Posts Tagged ‘Pink Dot’

LGBT rights campaigner happy that gays suffer UK court defeat

In Uncategorized on 31/10/2018 at 9:56 am

In the UK, Peter Tatchell is a LGBT rights campaigner that has campaigned for yrs and yrs for LBGT rights, but recently he upset many gays when he welcomed a court decision that many gays and their opponents took as a defeat for the cause.

In Gays versus Taliban Christians etc I wrote

[W]e have Pink Dot and friends who are calling for boycott of IKEA here ( for being gay “unfriendly”. And the u/m shows gay overreach in the UK where gay marriages are legal:

“Gay prejudicing,” is the Sun’s headline to the story about a Christian-run bakery being found guilty of discrimination after refusing to decorate a cake with the slogan “support gay marriage”.

For the Express, it’s “hardly a victory for common sense or for live-and-let-live… Since when is it a crime for a private company to turn down work?”

The Mail says that Belfast Judge Isobel Brownlie might have been applying the letter of the law but argues it raises questions about the balance between gay and religious rights. “Indeed, it highlights the argument for a conscience clause, protecting believers from being forced to go against the teachings of their faith,” it says.

Given that the bakers had not refused to serve the customer because he was gay but because its owners disagreed with the slogan, the Daily Telegraph asks whether the bakery’s stance was “discrimination against gays or an assertion of the right to free speech?”

It adds: “Imagine if a Muslim printer was forced to produce a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed.”

Well recently, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Christian-owned bakery in Northern Ireland that refused to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage, which remains illegal in the province. Peter Tatchell said it was “a victory for common sense” upsetting many gays.

I like the judges reasoning. The judges found that the bakers

— had not refused to serve the customer who ordered the cake on the basis of his sexuality; and

— so were justified on free-speech grounds in not baking the message he wanted displayed on it.

The militant gays were saying that the refusal to make a cake with the ordered slogan was the same as putting out a landlord putting out a sign saying

No blacks or Irish need apply

This is illegal in the UK, though not here.

The judges put paid to that line of reasoning by saying that the bakers had not discriminated against customer who ordered the cake on the basis of his sexuality, and so were entitled to refuse to bake a cake with the slogan the hay wanted.

S377A: Ex-ST tua kee thinks Christians won’t harm him?

In Media on 29/09/2018 at 10:09 am

But Muslims might attack him?

This ex-ST tua kee is picking on Christians and Christianity (despite his name), or is ignorant on the views of Muslims on being gay (it’s haram); or has no balls because he’s afraid of a Jihadist attack if he talks about Muslims opposing the repeal of S377A: most likely the last methinks given the way ST behaves towards the bullies. Remember what George Yeo once infamously said, “Christians are less likely to riot”?

Alan John

In 2009 I was a senior editor at The Straits Times when I asked one of the best reporters in the newsroom to find out what happened at Aware, because the respected women’s association had been taken over at its AGM by a mysterious group of new members. I remain proud of that story, because it uncovered how self-righteous people in our midst will take it upon themselves to force their beliefs and values on everyone else, and they will use all means possible.

The Straits Times broke the story that came to be dubbed The Aware Saga, and it was not easy. The paper was criticised for having “a homosexual agenda”. The writer who broke the story was attacked viciously for being gay. There were powerful people in and outside of Singapore Press Holdings who asked senior editors what the paper was up to in its unrelenting coverage and for exposing the Christians who took over Aware in that stealth operation. A senior government official called our coverage “breathless” and that seemed like a big hint that perhaps we had better pull back or stop.

Thankfully, I worked to a good editor, Han Fook Kwang, who was not Christian but was deeply offended that a group of people would use their religion to impose their values on a non-religious organisation operating in Singapore’s common secular space. He let me do my best with the story, and our reporters – straight, gay, Christian and non-Christian – pursued the story as best we could. Fook Kwang gave it the space and prominence it deserved and took some heat for that.

