Connect with us

Current Affairs

Some Day

Published

12 years ago

on

~ By Ho Kwon Ping ~

The words “some day” resonate with many people of my generation. They were the final words of the refrain from the song “We Shall Overcome” which marked the civil rights movement of America in the 1960’s and ‘70s. As a wide-eyed freshman in the US, I attended student rallies and demonstrations, and I still recall the poignant, hopeful idealism of many young people, black and white, as they sang, arms linked and waiting for that “some day”.

For my parents’ generation, “some day” was a longing for a future when they would control their own destinies free from colonial masters; for freedom from poverty, hunger, illiteracy. The PAP when it came to power delivered on all its promises – and more – and “some day” became today.

Basic civil rights – equality of gender, race, and religion – became such a reality that for most of our younger generation, “some day” as an expression of hope, has little meaning since they have not had need to hope. Not having to yearn for a distant and perhaps unreachable future is a blessing our prosperity and security has given to younger people today.

But there is still a group of ordinary Singaporeans, of different races, religion, and gender, for whom “some day” remains elusive, distant, and yet fervently yearned for.

These are the people whose identities have become marginalized at worst and unclear at best, because of their sexual orientation. Once labelled pejoratively “homosexual”, then “gay”, and now for the politically correct — LGBT ( lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender ) – men and women who happen to love and desire others of their same gender, have yet to become just ordinary people in the eyes of society as they pursue their love lives. Worse, sex between males remains a criminal activity – though the government has declared that it will not enforce the law.

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 Whether there will indeed be a groundswell of anger if Section 377A is repealed or not, I do not know.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.

In some other societies, not being of the majority race or religion was reason enough to be an outcast – itself the start of the slippery slope to legal and institutionalised discrimination.

Thankfully, in Singapore we have embraced diversity as the foundation of our social cohesion, so it is unimaginable to us that people of a different race or religion can be legally discriminated against. How then do we justify the discrimination of people with a different sexual orientation?

I still recall when as a child, I was scolded and discriminated against in school because I was left-handed. My teacher thankfully, made a cursory attempt to make me right-handed, then gave up and accepted my deviancy. Today, being left-handed is so normal that no one even gives it a second thought.

The point is, as societies mature and progress, what was previously considered deviant behaviour generally becomes part of a larger “normal”. This is after all, the vision behind an inclusive society. Inclusive across different religions and races, and yes, even between people of different sexual orientation.

The Government has recently created the vision of an inclusive society as the basis of its programs. This is a very timely and relevant vision: during decades of impressive economic growth, segments of Singapore society have not enjoyed the fruits of development as others. But diversity and inclusiveness is not just about income levels.

Nor is it just about tolerance. Instead, it is recognising that not only should we be tolerant of those who are different from us, but indeed, that having a high level of diversity is a more positive assurance of creative continuation than unrelenting homogeneity.

It is about celebrating, as we do in the culture of Singapore Management University and Banyan Tree group, the very differences in our colleagues and stakeholders, which makes us stronger.

Long ago, my left-handedness made me a deviant in school. Today, our society accepts LGBT people as part of our social fabric. Perhaps gay love will even be decriminalised. Some day ….

Ho Kwon Ping is Executive Chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings, and  Chairman of Singapore Management University (SMU).  In 2011, he was voted Top Thinker in Singapore in the Yahoo! Singapore 9 Awards, a testament to his business innovations and leadership in civic causes. 

TOC thanks Pink Dot and Ho Kwon Ping for this article, which first appeared on Pink Dot’s website.

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

6 days ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

1 week ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending