'Foreign entities should not fund Speakers' Corner events'
By Yuen Sin, The Straits Times, 8 Jun 2016
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) yesterday said it will "take steps to make it clear that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence" events held at Speakers' Corner, like the annual Pink Dot event last Saturday.
By Yuen Sin, The Straits Times, 8 Jun 2016
This year's event - the eighth such - attracted 18 sponsors, twice as many as last year. The corporate sponsors included multinationals like Google as well as banks such as JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.
Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Visa and General Electric were first- time sponsors.
In its statement, MHA noted that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community expresses its views on issues of concern to it during Pink Dot.
"The Government's general position has always been that foreign entities should not interfere in our domestic issues, especially political issues or controversial social issues with political overtones. These are political, social or moral choices for Singaporeans to decide for ourselves. LGBT issues are one such example.
"This is why under the rules governing the use of the Speakers' Corner, for events like Pink Dot, foreigners are not allowed to organise or speak at the events, or participate in demonstrations."
It did not say what action it will take, and whether there will be legal penalties. It also did not say whether or not an MNC with a Singapore-registered arm is still defined as a foreign company.
MHA said the statement was in response to "media queries as to whether foreign companies can provide sponsorships for the Pink Dot event", but did not specify which media outlet posed the queries.
The ministry also said that, in the context of LGBT issues, this applies to events that advocate the LGBT cause, such as Pink Dot, as well as those that oppose the LGBT cause.
Pink Dot has received opposition from religious groups. In 2014, Muslim religious teacher Noor Deros started a Wear White campaign to signal opposition to homosexuality, while Faith Community Baptist Church senior pastor Lawrence Khong urged followers to dress in white on the Pink Dot weekend.
In response to the MHA statement, a Pink Dot spokesman noted that the event has seen support from Singaporeans from all walks of life, including "a significant portion of its corporate citizens".
The ministry also said that, in the context of LGBT issues, this applies to events that advocate the LGBT cause, such as Pink Dot, as well as those that oppose the LGBT cause.
Pink Dot has received opposition from religious groups. In 2014, Muslim religious teacher Noor Deros started a Wear White campaign to signal opposition to homosexuality, while Faith Community Baptist Church senior pastor Lawrence Khong urged followers to dress in white on the Pink Dot weekend.
In response to the MHA statement, a Pink Dot spokesman noted that the event has seen support from Singaporeans from all walks of life, including "a significant portion of its corporate citizens".
"Our corporate sponsors that have supported us over the years are all registered and incorporated in Singapore," said the spokesman.
In pushing for greater visibility for the LGBT community, "we have done all we can to ensure Pink Dot SG stays within the law", he said.
Attendance at Pink Dot rose from 2,500 in its first year in 2009 to 28,000 last year. This year's local sponsors include the restaurant PS.Cafe and Cavenagh Law.
Speakers' Corner: Exemption terms to be reviewed
By Yuen Sin and Tiffany Fumiko Tay, The Straits Times, 9 Jun 2016
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said yesterday that it will be reviewing the exemption conditions for Speakers' Corner "to make it clear that foreign entities should not fund, sponsor, support or influence such events" held there, among other "further steps" that will be taken.
By Yuen Sin and Tiffany Fumiko Tay, The Straits Times, 9 Jun 2016
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said yesterday that it will be reviewing the exemption conditions for Speakers' Corner "to make it clear that foreign entities should not fund, sponsor, support or influence such events" held there, among other "further steps" that will be taken.
However, no action will be taken against the foreign corporate sponsors and event organisers of this year's Pink Dot event in relation to foreign corporate sponsorships, the MHA said yesterday.
The ministry had earlier said it will "take steps to make it clear that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence" events held at Speakers' Corner, like the annual Pink Dot event last Saturday. When asked what constituted a foreign entity, it declined to comment.
Now into its eighth year, the annual Pink Dot rally calls for the freedom to love regardless of sexual orientation. This year's event attracted 18 sponsors, twice as many as last year's. They included multinational corporations such as Google, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Apple, Facebook, Bloomberg and BP.
The MHA reiterated yesterday that "the Speakers' Corner is meant for Singaporeans to speak and demonstrate without a permit, if certain exemption conditions are met".
"These include no participation by foreigners. As had been stated in our earlier statement, this restriction applies, for example, to both events which are organised to support the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) cause, as well as to events which are organised to oppose that cause."
Contacted about the MHA's earlier statement, Goldman Sachs said it is reviewing it.
A Pink Dot spokesman said on Tuesday that the event has seen support from Singaporeans from all walks of life, including "a significant portion of its corporate citizens".
