Wrong way to argue for fair treatment of gays, Alex

I find it perplexing that Alex Au of Yawning Bread, after years of campaigning for the Gay Cause, still makes the same basic mistake – ie trying to get public sympathy for criminals.

I am not against anyone who campaigns for the LGBT cause, be that person an LGBT himself or not. But I find it strange that there still are some LGBT people who think that the way to get support for the Gay Community is to highlight the plight of criminals. What a bummer.

From Alex Au’s Yawning Bread

Three pimps and the law

In the article above, Alex compares two cases of pimping. (Like what I said, he simply had to expect you to empathize criminals!) In one of the cases, its is about pimping female prostitutes. In the other case, male prostitutes.

Alex then compares the unfair hand of the law (yes, I agree with him it’s unfair), where in the case of the male prostitutes, the criminal who pimped them was charged under S377A, where it carries mandatory jail sentence, with no option of fine in lieu of.

Compare the above to the the case where female prostitutes were pimped, and was only fined but not jailed. Alex also pointed out:

146 (1) Any person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of another person shall be guilty of an offence . . .. . . shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000.

Issue here is, why was not the guy who pimped the female prostitutes jailed?

Yes, like I said, I agree that’s unfair. But it doesn’t flinch your sympathy activating hormones in your blood one iota, does it? In fact, I suggest that to level the field, how about amending some penal practices such that those who pimp female prostitutes, also get the mandatory jail sentence. That would even things up, not only for the gay community, but also for those who seek gender equality.

Family Ties the better way to seek empathy and sympathy -

The hardball approach to get S377A repealed was a washout. In fact, it created negative feelings from the public. What works is the soft, family approach, like this…

Pink Dot 2010: Focusing on Our Families (Part 1)

Pink Dot 2010: Focusing on Our Families (Part 2)

Please note that I am NOT endorsing sex-change or for that matter the LGBT cause. I may tolerate, but I don’t endorse. I am highlighting how using the family as a platform to get public empathy and sympathy is better than fighting for criminals.

So, isn’t using the Family platform a better way of getting the public to understand the discrimination gay and transgender people go through? Isn’t the Family approach the better way to end discrimination and hate for such people?

The Family Platform is a universal sympathy grabber -

Moving away from S377A, let’s look how the Family Platform works wonderfully elsewhere. Let’s look at Yong Vui Kong’s case, where he is facing death row.

It can be argued that those who are fighting for his life have taken the hard stance by challenging the Mandatory Death Penalty, as well as the Death Penalty itself. Again, note that no matter how you look at it, that approach is asking the public to empathize criminals.

In my opinion, Yong Vui Kong’s case would garner more support from the public if the campaigners had used his family as the core argument. He comes from a poor family, is not very well educated, and has a sickly mother. That story would certainly evoke much emotion of sympathy, if it does not bring tears to your eyes.

Yet, the campaigners take the hard stance and challenge Singapore’s Constitution? Doesn’t this show that the campaigners are more interested to fight their own cause (repealing of Death Penalty itself), rather than for the convict, in this case, Vui Kong?

My Final Comments -

Back to Alex Au’s approach. In spite of the fact that the Family Approach has time and again shown to be far superior in terms of garnering support, compared to fighting for criminals, we have LGBT activists like Alex Au who chooses the latter.

Why is this so? I feel that main reason for that is gay lobbyists like Alex are not interested in people. They are only interested in their own self-centred cause, that is to have the S377A repealed.

Note that while the soft Family Approach would have garnered many supporters from the public, it won’t do anything to repeal S377A.

There lies the crux of the issue.

So taking the hard stance fighting for the repeal of S377A, they must. Never mind that method does not garner as much support and sympathy for the individual gay and transgender people.

So are such gay lobbyists truly sincere in helping gay and transgender people? Just like some of the anti-Death Penalty supporters whose sincerity to fight for Vui Kong’s life is suspect, Alex Au’s sincerity is suspect.

I leave readers to judge for themselves.

========

PS – On the subject of justice (not on the subject of discrimination against gays), the two cases Alex brought up is a good example how inconsistent our police and prosecution can be. That point warrants further discussion. In the light of a recent case where a convict had his guilty sentence overturned and he was saved the gallows, these two cases of pimping, where one was given only a fine without jail sentence although it is clear it warrants the jail sentence, needs to be looked into further.

What’s going on with the police and prosecution?

>Parents Beware! AWARE pushing gay agenda in schools – again!

