Personally, I am rather disappointed at how the whole thing turned out. Deja vu, for those who remember the PLU/NLB scandal.
PLU is now at liberty to tell you a bit more about what had been happening during the last few days.
Our concern was to try our best to get the grant decision reversed. Not only was the cause unworthy and potentially deleterious to the schoolchildren who would be brainfucked, it was also, as we found on closer examination of the facts, a case of a technically erroneous decision.
It was unjustifiable because in 3 different ways, Liberty League should not have qualified even based on the technical criteria, let alone the qualitative consideration of suitability.
NVPC's own website www.nvpc.org.sg states that for the New Initiative Grant, applicants must show that
- it is a new initiative, not similar to anything done by others before;
- it is non-profit;
- it is secular.
It's common knowledge that Choices have been giving these talks for years in schools. Moreover, Leslie Lung himself had been giving such talks personally, as first-hand accounts have shown. How can this be a "new" initiative? BTW, Leslie claimed on CNA it has never been done before - look up the signel posting.
Liberty League Pte Ltd does not indicate anywhere that it is a non-profit company. Normally, non-profit companies are not "Pte Ltd", but just "Ltd", (or "companies limited by guarantees" in ACRA jargon). For example, it is NKF Ltd, not NKF Pte Ltd.
And of course, I don't have to elaborate the point that it is most assuredly religiously motivated. We didn't just have circumstantial evidence; we had a first hand account from a school student who was in the audience listening to Leslie Lung speak in one of his earlier lectures. There was repeated mention of God, Christianity and the Bible.
Acting not just as gays and lesbians, but as Singaporeans, our concern was what kind of half-cocked background checks did NVPC do before they dished out $100,000, when we as outsiders and amateurs could find all this information in one afternoon? Did this government body do due diligence?
Separately, a reporter from one of the newspapers, herself intrigued by the CNA story, sat at a computer and did a simple google search of Leslie Lung and Liberty League. Within minutes, what she saw troubled her.
She approached PLU for the story and we were pleased to cooperate.
In the meantime, PLU decided that we would play the role of concerned citizens fully. We asked for a meeting with NVPC (the email cc'd Vivian Balakrishnan as well) in order that we may exchange thoughts and present to them what we knew.
The meeting was not pleasant. NVPC (plus one MCYS rep) took the position that they will not tell us anything at all. Everything is confidential. But we were supposed to tell them what we knew. The body language was terribly defensive. But the body language was enough to tell us that they hadn't known that Liberty League was a Pte Ltd company, that its paid up capital was $10.
(This is important, because NVPC's own website says grant receivers have to co-pay 30 - 50 percent of the project cost. So if the grant is $100K, Liberty League ought to be able to come up with $43K to $100K on their own.)
But despite the frosty and suspicious reception, it doesn't matter. Our conscience is clear. We have done our part as citizens. If nothing is done despite our giving facts to NVPC and MCYS, then we know, and we will be in our right to say, where the failure lies.
Working in parallel, for 3 days, the reporter tried to get MCYS to give her a comment in response to her questions. For 3 days, they did not respond. Nonetheless, MCYS was aware that a news story was brewing.
The newspaper story was supposed to be in friday's edition (Jan 20), but minutes before it was to be activated, a call came from a ministry to stop the story. The newspaper editor complied.
What exactly was the motivation behind this Stop order, we don't know.
But anyway, what started off as an issue about the wisdom of giving $100,000 to a group that in our view wasn't suitable, became a story about possible failure of checks within the government... and has now, with censorship, become an issue of transparency and accountability.
The hole is dug deeper and deeper.
It is not a gay issue anymore. It's now an issue about govenance and accountability with public money and public trust.
We can afford to look at this even more dispassionately, and perhaps take away more information from this.
ReplyDeleteDoes government support of this Liberty League in schools constitute an endorsement of the methods, ideology and politics of ex-gay groups?