"Our corporate sponsors that have supported us over the years are all registered and incorporated in Singapore," said the spokesman.
In pushing for greater visibility for the LGBT community, "we have done all we can to ensure Pink Dot SG stays within the law", he said.
Attendance at Pink Dot rose from 2,500 in its first year in 2009 to 28,000 last year.
Attendance at Pink Dot rose from 2,500 in its first year in 2009 to 28,000 last year.
* Political, controversial social issues should be decided by Singaporeans alone
The Government has always taken the position that foreigners and foreign entities should not interfere in our domestic matters ("Clarity needed on 'interference by foreign entities'" by Ms Corinna Lim; yesterday).
Political and controversial social questions should be decided by Singaporeans alone.
The Speakers' Corner was established to provide a space for Singaporeans to express themselves, without requiring a permit, on the condition that there is no participation of foreigners.
In line with this condition, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is reviewing Speakers' Corner rules to make clear that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence such events held at the Speakers' Corner.
We will adopt a practical approach.
When this review is complete, the ministry will set out the parameters.
The Government is committed to diversity and inclusiveness, and expects the same of businesses operating here with respect to their employees.
However, advocating positions on Singapore laws and policies on socially divisive issues is an entirely different matter.
That is a right that must be reserved for Singaporeans.
The MHA statement of June 7 made it clear that this applies equally to those who advocate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) causes, as well as those who oppose LGBT causes.
Lee May Lin (Ms)
Director
Information Planning and Strategy
Community Partnership and Communications Group
Ministry of Home Affairs
The Government has always taken the position that foreigners and foreign entities should not interfere in our domestic matters ("Clarity needed on 'interference by foreign entities'" by Ms Corinna Lim; yesterday).
Political and controversial social questions should be decided by Singaporeans alone.
The Speakers' Corner was established to provide a space for Singaporeans to express themselves, without requiring a permit, on the condition that there is no participation of foreigners.
In line with this condition, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is reviewing Speakers' Corner rules to make clear that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence such events held at the Speakers' Corner.
We will adopt a practical approach.
When this review is complete, the ministry will set out the parameters.
The Government is committed to diversity and inclusiveness, and expects the same of businesses operating here with respect to their employees.
However, advocating positions on Singapore laws and policies on socially divisive issues is an entirely different matter.
That is a right that must be reserved for Singaporeans.
The MHA statement of June 7 made it clear that this applies equally to those who advocate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) causes, as well as those who oppose LGBT causes.
Lee May Lin (Ms)
Director
Information Planning and Strategy
Community Partnership and Communications Group
Ministry of Home Affairs
Grey areas in rule against 'foreign sponsorship' of Pink Dot
What are 'controversial social issues with political overtones' foreigners must stay out of?
By Chua Mui Hoong, Opinion Editor, The Sunday Times, 19 Jun 2016
On June 4, Hong Lim Park played host to the Pink Dot rally, an annual event to support the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
A few days after the event, on June 7, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a statement that said: "The Government's general position has always been that foreign entities should not interfere in our domestic issues, especially political issues or controversial social issues with political overtones. These are political, social or moral choices for Singaporeans to decide for ourselves. LGBT issues are one such example.
"This is why under the rules governing the use of the Speakers' Corner, for events like the Pink Dot, foreigners are not allowed to organise or speak at the events, or participate in demonstrations."
The statement has drawn a flurry of criticism online and in mainstream media. I must confess it got me a bit puzzled too.
First, when is a foreign entity foreign, and when is it resident?
This year, there were 18 corporate sponsors of Pink Dot. They included Google, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Twitter, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft. Local sponsors included PS.Cafe and Cavenagh Law.
Pink Dot's organisers have stated that its sponsors are all registered and incorporated in Singapore. As writer George Hwang put it pointedly in a commentary on The Online Citizen website: "You cannot consider MNCs' locally incorporated subsidiaries as 'Singaporean' for tax purposes and as alien for Speakers' Corner."
The issue of what is "foreign" when applied to Pink Dot sponsors is one grey area.
Another grey area is what constitutes "interference".
If sponsoring an event constitutes interference, then why do iconic summits organised by Singapore government agencies seek sponsorship from companies, including foreign ones? The World Cities Summit and Singapore Energy Summit, for example, both have foreign sponsors. In the cities summit, there is a discussion on whether culture matters in a city - a potentially sociopolitical issue.
The Singapore International Film Festival includes Swiss watch manufacturer IWC Schaffhausen as official time partner, and Marina Bay Sands, a subsidiary of Las Vegas Sands Corp, as present- ing sponsor. Movies too can feature "controversial social issues with political overtones" - as we know from the Government's periodic moves to ban the public screening of films such as Tan Pin Pin's To Singapore with Love.
