Angry Pink Dot supporters urged to “demand their rights” and imagine the potential “of Christians be eliminated” as “religious nut bags are winning”.
After Pink Dot published their advisory in compliance with MHA’s long standing policies on how foreigners should not participate in Singapore’s politics, a flurry of reactions – from many foreigners – flooded their comment page.
It all began last year when a Singaporean-based Facebook group, Say No to Foreign Intervention, began questioning how Pink Dot sustains its sleek, carnival-style marketing campaigns. Now, with Pink Dot’s open fundraising for a six-figure sum to run their event, plus these very public comments, the evidences of foreign infestation in Pink Dot are clearly revealed.
However, rather than stepping back from their uncovered agenda, foreigners have stepped up their subversion to test our laws by urging Pink Dot supporters to “demand their rights” in the face of a “benign dictatorship”.
Dictatorship? Haven’t we all heard the accusation – why hasn’t our government built a multi-party system for Singapore? The question is as unimaginative as the answer – no government has an objective to build an opposition against herself. The lack of a credible opposition political party to compete against the incumbent, is not good enough to prove dictatorship.
You actually have to provide evidence of corruption, like vote counting fraud during elections.
Dangling carrots to encourage citizens to vote for the incumbent or redrawing GRC geographical lines provide an ethical consideration, but do not prove illegitimacy.
However, judging from the tirade, Pink Dot supporters do not sound like they would understand our government’s position against foreign intervention, as well as society’s concern with Pink Dot, as can be seen by the following insults:
Ironically, Singapore arrived at our first world status BECAUSE our government have founded a political system based on zero tolerance for corruption – and – the importance of the rule of law. Both are virtues Pink Dot and its supporters reject. Some even openly challenge the Singapore government on its new rules.
Foreigners blatantly disrespecting and challenging the laws of the country, “Going anyway. Bring on the charges“.
How can we trust Pink Dot then – on intolerance for corruption – when they had quite covertly, coveted and covered up foreign funds that subvert our political system? How can we trust Pink Dot then – on respecting the rule of law – when their supporters have blatantly promoted extreme forms of sexual expressions that are socially obscene and harmful?
Pink Dot supporters must understand that there needs to be a distinction between what is done in private and what should be allowed – or promoted – in public.
So keep these kinky expressions to the private room. Firstly, they aren’t restrained in their fun. Secondly, even those who wanted “marriage” can get “married” (into same sex unions) overseas, and some had done so in quite a public manner! None had been harassed by our legal enforcers.
But a distinction needs to be made when such expressions are promoted publicly. This is where the premise of moral laws stand. Moral laws do not exist simplistically only to enforce arrests. Symbolically and practically, moral laws prevent the promotion of arguments that will allow extreme sexual rights to usurp social mores recognised by the majority.
Canada is one good example where religious rights, parenting rights and children rights, have all been sacrificed under the altar of “sexual minorities” rights. Parents there might be arrested for non-compliance with school’s sex education; citizens are forced to use gender pronouns; anyone who touts the goodness of natural marriage can be arrested for hate speech.
That there is even such a thing as a “sexual minority” has yet to be proven. Just as how infertility can never be inherited, genes that cause homosexuality would have long been extinct in mankind’s evolutionary history had there been any.
Is Pink Dot really about love?
Pink Dot supporters’ anger once again reeks of the inconsistency of their “love” banner. Tellingly, the same foreigner whose comments we had posted above, challenged local Pink activists on their level of honesty. He unwittingly chided them that the movement had never ever been about love.
Rather, this foreign supporter highlights that it is a matter of rights – and “religious nut bags” have robbed the rights of “sexual minorities”. The classic blame game has been set, and the “religious” came under attack.
Religious harmony is a fragile ideal, especially in this time and age. We cannot afford to take Singapore’s unique racial and religious harmony for granted. Pink Dot supporters have once again showed that in their relentless push for the unproven rights of “sexual minorities”, they would not hesitate to attack others and their religious rights.
Therefore, it was most ironic when it was Pink Dot’s very own “religious” pastor, Miak Siew, whose writings affirmed what the foreign commentator has said, that PD is really not about love or honesty, but about lust and pride.
He writes: “We must understand the irrational fear that has been fanned by the religious right – that pride parades are the signs of decadence and moral decay and they are to be opposed at all costs… (calling all PD’s supporters) this isn’t just a party, or a picnic. It is a bona fide protest. It is a protest at the stupidity of 377A, it is a protest………………”
You can read his full comments below:
Pink Dot – so much pride, but so little love. It’s never really about love in the first place, but about the pride of perverse sexual expressions. That kind of pride that pushes their preferences into everyone else’ faces. That kind of pride that attacks our children’s decency (read “Young girl covers her eyes as nude men walk past during gay pride parade“). We must comply now, or we would be a homophobe.
Singapore Affairs 