The original leadership of Aware eventually ousted the Christian usurpers in an extraordinary general meeting that was nothing short of historic for civil society in Singapore. And still, as the editor who assigned the story and for many of my colleagues, we did not know if we would end up being criticised for “going overboard”. Nobody came out to thump us on our backs or say Well Done. For some reason we remained a little fearful, and felt we had to keep our heads down. We had to be mindful that although we helped Aware return to its rightful leadership, we ought not risk offending the losing side because they were influential, well-organised, articulate and capable of giving even the powerful a fright.

For a long time afterwards, ST continued to be accused of having that “gay agenda”. If the paper ran stories about LGBT issues – or once, for saying in a story that Elton John had arrived with his husband and child – a letter would come, accusing ST of trying to “normalise” gay marriage and destroy the institution of marriage. Online there were people who tracked examples of the paper’s “gay agenda” to expose its motivations.

Nine years have passed since the Aware Saga. The current debate over 377A bears all the hallmarks of what happened in 2009. There is a loud and powerful call to keep this law. Because he spoke up for the wrong side, Tommy Koh has been called gay or “must have gay grandchildren”. Someone called me an asshole for criticising the Catholic Archbishop for the Church’s position on 377A. The Christians speak up most authoritatively, convinced of the need to safeguard family values and avoid “the slippery slope.” Some of the same people who figured in the stealthy takeover of Aware appear to be invested in current efforts to retain this bad law. They learnt nothing in 2009, they remain as steadfast, maybe even more so, in their desire to protect all of Singapore from sin and sinfulness as defined in their holy book.

I read ST’s editorial today and it appears to hope that Singapore’s courts will do the right thing in 2018 and remind us all, once again and clearly, that this is not a Christian country. This country provides religious people of all faiths so much freedom to promote their religions, explain their beliefs, woo new believers and speak up as strongly as they like against sin in their houses of worship. I am proud of that freedom in this country, which many of us take for granted. But today, as in 2009, this is not a Christian country and 377A is simply a wrong law to keep. Doing away with it will disappoint one side, but this gay sex debate will end. Keeping it means we remain on opposite sides and this “war” goes on.

FB post


Winning hearts and minds for s377A repeal

In Uncategorized on 12/09/2018 at 10:42 am

The LGBT community and allies have wasted no time in starting to campaign for the repeal of s377A.

I hope they listen to what a Mr Shahani, author of the 2008 book Gay Bombay: Globalisation, Love and (Be)longing in Contemporary India, says about winning “hearts and minds” of the public.

“I don’t think India is homophobic as much as it’s ignorant and we are also fixated on the idea of heterosexual marriage. It’s about widening people’s minds to the idea of love in all its forms.”

Those of us who are boh chap on the issue are joking that we’ll be labeled homophobic for juz being boh chap.

Pink Dot photo describes to a T the S’pore Harry designed and constructed

In Political governance on 02/07/2017 at 6:04 am

This was posted on FB by Jolovan Wham, a Jedi who fights for the rights and dignity of migrant workers.

Image may contain: 3 people, people standing, tree and outdoor

I mock Harry’s younger children’s rants about the abuse of power, the absence of “checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government”, and the lack of media freedom as BS because what they are ranting about is the natural consequence of the defacto one-party state that their Pa built with the overwhelming support of S’poreans. Remember that once upon a time, the PAP won 86.7% of the popular vote in the 1968 general election, and they have never had less than 60% of the popular vote in a general election. They often had 70% and more.

The only time the PAP could have “lost” was in presidential election 2011 (their preferred candidate won by about 3000 votes), but dadly the anti-PAP voters voted for two RI opportunists and deprived an honourable, decent RI boy of a famous victory. The 30% and the two RI opportunists betrayed S’poreans, and the PAP dudn’t even have to pay them. They betrayed S’pore for free.

As for the two spoiled kids, they only screamed when they were ignored by the governing system their Pa installed.

Three cheers for our LGBTs

In Uncategorized on 14/06/2017 at 10:52 am

Our LGBTs are more tolerant than ang moh ones.

