>I would have posted my comments on TOC’s website – if not for its incessant itch to moderate my comments, then allow it to be published days after it has been posted – which then diminishes the thrust of my points in the post. So heck, here is my views on TOC’s article. The article in question is found below.
The approach of TOC’s article has a subtle hint that conservatism is to be seen in negative light. There are also subtle hints that celebrate free and gay sex.
In a way, I am glad the article was put up by TOC. Just days ago, I stressed my point that pro-free sex propagators have been drilling that sex is to be seen as fun, fun, fun – with scant consideration for the social and moral views, not to mention even more scant consideration for the law. Here is that article I wrote – “Modern” Sex Ed Programme respects no Morals or Law
Now, I do not know if it is just coincidence or intended, but I notice that whenever I come up with hard hitting articles on free and gay sex, some other sites will appear to counter exactly what I posted a few days later. In any case, let’s not assume too much and just get to the heart of the matter. So here is my comment to TOC by “proxy” in this blog, because for sure I know I would be moderated if I commented there.
Article from TOC -
And so the castle crumbles…
Excerpts, followed by my comments.
Think conservative, and the angry parent comes to mind. Domineering and overprotective, she grumbles over every trespass of her sensitivity. She also writes frequently to the press, railing against rising sexual promiscuity with vitriol and mock outrage.
Bang! The opening lines start off with a negative image of the parent who is out to protect her child.
Please note (refer to my past articles), that Feminism and Gayism work hand in hand to decontruct the Family Unit. The portrayal the Family Unit as domineering and oppressive is unmistakable .
Slowly, she sees her castle crumble, her world invaded by unsavoury Western influence.It is in this besieged state that she makes the loudest noise. Is it a cry of victory or the final death throe? Is Singapore falling into a repository of everything grotesque and evil?
You cannot really blame her for thinking this way; she is protective of her children, like every parent would.
This is where 58-year-old Kelvind Kao comes to mind. In a recent Straits Times article, the father of a 13-year-old daughter told the reporter that he wants the Internet restricted and teenagers banned from using phones with internet access, otherwise, they will watch ‘Tammy Nyp’, he says.
The article sets the scene for an attack towards conservative ideas on open sex.
But is he taking it too far? Certainly, concerns coming from conservative groups are valid. Children need to be protected from unsavoury content that might disrupt their development. The effects of sexual content on television are known to shape the values of teenagers in ways that will make their parents gasp. Sex among minors and teenagers is on the rise, and part of the blame has to go to the media and the Internet.
If you ask me, the media cannot be blamed. It is a “non-living” thing. It is people who are responsible. They include those out to make money using sex in their shows (sex sells), as well as those who are out to scavenge and mislead unguided young minds (eg predators on the internet).
To dismiss their concerns outright would be insensitive, surely, but overt censorship is not the right way to address the problem either. Singapore is gradually liberalising but much censorship still remains and can be overbearing for many. For instance, speeches by Sean Penn and Lady Gaga at the Academy Awards and the MTV Video Music Awards ceremonies respectively expressed support for the gay rights movement. However, both speeches were snipped from local television broadcast of the event.
Ah….here is the introduction to the gay sex theme.
Now, if TOC is a political alternative voice, why its repeated gay theme articles over and over again? TOC has argued that it represents minorities – eg foreign workers. I have replied them (ended up censored of course), that would dilute their main objective (alternative political voice). TOC would thus end up no different from Temasek Review where anything and everything is reported.
Now note the explicit support for Yawning Bread, the most well known gay blogger site in Singapore.
The Media Development Authority (MDA) Programme Code states: “ content which sympathises with, promotes or normalises the homosexual lifestyle will be banned” (a more detailed discussion of this is available at Yawning Bread). Presumably, the logic is that television remains the primary mode of media consumption for viewers and therefore minors and teenagers need to be protected from Primetime exposure.
Now note the arguments why censorship on TV or MSM does nothing to stop (gay) and free sex from filtering down to our young as follows.
