The Rainbow and the Cross

in #politics2 months ago

Subversive predators follow a time-honored playbook.

First, they infiltrate a community. Then they inveigle themselves into positions of power and influence. They build networks of patronage. They present themselves as upstanding members of the community. Then they begin to hunt for prey. Should their victims threaten to expose them, they will rally the community around them and discredit the accuser.

When someone is isolated, he can be ignored and destroyed. When someone is a pillar of a community, an attack on him is seen as an attack on the community itself. It doesn’t matter whether the accusation is true or not—the insiders, the community members, the subordinates, the clients, everyone simply sees an attack on an authority figure, and therefore themselves. Driven by self-interest and group identity, they are moved to defend the predator.

We’ve seen this play out everywhere. Moira Greyland details her abuse at the hands of her parents in her autobiography, and how the science fiction and fantasy fandom enabled it. Safe Space As Rape Room casts a spotlight on other predators in the field. In churches, businesses, government and non-government organisations alike, you’ll find more examples of subversive predators.

Including the LGBTQ community.

This is not to say that they are all pedophiles and groomers. However, the predators are using the community as human shields, and as human resources. The predators present themselves as community leaders and activists. The community sees them as advocating on their behalf, and so supports them. And they continue to support them even as they move to pursue their own agenda, while still cloaked in the sanctity of community. After all, to an individual member of the community, failing to support them runs the risk of losing the support of the rest of the community.

Don’t believe me? Read the two links I dropped above.

We are seeing this today. Teachers grooming and abusing children. Drag performances—inherently sexual in nature—aimed at children. Politicians, reporters and influencers celebrating or covering it up, depending on their agenda.

Today, Singapore is grappling with the issue of LGBTQ rights, and specifically Section 377A, which criminalises male homosexual acts. The LGBTQ community insists on equality, progress, and love. A growing conservative movement insists that the government must preserve the family as the building block of society. In this debate, everyone is talking around the elephant in the room.

The predators, the groomers, and the enablers.

Before we confront the elephant in the room, let’s examine another issue:

How did LGBTQ issues become synonymous with left-wing politics?

Think about it. LGBTQ activists frame their positions in terms of ‘progress’, ‘equality’, ‘diversity’ and other left-wing slogans. LGBTQ issues are wrapped up in wider left-wing ideology. How did it get to this point?

Conservatives pride themselves on upholding traditions and culture. This includes religion, and in America, this means Christianity.

To sway people to their side, progressives seek to undermine the underlying tenets of conservatism. This includes religion, and therefore Christianity. The position of Christianity on non-heterosexuality is quite clear. It is intrinsically disordered, and therefore the Church cannot approve of it—but all humans are the children of God, regardless of sexual orientation, and are worthy of grace.

It is so easy to dumb this down, to use it to justify hatred and abuse of LGBTQ people. And it had.

In swoops the progressives, promising the opposite of everything the religious—and therefore the conservatives—preach. Instead of disapproval, they promise celebration. Instead of celibacy and discipline, they call for free love and unrestrained sexuality. Instead of a strict interpretation of doctrine, they demand reinterpretation and change. They speak to the all-too-human desires of the LGBTQ community.

No wonder that the LGBTQ community flocks to the left.

March down the left wing of the political spectrum and you will find the socialists, the National Socialists, and the communists. They serve the deadliest ideologies in human history, claiming over a hundred million lives in a hundred years—more than any other movement in the blood-soaked history of mankind.

They, too, follow a playbook.

First they find a community to infiltrate. They speak to the issues of the day and promise radical solutions, winning support. They ally themselves with groups that have similar goals and methods, gaining access to their resources and networks. Then, when they are ascendant, they either absorb or destroy everyone that is not part of the movement. Anyone who resists them is denounced as a traitor to the revolution.

You can see this play out in Google, in government agencies, in corporations around the world. First, the higher-ups push out progressive messaging, in an attempt to reach out to what they think is the next generation. In line with this, the organisation hires new employees who hold such beliefs. These employees move themselves into critical positions, such as human resources and Diversity, Inclusion and Equality, where they can decide staffing and strategy. Their last step is to squeeze out everyone who disagrees with their agenda. And anyone who disagrees with them is branded as a troublemaker.