But first, no wonder the PAP administration wants to curn foreign influence. In the US, LBGTs are not tolerant of the wider community it seems.

US clothing brand Abercrombie and Fitch has attracted an online backlash with a tweet seen by many as implying Gay Pride is not just for gay people.

The tweet, which has since been deleted, read: “The Pride community is everybody, not just LGBTQ people. – Kayla, merchandiser.”

June is being celebrated as Pride Month around the world, with parades in Los Angeles, Athens, and Rome among others.

The aim is to celebrate the gay community and fight for LGBTQ rights.

In S’pore Pink Dot has made it clear that the Pink Dot event is for all S’poreans. They would agree with Abercrombie and Fitch’s “The Pride community is everybody, not just LGBTQ people.”

Our LGBT community has not been influenced by the ang mohs’ intolerance.

Here’s another example of how tolerant they (even “Christ-like” they are)

We have noticed significant strong language revolving around Pink Dot’s advertisement at Cathay Cineleisure Orchard, and note especially the hostility aimed at Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore’s (ASAS) chairman. While we appreciate the outpouring of love and support for our advertisements, we are mindful that responding with hate and vitriol would not make us better than those who seek to discriminate. Instead, let us respond with love and rise above all these divisive statements.

We reiterate our invitation to dialogue with ASAS and look forward to hearing from them.

 Let’s hope that Brendan Chong, a SDP activist, fails in his attemots to fix Pink Dot.


SDP activist trying hard to fix Pink Dot organisers

In Uncategorized on 03/06/2017 at 5:51 pm

Further to this, Brendan Chong (he says he admires Mad Dog Chee and I’ve seen evidence that he’s a SDP member and activist), has another suggestion to cause trouble at Pink Dot.

Much easier than my previous suggestion. Just make sure you look like that person (or at least bear some resemblance)

Brendan Chong

I have a better idea for Pink Dot SG. Borrow someone else’s IC to gain entry. Afterall, organisers are not law enforcement, so showing another person’s IC is not an offence.

When it was pointed out that unauthorised use of NRIC is illegal. In the case of PD, he argued that no particulars are recorded, so OK to break the law because got no evidence. Err what if police now ask organisers to record everyone’s details?

An administrator of the group he belonged to responded

I think PD would benefit more if Brendan stays away (or is kept away for that matter) from further shenanigans related to breaching laws to “help” PD.

To help the Pink Dot organisers, there’s a photo of the SDP activist above. I don’t want trouble at Pink Dot because I have a friend (straight and married) who will be speaking there.

Whatever, his behaviour is evidence that the SDP is a double-headed snake when it comes to gays. I pointed out here that

While the party is supposedly gay friendly: at election time, it regularly fields hard line Muslims who openly attack LGBTs. One of them was even SDP chairman. The PAP doesn’t do such things. But then SDP is led by Mad Dog Chee.

Pink Dot: With friend like this Pink Dot doesn’t need enemies

In Uncategorized on 01/06/2017 at 10:40 am

Read what Brendan Chong posted on FB. Is he “inciting violence” Or at the very least encouraging people to break the law?

No he’s not a Christian or Muslim whacko but someone who says he’s a progressive (i.e, LGBT friendly). He is alleged to be a member of the SDP.

Brendan Chong

Regarding Pink Dot SG: We cannot take this infringement lying down. This is going too far in our already tightly restricted environment for freedom of expression. This new measure as a result of a new law is totally undeserved, unjustified and an unprovoked measure towards the LGBT community. Past Pinkdots have proceeded smoothly without any law and order issue. I think we should respond by setting up picnics outside of the Speaker’s Corner boundaries to welcome those who want to keep our allies and LGBT friends company without an IC. (foreigner’s included) It may be illegal, but hey we must hold our ground and not compromise. Im sure many of us do not wish to take the law in our own hands, but times like this makes it absolutely necessary. If the police arrest us, the world will see us for what Singapore is. Xenophobia, coming from the govt the very first time. It would look bad on us in BBC, Reuters and CNN. Nevermind that Singapore welcome foreigners to work here only.