>We’ve had the case where Aware infiltrated the school system to introduce gay ideals. Remember their odious sex programmes teaching underage girls, as young as 12 how to have odious sex?

Not only was the programme odious, Aware did it covertly and sneakily. They cheated MOE’s and parents’ trust. Part of the programme also introduced gay lifestyle to young children.

8 Mar 2011 was International Women’s Day and of course, Aware was involved organising a seminar. Nothing wrong with that – except this sneaky bit, introducing a gay agenda covertly:

Gender Equity Essential for Singapore’s Next Lap

The key recommendations to policy makers are:

1. A quota of 30 per cent be set for women in Parliament as recommended by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which was ratified by Singapore in 1995.

2. The Singapore Constitution be amended to prohibit gender discrimination.

3. All policies and legislation be reviewed and all gender discriminatory laws, policies and practices be removed or replaced with laws, policies and practices that promote an equitable and sustainable work-life balance for both women and men.

4. Gender studies be added to the core curriculum for all students, and in the Civil Service.

5. Budgetary allocations to health care be increased significantly so as to ensure the good health of older people.

6. Care-giving (of the young and the elderly) should be recognised as a gender-neutral skill, and the quality of, and access to, care facilities and services for children, elderly and the disabled should be improved.

Take note that “Gender Studies” is part of Gay Ideology.

One of the topics in Gender Studies is the decronstruction of gender. It is about the belief that you are a man or a woman due to what you were taught when you were young, and not so much of what nature has bestowed upon you.

Gender Studies is about decontructing the definition of Man and Woman. Gender Studies is also about “choice” of your gender. It covers the study of “your choice” to be a man or a woman, because of the belief that gender roles and perhaps even gender itself is just a construction.

Gender studies

Gender studies is a field of interdisciplinary study which analyses race, ethnicity, sexuality and location.[1]

The philosopher Simone de Beauvoir said: “One is not born a woman, one becomes one”.[2] In gender studies, the term “gender” is used to refer to the social and cultural constructions of masculinities and femininities, not to the state of being male or female in its entirety.[3] The field emerged from a number of different areas: the sociology of the 1950s and later (see Sociology of gender); the theories of the psychoanalyst Jaques Lacan; and the work of feminists such as Judith Butler.

Let’s get this straight and clear. If non-discrimination against women is what we want to achieve, let’s work together towards that.

There is NO NEED to introduce Gender Studies in schools to achieve that.

Gender Studies is found in many fields, including literature.

Gender Studies is also used by the Gay Community to deconstruct gender to argue their case for same gender sexual relationship.

The fact that AWARE is trying to introduce Gender Studies into schools (like what they did with their odious sex ed programmes), shows that they are being sneaky, dishonest and bent on propagating their gay agenda in schools again!

I repeat. If Aware wants to work towards a non-discriminatory environment for women, there is NO NEED need for Gender Studies to be taught in schools.

Parents, guardians, and all those who care for society’s young Singaporeans in schools, please spread the word round about Aware’s latest sneaky plan.

They are at it again, trying to teach young underage kids that homosexuality is normal. They are attempting to teach your young children homo lifestyles again.

Here are a list of past articles on Aware’s gay agenda and its now defunct odious sex ed programme in schools.

So, Aware was a front for promotion of gay and lesbian lifestyle after all

Urgent Message to all Concerned Parents and other Responsible Citizens

A very big Thank You to all Parents and Responsible Citizens!

Looking back at AWARE’s CSE – did it encourage collaboration in crime?

Attention Parents: AWARE still bent on Gay Agenda

Here is a webpage to links on the actual sex ed programmes that Aware conducted in schools, which MOE and parents were not aware of, until Aware got busted. See for yourselves the odious nature of the programme, teaching underage girls how to have sex and about homo ideals. Isn’t this being complicit in crime, since it is a crime to have sex with underage girls?
Links to AWARE’s CSE

>Gays, take note – GE is about Spore, not you

>Ladies and Gentlemen. My fellow Singaporeans, would you accept if the Christian community were to ask each political party their standing towards Christians’ concerns as a prelude to the coming GE?

Would you accept such divisive, sectarian interests to dominate this coming GE?

If no, why should it be any different for the LBGT Community?

Singapore political parties’ positions on LGBT concerns – General election 2011

The text of the annexure to the letter (we decided to err on the side of greater detail than leaving the questions vague, especially since this is the first time we are asking political parties to address the issues):

Questions

1. One of the foundational principles of Singapore is the concept of equality. In your party’s opinion, does the concept of equality include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) persons and their interests?

