By Howard Lee
Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong has once again left his wake in the development of social space in Singapore, although not necessarily in a good way.
In the latest report on the would-have-been Red Dot Family Movement event at the Padang, Mr Khong questioned the reasons that the Ministry of Social and Family Development gave for declining the use of venue. He was quoted as saying, “I am puzzled by MSF’s restrictions on TOUCH to organise (the event) and also confused with their position on family.”
Granted, MSF gave very little clarification on why it deemed the Padang unsuitable for the event, now called #FamFest 2014. As a precedence for future events, this does not bode well. All MSF did was reiterated that it will “continue to support social service organisations and projects that strengthen families in a socially cohesive manner”. Some might even find it strange that MSF should have any input on the conduct of events, particularly at the Padang.
Perhaps MSF’s puzzling response is really only a fair match to the reasons given by TOUCH and Mr Khong for organising the event. In it application to stage the event, TOUCH has indicated as reported in media, that the event was meant to “celebrate the International Year of the Family 2014 and to highlight the important role of family in nation building as part of the SG50 celebrations.”
Mr Edmund Wong, general manager of TOUCH Family Services, rejected suggestions that the event was meant to be pitted against Pink Dot, and affirmed that “the event was organised as an SG50 celebration of the family’s contribution to nation-building.”
Compare it to what Mr Khong said more recently, and you might notice a significant difference. “#FamFest 2014 is about defending the family against the onslaught of sexual infidelity, divorce, family violence and media that promotes sexual immorality including the homosexual agenda,” he was reported as saying.
Forget for the moment that Mr Khong has now explicitly stated that #FamFest 2014 is meant to “defend the family” against “media that promotes homosexuality”, which is glaringly at odds with Mr Wong’s insistence that the event had no intention of going against Pink Dot, arguably the most well-mediated lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) event in Singapore.
Of greater concern is what TOUCH and Mr Khong sees as the definition of the family. If #FamFest 2014 is indeed about “the important role that the family plays in nation building”, what then is the concept that TOUCH has about the family, rather than what it is not?
Granted, issues like divorce, family violence and infidelity do form a realistic part of the world we live in. It would be wrong to ignore them and focus purely on the celebratory aspects of the family. But what TOUCH proposed as “light-hearted” activities – “honouring the Pioneer Generation, renewal of marriage vows by couples and the recital of the National Family Pledge” – can barely be seen as a positive reinforcement of the role of the family in society.
The family is, indeed, the basic building block of society. But it does not earn this status by virtue of displaying a family hierarchy, by marriage, or by the recital of a pledge.
The family is the bedrock upon which we literally build the foundation for the next generation. Whether our children turn out to be sociopaths, cheats, bigots, or any other character group that are commonly accepted to be “anti-social” in nature, depends very much on how we as parents teach and guide them to contribute positively to society. It is the positive aspects, as much as the negative ones, that build our children into the adults who will contribute to society – no matter if they never got married, never started a family of their own, or never lived to a ripe old age.
As parents, our key role is not only to provide for the physical needs and mental development of our children, but also to nurture them. We want them to be useful members of society, to hold values that are important not just for their own well-being, but that of their community, country, kind.
Some of us might want to help them develop their spiritual needs, but we also need to be mindful that they enter a world that could have a very different perception of what spirituality means. Some of us wish to impart certain cultural norms, but we also need them to understand that the world they encounter is a mosaic of heritage. Useful members of society accept social differences and are tolerant of diversity.
How, then, does TOUCH and Mr Khong believe that what they do, particularly in organising this event and generally in what they stand for, contribute to the development of the future generation as civil members of their local communities, as citizens of Singapore, as people of the world? By reciting a pledge at a “fun-filled event”?
Therein also lies a contradiction of relating the family to Singapore and SG50 celebrations. Before we can speak of the family’s role in Singapore, we first need to talk about community. Without a community or a collective of communities, there can be no nation. We cannot believe that the family is a building block of the nation, without first believing that the family contributes to the nation first through a community.
And Singapore has seen the blossoming of communities in recent years like no other, or perhaps only because we have not been aware previously. We have seen the development of civil society groups and are also increasingly aware of these communities. New community-centric media provided fertile ground for this development, as much as it has brought greater awareness for them.
Human rights groups, environment and animal rights groups, the LGBT community, groups keen to explore the alternative history of Singapore, sporting communities, arts communities, special interest societies… Some of these grassroot communities have grown in prevalence and are beginning to test the boundaries of their spheres of influence. This is healthy for Singapore, as much as it is healthy for the family, to know that it can reach beyond its own nucleus.
How have these communities figured in this one event by TOUCH, and more importantly, how do they fit into the SG50 narrative? Even more critically, how have they contributed to, and are receiving contribution from, national policies?
Perhaps, then, MSF’s reasons for rejecting of the event by TOUCH are not so hard to imagine. Perhaps we can believe that there are those in MSF who have a clear view of the family-community-nation thread, and have seen that Red Dot, #FamFest or whatever we wish to call it, is missing the crucial link in the middle.
However, from a national perspective, the pressing need is not to figure a way where the family-community-nation thread can be put on display through some event. Indeed, that civil society has established itself thus far over the years is proof that families is alive and well in trying to make Singapore a better place, even as we accept that some families do need help.
The challenge for SG50, then, is about finding a place for these communities, and giving them a voice and space to grow. Only by closing the gap with the diversity of its communities can a nation connect with families.
Image from TODAY online.