Will the ban on foreign sponsorship be extended beyond the pro-gay Pink Dot event, to film and other cultural events and even conferences on socio-political themes? If not, why single out Pink Dot as an event that cannot get foreign sponsors?
Or perhaps the concern about Pink Dot is over law and order, given its rising popularity. Attendance rose from 2,500 in its first year in 2009 to 28,000 last year. Gay pride parades in Turkey and Russia, among others, have sparked riots, sometimes when anti-gay protesters clashed with gay pride marchers. Last week's horrific mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando highlights the potential for violence over this polarising issue. But if law and order were a concern, MHA should say so explicitly and offer solutions that make sense from a security point of view, not restrict foreign sponsors.
In making the arguments above, I am merely trying to sketch out the anomalies and contradictions that ensue when one tries to apply the rule that "foreign entities should not interfere in our domestic issues, especially political issues or controversial social issues with political overtones".
To be sure, the rule on no foreign interference in domestic politics is not a new one. I think most Singaporeans would support the line in the sand against foreign meddling drawn by this Govern- ment. I, for one, certainly do.
We want to evolve our political system at a pace we are comfortable with. We do not want, or need, foreign democracy activists or human rights groups - some with dubious sources of funding - to push our tiny, fragile and extremely beloved island-nation down paths we will find hard to turn back from.
What is unsettling about the MHA statement is its addition of the category of "controversial social issues with political tones" to the list of off-limits issues for foreigners. This definition is so widely written that it can become a trawler net to catch any issues that become embarrassing or inconvenient to the Government.
Already, activist group Aware has asked if its advocacy work - such as on workplace harassment, and support for single parents - will be affected by the rule.
Citing the latter issue, Aware executive director Corinna Lim wrote in The Straits Times' Forum page: "If a group objects to this and floods the Government with letters of complaint, would it become a 'controversial' social issue? Would any support we might have from foreign entities thus be deemed 'interference'?
"We are troubled by these potential implications of MHA's statement, which is ambiguous, leaves too much open to possibly arbitrary interpretation, and seems to go much further than previous pronouncements."
Ms Lim has a valid concern.
Singapore is at a transition point.
Ms Lim has a valid concern.
Singapore is at a transition point.
We have a Committee on the Future Economy to chart our economic blueprint. We are rethinking our school and training model, to integrate in-school and after-school learning better. We are concerned about the limits of our meritocracy system, and want to broaden our social safety net.
We should not close ourselves off, mentally or culturally, from the rich debates raging worldwide on many issues of social equity that have a bearing on the challenges we face. These range from income inequality to disruptive technologies and the impact these will have on jobs and incomes, to the equity of health systems, and to the continued relevance of our industrial-model education system.
Many of these issues can all justifiably be described as "controversial social issues with political overtones". What does keeping out foreign interference in these issues then mean? No foreign sponsors , even from local subsidiaries of foreign firms? No foreign academics allowed to speak at a conference on these issues? What is a "foreign academic" anyway? Does a foreign lecturer at a local university count?
There are many grey areas and questions arising from this loosely written rule against foreign interference in "controversial social issues with political overtones".
Keeping debate on difficult social issues entirely local hinders our ability to learn from the experiences of others. An open, inclusive attitude can help us better reach a national consensus on difficult issues.
As for LGBT issues, they are certainly contentious and emotionally charged because they deal with people's freedom to love without breaking the law, and some religions have clear teachings against homosexual practices. Debate on these issues will be fractious. They may even be "controversial social issues with political overtones". Pro- and anti-gay camps may want to tap foreign sponsors and foreign groups (such as churches, universities, organisations) to talk to Singaporeans about such issues.
To be sure, it makes for a messier socio-political environment.
To be sure, it makes for a messier socio-political environment.
But do LGBT issues fall under the category of domestic politics that is core to Singapore's interests and identity as a nation, and from which foreign participation and sponsorship of events should be banned? I do not think so.
Singaporeans are a nationalistic lot. We will support a government that ringfences our political system and domestic political contests from foreign interference.
But Singaporeans are also a probing, sceptical bunch.
If the Government wants to keep out foreigners from some debates and events, yet include them in others, we need more convincing on why, and how.
Will 'follow-the-money' formula work in changed landscape?
By Han Fook Kwang, Editor At Large, The Sunday Times, 19 Jun 2016
Does the Singapore Government work in mysterious ways?
You might think so going by two recent events which caught quite a few people by surprise.
First was the Home Affairs Ministry's statement earlier this month about foreign sponsorship of the annual Pink Dot event at Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park.