2. In October 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said there has to be “space for homosexuals to live their lives”. Does your party agree with this?

3. The LGBT community feels that Section 377A of the Penal Code limits the space that they have, thus undercutting the equality that they feel they are entitled to, for example, in the following areas:
• the law legitimises social stigma and discrimination;
• through (a) above, it is used to justify media censorship;
• it constrains the needed degree of health intervention with respect to HIV.

What is your party’s position on these effects of Section 377A?

4. Speaking to Reuters in April 2007, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said Section 377A “eventually” has to go. Expanding on his thoughts, he said, “if this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that interconnected world and I think it is, then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it.” In August 2007, he repeated his sentiments to the International Herald Tribune, saying, “Yes, we’ve got to go the way the world is going. China has already allowed and recognized gays, so have Hong Kong and Taiwan. It’s a matter of time.”

(a) If a bill is before the next parliament to repeal Section 377A, will your party support it?

(b) If not, when do you foresee your party being able to support one?

(c) Is this a matter for which your party may consider necessary to lift its party whip?

5. Section 377A aside, on the question of equality in employment,

(a) Would your party support legislation promoting nondiscrimination in employment on grounds of race, religion, sex, disability and age?

(b) Should such legislation also include among its grounds sexual orientation and gender identity?

6. Currently, media policy severely restricts the portrayal of “alternative lifestyles”, which deprives Singaporeans of a balanced view of LGBT people and their lives. This deprivation reinforces negative stereotypes and further stigmatises LGBT people, holding society back from progressing.

(a) Does your party believe that LGBT themes, characters and content should be treated fairly and equally in media policy?

(b) To be more specific, does your party believe that there should be parity in media classification between films and art with LGBT themes, characters and content on the one hand and similar material with heterosexual themes, characters and content on the other, e.g. a same-sex love affair is classified the same way as an opposite-sex love affair?

7. What does your party consider an appropriate level of formal recognition of same sex relationships (agree/disagree on each sub-question)?
(a) no recognition as existing;

(b) provide a public register of same sex partnerships;

(c) recognise a same-sex couple in the same household for taxation purposes;

(d) recognise a same-sex couple as family nucleus in respect of public housing;

(e) recognise the rights of a same-sex partner for medical visitation, medical decision-making (in cases where the ill partner is incapable of deciding for himself/herself) and as next of kin;

(f) recognise a same-sex partner as equivalent to a spouse wherever insurance policies and employment benefits recognise a spouse;

(g) recognise a same-sex partner as equivalent to a married spouse with respect to succession intestate;

(h) recognise a same-sex partner as equivalent to a married spouse with respect to immigration.

8. Same-sex couples with children exist and are gradually increasing in number in Singapore. Present legislation and policies do not formally recognise them as a family unit, which is detrimental to the welfare of the children. Does your party agree that in the best interest of these children, there should be formal recognition of such a family nucleus?

Singapore’s political scene is at the crossroads today. Unlike past GEs, the usual bread and butter issues have been magnified.

Today, many Singaporeans are struggling with the cost of living. Many are still jobless, if not holding permanent jobs. Many are ageing and don’t have enough for their retirement. Many cannot afford medical fees. Many cannot afford high tuition fees for their university studies. Many are struggling just to stay alive.

The above are serious issues impacting society. Unlike past GEs, all these issues are now magnified because the number of people affected is much more than in previous elections. The last thing we need is to have a sectarian group, interested only in their sectarian interests, hoping to hijack and ride on the election fever.

I am not saying that gays have no rights to air their thoughts. They have. But doing it now is the wrong time because there are more important issues than serving sectarian needs.

The bottom line is that an LGBT is not disadvantaged in the workplace, is given equal opportunity in education, employment etc.

Issues like S377A (which does not really do anything to discriminate, bcos even if that is removed, society still has a stigma against gays, no?) can be left for a later time. Same goes for marrying a same-sex gender person.

If another sectarian group like Christians or Muslims were to bring up issues along sectarian lines, I am sure there would be a big outcry. Isn’t the gay community now being sectarian and divisive, trying hijack this GE and ride on the election fever?

I agree that there is a stigma against the LGBT society. But sometimes I wonder if this is because of their own doing.

Many actions the LGBT community has done is out of line – like condemning others who do not support repeal of S377A; introducing odious sex ed programmes to underage girls in schools; behaving boorishly at the last Aware’s EOGM etc.

It appears that everything LGBTs do, it is all about themselves, at the expense of others – even during this coming GE!

Gays, remember this. The GE is about Singaporeans and Singapore as a nation. It is not about you.