The Flip Side
Arguably, this perspective may hold true because television is passive and minors can be quite easily exposed to, and influenced by, the content. But would they even be mature enough to understand, let alone watch the award ceremonies and appreciate the context in which the speeches were made? Also, such dismal censorship measures will utterly fail in the face of the Internet.
Why watch a boring speech at the Academy Awards when gay porn can be viewed off the World Wide Web – easily accessible, highly explicit, and totally free? And while the media may have a powerful effect on individuals, censoring a few rare scenes of homosexual portrayal gives the media too much credit – a 30-second speech will not turn a teenager into a sex fiend overnight.
Even the status of local television as a focal point for families to gather seems to be under threat as savvy youths can simply rip the latest American serials off the internet and YouTube. Thus, it seems the only purpose for such censorship is symbolic and may even have lost its purpose altogether and become a relic of sorts – an ornament in the park that is well-worn by wind and rain and relegated to the backdrop.
Next, note the same argument of “minority rights” (implying gay rights, what else?) and intolerance towards such a group, as cited below.
Worse, it becomes a sign of oppression and paternalism, firstly displaying a lack of tolerance towards minority groups and secondly, exhibiting a tendency to treat adults like kids. This overwhelming proclivity to censor is not lost on us Singaporeans – it has happened time and time again and is likely to happen in the future.
And of course, being a supporter of gay and pro-gay parties, TOC has to bring in the the highly popular blogger who supports gay activities – who else, but Mr Wang? See below.
And what of those who are sexually liberal and see no issue with enjoying such content? What rights do conservative groups have to impose their values on those who clearly do not agree with them? There is the question of whether these conservative voices really constitute a ‘silent majority’ and perhaps they do – a survey done by researchers at the Wee Kim Wee School found that 7 in 10 Singaporeans frown on homosexuality (original article reproduced at Mr Wang Says So with commentary).
Here is the rest of the article.
However, it is less important who constitutes the majority in Singapore than whether censorship will remain an effective measure in the face of globalisation and the liberalism it brings. Certainly, the government and the media have a part to play in maintaining a basic sense of moral decency in television programmes but regulation is not the same as overt censorship. Instituting ratings is not the same as snipping away segments from a film; it is like defacing a work of art. There is no use maintaining a facade of ‘Asianness’ when the Internet with its democratising influence is here to stay.
The Need for Sensibility
Minors of course deserve to be protected from harmful influences and internet filters serve a useful purpose for families that need them. But there will come a point of time when the child grows up to be responsible for his or her own self. What then? Surely the parent cannot continue to mollycoddle the child forever?
Conservative groups with a desire to impart their moral values should do it at home, in schools, and yes, even in angry letters to the media. Parents should work at imparting sound moral values to their children, teaching them to reject perceived negative influences on their own. There is also certainly no harm in producing wholesome and safe media content for the masses either.
Religious organisations play a crucial role in educating their flock to practice self-restraint when encountered by external temptation. Some of what they preach certainly has value even in a modern society so long as they are not overbearing and imposing. Singaporeans should be taught to self-regulate and separate good from harm instead of relying on the government to do it for them. Finally, there is no doubt on the danger of a sense of moral duty quickly degenerating into plain selfishness when conservative groups impose their values on others by way of the law.
And in the words of Ris Low, the impetus for such selfish groups shouts: “It’s about me!”
Note the subtle hint against religion and conservative groups being selfish – the very war drumbeat of the gay community. What a bummer.
No conservative parent is imposing their values on others. It is the free sex and gay propagators, who have been imposing their values on others. To them, if you don’t support them, you are anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-homo and homophobic.
We all now know that TOC has been infiltrated by the gay community, just like Aware has been infiltrated. Too bad, it has lost its direction just like Aware.
Like Aware, TOC has now taken a stance that religion and conservative groups are a hindrance to “growth”, never mind that growth means free and gay sex, with no consideration for morals, values or even the law.
And again, like the radical feminists, the first place to attack, would be the Family Unit. TOC has now, in my opinion, shown nothing short of the signs of the beginning of a gay takeover, a la AWARE.
In the meantime, all alternative and opposing ideas and comments to gay themes at TOC, gets moderated or censored.