The ministry said it was taking steps to make sure foreign entities do not fund, support or influence these activities which involve members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
The move made many see red as foreign companies have been sponsoring the annual gathering for several years without any problems, including the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook.
Then, there was the news that from next year, public servants will no longer be able to access the Internet through their work computers, but have to use their mobile devices or dedicated terminals to reduce the risk of hackers infiltrating the system and stealing or damaging information.
By Han Fook Kwang, Editor At Large, The Sunday Times, 19 Jun 2016
Does the Singapore Government work in mysterious ways?
You might think so going by two recent events which caught quite a few people by surprise.
First was the Home Affairs Ministry's statement earlier this month about foreign sponsorship of the annual Pink Dot event at Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park.
The ministry said it was taking steps to make sure foreign entities do not fund, support or influence these activities which involve members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
The move made many see red as foreign companies have been sponsoring the annual gathering for several years without any problems, including the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook.
Then, there was the news that from next year, public servants will no longer be able to access the Internet through their work computers, but have to use their mobile devices or dedicated terminals to reduce the risk of hackers infiltrating the system and stealing or damaging information.
There was disbelief all round over what many saw as an over-reaction on the part of the authorities and it had to take the Prime Minister to explain why it was acting like a fortress under siege.
So, what to make of all this?
So, what to make of all this?
Has the Government suddenly turned its back on the world?
In fact, the issue is an old one for Singapore: how to operate an open economy with one of the most connections to the rest of the world, but still keep a tight lid on unwanted elements and what it considers to be undesirable influence detrimental to the country's well-being.
This has been a continuing challenge for the country because while its livelihood depends on it being open, the political instincts of the Government have tended towards management and control.
The easiest fights have been when the enemy was clearly foreign and evil.
When traffickers from the region, which is one of the world's largest producers of opium and heroin, threatened to make Singapore their transit point, the country introduced one of the toughest anti-drug laws in the world, imposing the death penalty on offenders.
This position has remained unchanged even in the face of mounting criticism from international human rights groups.
Singapore isn't afraid to be different on issues that threaten its security.
Sometimes, what's being kept out was at first welcomed with open arms - like foreign money looking for safe havens.
When it poured into the property market here in the 1990s, it was actively sought and encouraged because the plan then was to make the city attractive to the super wealthy.
But too much of a good thing can be hazardous to one's well-being.
When prices went through the roof, and a property bubble developed, measures were introduced to cool down the hot market.
They are still in place today.
They are still in place today.
Banking laws have had to be tightened to prevent money laundering through Singapore. Indeed, the Monetary Authority of Singapore announced last week it wanted banks to tighten even more.
These examples show that the Government believes it is possible for Singapore to square the circle, operating a free and open economy while selectively shutting out unwelcome visitors.
The move to protect public service computers from foreign hackers is the latest variation of this thinking.
Expect the Government to hold the line even if it proves unpopular among civil servants.
But what if it is ideas it is attempting to shut out, like "political issues or controversial social issues with political overtones", which the MHA statement said were off limits to foreigners.
Will a people educated in some of the best universities in the world, connected to the World Wide Web in one of the most wired countries which is home to some of the leading lights of the digital economy, accept they need protection from foreign influence by a Government which believes it knows best?
The improbability of the challenge might deter some governments, but not the one here.
In fact, it has had much practice on this front, going back to the 1970s when it laid down the rule that foreign magazines and newspapers had no role to play in Singapore's domestic politics.
Those were bruising political battles with some of its fiercest critics, including publications like Time magazine, the Asian Wall Street Journal and the Economist.
One by one, though, they were forced into submission, and the policy was entrenched.
Can the same approach work today, even if the world - and Singapore - has changed irrevocably?
There is one unspoken strategy the Government has used to much effect at every encounter: Follow the money.
Whether it's the foreign media, alternative news websites, or LGBT causes, it believes that if it is able to trace the source of their funding and shut or squeeze it, even the toughest will eventually comply.
During its fights with the foreign media, it restricted the circulation of offending publications, hurting their pockets.
In the more recent moves to regulate online media, it required those of a certain size to declare their funding sources, with financial penalties for offenders.
In clamping down on foreign funding of LGBT events, it is following the same script, going where the money trail leads.
End of story?
For these specific battles, I have no doubt the Government will prevail, as it has repeatedly done.
But it will be a very narrow victory because the foreign ideas that have had the biggest impact on Singaporeans, for better or worse, have long stormed the Singapore gates.
The most powerful ideas - and they mostly originated outside - are neither overtly political nor controversial.