We should contextualise the Liberty League (What a misnomer! Does Leslie Lung have a fetish for costumed superhero group Justice League?) within the avenues of sex ed available in the education system (whether counselling, talks, or classroom education), and see if, indeed, the entire sex ed programme is blatantly homophobic, or whether there exist gender-neutral or even gender-positive sex eds in Singapore's schools, and highlight them for doing something right.
Calling everything that doesn't go the way we want a "scandal" is unproductive and doesn't offer incentive for the authorities to change their ways.
PLU has been constructively engaging the authority for almost 10 years, and still no sign of a licence.
ReplyDeleteNo amount of reasoning will change the stance of a homophobic govt.
Only shame will do.
Goh Chok Tong was shamed by Time magazine to admit that the civil service employs gays.
Lee Hsien Loong was shamed by foreign journalists into stating that the govt is not homophobic.
Augmenting this issue will be good for all.
speak softly, but carry big stick
ReplyDelete"Constructively engaging the authority" like sending letters to all the MPs, asking what they'd do if their son/daughter were gay, then notifying the media they sent out the letters?
ReplyDeleteAkiko, if you would just put aside your hatred for PLU for just a while....
ReplyDeleteThis is not just about the gay issue, but it reflects on the whole about the freedom of press in this country. Newspapers are not even allowed to run exposes on a charity organisation - and we all remember what happened the last time that happened.
Again, pleinelune, I ask you to answer this issue:
ReplyDeleteDoes government support of this Liberty League in schools constitute an endorsement of the methods, ideology and politics of ex-gay groups?
We should contextualise the Liberty League within the repertoire of sex ed available in the education system and see if, indeed, the entire sex ed programme is blatantly homophobic, or whether there exist gender-neutral or even gender-positive sex eds in Singapore's schools, and highlight them for doing something right.
Don't run away from this question, please. And if you're not interested in taking up this line of discussion, plainly say so instead of raising words like "hatred".
To answer your question... yes, I do believe it means the government endorses their philosophy and action-plan. Which really shocks me, because it is plainly pro-Christian. Or maybe it shouldn't, because the workshops and talks I had in school on sex education were all by Christian groups. The other point of view doesn't matter to the government it seems.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, the sex-ed in schools is mostly slanted towards the heterosexual. Homosexuality is never, if rarely discussed, the exception being such talks (usually conducted by the likes of Leslie).
Akiko, if you didn't realise, LL's agenda is not benign. It isn't some innocent organisation telling kids to abstain from sex, or to use condoms. They are out to make sure gay kids never act on who they are, to push them back into the closet. And that disturbs me a lot.
If gay-affirming groups are not allowed to do outreach to the youth, how can LL be allowed?
I am interested in akikonomu's opinion on the entire issue.
ReplyDeleteThree questions:
1. So if it's not a scandal, what is an appropriate description/name for it?
2. And what constructive suggestion would you propose as a line of action for PLU?
3. Also, what would you (personally) do regarding this?
I don't generally speak when I agree with something, hence my silence when the LL issue broke out. Of course I'm dismayed that it got approved, etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever:
1. This seems to be an attempt to preemptively frame the issue as a scandal. No one described it or thought of it as such until PLU's latest statement. I'm not saying this is a bad move, it's just not going to encourage goodwill necessary to sustain further constructive engagement with the official bureaucracy.
2. What bothers me is why PLU is putting out its latest statement. Did it do so because
a The ministry killed the story (note it could kill the story as an attempt at censorship, or as a moratorium, pending their internal investigations of LL)
b The ministry refused to kill the LL programme?
3. Which brings us to: Surely the ministry should be given time to finish their investigations and to finish off the programme, and if they want to do it quietly, then give them time to do so. Did PLU ask about the status of the programme before it released this statement? (thechild, this is my answer to you)
4. Do you think the ministry will now pull off the programme quietly, given PLU's latest example of constructive engagement?
5. It's somewhat laughable, this claim of 100K being handed out to LL. We're talking about provisional grants, cheques of perhaps 5K handed out once every few months (and usually late). We're talking about the very fact that the ministry can withhold all further funding once they are convinced this project doesn't deserve the money, and possibly even ask for money back.
