I’m responding here to your reply in the other thread for better visibility for others to read. I wrote most of this before blahs comment.

Here’s the thing yes I’m an anglo so I really don’t care about “respecting” discrimatory elders or non elders for that matter.

You don’t respect our culture or our right to self-determination. Why should I listen to a chauvinist?

The language thing is a holdover of colonialism, as are the discrimatory laws. Singapore being a major trading hub has people and cultures of like a dozen Asian countries over there. My comment was about queer rights not the langauge. I’d imagine it is convenience having a common language to speak and the nature of the nation being an international trading hub and finance center. Malaysia has it’s own human rights issues. .

But you are not connecting what I am saying to the wider sociopolitical context of Singapore and Southeast Asia. In my OC I didn’t mention anything about queer rights either. My point is that you can’t insult the old people when they are more materially more progressive than the so-called “youth” by rejecting Western imperialism and I try explaining why through Singapore’s language policy. It is not black and white and I refuse to stoop to the Amerikan analysis of the “liberal-conservative” dichotomy.

Also, why are we utilizing Amnesty International as a source when it has been repeatedly shown to be aligned with US imperialism? This was what I was referring to in the first place. Malaysia is said to be backwards compared to Singapore and yet it’s language policy is infinitely more progressive than Singapore. I am trying to explain the complexities that makeup Singapore-Malaysia relations and history, which I think is essential in understanding both nation’s modern politics.

A nation under threat or percieved threat will shore up their religous base in nationalist conviction and reduce rights. A nation not under threat or percieved threat tends to expand rights in relative safety. Singapore is not under threat or percieved threat and you see less crackdown on minorities and expansion of rights.

Singapore does see itself under threat. Its whole existence is being the West’s glorified military base and tax haven. It is a small island city-state with a Chinese majority surrounded by large Muslim-Majority states that is more anti-West and Pro-China than itself. The anglophile national bourgeoisie is threatened.

The nation betrayed the internationalist cause and decided to build it’s own city state (by negotiating with the Malay comprador feudal class) and ensured it’s viability towards that goal by making English the main language. It was a part motivated by practicality, but also part motivated by this reason, which all fits into the comprador class’ interests and not the masses.

It denied its own “Asianess” for a Singaporean identity. Singapore as a country is proud that it was colonised.

Because of this selfish nation-building, it has created a rift in Singaporean society in which it superficially upholds it’s Asian heritage while aligning itself with the West throughout the Cold War and afterwards.

It is this rift that the West exploits for its own gain. Now it has to deal with the repercussions of its internationalist betrayal, with the people down below caught in the crossfire.

It is up to the masses to correct this historical wrong.

As even with all the anti foreign laws in attempt to degrade the movement, Singaporians showed up in support.

According to Ipsos, support FOR Section 377A is still a plurality and only 27% believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry (which is not the be end and end all of LGBT liberation in the first place…).

Pink Dot SG has done it’s job for destabilisation. So much for liberal activism that can never reach broad, mass support and consensus.

If Pink Dot SG was truly grassroots, it wouldn’t ever have approached nor accepted sponsors from Western corporates. If they were grassroots someone would have definitely told them that corporate sponsorships would have been perceived negatively.

So even if they were able to rally local sponsors afterwards, this issue showcases a complete disconnect of the NGO from the masses themselves. And they were forced to find local sponsors - the government banned foreign corporate sponsorships of events in the Speaker’s Corner after this whole fiasco happened in 2016.

What kind of impact would that be for Asia as a whole if a major economic center in Asia is to progress on this end?

You rightfully point out that Singapore is and continues to be an essential part in the imperialist machine.

And so here’s where I disagree - even if Singapore became a Queer paradise, it won’t have any effect on LGBT “rights” across Southeast Asia at best and if anything, it may actually actively harm LGBT “rights” elsewhere.

Southeast Asians themselves know about the westernised, “cosmopolitan” comprador city-state of Singapore. A championing of “lgbt rights” in Singapore will actively antagonise LGBT rights as a Western plot AGAIN - and they would be right (see my other comment).

You keep mentioning Section 377A, and of course for a postcolonial country that never actually had a war of independence, the laws in the country would be colonial in origin.

To say that this law is the origin of “queer”phobia and by abolishing it will automatically improve the quality of life of queer Singaporeans and those abroad is incredibly naive. They will continue funding anti-LGBT outlets abroad. Just like how the USA funds both anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT organisations depending on circumstance.

They weren’t aiming to do a regime change

You underestimate USA psychological warfare. Regime change agent cells are activated when the time is right. We all know that just because you are an ally of the USA that doesn’t mean you are exempt from their intelligence services. It is precisely before light is cast onto the Empire’s enemies that we should be more vigilant about the information we read about them.

And you yourself admit that Singapore, despite it’s history, will drift eastwards - one of the West’s darlings - drifting back to Asia. So I am doubly confused why you’d think that the USA wouldn’t fund anything or conduct psychological warfare as a means of destabilisation and control.

The US especially has an extensive history of operations in Southeast Asia. Lee Kuan Yew himself admitted that the CIA tried bribing him.

As for the hyperlink, it links to a sci-hub.ru page of the journal article. On my end I don’t see any request for a passcode.