They simply change fundamentally the way people think and, in doing so, disrupt and destroy the old way.
The Internet and social media overturned traditional concepts of hierarchy and attitudes towards authority.
Disruptive technologies like Google and Facebook revolutionised the media industry, making it impossible for governments to control information.
Indeed, it is because these ideas have changed the world that causes like those associated with the LGBT community have gained so much traction worldwide, including in Singapore.
Politics might remain off limits to foreigners.
But the politics itself has already changed.
** Foreign views and Speakers' Corner: MHA replies
I refer to yesterday's commentaries by Opinion editor Chua Mui Hoong ("Grey areas in rule against 'foreign sponsorships' of Pink Dot") and editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang ("Will 'follow-the-money' formula work in changed landscape?").
We said in our statement of June 7 that we are reviewing the conditions for events at Speakers' Corner. As it is, foreigners are already not allowed to organise or speak at the location, which is reserved for Singaporeans to express their views. Why then should foreign entities be allowed to fund, sponsor or influence events at Speakers' Corner?
This has nothing to do with closing ourselves off from foreign views on social issues or hindering our ability to learn from others. There is no lack of opportunities or avenues for Singaporeans to learn from others. The Straits Times' pages, for instance, are full of features and op-eds from foreign sources; and its columnists are assiduous in informing us of our shortcomings and how we can learn from others.
I refer to yesterday's commentaries by Opinion editor Chua Mui Hoong ("Grey areas in rule against 'foreign sponsorships' of Pink Dot") and editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang ("Will 'follow-the-money' formula work in changed landscape?").
We said in our statement of June 7 that we are reviewing the conditions for events at Speakers' Corner. As it is, foreigners are already not allowed to organise or speak at the location, which is reserved for Singaporeans to express their views. Why then should foreign entities be allowed to fund, sponsor or influence events at Speakers' Corner?
This has nothing to do with closing ourselves off from foreign views on social issues or hindering our ability to learn from others. There is no lack of opportunities or avenues for Singaporeans to learn from others. The Straits Times' pages, for instance, are full of features and op-eds from foreign sources; and its columnists are assiduous in informing us of our shortcomings and how we can learn from others.
But that does not mean we should allow foreigners or foreign entities to participate directly in our debates or actively shape how we make political, social or moral choices, including on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues.
If the foreign entity wishes, say, to promote inclusiveness and diversity among its staff, as many do, the Government has no objection.
But if the foreign entity were to actively support, in the public sphere, a particular position on a socially divisive matter like LGBT rights, the Government must step in to object.
If the foreign entity wishes, say, to promote inclusiveness and diversity among its staff, as many do, the Government has no objection.
But if the foreign entity were to actively support, in the public sphere, a particular position on a socially divisive matter like LGBT rights, the Government must step in to object.
Our position has consistently been that the right to decide on sensitive social and political matters in Singapore should be reserved for Singaporeans. Where LGBT issues are concerned, we apply this principle equally to foreign entities that oppose the LGBT cause as well as to those that support the LGBT cause.
Singaporean supporters of the LGBT cause cannot applaud when the Government intervenes to prevent foreign anti-LGBT advocates from interfering in our domestic politics, and then protest when the Government intervenes to prevent foreign pro-LGBT advocates doing the same. The same goes for Singaporeans who oppose the LGBT cause.
Ms Chua observes correctly that Singaporeans "support a Government that ringfences our political system and domestic political contests from foreign interference".
They do so because they know this principle has been applied consistently over 50 years and that it has helped keep Singapore politics the sole preserve of Singaporeans.
Ms Chua observes correctly that Singaporeans "support a Government that ringfences our political system and domestic political contests from foreign interference".
They do so because they know this principle has been applied consistently over 50 years and that it has helped keep Singapore politics the sole preserve of Singaporeans.
The Government is committed to diversity and inclusiveness, and expects the same of businesses operating here, with respect to their employees.
However, advocating positions on Singapore laws and policies on socially divisive issues is an entirely different matter.
Lee May Lin (Ms)
Director, Information Planning and Strategy
Community Partnership and Communications Group
Ministry of Home Affairs
ST Forum, 20 Jun 2016
However, advocating positions on Singapore laws and policies on socially divisive issues is an entirely different matter.
Lee May Lin (Ms)
Director, Information Planning and Strategy
Community Partnership and Communications Group
Ministry of Home Affairs
ST Forum, 20 Jun 2016
MHA Statement on Foreign Sponsorships for Pink Dot 2016
49 dead in Orlando gay nightclub massacre
Australia cancels visa of British Muslim cleric who called for 'death sentence' for gay people
No comments:
Post a Comment