Does this look familiar?

A key component of progressive political strategy is the triumph of the narrative. Truth doesn’t matter, only perception. Instead of founding their ideas on the truth, they seek to control how their intended targets perceive a certain topic.

Most people don’t care about truth. They only wish to have a mental model that explains an increasingly-complex world and shows how to navigate it. Once they find a worldview that appears to do this, they cling to it—even if they are wrong.

The progressives know this. Thus, they build the cornerstone of their policies on propaganda. They shout their propaganda from the rooftops, using every media channel they have at their disposal, to sway as many people as possible, and to constantly reinforce the narrative.

They don’t care about truth, except where it serves their agenda. They care about controlling perceptions, so that their target audience will see the progressive messaging as truth. They will do everything in their power to uphold the narrative: censorship, cover ups, ostracization, elimination of rivals and dissidents. In so doing, they build an empire of lies.

Predators thrive in lies. It is the ocean in which they swim. They justify everything they do with lie after lie after lie. So long as the host community holds to the lie—so long as they perceive that the lie is the truth—so long as they excuse the lie—they will continue to operate freely.

They will continue to destroy lives and livelihoods.

And they will continue to do so until the organisation, hollowed out from the inside out, finally collapses. Then the predator-parasites shuffle off to find another host they can infest and transform into a husk.

To free itself from subversives and parasites, an organisation must be willing to engage in brutally honest self-critique. It must abandon the lies, draining the swamp where the predators dwell. It must embrace the truth, no matter how unflattering or inconvenient or difficult it may be. It must unmask and expel the predators wherever they are found.

This is the iceberg lurking in the deeps wherever there is a debate on LGBTQ issues. The LGBTQ community wants to be treated with respect and dignity—and the conservatives want to protect their children and their society. We can only find a way to do both if we are willing to engage these issues with honesty.

Let’s now turn our attention to this Facebook post by Miak Siew. Miak Siew is the Executive Pastor of Free Community Church—and also an openly gay man who talks about LGBTQ rights, religion and society.

Keep everything I wrote earlier in mind. You’re going to need it.


There’s a lot of chatter about the repeal of 377A recently, and I have come across several messages being circulated that baffle my mind. I did think – it is so ridiculous, who would believe them? But I come to realise, in this age of “alterative facts,” letting these mischaracterisations, misrepresentations and misinformation go unchallenged may lead people to believe them to be true. I am all for people to share their opinions – but these opinions need to also be open to critique, analysis and scrutiny – especially when they perpetuate misinformation that cause harm.


Alternative facts, mischaracterisations, misrepresentations, misinformation, and the quest to challenge them. Opinions being open to critique, analysis and scrutiny.

Bold words. Keep them in mind as we go along.


About LGBTQ and marriage

"LGBTQ folks want same-sex marriage, so they gain the benefits afforded to heterosexual marriage." The author of the post says that he does not want taxpayer money to subsidise LGBTQ lifestyles.

In the weddings I have performed, both for same-sex couples AND heterosexual couples, gaining access to taxpayer money wasn’t a reason for them wanting to get married.

Even though the weddings I conducted for LGBTQ couples have no legal standing in Singapore, these LGBTQ couples still desired to have a wedding – because to them, it is about love. They all want to celebrate their love and declare their commitment to each other before their family and friends, and before God. And that has been the same from the heterosexual couples I have the privilege to conduct weddings for.

There are LGBTQ folks who want same-sex marriage so they that they gain these things that are automatically granted to heterosexual married couples - 1. Access to their partners in hospital. If the family do not grant access (when the patient is unconscious), LGBTQ partners may not be able to visit. 2. Inheritance laws. 3. Employment benefits that cover the spouse. Getting these benefits is about equality.


From a secular perspective, this section is understandable. It is quite natural to want visitation and access rights, inheritance, employment benefits, and the like.

From a traditional Christian perspective, this is heresy.

The Bible is clear on homosexuality. The teachings of the Church are also clear. The natural order, as laid down by God when he created the world, was for man and woman to reproduce sexually. Homosexual activities cannot lead to children, and thus are inherently disordered. Further, the Bible condemns homosexual acts.