6. Again I ask: does PLU really believe in constructive engagement? If so, why the insistent mock-heroic posturing in the form of responsible and constructive phrases like:
a. the hole is dug deeper and deeper!
b. This is a scandal, just like the NLB scandal!
c. Half-cocked background checks
d. Our conscience is clear. We have done our part as citizens.
You tell me what PLU really wants. To me, whoever did this press release for PLU is clearly an alumnus of the Chee Soon Juan School for Domestic Politics.
I think you expect too much, akiko. We are not a country where when someone speaks of human rights, we sit up and listen.
ReplyDeleteI'd take an issue to your comment about the use of the word scandal. I was upset about the LL thing, and blogged about how irregular the whole thing was, long before PLU released its statement.
Plus, whatever goodwill there was, went out of the window when MCYS and NVFP ganged up against us, and refused to work with, or even listen to us. Hell, it went out of the window when they do not even recognise us.
What PLU wants is clear: to make them pull the funding. We've really done what we could to inform the public, and I can say that with utmost honesty because I was helping them too.
If you actually were involved in any kind of activism, Akiko, you'd start to realise how hard it is. You would get a perception of difficult it is to rail against the authorities. Maybe then you would stop criticising so much and do something about it.
And an assumption you make really amuses me: did you really think the government was not aware of the true nature of LL? I realised what was really going on within an hour. If you hit the google button, you could discover what LL is easily. And you are telling me the government was mistaken, they were hoodwinked by a floundering organisation? No, the government knows exactly what LL is, and the money handed to them is an endorsement of their agenda. It is laughable to talk of an investigation on their part, when all of that was conducted long time ago, and truth agreed upon.
If you're actually involved in activism, pleinelune, you should know the difference between the government and an NGO. NVFP IS AN NGO - decisions about funding are made by NVFP, and not by MCYS or "the government", whom you really love to rail against.
ReplyDeleteSo MCYS and NVFP refused to give you any details of the agreement they had with LL. You can either froth at the mouth at that, or you can consider that most contracts and agreements aren't open to the public to see.
So MCYS took the newspaper story off. You can either froth at the mouth some more, or you can consider that it as a media blackout, that MCYS needs time to 1. conduct its investigation, 2. advise NVFP on whether and how to dump LL 3. respond to the press.
Either way, PLU and its supporters tend to choose the froth at the mouth option. Why?
I object when you say "when all of that was conducted long time ago, and truth agreed upon." Unless you have proof that there was a secret understanding and deal between MCYS, NVFP and LL, I suggest you leave out the conspiracy theorising. The more hysterical statements PLU makes, the more finger-pointing and conspiracy theorising its defenders make, the less likely you will ever have a fair negotiation with any bureaucracy in the future - and the less credibility your movement will have in wider civil society.
akikonomu, you have not answered question 1 to the point. Neither have you answered question 3.
ReplyDeleteCriticisms can be constructive... but without alternatives... they merely raised heckles.
But you seem to know what MCYS is doing- that they are in the process of "dumping" LL. After all, you offered only 2 choices for PLU/and PLU supporters to respond: frothing at the mouth or being optimistic that MCYS is doing something positive about it. LOL.
But honestly, they are more prudent than just dishing out money with two snaps of the fingers...
Before any grant is given, especially if it concerns money, it goes through layers upon layers of approval (supposed rings of secuity) before it is eventually given the green light. This is how slow it is.... SLUG slow. Not to mentioned the amount of paperwork involved.
Unless you are directly involved in any of the government ministries mentioned above and specifically attached to this project of approving the grant, i suggest you refrain from throwing out theories that have yet to be refuted.
Negotiation is never quite what they make it out to be. Are you that innocent???
Anyway, please answer question 3. Coz someone who would be dismayed at this, who is concerned enough, would have planned to take action.
Akiko, FYI, NVPC is hardly a completely independent NGO, if you check the footnote of this article - http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-537.htm
ReplyDeleteIts offices are at the Ministry of National Development Annex B. Very non-governmental. And do you really think, that such an organisation touching on such sensitive issues could have been approved without express approval from the government. No way.