If you want others to respect your space, you have to respect others too.

>Revisiting S377A

>There is another case where a gay has been charged under S337A.

Lawyer challenges gay sex law

SINGAPORE – An application has been filed in the High Court to challenge the legality of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay sex.

A hearing will be fixed for the Court to rule whether the law should be deemed unconstitutional if the act is between consenting adults.

Lawyer M Ravi filed the legal action on Friday on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting male.

In his eight-page application, Mr Ravi said, “The continuance of Section 377A on the statute book operates to brutalise a vulnerable minority segment of the citizenry for no fault on its point. A section of society has been thus criminalised and stigmatised to a point where individuals are forced to deny the core of their identity and vital dimensions of their personality.”

His client is due to attend a pre-trial conference on Monday morning in the Subordinate Courts. With the application, though, Mr Ravi is also seeking for the higher court to “void” the charge brought against Mr Tan. LEONG WEE KEAT

Now before gays jump and howl that the govt has backtracked on their words that S377A won’t be used to discriminate gays, here is more information about the above case, which the article above did not report.

Singapore Bravely Cracks Down On Illegal Glory Hole Restroom Action

Tan Eng Hong, 47, will be charged with violating Singapore’s ban on sex between two men after he allegedly an “act of gross indecency” at a public toilet in a shopping mall. Singapore in 2007 legalized anal and oral sex between members of the opposite sex.

So the real reason for the conviction is that the crime was having sex in a public place. In this case, a public toilet. There are two issues that I would like to discuss. Firstly, why can’t the police just charge these guys for indecent act in a public place instead of S377A. Secondly, are not gays being less than honest claiming that S377A is used against them indiscriminately, when the background is that there is a crime committed, and all the hoo-ha that S377A is being used “to discriminate”, is nothing more than a technicality?

Why charge under “gross indecency in public place” instead of S377A -

I can’t claim to why the police don’t use this law, instead of S377A. However, I have had experience working with (not for) govt agencies before and I do notice a certain trend. If someone or a party commits a certain crime and if there are a host of legal avenues for govt to prosecute, very often the govt agency will choose the easiest option. Yes, easiest in the sense that the prosecution will inflict the max penalty with the least amount of work.

As an example, if a speedster is caught by the Traffic Police and he fails the breath analyzer test, this guy will probably be charged for driving while under the influence of alcohol, instead of speeding. Unless of course the speeding is way, way above the speed limit like 150 km/h.

Things get more complicated if it involves organizations where it is suspected crimes take place (eg misappropriate funds), but there is not enough evidence to prosecute. The prosecution may hence go for “easier options” like under declaration of tax or any “safer” methods which will eventually result in a successful conviction.

Yet another example would be shady companies who are known to siphon investors’ money for their own use, but there is not enough evidence to prove fraud. Such companies include MLM, fly by night forex companies, or companies that claim to train you in options/forex/stock trading by taking high fees, but give very little in return to investors.

So how do govt agencies prosecute if there is not enough evidence to prove fraud? They go for “easier options” like operating an unlicensed company that does trading or some other laws unrelated to fraud.

Back to the S377A stuff. Like I said, I do not know why S377A is used and not “gross indecency” in public place. But I suspect that it may be the “policy” of govt departments, where they will choose the easier and safer option, such that it results in a successful prosecution of a crime.

Gay Community not honest enough about use of S377A -

Time and time again, we have gays who claim that S377A discriminates. However, we can see that there is more to it. Are these gays not hiding that there are other crimes that the convicted person has committed and hence, the “easiest option” practice is carried out?

Here is an article from Yawning Bread that argues S377A is unconstitutional – Management of gays revisited, part 1

Left unsaid in YB’s article above is of course the govt’s practice of “easier option” to prosecute. So what is the main gist of the Gay Community? Is it:

1) S377A is used indiscriminately against gays.
2) S377A itself is discriminatory in nature, regardless it actually metes out injustice or not.

If it is (1), we must remember that the “easier option” practice is a blanket practice by govt agencies on all crime related cases. Hence, there really is no discrimination targetting gays or their community.

If it is (2), then this becomes an ideological agenda and nothing else. It becomes a political statement from the Gay Community that says, “We exist and we want to stamp our influence on you.” If that is the case, every minority has that right too, no? Which includes the different religions, no?

