SMU chairman Ho Kwon Ping likens the criminalization of homosexual sex to slavery. Calls it ‘repugnant‘ and ‘must be abolished regardless of the social consequences’. He labels S377A ‘shameful‘, ‘sorrowful‘ and an ‘anachronistic affront to basic human rights‘.
The following is a response to Ho Kwon Ping, the Executive Chairman of the Banyan Tree Hotels and Resorts, who wrote a scathing report about Singapore’s stance on LGBT rights to commemorate Pink Dot’s 10th anniversary. He is also SMU’s chairman who supports homosexual ‘marriage’ and wants S377A which criminalizes homosexual sex repealed.
In his report, he likens the criminalization of homosexual sex to slavery, saying both are so repugnant that that they ‘must be abolished regardless of the social consequences.’
Really? Regardless of social consequences!? We will address this point later.
First of all, equating the criminalization of homosexual sex to slavery is not only incongruent, but also an affront to African Americans who were subjected to ownership by Whites and had their freedom taken away during that dark era.
And, if slavery is equivalent to the criminalization of homosexual sex, why then were Black Americans protesting against the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ when it was being deliberated in the US Supreme Court? Wouldn’t that be demeaning themselves?
Moreover, did homosexuals here ‘suffer’ such grave consequences as slavery? Have their livelihood been taken away from them? Has anyone actively sought them out for discrimination or interfere with their private sex lives?
The answer, of course, is a big NO! In fact, we have seen a proliferation of gay bars (perhaps too many) while Pink Dot is allowed to hold their annual event at Hong Lim Park.
However, some may still argue that criminalizing homosexual sex and not recognizing same-sex ‘marriage’ are ‘discriminatory’. If this is the case, then laws against drug abuse, smoking and even drink-driving are also discriminatory since they infringe on ‘human rights’, isn’t it?
The laws of a country are enacted to regulate certain behaviours that are deemed to be harmful to either oneself or society. The disproportionately high HIV infections rate among the homosexual community is a case in point. Latest figures on Singapore’s HIV infection rates show that homosexuals and bisexuals account for 63% of total HIV infections although they make up only 1% of total population.
This means their infections rate is 169 times higher than heterosexuals, which is a reflection of the inherently promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle. This can be seen by this short video clip from gayhealth.sg – a Pink Dot supporter which is supposedly set up to raise awareness on AIDS prevention but instead, promotes sexual infidelity.
Such sexual disease epidemics are not confined just to the homosexual community in Singapore, but also the world over, including supposedly ‘inclusive’ countries such as New Zealand, Australia, UK and the US as reported in the article: Syphilis Spreads Among Kiwis: Cases Double In Two Years.
So, should the government legalize or endorse such a destructive lifestyle like homosexuality? How can it be discriminatory or even repugnant, as Mr Ho claims, when a debilitating disease like AIDS can have dire health consequences on society and the homosexual lifestyle is found to contribute significantly to the problem?
How a nation is governed also reflects its prevailing social norms. Currently, there are overwhelmingly more countries in the world that do not recognize gay rights and same-sex marriage than recognize it.
Mr Ho, in his first opinion piece in 2012 titled Some Day in support of Pink Dot claimed the following:
“The rationale for not simply decriminalizing Section 377A is presumably the social conservatism of the very religious Singaporeans – whether Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. Whether there will indeed be a groundswell of anger if Section 377A is repealed or not, I do not know. We still do not have polls which can accurately survey public opinion. As to whether public opinion should even be the basis for discrimination against people is another matter altogether.”
Well…………….now he should know following a 2014 IPS survey. In the survey, it found an overwhelmingly 78.2% of Singaporeans against same-sex relations and 72.9% against homosexual marriage. This showed that a wide section of Singaporeans were against homosexuality and same-sex ‘marriage’, clearly refuting Mr Ho’s claim that it was confined to the very religious.
Given the results of the survey, is Mr Ho trying to say that the sexual minority should dictate the social norms of the majority? If that is the case, then should we also allow gay pride parades to take place, just like in some countries that have normalized homosexuality where people paraded naked or dress scantily in public?
Or should we allow LGBTQ indoctrination in our school system aimed at sexualizing children as young as five years old or allow homosexual shows to be screened freely in the name of ‘basic human rights’? Mr Ho claims that the removal of two children’s books during the NLB saga back in 2014, among others, is an act of ‘hate’. He has specifically called out the Facebook group, “WAAPD” or “We Are Against Pink Dot”, a ‘hate group’ while praising Pink Dot for blossoming into an ‘inclusive’ movement.
For a person that is supposedly intelligent, well read, and the Chairman of SMU, aren’t Mr Ho aware how the LGBT movement has impinged on many basic human rights in countries that have normalized homosexuality and legalize same-sex ‘marriage’? Isn’t he aware that parental rights, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech have been curtailed against people who do subscribe to the LGBTQ ideology?
For example, school curriculum that normalizes homosexuality and promotes gender fluidity has been forced upon very young children in Canada despite parental objections to sexualize them (see picture below), Christian business owners were prosecuted for upholding their deeply-held religious beliefs in the US and more recently, religious freedom has been curtailed in Australia after proponents of same-sex marriage renege on their promise not to nullify religious freedom.
So, when Mr Ho speaks about human rights, should such ‘anachronistic’ human rights give way to homosexual rights?
Coming back to Singapore, when MHA implemented its policy to bar foreigners from interfering in Singapore’s domestic affairs, a venomous outcry erupted, with Pink Dot supporters spewing anti-Christian hate speech, profanities, calling for ‘Christians to be eliminated’. They also labelled them ‘religious nuts’ (refer to screenshot below). You can read more about it in the article – Pink Dot: So Much Pride, So Little Love.
So, do Mr Ho consider this hate? Can he guarantees that Singapore will not be spared the same kind of culture wars that have erupted abroad? Can he guarantee that if homosexual rights are normalized in Singapore, the freedom of speech and religion, as well as parental rights against LGBTQ indoctrination and sexualization of their young children be preserved?
Also, Mr Ho has cited his experience in the history of the American civil rights movement in the 1960s as a student at Stanford University. For a jet-set businessman like him, has he not learnt about the adversarial and dictatorial nature of the LGBT movement overseas where anyone who do not subscribe to the LGBTQ ideology are labelled a homophobe, hater, bigot, religious fundamentalist, etc……?
In his Revisiting Some Day article for Pink Dot, he clearly expressed great displeasure about the government’s current advertising, broadcasting and publishing codes, claiming they are in place to placate ‘silly complaints from anti-gay hate groups’. He also calls S377A ‘sorrowful’, ‘shameful’ and ‘an historical injustice of barbaric proportions’.
Since he has such deep grievances against the government and its ‘official-dom’, isn’t it a great irony that he still assumes a high ‘official-dom’ position in SMU as its Chairman?
If he is filled with so much anger by the state of gay rights in Singapore, and is so critical of the government about its standard of ‘inclusiveness‘ and ‘human rights‘, the door is always open for him to leave the ‘official-dom’.
We believe most Singaporeans would not miss him in SMU.
Singapore Affairs 