One of the components of a traditional marriage is a commitment to sexual exclusivity. Thus, sexual activity is implied. Per Christian doctrine, every time someone engages in a homosexual act, it is a sin.

Traditional Christianity cannot celebrate a same-sex union, never mind a marriage. Yet this comes from a pastor.

This tells us the writer’s slant: a radical, progressive ideology that subsumes Christianity into itself, instead of honouring God above all. And this comes out clearly in his future statements.


About taxpayer money subsidising lifestyles

If there is an area that does relate to taxpayer money that comes to mind, that would be access to buying a BTO HDB flat. But that also isn’t accurate because all of us Singaporeans have access to HDB housing grants. The issue is that LGBTQ folks, like all single Singaporeans, can only buy up to a 2-room BTO flat.

I believe that there should be a more equitable system that does not discriminate against single Singaporeans (that means heterosexuals too!) HDB flats also should not be seen as sure-fire ways to make money (look at the crazy profits people make selling their flats after MOP!) Public housing should be public housing, not investment vehicles.


In Singapore, the Housing Development Board is responsible for public housing. 78.7% of Singapore residents live in HDB flats. Singaporeans who wish to move to a newly-built flat will first apply for the flat under the Build To Order scheme. A BTO flat is only built if the applicants number at least 50% of the anticipated number of units.

A 2-room flat comes with a bedroom, a living room combined with a dining area, a kitchen, and a bathroom. In 3-, 4- and 5-room flats, the extra rooms are bedrooms. (Toilets are not counted.) What are these extra rooms for?

The children of the lessees, and (if there is room) the grandparents.

In Singapore, it’s not unusual for two or three generations of a family to live under the same roof. Because Singapore’s housing laws restrict the types of public housing available to singles, it’s common for children to stay with their parents until marriage, which could be the better part of two, three or more decades. However, the grandparents usually have their own homes to begin with, and may choose to live separately from their children. Usually, the rooms go to the children.

Same-sex couples do not biologically produce children. Not only that, under Singapore law, they’re not allowed to adopt children as well.

The question then is: who will these same-sex couples live with? Who will need those extra rooms?

Their biological family members? Perhaps, but in Singapore, nearly everyone has a home. Their parents and other relatives are likely to already have a home. If a same-sex couple needs to house their relatives in a larger unit, one member of the pairing could ask their relative to handle the paperwork, and the other member could move in as a ‘tenant’.

Or the couple could continue to live apart. Or in a smaller flat.

Harsh? Perhaps. But Singapore faces a harsher reality.

In other countries like America or Britain, there is plenty of room to go around. If you need to build more housing, there’s lots of land available. You could even start your own town or settlement.

Singapore is a tiny red dot. Land is extremely scarce. The government must carefully manage supply and demand of public housing. Priority for public housing, specifically 3, 4 and 5-room flats, must therefore go to couples capable of producing children. Those families may use those flats for two or three generations; a same-sex couple will only occupy a flat for a maximum of one generation.

To put things into perspective, after I got married, my wife and I were supposed to receive priority for a BTO flat. It took us three tries over a full year before we were finally successful.

Allowing same-sex couples to purchase larger BTO flats will place more pressure on the housing market. Can HDB justify granting a 3, 4 or 5-room flat to a same-sex couple who will not have children at the expense of a heterosexual couple who are planning to start a family? It can’t. HDB has to plan for the long term, over the course of decades and generations. Therefore, HDB will be stuck with two options: either it faces public anger from newlyweds waiting for months or years for a flat, or shuffle same-sex couples to the back of the queue—and keep shuffling them further back as more married couples apply for BTO flats.

As much as I want to sympathize with the LGBTQ community’s position on housing, Singapore doesn’t have much land to go around. A pro-social government has to consider the needs of the next generation; hence it has to prioritise public housing for heterosexual couples who are likely to have children.

The only way we can reach a solution for this problem is to first address the problem of land scarcity. And that is a whole different kettle of fish.


The Purpose of Marriage

Beyond the primary purpose of love, and making a commitment to each other, the purpose of marriage is really up to each individual couple. For some, it may be to provide an environment to raise children, but for others it may not. To say that the essence of marriage is for couples to have children is a huge assumption – and a huge insult to families of different compositions where there is a single parent, or where children are raised by grandparents, or families where there are no children. Families are defined not by the composition – but by love.