(Emphasis mine)

He was taken to task for his comments about breaking the law, and after behaving like a Yaya Papaya (he said he expected someone to report his post to the police) he backtracked
What’s wrong with gathering outside the venue to watch the concert if we cant get in? The law breaking part is only an inadvertant side effect. The main purpose is to catch the show or a glimpse of it. Do it by all means necessary.
Mad Dog Chee must be proud of him.

LGBTs, don’t KPKB so much about Pink Dot

In Uncategorized on 26/05/2017 at 3:17 pm

In Indonesia, save in Acheh, gay sex is not prohibited yet 141 men at a gay sauna were arrested in the capital, Jakarta, and similar arrests in the city of Surabaya were made, shrinking the space for Indonesian’s LGBT community.

Here u only cannot get foreign money for Pink Dot and your foreign anal buddies cannot join u at Pink Dot, a once a year LGBT picxk-up event.

Otherwise s377A criminalising yr anal activities is ignored.

Vote PAP.

And don’t ever vote SDP. While the party is supposedly gay friendly: at election time, it regularly fields hard line Muslims who openly attack LGBTs. One of them was even SDP chairman. The PAP doesn’t do such things. But then SDP is led by Mad Dog Chee.

Civil society, not juz LGBTs, are being victimised

In Political governance on 19/05/2017 at 4:35 am

The PAP administration is not singling out for bullying those with different sexual tastes. They are targeting all S’poreans who do not hold the “right” views.

So the LGBTs should stop KPKBing that they are being victimised, and trying to appease the PAP by saying some gays are “politicising” the movement, not them.

Hey guys by taking ang moh money and then successfullyraising funds locally when the ang moh avenue was closed, u guys were taking on the PAP authorities:

A successful NGO is a threat to the PAP

(Related post: Would this happen in a one-party state?)

A wannabe Jedi (from NTU’s School of Journalism who trained under a wannabe Seth Lordess turned traitor) posted this recently. Give him a fistbum.

Ng Yi-Sheng

A friend wrote this:

“Having read others’ criticisms of the prohibition of non-citizens from participating in this year’s Pink Dot, I am worried as much by the legislative amendment as the responses to this news, which seem to have comfortably but troublingly framed this as yet another example of how the LGBT community is targeted/ discriminated.

It isn’t. The amendment will affect every single assembly at Hong Lim Park. What this means is, when a rally is organised in solidarity with the Bersih, umbrella or saffron movement, the Malaysians, Hong Kongers and Burmese living in Singapore will not be able to participate. What this is is not so much an example of discrimination against the LGBT community but an example of the state flexing its muscles against civil society, narrowing the already-narrow space we have to contribute to a participative democracy.

The more fundamental question here is whether non-citizens deserve the right to freedom of assembly, to participate in political free speech and expression. This goes back not only to the November 2016 amendment of the Public Order (Unrestricted Areas) Order, but the framing of our Constitution: Article 14 is the only fundamental liberty that is reserved to citizens. In comparison, such constitutional rights, like the freedom of religion, are conferred to every person.

While emotive and appealing to get people up arms, I think it is troublingly distracting and unhelpful to characterise the current circumstances as discriminatory against the LGBT community.

Firstly, Pink Dot itself was an enactment of homonationalism itself and it just seems confusing to me that one can be outraged that foreigners are prohibited from participating when the meaning of that thing they are now prohibited from was never meant to include them. The colour pink was selected because as explained in Pink Dot’s About page, it is “the colour of our ICs and the colour when you mix red and white – the colours of our national flag”. (This issue definitely merits much deeper analysis, but I’ll just leave it for now.)