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

Forum reader asks MOM: Was any employer in yearly avg 660 cases involving fake degrees penalised?

A member of the public, Tan Soon Hock, wrote to ST Forum…

陆交局:个人代步工具频传意外,探讨提前禁止期限

个人代步工具近日来频频传出意外,陆交局正在探讨是否应提前将禁止不符合规格的个人代步工具(PMD)。 尽管自本月起,禁止出售无UL2272规格的个人代步工具,但目前拥有未符合该规格的个人代步工具,至2020年12月31日仍可在路上使用。 当局日前宣布,从2021年1月起,在公共路径使用不符合UL2272标准的电动个人代步工具,将是违例的。陆交局是在征询公众和业者的意见后,才定下这个期限。 个人代步工具一直以来都是我国争议话题,此前,已传出许多因个人代步工具的交通意外或火灾,如日前宏茂桥与武吉巴督的火灾,疑似因个人代步工具引起火患,导致周遭房子损毁,甚至一人伤重不治。 陆交局向《海峡时报》透露,“由于近期发生的火灾意外均与未符合UL2272规格的个人代步工具有关,故陆交局正在探讨是否将期限提前。” UL2272第一版在数年前正式发布后,很快就升级为美国和加拿大两国国家标准。该标准规范对象不仅涵盖电动平衡车,更扩大至电动滑板车、电动滑板鞋等各种个人电动代步载具,要求范畴包括零部件、电性能、机械性能、环境测试、电机测试和避免过度充电等等一系列安全。 去年发生74起和个人代步工具有关火患 近期,因个人代步工具而引起火患事件逐渐提升,根据陸交局数据显示,2018年已有74个人代步工具相关引起的火患,比起2017年,增长了51巴仙。因此,陆交局表示为公共安全与减少火患,自2018年9月已采用相关标准规定个人代步工具。经询问调查公共意见后,最终决定于2020年12月正式实施。 “我们强烈建议购买个人代步工具时,应从可靠来源购买,并检查他们UL2272的认证。民众亦应避免过长充电、更换内部电池与组件。”陆交局表示。 国大教授Raymond Ong亦披露,基于安全理由,设下期限是必要的,然而应予以驾驶者足够的事件更换合格的零件。 “UL2272规格内包含各项工具与零件的更换,可减低引发火患的可能性。最重要的是,我们需要提供消费者安全与可靠的认证。”…

【冠状病毒19】违反安全管理措施 The Idle餐馆暂停业10天

再有违反安全管理措施的餐馆,位于波斯陶区(Portsdown),Infinite Studio内的The Idle餐馆自本月19日至28日,被下令停业10天。 新加坡食品局发文告指出,当局接获通报,指The Idle餐馆以售卖酒精饮料为主要业务,而该餐馆只持有餐馆营业执照。 此外,当局官员在稽查行动中发现,餐馆业者允许五名客户或更多人坐在一起,且在晚上10时30分后,仍然继续售卖酒精饮料。 据第二阶段解封时期的防疫措施,餐饮场所允许堂食,但是人数限五人以下,且过了晚上10时30分不可售卖和饮用酒精饮料。初犯者可被监禁不超过六个月、或罚款不超过一万元,或两者兼施;再犯者则可能被判监禁不超过一年、或罚款不超过两万元,或两者兼施。

【选举】指武吉巴督工地缺乏防范措施 徐顺全:穆仁理在哪里?

新加坡民主党秘书长徐顺全博士日前指出,武吉巴督湿巴刹附近的建筑工地,未做任何防范措施,今天他重游旧地时,发现当地已设置路障和围栏,防止民众接近。 徐顺全今天(6月27日)在脸书发帖,分享有关事件,并对当局所采取的行动感到满意。 帖文中,他指出四天前发现该区154栋的建筑工地,并没有设置防止人们进入的路障,而该处又处于武吉巴督最拥挤地区内,附近还有湿巴刹和小贩中心,因此感到担忧。 据帖文中附上的照片中,可见该建筑工地周围有防水布料遮盖,但是布料已经破破烂烂,且无法阻止民众踏入工地,地上也铺满了石头。另一张图片中,只见有关的工地已经被红白网围起来,并设置了黄色路障,破烂的蓝色布料也已经被堆放在一旁,显得非常干净整齐。 “我四天前在武吉巴督拍下这张照片,可见现场一片凌乱;所幸今早回到现场,至少设置了安全警戒线。” 强调国会议员是全职工作 他指出,该工地并非一个隐蔽角落,是当地人潮最拥挤的地点之一,而出现有关情况,也不见武吉巴督议员穆仁理(Murali Pillai)出现或提及。因此,他认为单选区需要拥有自己的全职议员,否则的话,拥有其他工作在身的议员,无法全心全意为支持他的选民服务。 “这就是我说的,议员是全职工作。若你是兼职议员,你将所有时间花在个人日常工作上,无法做到100巴仙付出。” “人们透过选举让你来经营这个地区,你每月收到1万6000元薪金,工作却外包给代管人,然后由人民付费。请问这是什么逻辑。” 他补充道,身为国会议员,为选民服务是他的职责,是全职。 “随着赋予你的责任,你需要运营市议会、照顾选区,尤其关注居民的福祉和安全,在国会中代表他们发言,建立强大的社区并保护弱势群体,这是一份全职。这也是若成为武吉巴督国会议员后,需要执行的工作。”…