CHAN CHUN SING: LGBT CAN DO ANYTHING IN THEIR BEDROOM, I AM NOT A SEX POLICEMAN

[Guest guest]

CHAN CHUN SING: LGBT CAN DO ANYTHING IN THEIR BEDROOM, I AM NOT A SEX POLICEMAN

Submitted by farhan on Sun, 25/09/2016 - 8:30am

While speaking about jobs and the economy with 300 students at a Polytechnic Forum in Republic Polytechnic on Friday, Mr Chan Chan Sing, minister without portfolio, offered some personal views on the LGBT community

He said: “I’m not going to discriminate … (You’re free to do) whatever you do behind your bedroom doors ... It’s not my problem. I’m not a sex policeman ... But if you tell everyone to champion pro-LGBT or anti-LGBT (causes), it (might) cause social divisions, so (I have to step in) to be the policeman in the middle.”

So if you champion LGBT causes and disturb everyone, he will suddenly turn into a sex policeman and catch?

Maybe his words will discourage LGBT behaviour all over SG and stop them from engaging in gay acts in public!

There may be fewer attempts by LGBT to advance their Pink Dot cause when he becomes the next PM.

ganymedean

 

http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/chan-chun-sing-lgbt-can-do-anything-their-bedroom-i-am-not-sex-policeman

- More at AllSingaporeStuff.comhttp://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/chan-chun-sing-lgbt-can-do-anything-their-bedroom-i-am-not-sex-policeman
FB: http://fb.com/allsgstuff

[HendryTan]

Molly Meek posted the following on her Facebook.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not going to discriminate … (You’re free to do) whatever you do behind your bedroom doors ... It’s not my problem. I’m not a sex policeman ... But if you tell everyone to champion pro-LGBT or anti-LGBT (causes), it (might) cause social divisions, so (I have to step in) to be the policeman in the middle.” (Chan Chun Sing as quoted in Today article, "Chan Chun Sing urges youth to go beyond relying on good grades for jobs")

1. Who says LGBT issues are confined to sex or what people do in the bedroom? You may not regard them as your "problem" but why are they a problem in the first place?

Are you going to police it if a gay couple were to kiss each other in public the way some straight couples do? The claim of non-discrimination is undercut by the rather narrow view of what constitutes LGBT issues. Don't be too confident of your neutrality.

2. What is to tell "tell everyone to champion pro-LGBT or anti-LGBT (causes)"? Is championing such causes the same as telling others to do so? If people can't even tell others to champion certain causes, can they really champion the causes?

3. The policeman in the middle? Why this preoccupation with being in the middle? Try telling an actual policeman to be in the middle between a robber and his victim, and you will see how ridiculous the idea of being the policeman in the middle is.

4. Stop stifling others in the name of harmony, will you? Sometimes it's that conspicuous object in the middle that accentuates division lines.

5. Pity the person who had to edit the language.

 

 

[Guest status quo]

Every politician worth his salt will take a "politically correct" stand.  He is not going to please pro-LGBT people at the expense of the other group. In short, just continue with status quo. 

[Guest Pinky]

He is a pinkdot freak

[EasleyLim]

tbh, i truly believe the gahment doesn't give a shit as long as you contribute to the GDP.

Edited September 25, 2016 by EasleyLim

[Guest Guest]

3 hours ago, EasleyLim said:

tbh, i truly believe the gahment doesn't give a shit as long as you contribute to the GDP.

 

Really? Remember how the Nation party was banned even though or generated loads and loads of tourism dollars?

[Guest Duck face]

PM = 拍马屁

 

That's what he's taught to do as a minister politician.

[Guest Gone country]

This kinda pattern if he become pm, sg no hope liao. If lidat that aunt Lucy can be pm too. (Vomit)

[Guest 72%dark]

It's a bit disingenuous for anyone to claim that our government is truly ‘neutral’ on this issue. A truly neutral government would take a truly hands-off approach and allow individuals to act on their own conscience and for discussion/debate and depiction of the issue to be free and uncensored. 

