Musings Singapore

1 Step Forward, 10 Steps Back

So once again, Singaporeans discuss homosexuality. However, this time round, it’s not a discussion about repealing Section 377A (which I still maintain is archaic and should be abolished), but about our very own Health Promotion Board posting a FAQ on sexuality, and touched specifically on issues / topics surrounding homosexuality.

Screenshot from HPB:



Other than an obvious filter for gays/bisexuals (where are the lesbians in this FAQ?), I was rather glad to see this type of information being available online with a neutral stand. Taking a sample question on “How and when will I know if I’m gay or bisexual?” The answer that was provided is neutral and provides simple & good information. 



So we can now all look to the sky with tears running down our faces, thinking how much of a progress this is for our nation.


A Minister of Parliament has to feel ‘disappointed’

A magic-wielding pastor is shocked and deeply upset

Online petitions to take down the FAQ

Online petition to restore the FAQ

And more discussions online as usual, since this is the internet.

At the end of the day, there really isn’t anything different whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. I don’t even care if you are into bestiality if that’s what floats your boat. (I do judge pedophiles very much)

In a way, I’m glad we are having this type of conversations or discussions, or even moving one step forward at all.

Personally, I see Singaporeans as rebelling teenagers to their archaic parent / government. Some teenagers rebel and fight because they can, and for no particular reason. Most teenagers fight back because they finally see that things are not the way their parents say they are, and they are refusing to just swallow everything that their parents say without questioning. They are finally coming into their own skin and very eager to cultivate their own personality and be themselves for the first time. Those who succeed at changing their parents go on to become strong men and women; those who fail simply slide back into their personal oblivion. Most of us, however, find a middle road and pick the battles that actually matter to us, and let some things go. I think we will get to see who we truly become in the next couple of decades. It took us 50 years to get to this stage, I do not expect us to grow up as a nation in one or two elections. I just hope to see progress before I leave this world.


Why can’t they understand?

In the case of the Repeal of Section 377A, homosexuals are NOT campaigning for the rights to rule the country. They are not campaigning for the right to have same-sex marriages. They are just campaigning for the right to maintain privacy behind doors, and the right to do what they please without breaking the law.

When I read Mr Ho Kwon Ping’s article on TODAYonline yesterday, I was pleased to see the Chairman of Mediacorp stand up for what he believes in, to the extent of putting it up on national papers, though it isn’t The Straits Times. I applaud but honestly, I don’t think anyone in the rainbow club will believe that it will change anything.

Today, however, I came across this other article written in response to Mr Ho’s commentary. And with all due respect, I’m afraid I have to say, this is something about Christianity I don’t understand. I thought God teaches us to love all brothers and sisters unconditionally? That was what I was taught in 10 years of convent education. Of course, my education is far from the tip of the iceberg. But that was one consistent teaching I was given for 10 whole years of my primary to secondary life. Isn’t this prejudice & discriminatory? I don’t remember the Ten Commandments having anti-homosexuality in it. But of course, I have only wikipedia and the movie to guide me. Please, correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not well versed in Bible studies. Anyway, before I digress further, the point of this post is NOT about Christianity & homosexuality.

Mr Anton Chan has it all wrong. And I’m sure he’s not alone. Singaporeans have become so paranoid that they seem to think that everything that goes against their perception of normal is dangerous. Then again, philosophically speaking, what is normality? The Merriam Webster dictionary explains normal as b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern. Normality is relative.

What’s next? Same sex marriages?
Letter from Anton Chan

MR HO Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs, social well-being and families.

Being homosexual isn’t a lifestyle. Taking on a certain lifestyle means you have a choice. You pick & choose what type of actions you’d like to adopt. Being sporty is a lifestyle; clubbing is a lifestyle. Homosexuality is not. It’s a sexual orientation. You don’t pick & choose who you decide to fall in love with. Not unless you live in the past where nobody marries for love, only convenience. Yes, there are choices made. A choice of accepting yourself or not. That is the only choice to be made.

As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore because it’s against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I care because I don’t want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.

