We are not betrayed by the government
I quote from the Straits Times, an article dated September 3 in which our PM lashed out at Opposition Politicians and even his own PAP MPs over the recent CPF cut controversy.
“Dr Amy Khor was admonished for using the word "betrayal" twice in her speech in Parliament yesterday. Dr Khor had told the House that some of her constituents had felt "a sense of betrayal" by the Government and unhappy Singaporeans were contemplating migrating.”
It comes as a rude shock for me (and perhaps some Singaporeans) because our PM tells us that he espouses a gentler leadership style as compared to our Senior Minister, Lee. In his speech yesterday, he says that “betrayal” is “nonsense” and warns PAP MPs not to “sing the same tune” with the Opposition in trying to “corrode” people’s trust with the government.
As I was reading the article, it suddenly flashed through my mind that this could be Catherine Lim Episode 2. A gentle reminder on who’s calling the shots here since people could have forgotten about Lim.
But if Dr Khor was just reflecting sentiments of certain disgruntled citizens she had communicated with regards to the issue, why should our PM take offense to that? I thought Remaking Singapore is about hearing the views of our own citizens, however misguided they might be? I thought PAP was considering allowing some of its MPs to take the alternative chair?
I sympathize with MP Khor who probably initially thought that she would be praised for “daring to speak up”. Or is it necessarily true of all the case? My advice: She should have thought carefully over what she wants to say.
But most importantly, Dr Khor should have learnt from her sister, Ms Chua of the ST who is much articulated and well thought; presents both sides of an argument and acts like a real journalist - mediator. I like her “localised” style of comparing the relationship between government and people as between a couple. I quote, “they trust the Government to act in their best interests. It's like a wife who may grumble that her monthly marketing allowance has been cut, yet understand that her husband had to do it so he can recoup business losses and do better in future. She knows they're in it together.”
Summary: It’s a situation where no one has any control over. So we should all let the husband makes the right decisions. Agreed? As for promises made by the government, we should look at what’s happening around the world and include these factor into our current economic dilemma and stop whining. Besides the government has already announced aid packages haven’t they? So we cannot say that PAP is a merciless, unthinking, non-attentive, insensitive and unhelpful government because that’s the greatest blasphemy.
They know what’s good for us and we should completely trust them like we trust our wives or husband.
Conference on Homosexuality and Homophobia: Beyond the Hype – Applied Psychotherapeutic Issues for Counsellors
A Participant Report
The small group interactive sessions between counsellors and gay men and women are probably the best segment in the conference because it allows counsellors who have no prior contact with gay people (or at least they don’t know any) to take a first step and communicate with them; therefore effectively bridging the divide and bringing one step closer from the straight community to the gay one, in Singapore. It would be good if there is a multiplier effect of having these counselors upon going back to their workplace to have a sound knowledge of how to counsel gay clients or students and judging from the Q&A, it seems many of them are able to raise some questions.
As an example, during the Q & A session towards the end of the day, a teacher raised her doubts on how to deal with an erring female student in her all female girls’ school who was caught influencing other juniors into getting shorter haircut. She was also caught smooching with them in school. She raised questions of morality and the difficulty in handling the situation because of pressures by the Ministry of Education, and the parents. It’s a landmine to tread upon. I did not put up my views on air because everyone had an opinion . Anyhow, I thought that using discipline and suspension (the latter was suggested by the teacher) might alienate the student. She mentioned that the student did not agree to go for counseling and it is possible that the student was being merely rebellious.
But what really stood out was the incongruence of views because short hair for girls is still deemed as inappropriate in schools here. Here we are talking about wanting to build a creative environment for our students and they are not even allowed to express that harmlessly with their hair?
With regards to the sexual activities that were going on in school, this anonymous female student could have better been counseled by a counselor who is experienced in counseling gay patients.
Of course, schools in Singapore would not have tolerated that. The general majority here is still prejudiced about gays and stereotypes. A counselor who comes from NY mentioned that it is sad to see that a conference like this needs to be organized. A gay men and volunteer pointed out that it is at least a start. One hopes that the creating of awareness of the gay issue it will continue; and not just subside.
Gay advocacy is important in raising the issues and local groups (offline and online) has been actively pushing but due to the political structure in Singapore which refuses to acknowledge the legitimized existence of gay people; the majority would still like to see it being contained within the ghetto.
As a liberal, and anti-establishment; but not pro violent; my proposal is not to work within the confines of the system; but use creative tools to speed up the effect of the gay liberalization.
The rehash of PM Goh’s statement is again mentioned within the conference and though the event does not speak about social/political activism and concentrates on merely the counselling aspect; one cannot help feel that there is a need to create space for gay advocacy. We cannot depend on what a man say to justify our existence, even if he is our Prime Minister, because he is just a man with authority, and his views do not speak for all. Moreover, as I explained in my previous article, I find fault with the way the media hypes up everything.
This conference is a good thing. Nevertheless, much still needs to be done on creating awareness on the social front to reduce homophobia because of its lack of understanding of a discriminated ghetto.
DPM LEE our next PM?
The papers have been going on and on about DPM being the next successor to our PM. I am distraught by the influx of news articles and opinions within the local press that gives so much coverage to this issue of Lee’s style when in fact, it should be questioning about the succession and its legitimacy; and whether it is suspect of nepotism.