 

Instead, when Parliament had the opportunity to strike down S377 of the Penal Code, it tied itself into a legal knot just to retain the portion that penalizes gay men. When you make a special effort to discriminate against a group, you're not neutral, you're essentially siding with those who are opposed to that group.

 

Moreover the government controls how LGBT people are depicted through its “media classification” schemes; only negative portrayals are allowed, which is not only not an objective reflection of reality (since the lives of LGBT people are not inherently or necessarily tragic), but also ensures that people who do not otherwise have close contact with openly gay people or with positive depictions of LGBT lives and issues will never benefit from a fair representation, but will only be exposed to media that perpetuate the demonization of gays, i.e. what opponents to LGBT equality want. So once again the government privileges one viewpoint over another.

 

The specter of social division is always raised, but the obvious follow-up question  is never asked: Which side is more likely to foment unrest?

 

On the one hand, LGBT folks have always sought peaceful means to secure equality (with just one notable historical exception – the Stonewall riots – which actually serves as an abject lesson in what can happen when persecution is taken too far for too long). On the other hand, religious fundamentalists (i.e. the main or perhaps only real opponents to LGBT equality) are the ones who have been only too willing to resort to violence to secure their aims, historically as well as in present day. (And if religious zealots had their way, the violence against LGBT peope would receive state sanction through extreme corporal punishments like stoning.) So who needs more protection?

 

A false parallel is always drawn between the two sides, as if there are no forms of evidence or reasoning (which can include ethical reasoning) that could help one to decide between them. But in the first place, the LGBT person appeals for acceptance of the way that s/he lives his/her own life, whereas those who campaign against are trying to control how others live their lives (particularly in ways that don't directly affect their own). In any society where individuals expect to be able to exercise a degree of autonomy, and particularly in pluralistic societies, competing visions of what each individual is and isn't allowed to do must be negotiated fairly and objectively. In Sg, a debate about how this is to be achieved isn't even allowed; instead the government has already decided in favor of one side, while paying lip service to the other side, of which Chan Chun Sing’s remarks are the latest example.

[Guest 72%dark]

11 hours ago, Guest status quo said:

Every politician worth his salt will take a "politically correct" stand.  He is not going to please pro-LGBT people at the expense of the other group. In short, just continue with status quo. 

 

Not really. A politician truly worth his salt provides leadership, meaning having the soundness of judgment to recognize what the right thing to do is, and being able to get his people to accept the decision to do it, including those (initially) opposed to it.

 

11 hours ago, EasleyLim said:

tbh, i truly believe the gahment doesn't give a shit as long as you contribute to the GDP.

 

Well... the elected part of our government certainly also gives a shit about getting re-elected, so to the extent that they might believe that a certain stand on a particular issue is a necessary part of that, vis-à-vis voting segments, then it would be politically expedient to sacrifice the gays.

 

In any case, our government isn't a monolith (as much as it can seem stuck in the Stone Age sometimes... hehe...). Don't discount the possibility of there being a small number of people in there with particular ideological commitments who wield a disproportionate influence on policy matters pertaining to this issue.

[Guest Duck face]

.... But you are a sexuality policeman. Worse!!!

[Guest 72% Duck]

He said on channel 8 interview by bryan wong and peifen netizens are scolding him for his expressed views on certain things that is based on current culture, that the culture will change in future so it's unfair to judge him for his views now because culture hasn't change yet. 

 

Deep one this.

 

 

[Cube3]

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

[Guest Stoopid As Fark]

9 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

 

Really? Remember how the Nation party was banned even though or generated loads and loads of tourism dollars?

Ok that one generated even more controversy. New year snowball party was the one with military ball theme that made SAF uncomfortable when some guys made out "in uniform" outside suntec city convention centre and police report was lodged and made the news; SAF then internally cracked down on regular personnels. Made lots of signed on PLU regulars INSECURE and EDGY in their seats. 

 

That was why nation party ended up being banned. The military themed new year's party was threatening enough to SAF's macho facade, which they gave lots of kiasi excuses to uphold. 

[Guest Animal rights Pplies here]

36 minutes ago, Cube3 said:

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Donchew noeeee.... Sinkapo is a mostest specialest snowflake. Flakey one. Not solid.