Secondly, if the attendance at Pink Dot was meant to convince the state of the increasing support for the LGBT community so that it would more likely repeal s 377A, this upcoming Pink Dot will provide, if well-attended, the strongest evidence yet. In my view, previous years’ participation by non-citizens and giant MNCs served a different purpose: to signal to the population, not the state, of the changing global attitudes. Seen in this way, isn’t the new amendment more helpful to the movement strategically? Of course, the only caveat is that citizens and PRs must now do their “civic duty” to participate in Pink Dot.

Lastly, the state has repeatedly emphasised its reasons for maintaining this less-than-balanced balance between the LGBT and conservative religious communities through pronouncements by Ministers and MPs alike in Parliament, at public talks and international interviews. The maintenance of religious harmony is of utmost and critical importance to the state, and it is not as much bigoted or malicious towards the LGBT community as it is striking a balance or compromise it deems fair to sustain the precarious “social stability” it has achieved thus far.

It seems therefore counterproductive for us to play into the imagined dichotomy of the state – that we are against “we are against pinkdot”/ FCBC/ Wear White as if we are two monolithic categories that are irreconcilably at odds with each other. It does not have to be this way; I believe this binary can be dismantled through a more mindful engagement with both the state and other parts of society. The goal cannot be to silence, convert or ‘win over’ these more oppositional groups in society (as we would do with the more ambivalent/ apathetic 80%) that they have to or should accept that homosexuality is not a sin but to live in a plural society where we can live with differences and disagreement.

Ultimately, this incident was yet another example of the reactionary character of our movement and as much as such tactics have served us well over the past many years to gain attention and raise awareness, it might be time to move towards a more calculated mode of advocacy. The “other side” might think that we are engaged in the culture war of this decade, and that is precisely how it succeeds in preserving the status quo. I believe we would be mistaken to do the same; rather, the only way we will win this “war” is when we can show that this is in fact not a war.

(I may have missed out other important aspects in my analysis and would love to hear what others think about this, as I have been mulling over it since the news broke to much agony!)”

 (Err didn’t ask permission to use this.)

Empire strikes back delivering mortal blow to Pink Dot?

In Political governance on 16/05/2017 at 4:37 am

Putting Organising Committe’s asses on the line. As my FB avatar put it “Forcing organisers to check ics isit? Then if one FT there, arrest organisers isit?”. (Explanation below for the blur.)

Siew Kum Hong (Remember him?) replied “those are the implied threats”.

But let’s begin at the beginning,

Here I wrote after congragulating the Pink Dot othanisers of getting rid of their ang moh tua kee mentality and trying to raise money from locals only

But the LGBT community should not be taking their pants off and treating themselves to a sexual orgy as a pat on the back. There’s trouble ahead. I’ll talk cock about this some other day.

I never got round to talking cock on the issue, but we now know how the Empire Struck Back

Pink Dot 2017: Foreigners not allowed to attend annual LGBT pride event due to new changes to regulation

My foreboding was because in words of FB comment by someone

“Pink Dot’s success* is an indication that we need to reconsider the traditional approach towards the relationship between the government and civil society, and recognize the importance of civil society in bringing forward meaningful change in a pluralistic world.”

Or as my FB avatar responding to the news that Pink Dot met its funding target*

Well done Pink Dot organisers for getting rid of idea that only ang mohs tua kee. And well done local donors for showing that not all S’poreans are cheap skates. And the LGBT community should get on their knees and thank the PAP. Without the actions of the PAP administration, there would be many S’poreans (self included) who doubted that Pink Dot had local roots. But beware everyone, in a de facto one party state, the ruling party hates other groups that can organise without its co-operation.

As I wrote in Keeping power in a one-party state

Again, while not exactly true here “Fear of competing narratives makes it drive some of China’s brightest and best into exile or jail” the PAP’s fear of competing narratives has stifled society here largely thru self censorship and self blinkered minds.

A successful NGO is a threat to the PAP or the CCP.

( Related post: Would this happen in a one-party state?)

BBC report on the exclusion of FTs: and this from 2013 on growing official and community acceptance of LGBTs


*In just six weeks, Pink Dot has surpassed its own targets, raising over $201,000 and attracting 103 local sponsors. It was forced to turn to local funding after the government introduced a controversial ban on foreign sponsorship, which threatened the event’s success.