People certainly have their own reasons to get married. However, the best environment to raise children is a stable two-parent household, with parents of opposite sexes. The vehicle to achieve this is marriage.

Marriage is a declaration of commitment, and therefore stability. It announces the intention to start a family to the community, thus spurring the community to support the new family. To encourage the growth of the next generation, the state offers incentives to newlyweds and new parents.

The family unit is the foundation of Singaporean society. Pro-family policies are designed to create a self-sustaining society, generation after generation. Marriage is integral to the family unit. Conservatives will see an attempt to redefine marriage as an attack on society itself—and the harder-core among them will treat an attempt to redefine the family unit in the same way.

It may be well and good to claim that families are defined by love. However, once we talk public policy, we need to examine how the family structure affects society and vice versa. We’ve already seen this in the previous point concerning land scarcity and priority for public housing. Miak Siew—and the wider LGBTQ community in Singapore—have provided no arguments that speak to the well-being of future generations.

Keep this in mind as we address future points.


LGBTQ people wanting to adopt

The desire for some LGBTQ people to have children is the same as the desire that some heterosexual folks. If there is a problem (which I don’t see there is) with adopting a child to complete the family, then the same argument can be applied to heterosexual couples too. The thing is – for some people, there is a inner desire to parent and raise children. And there are children out there, in need of a loving family so that they are loved and supported.


Buried in this is the assumption that children of LGBTQ parents are as well off as children of heterosexual couples. Every so often, you will see pieces in the media claiming how ‘studies’ show that children of LGBTQ parents experience the same or similar life outcomes compared to the children of heterosexual couples. You will see children of LGBTQ parents giving testimonies of the normalcy and happiness of their upbringing, and LGBTQ parents sharing their stories of raising children.

The reality is far different.

The mainstream media slants left. They push stories favourable to progressive causes, and bury or ridicule those that aren’t. In reality, the studies they cite are riddled with significant problems.

Here’s an example: this study claims that “Children with female same-sex parents and different-sex parents demonstrated no differences in outcomes, despite female same-sex parents reporting more parenting stress.”

A mere 95 families were sampled. This is far too small a sample size to reflect the 38 million people of the United States.

Furthermore, the researchers drew their data from responses to survey questions concerning parenting. They did not actually reach out to the survey participants to verify the results, or follow the children over time. It is not out of the question for participants to realize that the data collected by the National Survey of Children’s Health might be used to justify future family policies, and so try to present themselves and their households in the best possible light. The study cannot assume that the parents will be unbiased—if anything, we must assume that homosexual parents will be highly biased on surveys concerning parenthood.

As the New Family Structures Study shows, there are significant differences between children of same-sex couples and children of opposite-sex couples. For starters, the former are more likely to “report same-sex attraction, sexual minority identity, and same-sex experience than the general population”. Another study found that children of gay and lesbian parents were about 65% as likely to graduate high school compared to children of heterosexual couples, and that daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons.

Furthermore, a child growing up in a same-sex household does not have an adult parent of the other sex as a model. More than just chores or providing for the child, a parent shows the child how an adult should act. The absence of a role model leaves the child significantly disadvantaged.

The state has a duty to ensure the continued growth, prosperity and stability of society. How can the state justify homosexual couples adopting children when the data points to such children being disadvantaged—and when progressive and LGBTQ organisations attempt to drown out the data with propaganda? The state must consider the impact of their decisions on society for generations to come, especially in a tiny, resource-poor country like Singapore, whose only resource is its people.


Aggressive Promotion of LGBTQ lifestyles

Please don’t conflate visibility with promotion. I have been puzzled for a long time (20 years?) with the use of the phrase “promotion of LGBTQ lifestyles.” I don’t see LGBTQ folks outside MRT stations with sign-up sheets.

What I do know is this – because of LGBTQ visibility, children who are LGBTQ come to the realisation of who they are earlier.

My personal experience – while growing up, there were no representations and very little visibility. The visibility was limited to – effeminate men, cross-dressers and transsexuals (I use this term, because that’s what was the terminology and concept then) I couldn’t identify with any of that – and felt very alone.

