvious that the permitting of double standards is Singapore's way of having its cake and eating it too. It wants a morally conservative society, yet aspires to be tolerant diverse and open enough to be a global talent capital"
"While some locals may be offended by 'odd things', the truth is that other locals want to be the ones doing 'odd things' too...I value the option for myself and fellow citizens to be able to do so."
I would go on to add that it is clear that, from the government's attitudes towards many issues, including the casino project, homosexual community, the film making industry, Myanmar's human rights abuses; indeed, from its ambiguous position on allowing foreign NGOs to stage protests against the IMF and the World Bank meetings next year, its primary interest is financial.
The government's policy seems to be to extract the maximum ounce of profit out of each and every one of the situations mentioned above, while appeasing the homophobic and/or anti-democratic prejudices of a powerful and/or vocal section of the population. How very ethical.
We have already noted, in the course of the discussions on this mailing list, the government's treatment of the homosexual community as nothing less than a cash cow to make sure that gay foreigners do not lack entertainment on this little island. Indeed, it could even be cynically postulated that the latest flurry of concern over HIV infections in the gay community would be primarily because they would cost the government more in terms of medicine and administration, and might even deter economically valuable foreigners who happen to be gay from coming here.
What about Myanmar? All that the Prime Minister has managed to convery in Myanmar is a soft hint that 'while Singapore does not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, in an interconnected world events in one country can have repercussions on Singapore and ASEAN'. Duh. But what else can we say? We already have our fingers deep in the tasty pie that is Myanmar; Singapore is one of the biggest investors in a country that America and the EU judiciously avoid associating with. Stronger diplomatic sanctions are likely to do harm to our economic interests in that country- the same people responsible for human rights abuses are also the same people who can approve or disapprove of our financial stakes in the country.
By the way, it has also been reported in the Straits Times today that Safehaven's appeal to the minister in charge of MICA, Mr Lee Boon Yang, to hold a fundraising concert for Aids programmes has been rejected. Primarily because one of the performers who they wanted to engage promotes a gay lifestyle, which would be oh-so detrimental to our conservative Asian values.
Well, having vice and whores on the doorstep of a residential area evidently never really crossed the minds of bureaucrats when they approved all the pub licences along Joo Chiat road. It was only after residents complained to their Member of Parliament, Mr Chan Soo Sen, that substantial police action came in to control this problem. But who made the approvals in the first place?
Were the government serious about removing sleaze from the public eye, it could always make a stronger stance in the case of Joo Chiat. But in their order of priorities, heterosexual vice is not as great a crime as the fact of being homosexual itself. So.
Finaly, it has also been reported in Today that JB Jeyaretnam's application to hold a demonstration against the casino has also been quashed by the police. As usual.
On this April Fool's Day, here are the more interesting things gleaned
Pg. 33: Chua Mui Hoong argues for "No double standards please, we're S'poreans". Thinks that the government gives leeway to foreigners to express themselves, while denying the same to Singaporeans. I quote:
"It's obvious that the permitting of double standards is Singapore's way of having its cake and eating it too. It wants a morally conservative society, yet aspires to be tolerant diverse and open enough to be a global talent capital"
"While some locals may be offended by 'odd things', the truth is that other locals want to be the ones doing 'odd things' too...I value the option for myself and fellow citizens to be able to do so."
I would go on to add that it is clear that, from the government's attitudes towards many issues, including the casino project, homosexual community, the film making industry, Myanmar's human rights abuses; indeed, from its ambiguous position on allowing foreign NGOs to stage protests against the IMF and the World Bank meetings next year, its primary interest is financial.
The government's policy seems to be to extract the maximum ounce of profit out of each and every one of the situations mentioned above, while appeasing the homophobic and/or anti-democratic prejudices of a powerful and/or vocal section of the population. How very ethical.
We have already noted, in the course of the discussions on this mailing list, the government's treatment of the homosexual community as nothing less than a cash cow to make sure that gay foreigners do not lack entertainment on this little island. Indeed, it could even be cynically postulated that the latest flurry of concern over HIV infections in the gay community would be primarily because they would cost the government more in terms of medicine and administration, and might even deter economically valuable foreigners who happen to be gay from coming here.
What about Myanmar? All that the Prime Minister has managed to convery in Myanmar is a soft hint that 'while Singapore does not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, in an interconnected world events in one country can have repercussions on Singapore and ASEAN'. Duh. But what else can we say? We already have our fingers deep in the tasty pie that is Myanmar; Singapore is one of the biggest investors in a country that America and the EU judiciously avoid associating with. Stronger diplomatic sanctions are likely to do harm to our economic interests in that country- the same people responsible for human rights abuses are also the same people who can approve or disapprove of our financial stakes in the country.
By the way, it has also been reported in the Straits Times today that Safehaven's appeal to the minister in charge of MICA, Mr Lee Boon Yang, to hold a fundraising concert for Aids programmes has been rejected. Primarily because one of the performers who they wanted to engage promotes a gay lifestyle, which would be oh-so detrimental to our conservative Asian values.
Well, having vice and whores on the doorstep of a residential area evidently never really crossed the minds of bureaucrats when they approved all the pub licences along Joo Chiat road. It was only after residents complained to their Member of Parliament, Mr Chan Soo Sen, that substantial police action came in to control this problem. But who made the approvals in the first place?
Were the government serious about removing sleaze from the public eye, it could always make a stronger stance in the case of Joo Chiat. But in their order of priorities, heterosexual vice is not as great a crime as the fact of being homosexual itself. So.
Finaly, it has also been reported in Today that JB Jeyaretnam's application to hold a demonstration against the casino has also been quashed by the police. As usual.
posted by Koh at 4/01/2005 03:19:00 pm
1 Comments:
Hahahaha, sure makes an interesting article.
Either this particular subset of the Chua sisters have been waiting for an opportune time to release all her angst or else she have already tak boleh tahan but fearing reprisals chose this particular date to publish it. Sure helps to leave some room for retraction.
To paraphrase chinese martial art movies, this is sure a "high move".
Post a Comment
<< Home