Gay and Casino ?

With the recent announcement of Singapore going to have 2 Integrated Resorts (Not only Casinos !) somehow find our Government a little strange in this debate.

First of all, when our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the decision, he has told everyone that the government should be a "secular organization, making decisions and policies based on what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans."

Thus, even though there are many objections from MPs, members of the public and of course, all religious groups, they have decided that Jobs, Tourism and all other factors outweight the "social costs".

Why do I not see the same tenacity at work for giving rights to minority-groups in our society ? I do not belong to many minority-groups, but I know I belong to one - Homosexuals.

Why, when it has been recognized by many leading medical bodies globally that homosexuality is not a disease, that Singapore still outlaws homosexual acts. Even when the government decides not to prosecute consenting gay adults, the law is still there ? Despite needing the pink dollar, and then PM Goh Chok Tong saying that the civil service will still employ homosexuals, homosexual laws will not be removed ?

The argument is not to antagonize the conservative majority. What majority ? All the arguments are along the lines of "homosexual behaviour is immoral" (think "gambling is immoral"), "homosexuality is against our religion" (think "gambling is against our religion").

And what morals ? Mostly Christian and Islamic. What religion ? Isn't the government supposed to be secular ?

I am not going to give all the points of the argument - It is not the point of this entry. Instead, I just want to point out the similarity of public objections about homosexuality and the casino, but the difference in the government's decision.

Well, maybe repealing the law doesn't create as many jobs as building casinos. Maybe giving homosexual rights doesn't bring up the GDP of Singapore.

If that is the case, the job of our government is skewd towards just the economy, not about the people who elected them (or rather, the majority who didn't elect them, but that is another story).