It was until the advent of internet, and finally stepping into a gay club back in 1998, and seeing other men like myself, who were attracted to other men, that it clicked. That moment, I knew who I was – they were me, and I was them. I am gay.

I know of several transgender people who transitioned late in life. They too shared something similar – they didn’t have a word for what was going on inside them, until one day, they came across the idea of gender dysphoria, and “click” they knew who they were.

I guess it may be the same for folks reading about neurodivergence, childhood trauma, personality types – when they come across a concept – they finally have a word to describe who they are.

To those who may not understand, they may imagine that LGBTQ folks have succeeded in “converting” children. But the reality is – the children have come to the realisation of who they are. To those who keep repeating fears around sex reassignment surgery – I hope they know it is not something anyone can decide to do on a whim. Please don’t minimise the long journey / process transgender people go through (including all the bureaucratic hoops). It takes a tremendous amount of courage, willpower and resources to get there. It is not something they go through because “it is cool.”


Visibility is promotion.

To deny this is to claim that advertising, sponsorships and product placements don’t work.

You may not see “LGBTQ folks outside MRT stations with sign-up sheets”. Instead, you see propaganda everywhere.

It is in Disney and Pixar, traditionally children’s media companies, producing content with LGBTQ characters—and every major entertainment company following suit. It is in queer fiction and nonfiction—including and especially those aimed at young adults and prepubescent children. It is in comic books, novels, and movie adaptations. It is in the mainstream media steadily trumpeting LGBTQ causes and ‘studies’, and celebrating LGBTQ entertainment. It is in social media companies issuing out special emojis and banners for Pride. It is in corporations supporting LGBTQ causes. It is in the coordinated full court press in entertainment, in politics, in the media, and everywhere else to push LGBTQ people front and centre in the spotlight. In Singapore, we see this in Pink Dot—and the latest edition had drag performers performing in front of children.

It is everywhere.

To deny this is to speak against the sun. Yet members of the LGBTQ community refuse to talk about it. Why?

Because they know that visibility is promotion.

They know that politics flows downstream from culture. Change the culture of a country and you change the politics. Reach the children young, and you shape them into who you want them to be. That means creating a culture that encourages LGBTQ children—and therefore encourages children to come out as LGBTQ.

Now scroll back up to the study that states that the children of same-sex parents are more likely to be gay, to the argument to allow LGBTQ people adopt children, and to the following phrase by Miak Siew:

“Children who are LGBTQ come to the realisation of who they are earlier.”

This sends a chill down the spine of every conservative—and lights a fire in their hearts.

They see the LGBTQ propaganda everywhere. They watched LGBTQ communities celebrate drag performances in front of children, and child drag performers. They read the news about groomers in public education who encourage their children to 'come out' without telling their parents, who defend books depicting child porn and pedophilia in school libraries, about American public educators indoctrinating children. They heard the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus singing “We are coming for your children”.

How early is ‘early’? Use ‘children’ and ‘early’ in the same sentence when discussing LGBTQ issues, and a parent will hear, ‘as early as possible’.

At the turn of the century, the number of adults who identify as LGBTQ was in the low single digits, except for gay-friendly areas like San Francisco and Thailand. Then came the LGBTQ propaganda push, starting in the past decade. Now, 9.1% of millennials identify as LGBT, and 15.9% of Generation Z do the same.

Rapid onset gender dysphoria may be driven by social contagion: a toxic combination of peer pressure, identity politics, desire for acceptance, and Internet exposure. A study that claims to debunk that has been refuted, but the media won’t tell you that.

Concerning transgenderism in particular, trans activists may say they are merely helping youths to discover themselves. The reality is that among youths who experience gender dysphoria, the majority of them grow out of it—but those who were encouraged to undergo ‘social transition’ and identify as the opposite sex never do.

This is not helping people find ‘who they are’. This is preying on vulnerable youths. This is guiding them down the road to continued confusion, a road that ends with gender reassignment, an irreversible procedure linked to osteoporosis, hormone disruption, infertility, organ failure, and more.

‘Visibility’ is not driving this phenomenon of “children who are LGBTQ com[ing] to the realisation of who they are earlier.” It is a combination of propaganda, advocacy, social contagion, and predatory behaviour.

