Pink Dot issue: Little to do with LGBT

Ok, first, let’s get something out of the way. I am all for the abolishment of Section 377A. The Government already said it’s not enforced. So it is a useless piece of legislation. If two men love each other, whatever they do behind closed doors, that’s their business. Some of you out there may think it is unnatural. But what is unnatural does not always make it illegal.

Second, Pink Dot gathering. If you want to go celebrate love among your comrades, that’s fine with me too. So I’m pretty much in agreement with the LGBT folks.

But the issue at hand here has little to do with LGBT. I read all this brouhaha over the foreign interference at the Pink Dot party couple weeks ago. Some of these liberals and journalists are just too dumb to understand. They don’t seem capable of focusing their minds on what’s important or what’s the real issue at hand. Some have also complained about the government’s explanation to them. You throw them a few sexy liberal sound bites and they go off course with them.
Here’s the deal – the issue has nothing to do with Pink Dot. The fact that the Pink Dot party was taking place showed the government has no issue with them. I think their letter said they are all for diversity and the like.

Then, what’s the issue? The Government has for the longest time stated domestic politics are only reserved for locals. It was in that spirit that the Hong Lim Park Speakers’ Corner was set up – an arena reserved for locals to participate and speak on local issues. Foreigners are not allowed to participate or influence events there. So that’s pretty clear. We agreed to it. We abide by it. Whether you are against LGBT or for it has nothing to do with it.

So when foreign companies started pumping money to support any particular activity, does it not follow that it is a potential breach? As I have said in my earlier column, what if a radical billionaire from Saudi decides to sponsor an event there to promote banning girls from going to school and cutting off hands of thieves. Or the same Saudi company want to spend a few hundred dollars to incorporate a branch in Singapore, and use it to fund protests against gays?

What if an American church wants to promote polygamy? What if a Chinese enterprise wants to set up schools for Chinese only and uses Hong Lim park to rally 50,000 Chinese to support it? There is a difference between a foreign academician commenting on local politics at a small group conference and a powerful radical preacher speaking to highly charged 50,000 followers at Hong Lim Park.

Funny thing is the liberals and some of the media – shall we call them anti-Government elements – have the tendency to play the bimbo when they want to argue against certain cases. Now they are saying hey, what exactly is a foreigner? Please tell me, I don’t really know, you know. It is a little like the emperor without clothes.

When it suits them, they can spot a foreigner from a million miles away – like how they organise themselves to try to attack foreigners over immigration issues at Hong Lim Park. When our lovely Filipinos celebrate their independence day, they can spot them. When PRC food court staff doesn’t know English, they can spot them.

When it doesn’t suit them, they suddenly become a bimbo and ask sorry please tell me what’s a foreigner. I think even a kid understands the issue clearer. It is simple: no foreigners to meddle with our business. You trace any organisation or protagonist hard enough, you will know who are the foreigners behind it. The final perpetuators. We have no problems deciding who is foreign when it comes to property transactions. No need to make it too complicated. Ironically, a commentator in a local paper knows she is a local who is qualified to comment on that same matter. If she traces back to her listed parent company – they do comprise a huge number of foreign shareholders. But that didn’t stop her from commenting on an explosive political issue. Because she understood what is foreigner and what is not.

The truth is any law passed by the Government has to be somewhat blunt. You can be as specific as you want but you can’t really be capturing every special circumstances and asking “what if this, what if that?’’. What’s important is the intent of the law is clear and understood and the judiciary must make a call on exceptional cases when the intent is not met. This is where these dumb liberals don’t get it.

And others say the Government has not answered their queries over questions raised. I went to read the Government’s statement. (I must say it is worded quite differently from a standard Government reply. About time we get more of such so-called “toxic” statements!) But how can the Government be jumping the gun or even prejudicing itself when it has already said it is going to review the procedures. When someone says hey, there is a problem, we need to review it and then make it clear, let them review and make it clear. You can’t wait and jump ahead and then you accuse the Government of not answering your queries? That’s just dumb, la.

So come off it, guys. If you think the debate is about Section 377A, then debate it, lobby it and get it abolished. I am all ready to support you. But do not get confused every time the word LGBT appears and throw the whole debate about Hong Lim park off course. If you think the laws governing Speakers Corner should be changed to allow foreigners to take part, then get that law changed. But until the law is changed, we still need to stick to it. But be careful in what you wish for because the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, the Arabs, the overseas right wing religious groups, the radical fundamentalists, our dear neighbours will be making full use of that change to achieve their own political goals too.

Here’s how I see it. It doesn’t matter what the Government says or not say. These guys on the other side either can’t get it, don’t want to get it or will never be persuaded by logic. Sometimes, it is no point trying to engage those who don’t want to be reasonable.