Honestly, if your kid is gay, he’s gay. No matter whether you expose him to such a ‘lifestyle’ or not. If he is being oppressed to be straight, he’s going to suffer real pain inside. Furthermore you are opposing ‘legalising a gay lifestyle’ but we are for the legalising of an act, which is mutally consented between two adult males.

Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore. What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children for gays?

Ah… I dont understand this line of thought. So, Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Massachusetts and California are all what.. beneath everyone else? Just because they legalise same-sex marriages? The last I know, Canada is a great place to live in.

Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?

Erm… Acceptance of all as one? Liberalisation?

Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on the next generation of children and parents who wish that their children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal course of their being?

In the first place, all Singapore citizens have the right in all areas such as education, welfare etc. So if I read this right, you’re suggesting that homosexuals are not supposed to be entitled to benefits that are given to ALL citizens? So they are, in your books, third-class ‘citizens’? Now I’m starting to get the picture. Also, your point of ‘produce children in the normal course of their being’ isn’t standing much. Heterosexuals are not having kids anyway, so what’s the fuss? If heterosexuals aren’t having kids and homosexuals would love to adopt one, hey! Good for the country’s population growth! 1 for the gays!

The only strong contention in Mr Ho’s proposal is the so-called gay leading edge in the “creative class”. Doesn’t our society have many other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.

‘Why are we so eager to promote creative class talent in Singapore?’ I think that’s because if otherwise, Singaporeans will be nothing but robots toiling away at work. Your national day parade won’t look so grand & well put together, you won’t have performances to watch, no designers, no artists, no musicians. No Dick Lee! Oh then again, we could always import foreign talent, to put together our national day parade.

I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In “None above the law” (Sept 8), he said: “If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota, she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended … But until Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations Act, they remain the law of Singapore.”

If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament, he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended … But until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it remains the law of Singapore.

The thing is, the law is quite ridiculous if you don’t enforce it. What’s the point of having a law that is in black & white, yet you tell everyone in the country that you will not be prosecuting the offenders? It’s like saying rape is illegal yet people are free to do it. So why is it illegal in the first place?

It’s hypocritical to have a law to make conservatives happy, and turn around and tell those affect that they will not be prosecuted, so please continue to bring back glory for the country. Please continue to make waves in the international scene. Singapore wants to be number 1 in everything, but no, we will not repeal Section 377a. As the government, they should be doing what they preach. Singapore is conservative? Okay fine. Then prosecute all who do not abide by the law and stick to it. Don’t want to encroach on their privacy so will not prosecute? Then don’t even have this law in the first place. What a cognitively dissonant country we live in. *Sigh*


Final post on homosexuality stand

This gay vs anti-gay debate is starting to get ridiculous. The same “arguments” are being brought up over and over again.

A recent commentary made by Ms Yvonne Lee, a Law lecturer at NUS (ha!), in The Straits Times as linked from Yawning Bread here. I had to link from Yawning Bread because I couldn’t find a more neat and comprehensive reproduction of the original article. I suppose her views are, though very much flawed, typical. She did serve as legal counsel for Temasek Holdings and a professor at NUS. Singaporean universities are very apt at hiring people who have no references & no publications under their belt. Other than those published by the University Press of course. Boo. Those who do actually do research have moved elsewhere..

Her views are really extremely typical of the run of the mill arguments that anti-gays put across. And since there is a multitude of links tracked by, I suppose its pretty pointless for me to argue against HER points. So i’m going in generals.

This post is the LAST time I’m going to make my stand on homosexuality & its criminalising. As well as the religion / moral POV that anti-gays take.

All thanks to MM Lee’s fleeting mention that he thinks the authorities must take a “pragmatic approach” to what he sees as an “inevitable force of time & circumstances”. Source from Asiaone news. He also mentions that “Singapore should not actively pursue homosexuals who engage in sex.” There is a sudden unwelcome increase in unwanted attention to the homosexual community in Singapore.