I won’t minimise the long journey transgender people go through. Miak Siew, on the other hand, has said absolutely nothing about the predators, the groomers, the enablers and the activists who are preying on children. Instead, he pushes alternative facts about children finding ‘who they are’.

Why is that?


Social Cohesion

Real social cohesion will not come from silencing, suppressing or criminalising the LGBTQ community. Real social cohension comes from dialogue. I say dialogue and not debate. Debates do not bring us to social cohesion – we will just become more divisive. Dialogue will. The objective of dialogue is mutual understanding – not mutual agreement. I may not agree with someone’s stance, but I understand where they are coming from.

As an LGBTQ person, I am not out to silence people of faith. Many LGBTQ folks are people of faith too! What I seek is – 1. That religious organisations recognise the harm they do to LGBTQ folks. 2. Religious organisations are honest and held accountable to present an accurate picture of LGBTQ folks. Reading all those letters circulated gives me an impression that we are mischaracterised and there is a lot of misinformation about LGBTQ folks!


Dialogue is a two-way street. I have read much about the LGBTQ community’s concerns. I have yet to see the LGBTQ community acknowledge the concerns of the rest of the community. They have offered no assurances that they are not targeting children, that they will expose and expel the predators and the groomers, that they are committed to building a stable society along with everyone else in the nation.

Pink Dot 2022 held a drag performance in an audience where children were present. When this happened in the West, we saw where that led to: drag queen reading hour hosted by sex offenders, children brought to strip clubs for drag shows, children performing at strip clubs in drag.

The LGBTQ community has said not one word against the sexualisation of children.

Miak Siew said he wants religious organisations to be “held accountable to present an accurate picture of LGBTQ folks”. In light of the previous paragraph—the denial that visibility is promotion, the glossing over of the global propaganda push, the reality of predators using the LGBTQ umbrella to target children—can we trust the LGBTQ community to be honest and accountable too?


Silencing Religion

Religious organisations can continue to teach what they want to their own communities – I mean, religious organisations all have their own stance on a variety of things (use of contraceptives, what can be eaten, drinking of alcohol) – but they need also to recognise where the boundaries are because Singapore is a secular state.

I read one of the messages that said that if faithful Christians do not stand up against the repeal of 377A, they are sinning by omission. I find it rather bad logic – because by the same line of reasoning, if folks don’t stand up to demand criminalisation of adultery, then they too are sinning by omission. What a terrible argument. Sinning by omission has more to doing something when we could - like not helping someone when they are in need. (This can get quite technical, so if folks want to discuss more, i will do it elsewhere. This post is very long as it is.)

We are all responsible for our own decisions, choices and actions. I believe when the day comes, I would be held accountable for my life – and what I have done in my life. And I think, in some areas I have fallen short, but I know for myself – living out my life as an openly gay man isn’t one of those areas.

One thing I hope religious organisations – especially those who peddle conversion therapy – can speak to is – just how successful are your efforts to change people’s sexual orientation? How many of those who got married, later realise that they were living a lie, and they divorce? How many of these people have left your communities? How many suffered mental health issues from being told they are not worthy? How many struggled so hard, and when they realised they cannot change, they gave up on religion? Or worse, gave up on themselves, and took their own lives?

Because I know some of these people. Some are no longer with us. Some remain silent because of the shame and pain they experienced. Religious organisations can be honest about these - Exodus International, an organization whose mission was to "help" gay Christians become straight, apologised and closed down in 2013. But this data present inconvenient truths – that insofar as folks have “benefited,” “changed,” “healed,” there are those who have been severely harmed by their work.


As a pastor, Miak Siew is supposed to uphold Christian teachings. This includes the Biblical position on homosexuality and marriage. By conducting same-sex marriages, he does the opposite of this.

He may not want to silence religion—but the conservatives are seeing him subvert it. They are seeing the same tactics used by communists and predators. They see someone who claims to be religious, but publicly advocates positions contrary to established doctrine.