The Bottom Line -

The bottom line to this issue, I believe, is the end result in itself. If we want to talk about ideals, we can talk till the cows come home. Some want a more open democratic style – US/Western style. Not that I believe US and the West is democratic either, because there’s the Patriot Act in America that can be used against you in the name of “War of Terrror. Likewise, it is a crime to even dare discuss about the Holocaust in Europe. What democracy Western style?

Others want us to align to more “Asian Values” (as if there’ such thing, ha ha) and link Confucianism and Chinese Traditions to “Asian Values”. As if Indian Culture and other Asian societies are not part of Asia.

So if we give in the gay ideals, where do we stop? Rather than talking about these ideals, and hence, link it to repealing S377A, why can’t gays live and let live? After all, gays can still have their private affair (everyone else does that, so why can’t gays?) in their private space and not in public places like public toilets.

There is a proper time and proper place for everything – not least of all, that includes sex. So if everyone else in the community can observe the decency of having sex at the proper time and proper place, why can’t gays do the same?

Isn’t their own transgression from the norm of society (ie having sex in private) the cause of S377A being invoked against them, rather than the govt is out on a witch-hunt?

I have always said that gays inflict their own pain. This is certainly one very good example of my claim.

>TOC pawns self – If sex is "learned", so is homosexuality?

>The Online (Gay) Citizen has recently resorted to (high class) sex talk to shore up its flailing number of visits. The Singapore Daily has its Daily Chiobu, the Temasek Review will splash juicy stories, paparazzi-style, whenever there’s news like Jerk Neo. So to up that ante for the share of the internet veiwership pie, TOC puts up “expert” sex advice.

Problem is that this time round, TOC shoots itself in the foot. You see, as we all know, TOC is a gay controlled site. And the gay community has always said that being gay is “natural” and not “learned”. Really? TOC sex expert advisor, in an attempt to tell everyone what everyone does naturally (ie having sex) is learned, implicitly gives us message that homosexuality is also learned, right?

Sex is learned

Sex is a learned act. That’s right: l-e-a-r-n-e-d.

I remember contributing an article to an online portal a few months back. I had written the sentence: “For most people, sex is a learned act.” When the portal owner’s edits come back, she had written: “Don’t you mean, ‘For most people, sex is a natural act’?”.

My immediate response was territorial: ‘Who is the sexologist here? Are you saying I am wrong? What are you trying to imply here?’

What an egoist! The lady who questioned her in all probability was suprised and simply reacted how anyone would naturally react, so why the offence taken by Dr Sexologist?

When I calmed down sufficiently, I had to acknowledge that the portal owner wrote what she did because she truly thought she was right. She suspected that I had made a genuine mistake and was only trying to be helpful. I decided to store this story at the back of my head until a more opportune time to share my views arrived.

If sex was supposed to be natural, easy and effortless between two persons in love, how would it explain the couples who seek my support, unsure of how to consummate their marriage? Are they any less in love?

If sex was natural, why do people still have fears, anxieties, concerns and questions about sex?

If sex was natural, why are there people who do not like, do not want, or do not desire sex?

Are these people (gasp!) unnatural beings?

By the same argument, if homo is so natural why do people still have fears, concerns and questions about homosexuality? Why are there (many, definitely more than heterosexual sex) people who do not want or desire homo sex?

Case in point, one of the most comfortable sexual positions for a woman is when she lifts both her legs in the air and spreads her legs wide apart as her partner mounts her. This is known as the missionary position. For the longest time, I felt like, and I swear looked like, a frog. If sex is supposed to be natural, it most certainly didn’t feel like it. And it didn’t become ‘natural’ for a while.

So men bending down to expose their poo-holes to be entered feels natural?

Didn’t it occur to the above-mentioned portal owner that what she feels is natural sexually is also learned?

By the same argument, doesn’t it occur to Dr Sexologist that what gays feel is natural sexually is also learned?

The first people we learn about sexuality from are our parents, from the answer to our question, ‘Where did I come from’? As we enter school, our sexual information might increasingly come from our classmates. When we reach adolescence, other sources of information may include the media such as the Internet, movies, books and maybe whatever online porn you could get a hold of (even though you are not supposed to). If you were lucky, you might have received some sexual education in school – never mind the quality or depth of it.

Likewise, first gays and lesbians learn it from other gays and lesbians. They learn it from the media (which you can find lotsa gay material today). And if you are (un)lucky, you could have learned it from AWARE’s CSE. (Last one was just a jibe, ha ha)

Like much of everything we know, we acquire the knowledge, practice through trial and error, and perfect it so that it becomes a skill which we ‘own’. Hence, the word: ‘sexual skill’. Sex is a skill. Sex involves sexual techniques.