For so many decades, homosexuals have lived in peace and harmony with the rest of the community every where in the world, Singapore included. So why is the spotlight on them right now? Before this incident, I am almost 100% sure that nobody even knew of the existence of the Penal Code section 377A.

The most common arguments against legalising homosexual activities are more often than not, on moral & religious grounds. Religion is inherently good and teaches their believers to serve the less fortunate and champions world peace (sic!) It is the people who thwart religion and make it into something that champions what they themselves believe in and want to achieve, some evil plan that they conceive. God is always the black sheep that people blame for their misguided deeds.

Which is why using religion as an argument for being AGAINST someone is plain bullshit in my opinion. B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. Stop defacing the sanctity of God (in general terms) and all that He stands for. Stop using Him as a mask that you cowardly hide behind in your futile and disgusting way of defending your un-religious views.

Did religion teach you to be intolerant of those who are different from you? I seriously doubt that. Then why are you being intolerant? Isn’t that against your faith? Isn’t that against all that God has taught you to be? Then on what grounds can you stand up and tell dissenting people that they are ‘immoral’, and what they are doing is ‘against the nature of mankind’.

Homosexuality is present in mankind since the Greeks and the Samurais were born. Japanese history tells us that Samurais have sex with women and marry them for the sole purpose of procreation and letting the blood line continue. Their real love comes from the brotherhood. It is a culture for seasoned samurais and novice samurais to have sex and love each other. An article about the history of samurais confirms this. Homosexuality wasn’t that deviant in those days, in those cultures. Asian for that matter. In fact it was a necessity for the Samurais, who were the highest class of beings in Japan, second only to the ruler.

So if it was natural then, how does it not be natural now? Did the definition of natural change over time? Has God somehow altered the natural state of things in this world somehow?

On the same thread of natural, it is also argued that homosexuality goes against the institution of marriage, which is reserved for one man & one woman. Who said it? Who decreed that marriage is only for the man-woman combination? Yes, God created Adam & Eve and not Adam-Adam or Eve-Eve. But they had to procreate so by fact of nature, only a sperm & an egg can fuse to create a baby. They had nobody else anyway, how are they to know if they actually love the opposite gender? They might have been gay/lesbian/bi-sexual for all we know.

Marriage is a commitment of two people who are in love and are willing and committed to spend the rest of their lives together, happily ever after (ok, this is cliche). If two people of the same gender can do that, what right do we have to go against it?

Procreation. Many heterosexuals are not giving birth right now. So I will be right to say, from the “homosexuals cannot procreate, therefore population growth will decline” POV, that we should criminalise the following:
– Infertile men / women
– Heterosexuals who chose not to have a child
– Heterosexuals who are too poor to afford having a child

Why are we not doing so then?

Another popular argument is that gays are more promiscuous and thus they are the reason why there are more AIDS cases. Oh. My. God. How imbecile. It’s akin to saying we have to criminalise all SARS carriers, all Hep B carriers, all Bird Flu carriers etc etc.. Our jails will be extremely over-crowded. More jails need to be built. Are these people willing to say give up their houses to make way for more new jails?

These people argue that it is intrinsic that heterosexuals are more committed to relationships, especially women. Right. Maybe I should put out some stats for the number of abortions being carried out, the number of single moms there are.. Since gays & lesbians can’t procreate, these instances must have been committed by heterosexuals right? There goes the commitment theory. Flying out of the window.

And that their sexual activities are more prone to AIDS? Wherever did you guys get that from?? So we should BAN all sex activities then? Nobody should have sex at all. It harms others. Oh and those who make such propositions might have never heard of the term ‘oral sex’ or ‘mutual masturbation’. I doubt either of these will cause AIDS. Maybe we should ban them as well. No masturbating and no oral sex. Na-dah.

Oh that note, maybe we should criminalise sneezing, coughing, spitting, yawning (who knows what air-borne germs might come out of the person’s mouth). We should all wear a spacesuit out. Because, everything you touch can be a breeding ground for germs. We should all eat space food too!

We have intelligent people living in this country.

I am so proud.