To the conservatives, subversion is worse than silencing. Outright censorship and oppression galvanises resistance. The Catholic Church survived centuries of tyrannical empires. It has buried the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, and every despot and tyrant in between that tried to suppress it. Subverting religion is far more insidious. It transforms a community that seeks to elevate believers into a movement that serves only to advance dark agendas. It fools people into thinking that it offers a road to salvation, when it is merely laying down a paving of good intentions.

Dialogue is a two-way street. Miak Siew may want the Christian church to acknowledge the harms caused by conversion therapy. Very well. How does he plan to assure conservatives that he is not trying to subvert the cross and worship the rainbow? Will he speak against the deluge of LGBTQ propaganda that floods the modern world? Does he stand with society against the predators?

All we have heard so far is silence.


Intrusion of women’s space

That misinformation bandied around that transgender women will threaten the safety of women in bathrooms is just based on fear. There has not been a single incident when safety of women was compromised because of transgender women. Really – what I know from my transgender friends is that they just want to pee in peace.

The only intrusion I see here is men speaking out on behalf of women, and using women’s safety as a pretext to perpetuate their biases and fears. ( I have to acknowledge here, I am also a man speaking about women’s space too)


This may not have happened in Singapore. It has happened overseas.

In 2017, a transgender woman was convicted of sexually abusing a girl in a bathroom. In 2019, a transgender woman sexually assaulted two girls in toilets. Lia Thomas, a transgender female and women’s swimming champion, exposed male genitalia to female team members in the bathroom.

This is more than just a bathroom issue. MTF transexuals have a distinct advantage over women in sports. In 2015, the International Olympic Committee placed limits on MTF athletes’ testosterone levels, and before that, they required the athlete to undergo genital surgery. Now, those limits have been dropped.

Testosterone is the primary male sex hormone that promotes increased muscle and bone mass over females. This ruling would automatically give MTF athletes an unfair advantage over biological females—such as Lia Thomas. Recently in Ireland, a football team with at least one trans player defeated their opponents by _eight _goals.In the Mixed Martial Arts world, MTF fighter Fallon Fox attracted controversy for breaking the skulls of opponents—twice.

In women’s sports, the presence of an MTF athlete could cost a biological woman a medal, and the opportunities that come with it. In combat sports, an MTF fighter could leave a female fighter severely injured, or worse.

After reading everything up to this point, a conservative will have to view Miak Siew’s words with grave suspicion. They will wonder if he is simply ignorant—or if he’s deliberately spreading misinformation, and covering for predators.

I’m not going to speculate, but this is how a conservative will think, and Miak Siew hasn’t said anything so far that will reassure them.


Reverse Discrimination

I read this – “Businesses not supporting LGBTQ+ movements are cancelled. Employees and students ostracized for not supporting LGBTQ+.”

The Christian community is much larger than the LGBTQ community. If anything, Christians are the masters in cancellation. When a Christian writer comes out in support of LGBTQ, their books are pulled off the shelf - even if these books are really really good. (you can read about the late Eugene Peterson, who backtracked his support of same-sex marriage after the largest chain of Christian bookstores in the US threatened to pull his books from their shelves and their website)

Really we are not asking for support. We are asking to be treated equally. You don’t have to support LGBTQ folks to treat us with respect. Respecting someone shouldn’t be premised on agreeing with them. This is fundamental to social cohesion in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural country like Singapore. We learn to respect people who come from a different racial, cultural and/or religious background without having to agree with their beliefs.

People will get ostracised not because they are not supportive of LGBTQ folks – they will be ostracised because they don’t treat other people with respect.


This section neatly sidesteps the power of the LGBTQ+ movement.

Today, the LGBTQ+ movement is a protected political class in the West. Its messages are broadcast in the media, in schools, in bookshops and libraries, they are everywhere. It is sponsored by corporations and politicians. Big Tech, Big Media, Big Everything supports the movement.

How can anyone say ‘The Christian community is much larger than the LGBTQ community’ when the world celebrates Pride but not Christ?

Everyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ narrative faces the wrath of the mob and the Establishment. I personally know people who have endured attempts to cancel, dox and destroy them because they disagree with LGBTQ propaganda.

LGBTQ politics is wrapped up with left-wing politics. In the doctrines of the Left, you are either with them or against them. If you disagree, you become a sinner, forever damned, and must be destroyed. This gives the lie to the statement “People will get ostracised not because they are not supportive of LGBTQ folks – they will be ostracised because they don’t treat other people with respect.”