Will PAP allow HSBC to introduce Mx here?

In Banks on 04/04/2017 at 4:56 am

If HSBC introduces Mx here, it’ll be the bank of choice for LGBTs. The Guardian reports from the UK, where HSBC, like in HK, is a tua kee retail bank 56that also owns First Direct, an internet only bank with 1.35m customers.

HSBC is to offer its transgender community a choice of 10 new gender-neutral titles as part of its plan to improve the banking experience for customers.

The banks says its account holders will no longer have to use conventional titles such as Mr, Mrs and Ms, but instead be able to choose from a long list that includes Mx, Ind, M, Mre, and Misc. HSBC said titles chosen would be applied across customers’ accounts, including on their bank cards and all correspondence.

HSBC’s new honorifics are:

Ind (abbreviation of individual)
Mx (pronounced “mix” or “mux”)
Misc (for miscellaneous)
Mre (for mystery)
Msr (a mix of miss/sir)
Pr (prounced “per”, for person)
Sai (pronounced “sigh”)
Ser (pronounced “sair”).

Ang moh tua kee mentality of Pink Dot Organisers

In Uncategorized on 28/03/2017 at 11:15 am

What a bunch of wanking buggers who only saw ang mohs as their only sponsors. Ang moh tua kee isit? Sad.

Although I’m very happy  that the movement has local supporters that are happy to sponsor the event (so unlike the cheapskates that populate TRELand always claiming poverty when TRE asks for donations).

With four months to go before its annual rally to support the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, Pink Dot has raised 70 per cent of the total sponsorship dollars it got last year.

This is even though foreign companies – the majority of its sponsors in the past – can no longer fund events at the Speakers’ Corner unless they have a permit.

I feel sad after reading the SunT article entitled “Local firms throw weight, dollars behind Pink Dot”. This makes it clear that the organisers didn’t think they could get local money to replace ang moh *.

Pink Dot spokesman Paerin Choa told SunT

“We were a bit worried whether there would be enough support from local companies to fill the vacuum left by the MNCs.”**

Pink Dot, now in its ninth year, had intended to run this year’s event “bare bones”, like its first one in 2009.

This showed that the organisers didn’t think the movement had local roots? Or more likely that the LGBT community was full of freeloaders (like the TRE community) who valued it only as a free and easy way of picking up sexual partners (in the case of TRE cybernuts, TRE gives them a platform to KPKB about the PAP administration free of charge).

Whatever, it took an outsider to show that locals could raise money for the LGBT movement.

Mr Darius Cheung, 36, founder of property start-up, who sent Pink Dot a message saying: “We are a small start-up but we want to help.”

Mr Cheung, a Singaporean, then rounded up tech entrepreneurs he knew to reach out to local firms. He also volunteered to front the Red Dot for Pink Dot campaign and build its website through which companies can sponsor.

The campaign hopes to rope in 100 corporate sponsors, and to raise $150,000 in all.

Good for him and the other sponsors. But the LGBT community should not be taking their pants off and treating themselves to a sexual orgy as a pat on the back. There’s trouble ahead. I’ll talk cock about this some other day.


*Last October, the Ministry of Home Affairs made clear that only local entities can sponsor, promote or get its employees to participate in events at the Speakers’ Corner. To be considered local, companies need to be incorporated or registered here, and be majority-controlled by Singaporeans.
**My take on this last year.

Apple’s deafening silence on Pink Dot

In Uncategorized on 29/10/2016 at 2:32 pm

Is Apple really ar qua in the sense of wimpy and sissy not the “T” in LGBT?

While Google’s walking the talk on LGBTs (by applying to be alowed to be a sponsor region’s biggest pick-up event of 2017, Apple is silent despite its boss being gay and proud of it.