And to say that most contracts aren't open to the public: newsflash, NVPC is not a coorporate. If it is really an independent NGO as you say, it is using public money to fund this. Doesn't the public have the right to know where their money is going to? If you consider the alternative, that NVPC is using government money, and that the contract is not open to public, then my point is proven: NVPC is not a NGO.
"Criticisms can be constructive... but without alternatives... they merely raised heckles". What did I prescribe for PLU?
ReplyDelete1. It should've checked the status of the MCYS investigation of the LL case.
2. It should've given time for the MCYS investigation and for appropriate actions to be studied and implemented.
3. It should've kept the negotiation line open to the ministry and the NGO
Now, I'm not sure why thechild refuses to see these as alternatives, but instead chooses to support the unilateral 2nd statement of PLU.
"NVPC is hardly a completely independent NGO".
pleinelune, I suggest you take a walk down Capitol Hill sometime and look at where the offices of some NGOs are. Several independent NGOs around the world receive grants from their own governments - that you find it so absurd suggests you are unaware of how different NGOs operate around the world. That you consider yourself an "activist" - and yet know so little, and so wrong about government, civil society, and even NGO operations, is shocking.
Let me just parody your ignorance for awhile:
1. A quarter of the US$162 million income in 1998 of the famine-relief organization Oxfam was donated by the British government and the EU. Therefore, according to your logic, Oxfam is not independent!
2. The Christian relief and development organization World Vision US collected US$55 million worth of goods in 1998 from the American government. Therefore they are run by the government!
3. Médecins Sans Frontières gets 46% of its income from government sources. It's a stooge of the French government!
See my comments on my latest post for my reply.n
ReplyDeleteakikonomu, it is odd for you to say that I chose to "support the unilateral 2nd statement of PLU."
ReplyDeleteI made no such statement.
Please read my post carefully before putting words into my mouth.
You also skirted around the third question. Once again: You mentioned you were "dismayed" that the grant to LL was approved. So, what have you done so far about it or what would you do?
You made "prescriptions" on what PLU should do. I am extremely amused because prescriptions are generally made by the qualified. By qualified i mean: How experienced are you when it comes to fighting for any cause, no matter how remotely related to gay welfare, in Singapore? How successful have you been? Are your methods personally tried and tested?
Surely, a person qualified to make such prescriptions would be willing to share his triumphs. And surely, there would have been plaudits to your great name.
And i really need to repeat this: Negotiation is never quite what they make it out to be. Are you that innocent???
Any line of action has pros and cons. Any line of action can be criticized. Experience helps you choose between alternatives. The world doesn't go in black and white: A is a good plan; B is a bad plan. No- They are probably both grey to varying degrees.
Activism... some have the spirit and the guts to do something about it. Others merely lament and... puke.
it is not a gay issue, but a control issue; there is need to show that the system is opening up, and at the same time, that it approves and disapproves of certain things, that it is in charge
ReplyDeleteQuote: "Currently, the sex-ed in schools is mostly slanted towards the heterosexual. Homosexuality is never, if rarely discussed, the exception being such talks (usually conducted by the likes of Leslie)"
ReplyDeletehonestly, i would prefer it to stay that way. if schools were to start teaching about homosexuality, it will appear that they are advocating it. students may want to experiment with the same sex not because of natural inclination, but because of adovcation of a certain form by the school. bear in mind that students of that age are very impressionable.
if the students are taught heterosexual sex education, students which may prefer their own gender may realise that they are different and decide to experiment. this is due to their own inclination, a genuine preference.
That didn't make sense, Chingay, because experimentation does not equal orientation. In fact, one of the major mistakes we make is assuming sexual behaviour equates sexual orientation.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe teaching about homosexuality "advocates" it. If you are straight, you are straight, and no amount of experimentation and advocation can change it. If you are gay, you are gay. If you don't like it, too bad. Education in this sense would be informing the students that they have the freedom to be who they are, and pursue it safely. What would you rather? Gay boys, who didn't receive any amount of safe sex education doing it, or them being educated about it, and using protection?