To the Left, ‘respect’ is code for ‘wholehearted agreement and support’. Anything less is disrespect, and disrespect merits cancellation. I have witnessed this myself with my own eyes. This is how the Left thinks, and I see no reason why I cannot apply this rubric to the LGBTQ community.

Concerning the matter of Eugene Peterson, he made a statement in an interview that appeared to endorse same-sex marriage. LifeWay Christian Resources, the publishing division of Southern Baptist Convention, issued another statement saying that it would no longer sell any of his books if they can confirm that he no longer holds to a Biblical view of marriage. Peterson reversed his statement, and LifeWay continued to sell his books.

LifeWay threatened to cancel Eugene Peterson because they believe his position contradicts Biblical teachings. They did not call for Christians to dox him, boycott him, deny him a living, or even for his own church to dismiss and defrock him. At the same time, they could not sell anything that from someone perceived to contradict their values. They hold themselves to a timeless standard.

The Left has no standard.

There is only the narrative du jour, and everyone must hustle to remain aligned with it, or be destroyed. The ideology of the left has no rock-steady values, and so does not restrain militants from harming their targets. Thus we saw the 'mostly peaceful protests' in the summer of 2020 in America, concurrent with a nearly 30% spike in murders.

I have known people who have endured hate mobs. I’ve had people try to cancel me before the term even existed. The mobs were all leftists. We have seen first hand their tactics and their essential nihilism.

Christians can be held back by the Bible. The Left has nothing to hold them back—which means neither do left-wing LGBTQ activists.

Miak Siew can say “Respecting someone shouldn’t be premised on agreeing with them”, but as long as the LGBTQ community remains aligned with the Left, anyone who attempts to engage the community with nothing less than whole-hearted enthusiasm runs the risk of attracting a left-wing hate mob—and they will justify it by saying that he is a bigot, a homophobe, a hater who disrespected them.

Will Miak Siew stand with the innocent against the mob?

Even if his community is part of the mob?

That is the question a conservative needs answering.


I may not have said the pledge in years – but saying it every morning in school have etched it into my heart. “regardless of race, language or religion… based on justice and equality.”

I pray it remains on the hearts of us all.

“We, the citizens of Singapore,

pledge ourselves as one united people,

regardless of race, language or religion,

to build a democratic society

based on justice and equality

so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation."


Powerful words. But is he prepared to live up to it?

This is the end of the post, and Miak Siew still has not addressed the elephant in the room. He has said nothing about the real-world concerns that conservatives and parents face—not even the relatively apolitical problem of land scarcity and its impact on public housing. He has downplayed, if not outright ignored, the power and the reach of the LGBTQ lobby and their lack of moral restraints, as well as the real-world consequences of pursuing gender ideology.

The LGBTQ community does not grow quickly. Only rarely do they produce biological children. At the same time, LGBTQ people face increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases, suicides, substance abuse, mental illnesses, and cancers versus the general population. To sustain their numbers, never mind grow, the LGBTQ community must recruit from wider society.

Viewed in this light, the ongoing LGBTQ propaganda push can be seen as an attempt to massively grow the LGBTQ community and its allies. Increased numbers equal increased resources, influence, political power—and, inevitably, increased opportunities for sexual activity.

Going beyond welcoming non-heterosexual adults into the community, there is now a concerted attempt to recruit children. In drag shows, books, schools, movies, comics, and more, LGBTQ messaging features prominently in media aimed at children.

Predators and groomers love this. Increased population equals increased opportunities to find victims. They would drive the push to propagandize children. Removing them would remove the key players driving the campaign to expand the LGBTQ community. To act against the predators, the LGBTQ community must be prepared to act against its self-interest in the service of wider society.

Will the LGBTQ community speak against this propaganda push? Will it join forces with society and law enforcement to remove the predators and the groomers? Will it prevent the moral decay of the West from seeping into Singapore?

Are they prepared to protect society, even if it means giving up everything they have gained? Even if it means turning against their heroes? Even if it means placing hard limits on their own behaviour?

That is the true test.

My latest series is designed to build up the youths of tomorrow. Check it out here.