That includes analling, doesn’t it?

One can certainly buy sexual educational books in shrink-wrap plastic from Borders. Or attend one of my four sexual technique workshops.
Yes, my friend, sex is not a natural act. It is learned.

Enough said.

>Constance Singam is Promoting Alternative Lifestyle

>Yes, we all know what Alternative Lifestyle is, so don’t pretend and ask what that means. In my last post, which was also about one of Constance’s article, Crazy Ideal Feminists Campaign For, I said that Constance was seeking to have the current Statutory Rape Law tweaked, such that it would allow youngsters who are currently considered underage by law, to have sex legally.

That’s the type of Alternative Lifestyle Constance is seeking to promote, if you still wanna bug me what is “Alternative Lifestyle”.

Here is another article about Constance’s ideals – also about promoting Alternative Lifestyle.

State’s decisions a threat to secular society

Two recent moves by the Singapore government appear to favour one system of values over others in our pluralistic nation. This, says CONSTANCE SINGAM, could subvert the very nature of our secular society.

Indian economist Amartya Sen in his book Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny argues that we are becoming increasingly divided along lines of religion and culture, ignoring the many other ways in which people see themselves, from class and professions to morals and politics.

“Our shared humanity”, he writes, “gets savagely challenged when the manifold divisions in the world are unified into one allegedly dominant system of classification – in terms of religion, or community, or culture, or nation, or civilization.”

Our humanity here in Singapore is in danger of being ‘savagely challenged’ by two recent developments.

First of these was MOE’s choice of vendors to teach sex education in schools. Four of the six approved are known to be part of conservative Christian groups.

Then there was the National Art Commission’s decision to cut the funding of theatre group Wild Rice because, the Commission said, it would not fund “projects which are incompatible with the core values promoted by the government…”.

It seems to me that the State, which had declared its determination to protect the secular nature of our society, is privileging one system of values over other value systems and in so doing is in danger of subverting the very nature of a secular society.

What do we mean when we talk of a secular society?

The British philosopher Stephen Law, editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal Think, defines a secular society as, roughly, one that is neutral between different views about religion.

He writes: “It protects freedoms: the freedom to believe or not believe, worship or not worship. It is founded on basic principles framed independently of any particular religious, or indeed, atheist, point of view: principles to which we ought to be able to sign up whether we are religious or not.

“Because you live in a secular society, your right … is protected from those atheists, and those of differing religious views, that might want to take that freedom from you.”

It follows then that one of the responsibilities of a secular state is to maintain the neutrality of all public space. These spaces include institutions of a public nature, such as schools, government offices and government-linked companies.

The choice of conservative Christian groups to teach sex education in schools is a curious choice for the government of a secular society. It is like letting a fox loose in the chicken coop!

The anxieties and fears about social breakdown, marital instability, and teenage pregnancies are real. They should be acknowledged and addressed.

But repression of alternative views and values does not work and has not worked to counter these social problems. Compromising the values of a secular society with political enforcement of conservative values, especially religious conservative values, has to be challenged.

In my first article about Constance’s opinion, I pointed out that she was using the argument that we should be “gender neutral” to support tweaking the stat rape law, when in fact, it is quite clear that she was promoting to make it legal for underage kids to have sex.

Likewise, in the article above, it is quite clear to me that Constance is still promoting Alternative Lifestyle. This time, she is using the secular argument as a disguise for her promotion.

Her angst against Christian vendors being approved by MOE as providers and facilitators of Comprehensive Sexual Education (CSE) in schools is understandable. After all, she was supporting Aware’s CSE gay agenda in schools, which MOE eventually booted out. So by arguing that we should be secular, she subtly hints that the Christian vendors should be booted out too. But there lies the fault of her argument.

The CSE provided by the Christian vendors would be transparent and be published for the public to inspect. If the content of the CSE has nothing to do with religion, let alone Christianity, that should not be a problem. So what’s Constance’s problem? Using the secular argument to boot out the Christian vendors because she feels it was who Christians booted out her favourite Aware CSE?

Constance and all gays must be reminded that it was parents and MOE that booted out Aware’s gay CSE – not the Christians.

As for the comment on Wild Rice, that’s even worse. What is so “unsecular” about the government reducing Wild Rice’s funding? Oh, I see, like other gay activists, anything that the govt does to hamper gay lifestyle promotion, has to be the work of Christians. Ah, Christians appear to be the whipping boys of gays the way Muslims appear to be the whipping boys of warmongers. So whenever a gay agenda is being curtailed, it has to be those fundie Christians! What a joke.

