T
press time “as he was involved in a meeting with his GRC
team and grassroots leaders and volunteers at Ulu Pandan”.
There were, however, those who felt that the it was
pertinent to question the SDP’s stand on homosexuality and
Section 377A, the law which criminalises sex between men.
One reader, using the name “Matthew Tan”, posted
on
private and personal business. But if you want to use the
Parliament to propagate gay-ism ... that is another matter.”
Another reader, “Matt”, posted: “I am against gay rights
like gay marriage ... I do not want the party I vote in to fight
for this cause. I want to hear directly from (SDP candidates)
Dr Ang Yong Guan, Ms Michelle Leea and Mr Tan Jee Say
on what they feel on this matter.”
Others, like Ms Vinita Ramani, were concerned that the
furore threatened to reignite deep seated social divisions.
The storm was also felt elsewhere on the Web and
social media — including Dr Balakrishnan’s Facebook page,
where comments posted by irate netizens early yesterday
appeared to have been deleted.
Fresh comments, however, were spotted last night, urging
the Minister to apologise for making “misleading comments”.
Several comments posted on
that, if Dr Balakrishnan had asked direct questions
from the start — instead of “hinting” and using “innuendo”
— it would have been more palatable.
The issue began at the weekend when Dr Balakrishnan
flagged a “certain YouTube video” as raising awkward questions
regarding the SDP’s agenda and motivation.
On Monday, his Holland-Bukit Timah GRC team in a
joint statement revealed it to be a clip showing Dr Wijeysingha
at a forum “that discussed the promotion of the gay
cause in Singapore”.
They raised the question of whether Dr Wijeysingha
would “pursue this cause in the political arena”, asking for
the SDP’s position. The SDP responded with an unequivocal
“no”, calling on Dr Balakrishnan to “not adopt smear tactics”.
Netizens also took issue with the PAP team highlighting
that the videotaped forum had touched on the subject
of sex with boys and whether the age of consent should
be 14 years of age.
“This is a very misleading description,” said Ms Lisa
Li, noting that the speaker — lawyer M Ravi — had been
referring to the situation in other countries, and there
was no discussion on whether Singapore’s age of consent
should be lowered.
Another reader Nicholas Lim described the apparent
“attempt to portray Dr Wijeysingha as a proponent for
legalised sex with boys” as mischievous.
However, another reader posted online: “(Dr Wijeysingha)
was in the audience. I would have been assured and
comforted if he had expressed his disapproval” on this topic.
Echoing this view, netizen ‘Jimmy’ wrote: “If SDP’s
candidate is pursuing a gay agenda, voters need to know.”
Post Reply
