PINK DOT

ST Censors All Mention Of Lee Hsien Yang At Pink Dot, Although They Reported It Earlier

ST Censors All Mention Of Lee Hsien Yang At Pink Dot, Although They Reported It Earlier

However, the ST first reported the Lee Hsien Yang, PM Lee's brother, attended the event with his wife, and second son, Li Huanwu, who was himself there with his husband Heng Yirui. However, an hour after the news report on Lee Hsien Yang having been there at the event, the news of him being there was curiously deleted away in the ST Online news portal. In fact, the entire section of the news report on Lee Hsien Yang's family was removed, and no mention of them were made again.

Filed Under: 

S'PORE MEN SAY THEY WILL TURN GAY IF MISS SINGAPORE STANDARDS DUN IMPROVE

Singapore men woke up to shock and horror after publicity images of the 2017 Miss Singapore were circulated online. As compared to past editions which featured the likes of the classy Eunice Oslen and the Girl-Next-Door Jamie Teo, the best of Singaporean beauty was abysmal. Hoping to get a different perspective from a younger man, Xiao Tee Koh aged 32 painted a hopeless picture. Mr. Xiao shared: "Even my friends at work dress better and look better than these monkeys. I think I will turn gay if the standards don't improve. Even lesbians at Pink Dot look so much better than these jokes.

Filed Under: 

I'M A TRANSGENDER IN SINGAPORE, AND I DON'T SUPPORT PINK DOT

I personally do not need Pink Dot nor a gay pride parade because I live with pride everyday of my life and surround myself with friends and loved ones. I am proud of my career achievements, my life experiences, and not because of my identity. I don’t need an annual virtue signalling parade to make me feel good about who I am. The fact is, I am a Singaporean first, and a transgender second. I would rather be celebrated for the former than for being different as the latter.

Filed Under: 

VETERAN CHURCH PASTOR: GOVT IS AGAINST LGBT SO LONG SECTION 377A IS NOT ABOLISHED

The underlying contentious issue is the LGBT cause and this is what Pink Dot is concerned with. It is a controversial social issue and that the government assumes to take a neutral stance. As long as Section 377A is in the statute books the government has taken a clear and not a neutral stance. Same sex act by gays and not the lesbians is a criminal offence. The pro and anti Pink Dot is basically on this issue. Precisely Pink Dot is doing that and it will be good for foreigners too to benefit from what the Minister has called us to do.

Filed Under: 

FOREIGN ENTITIES APPEAL TO SUPPORT PINK DOT, OUTRIGHTLY REJECTED BY AUTHORITIES

A group of foreign companies such as Facebook, Google and Uber wrote in to Singapore authorities to ask for permission to support this year's Pink Dot but were unfortunately rejected. In their letter, the group of companies expressed support for inclusivity, diversity and in creating a safe space for their employees to work in. They understand Singapore has its own regulations and already suggested not to have their names listed or recognised as official sponsors. They also assured that no foreign representatives will speak at the event. However, our authorities still flat out rejected their application to support the event.

Instead of explaining why they rejected the application, the authorities reiterated that foreign entities must abide by our laws and not fund or support events that concern our domestic matters. Do you think this is necessary to make Pink Dot free from "foreign intervention"?

Filed Under: 

THE LGBT DEBATE: WHAT THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE REALLY IS

Over the past few days we have witnessed an intense debate over Cathay Cineleisure's decision to put up posters promoting Pink Dot. But that is not the biggest crux of the issue. The biggest crux is what is the fight for and about. I have shared my position. Those who have agreed with mine have shared ours. But the most important question is what is the crux of the matter.

Is the fight about the "freedom to love"? I don't think so. If it is truly about love, then how can you on the "freedom to love" movement subject others to the other side of the aisle the most unlovable form of response? Let's face the hard truth, a good tree bears good fruits and your fruits give you away. If it is truly about love there is no need to bring up the religious beliefs or association of one for attack and vigilante treatment just because of disagreement in worldview as a matter of first response. The fact that one's religious beliefs were singled out when for that matter it wasn't used in the debate shows that the real problem is not about the freedom to love. It lies elsewhere. Case in point. Why was there the need to bring up the chairman of ASAS's religion and church when the ASAS did not even call for Pink Dot's publicity ad to be taken down completely but rather for its subtitle "freedom to love" to be amended? And also factoring in that the call was made according to the book and not based on some hastily inserted clause or rule?

Filed Under: 

PINK DOT ADVERT REMOVAL CONTRAVENES UN RESOLUTIONS ON LGBT RIGHTS & PROTECTION

ASAS also cited the SCAP’s General Principles, specifically under its “Family values” section 10.1, where advertisements should not “downplay the importance of the family as a unit and foundation of society.”” In what way does the advertisement breach “community support and respect for the individual”; and “consensus, not conflict”? Is this arguably, in contravention of the United Nations’ resolutions on the protection and discrimination of LGBT rights passed on 30 June 2016, 2014 and 2011?

Filed Under: 

Pages

Advertisement
Subscribe to RSS - PINK DOT