Putting aside Constance’s pathetic attempt to use secularism as a guise to promote alternative lifestyle (and her earlier attempt to use “gender neutral” argument to tweak state rape law to allow the underage to have sex), let’s look at Secularism itself.

So exactly what is secularism? Is it the separation of state and religion, or is it the removal or religion altogether? If it is the latter, then there is nothing more to say. Secularism is like the very oppressive ideals it tries to remove. But if it is the former, why the need to remove religion at all? Can’t religion be practised side by side with other ideals harmoniously? That being the case, Constance’s constant rattling against Christians is totally unnecessary.

Back to the Christian vendors and Wild Rice. So what exactly is Constance’s concern? For the Christian vendors, if the content has nothing to do with Christianity, why should Constance be worried?

For Wild Rice, if the government decides to cut down on the funding because it promotes alternative lifestyle, what is her problem? Or is she saying that because we are secular, we have to promote gay sex, because somehow the Christians (and other religions) do not promote gay sex. Isn’t she assuming that only religionists object to gay sex? You mean to say all non-religionists approve gay sex?

There lies the core of the issue. So if there are non-religionists who are also against gay sex and these numbers are large enough, does that not make it a secular ideal in Singapore?

It is quite clear now that Constance (and gays) are trying to link non-approval of gay sex to Christianity. That would make it easy for them to use the secular argument to boot out any resistance against gay promotion.

But the problem is that our govt is a secular govt. And our secular society does not really accept gay lifestyle either.

Gays (and Constance) should stop using the Religion (especially Christianity) Card and accept the fact that our society in Singapore, in spite of being secular, still does not accept gay lifestyle as easily as the West. And that non-acceptance is based on the ideals of a SECULAR society in Singapore.

So stop using the Christians as whipping boys and wake up to the fact that Singapore, a SECULAR society, still DOES NOT accept gay lifestyle as yet. Not in schools or plays at least.

But secular Singapore still doesn’t stop gays having gay sex among themselves.

So if secular Singapore stops religion to be preached in schools and in public to non-religionists, what exactly is wrong with secular Singapore if it expects that no gay material be promoted in schools or public?

Constance may be admired by feminists and gays. But I believe in the eyes of many, she is just another gay cum feminist caricature, promoting “alternative lifestyle”, which secular Singapore does not accept.

====

Update:
Unknown to me, while I was writing and publishing the above article, The Online Gay Citizen as usual bootlicks Aware’s Matriarch, Constance Singam. Here is the republished article found in their site.

Note the allusion in their image of Church/State Street pointing in different directions, which means you can take one and only one route, reproduced from TOC below – mimicking Constance’s “it’s either you boot Christianity out or lose your secular ideals”.

But I have shown that if secularism means rejecting religion, it becomes the very oppressive ideal it purports to remove.

TOC has no mind of its own when it comes to gay matters. That’s why it is a bootlicker of Matriarch Constance and the Singapore Gaymocratic Party.

>Gays pushed their luck too much

>NAC cuts funds to company

THE National Arts Council (NAC) has cut the annual grant given to local theatre company Wild Rice. It will get $170,000 this year, down from $190,000 the year before.

It is the lowest annual grant that the company has received from the council. Artistic director Ivan Heng says the council told him funding was cut because its productions promoted alternative lifestyles, were critical of government policies and satirised political leaders.

In April last year, Wild Rice staged an all-male version of Oscar Wilde’s The Importance Of Being Earnest, which had a sold-out two-week run at the Drama Centre. It was given an advisory of ’16 years and above’ by the Media Development Authority because of its all-male cast.

It also organises the OCBC Singapore Theatre Festival, a biennial festival showcasing local scripts, some of which take on political issues in a cheeky way.

Heng, 47, tells Life! he is disappointed with the council’s decision. ‘Shouldn’t NAC be funding people’s experience of theatre? What does support of the arts mean? What does moving into a more progressive society entail?’

He says he will continue to create works that are true to his beliefs. ‘This is what artists do. We question how we live our lives in Singapore.’

Would the NAC really tell Ivan the funding was cut because Wild Rice’s plays are critical of government policies and they satirised political leaders? Or is it because it promotes “alternative lifestyles” (read homosexuality)?

Earlier this year, Wild Rice advertised their play, “Animal Farm”. Judge for yourself and see if there is any subtle homo content. Our Arts Scene has been invaded by the Gay Pride

A $20,000 funding cut is quite small, considering that NAC still gives a grant of $170,000. However, that should be a signal from the government to the gay community that it should not push its luck.

