Have you seen the latest government reply to comments on foreign sponsorship of events like Pink Dot at the Speakers’ Corner?
One word. Bitchy.
This came after two commentators weighed in the Sunday Times after the Government made it clear that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence’ events at Speakers’ Corner.
(Full article here)
(Full article here)
The government must have had enough of it.
Truthfully we thought it was quite straight forward too and we have explained at length why foreign funding is an interference to Singapore here.
The reason is fairly simple – At the end of the day, we are the ones staying behind to pick up the pieces. These international companies can pack up and leave but you, I and our children will have to deal with the consequences.
Seems like the public is not letting the government have the last word on this issue. Instead of coming together to discuss and reach a common space, opinion editor Chua Mui Hong chose to highlight the grey areas in MHA rules.
(Really?, I thought like the 377A, it was a don’t ask, don’t tell understanding. With these grey areas highlighted, you can be sure the government will just make their rules more explicit and clamp on them further)
Another commentary by Mr Han Fook Kwang gave a philosophical remark that “while politics remain off limits to foreigners, the politics itself has already changed”
(What on earth does this even mean!)
We thought the intent of their initial explanation was as clear as day, instead MHA had to re-explain everything again
This has nothing to do with closing ourselves off from foreign views on social issues or hindering our ability to learn from others. There is no lack of opportunities or avenues for Singaporeans to learn from others. The Straits Times’ pages, for instance, are full of features and op-eds from foreign sources; and its columnists are assiduous in informing us of our shortcomings and how we can learn from others.But that does not mean we should allow foreigners or foreign entities to participate directly in our debates or actively shape how we make political, social or moral choices, including on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues.
If the foreign entity wishes, say, to promote inclusiveness and diversity among its staff, as many do, the Government has no objection.
But if the foreign entity were to actively support, in the public sphere, a particular position on a socially divisive matter like LGBT rights, the Government must step in to object.
It is about time the Singapore government acts more like her people and show them that that Bertha does not have a monopoly on bitchiness.