daniel gohAssociate Professor at the Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore and Member of Workers’ Party, Mr Daniel Goh shared his views on the Health Promotion Board (HPB)’s FAQ saga through his facebook page. Answering in his professional capacity as a sociologist, he replied the questions posed by journalist and shared the answers on his facebook as a status update.
Daniel Goh’s reply, with questions abbreviated and paraphrased:
1) What do you think of the FAQs?
I think the FAQs are very factual and reflect the current social scientific and scientific understanding of homosexuality. I don’t find it surprising at all and not progressive, but objective.
2) What do you make of the timing of this?
I am wondering what took so long. I believe government agencies should operate on the basis of facts and not the prejudices of society whichever way they bend. I think it would be speculation to interpret the timing of the FAQs as linked to society’s views and prejudices.
If anything, I think society has become quite pluralistic when it comes to sexuality and a whole range of views exist. If government agencies adopt the point of view of a particular segment, it will just produce or exacerbate conflicts and misunderstandings. Agencies should go by facts, which is what HPB is doing.
3) Do you think the FAQs reflect or contradict the government’s pro-family policy?
I don’t see any contradiction. Informing people about concerns and facts about homosexuality is to acknowledge the incontrovertible reality of homosexuality. It doesn’t undermine healthy relationships between married heterosexual couples at all. If it offends someone’s individual sensibility, then it is just that, offending an individual, not hurting a relationship between two heterosexual partners.
In fact, I think informing people about homosexuals actually helps promote the family as a basic building block of society, as it helps parents and other family members understand and accept homosexuality as a fact. This reduces discord and strengthens family bonds, making for a stronger society where homosexuals do not feel ostracized and alienated through no fault of their own.
4) Do you think the FAQs achieve the goal of STD education?
I think it does, because it helps clarifies misperception that AIDS is a homosexual disease, and directs our understanding of STDs as linked to risky sexual behavior of having unprotected sex with multiple partners regardless of sexual orientation.
The only criticism I have is the factoid on the increase in homosexuals being tested positive for HIV. The increase was only in 2011 and HPB should be more circumspect and not appear to frame it as a trend — we don’t know yet until more data is available. Overall, I like the FAQs very much and am very impressed by HPB’s clarity and balanced objectivity.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Incident of couple wearing anti-death penalty T-shirts spurs discussion among Singapore citizenry

The recent saga of couple being investigated by the police for wearing…

Transport fares reduction: For better or for worse?

I refer to the reports “Public transport fares to go down by…

陈清木将开通Podcast节目!分享多年历练和生活故事

前进党秘书长陈清木将会推出Podcast节目,分享多年来的生活和故事,让观众能够更贴近他,了解他的过往。 陈清木22日于脸书上宣布,将会推出一系列的Podcast节目,让民众能够即时了解他的生活和经历。与此同时,他也可透过Podcast节目回答观众的问题。 “我将在Podcast节目中分享关于我多年来的生活和经历。此外,我也很乐意回答您所提出的问题,因此可以将问题发到相关邮箱@tanchengbock.org。” 陈清木的Podcast 节目将可于Spotify、Apple Podcast和Google Podcast上搜寻得到。

近万人分享涉诽谤贴文 鄞义林:总理应一一提告

博客鄞义林昨晚于脸书发文,发现涉诽谤内容的The Coverage新闻文章,被分享次数多达9097人,然而只有时评人梁实轩因为分享有关贴文而被总理提告。 “有近万人分享了有关贴文,偏偏只有梁实轩被提告。” 他指出,梁实轩甚至只是纯粹分享贴文,也没有留下任何评述。其他同样在社交媒体分享转发贴文的人,却没被对付。 “既然如此,不是很明显地搞个人针对吗?”鄞义林认为,如果要体现法律公平,总理应该对近万名分享贴文的人提告。 再者,总理以文章的诽谤内容提告梁实轩,即便后者从未对有关文章做出任何评述。总理实则应该直接针对原撰文者,但他却没这么做,说明总理处事偏颇。 只因一人“龙颜大怒”就提告他人,岂有公平可言?鄞义林认为秉持法律公平原则,总理可能败诉,总理也应对其搞个人针对的行为,接受惩罚。 在2014年,部落客鄞义林也因为英语文章《您的公积金去了哪?城市丰收教会审讯的启示》,也同样被李显龙总理提告。鄞义林最后向总理致歉,并被判需赔偿15万元。 梁实轩在去年11月初,因分享一则涉诽谤内容贴文,而被总理提告。即便梁已经按照资媒局指示撤下转发贴文,还是接到了总理代表律师的信函,要求后者对总理公开道歉和赔偿名誉损失。 梁实轩目前已反告总理滥用司法程序。