In the FT, Tim Bradshaw wrote when the EU Commission said Apple owed billions (US$14.5bn ) in taxes: “The damning verdict and huge headline bill from Brussels could tarnish [chief executive] Tim Cook’s efforts to position the company as a defender of civil rights and bastion of social responsibility.”

Double confirm that with the silence here.

Is Apple really ar qua in not walking the talk? What do u think?



Google: ang moh biz that walked the talk

In Uncategorized on 28/10/2016 at 5:02 am

Or why when my handphone won’t work when S’pore stops 2G service next year, I’ll get a Google Pixel.

Taz the least that I can do when Google, has pledged its commitment to the Pink Dot event (Let me be clear, I’m a singleton but I’m not a LGBT and if I were I certainly shout it out over the roof-tops. )

“We’ve been proud supporters of Pink Dot since 2011 and we will continue to show our commitment to diversity and inclusion. So, we will apply for a permit to support Pink Dot in 2017 if required by this new regulation. We hope that these new rules will not limit public discussion on important issues,” said a Google spokesperson on Friday (Oct 21).

As I wrote last year

Let’s see if these ang mohs got balls and walk the talk, or kowtow because there’s good money to be made here. From their responses so far (They followed the S’porean practice of sitting down and shutting up), they’ll kowtow. In particular, the three investment bank sponsors (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Barclays) are always after SWFs, TLC and GLCs biz

MNCs behaving like their local fans

An FT columnist wrote:

I contacted the 10 most prominent sponsors to ask whether they planned to support Pink Dot next year. Barclays, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BP, Bloomberg and Twitter said they had nothing to say.

Facebook and Apple did not reply. Google said: “We’ve been proud supporters of Pink Dot since 2011.”

GE said: “We respectfully voice our support for equality in countries where we do business, consistent with governing laws and customs.”

Neither said whether it would support the event next year.

And here’s a constructive, nation-building suggestion for the organising committee. Show S’poreans that the LGBT movement here is not a vover for a CIA or MI6 plot to subvert our Asian values: crowd source money from locals and publicise the amounts raised.

But this could backfire because I’m sure the LGBT crowd here are real S’poreans: cheapos not willing to pay for the biggest pick-up event in the region: a region where homosexuality is haram and where unlike S’pore people can be killed for being LGBT.

Thinking about it, the LGBTs should be a solid vote bank for the PAP given that their “deviancy” is no excuse for assaulting or murdering them. But then being real S’poreans, they are not grateful people.

Pink Dot: Why was govt spooked?/ Pastor Khong try matching the numbers

In Political governance on 27/06/2016 at 6:23 am

28,000 people at a Pink Dot event is the equivalent of a crowd of 330,000 in the UK. or 1.7m in the US. Pretty impressive number then.

FT columnist does the sums:

Singapore’s annual Pink Dot gay pride gathering attracts big crowds. There were 28,000 people there last year.

That is a large turnout in a country with a population of 5.5m. An equivalent gathering in the UK would be 330,000. In the US, it would be 1.7m.

Note that he had to use last year’s numbers because the organiser’s refused to provide a number for this year, claiming that it wasn’t about numbers any more. Didn’t cut any ice with the govt this show of modesty, did it?

This shows what foreign sponsorship money and good local event management can do.

No wonder the PAP administration told foreign sponsors that funding Pink Dot is a no-no area. And they are sitting down and shutting up. Money talks, BS walks. The probability of making serious money, outweighs the BS talk of values.

In a de-facto one party state, like a de-jure party state, the ruling party cannot have any other organisation capable of getting people out on the streets for an alternative view that the party is uncomfortable with. Think the CCP and Falun Gong.


When China banned Falun Gong, the PA here cancelled Falun Gong classes it was conducting immediately before the movement was banned here. In HK, the movement is not banned. We more PRC than HK isit? why liddat?


Finally, Pastor Khong and allies talk of a moral  majority opposed to LGBT rights. Prove it please. Get 30,000 people to a do at Hong Lim Green. After all if God is really on their side, the crowd will be there.

Scared isit? Why liddat? After all got Allah and the three-in-one version.

And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.