Just like followers of religion are expected not to spread (whether explicitly or subtly) religious ideals to the public, the gay community can also expect the same treatment from the government.

>Our Arts Scene has been invaded by the Gay Pride

>There is a play by Wild Rice (a Singapore company) to be performed in Singapore. It is about George Owell’s “Animal Farm”. Nothing perculiar – until you see the subtle Gay Agenda, as usual.

See screenshot of the Wild Rice’s advert on Animal Farm below. Self explanatory about the gay allusion part, no?

We all know that Animal Farm is a classic, written last century, about the socio-political scene then. What I don’t understand is the the need to have subtle gay messages in these locally produced plays and movies.

Here’s the Artistic Team from Wild Rice. Note the familiar faces to the Gay Community.

Here is Wild Rice’s plan for the youths of society.

young & W!LD is a division of W!LD RICE committed to training and nurturing Singapore’s most promising young talents. This innovative actor-training programme aims to prepare Singapore’s next generation of actors for the professional theatre scene.

In addition to practical skills, the young & W!LD philosophy also stresses the role that actors (and theatre) play in shaping our society. The young & W!LD actors learn that as artists, they also have a responsibility to the audience and the wider public – to illuminate, to educate, to communicate, and to share in the common experience.

W!LD RICE is proud to invest in the future of Singapore theatre by playing its part in developing our next generation of multi-skilled, socially-aware and creatively-versatile theatre practitioners.

THE SECOND COHORT
In March 2009, the second cohort of young & W!LD actors began their training. So far, the ten members have already explored texts from Greek tragedy, Japanese noh, Shakespeare, Tennessee Williams and Moliere; and have had workshops with guest practitioners like Nelson Chia and Koh Wan Ching.

The second young & W!LD training season begins in March 2010 and promises to be another triptych of powerful and provocative works that will entertain, challenge and most of all, communicate with local audiences.

If you read between the lines, the plan is to use the Arts scene to influence these young people. The Gay Community has not given up its covert plan to influence our young.

PS – On a lighter note, I like the self-inflicted own-goal innuendo, about how gayism is alluded to animalism in the above image of the coming play, Animal Farm. These pro-gays always do that, don’t they? I mean the own goal linking gays to animal behaviour. And these guys claim foul when others link gayism to odious animalistic behaviour!

More thoughts -

I also note the irony of how the Gay Community uses subtle messages to spread Gayism – which is very similar to Christianity some decades ago. Within the message of raising wholesome families values, love and care for the underprivileged etc, there is the ever so subtle message of Christian love.

How ironical that the Gay Pride is ever so willing to lampoon Christianity (and Christians’ method of preaching) today, when the gay community is actually mimicking the Christians’ way of preaching!

>After declassifying homo as disorder, mad psychos now seek to classify everyday emotions as disorder

>For those who do not know how homosexuality came to be accepted as “normal”, you may wish to know that in 1973, a group of psychiatrists voted, yes that’s right VOTED the then disease out. Yeah, imagine a group of oncologists voting a type of cancer as “non-disease”! Would you trust your doctor to treat you?

More of that later. Now let’s look at these mad psychiatrists trying to classify everyday habits and emotions as some sort of mental illness that needs to be treated.

Psychiatrists want to call being angry a mental illness. How utterly mad!
Excerpts:

If you find it hard to throw out things of limited or no value, you could be suffering from hoarding disorder.

‘Hoarding’ is just one of the new mental conditions being added to the psychiatrists’ bible, or the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM), to give it its proper name.

Other new conditions identified as possibly needing professional help include binge eating – which is said to affect many people who are seriously obese – and ‘cognitive tempo disorder’, which seems very like laziness (symptoms include dreaminess and sluggishness).

There’s also ‘intermittent explosive disorder’, which involves occasionally becoming very angry suddenly.

Most bizarre of the proposed additions is one defined as ‘getting a thrill at being outraged by pornography’.

It was also described as Whitehouse syndrome after the campaigner Mary Whitehouse, who objected to sexual content on TV.

The DSM is a large book that lists all psychiatric disorders and describes their symptoms. If a condition is in there, it means it’s considered a mental illness.

But some of the new entries are controversial, not least because of fears they will result in many more people being put on drugs that could be ineffective or dangerous.

The DSM is produced by the American Psychiatric Association and is hugely influential worldwide.

‘Once a condition has got a label you’ve got a better chance of being treated and researchers are more likely to investigate it,’ explains Professor David Cottrell, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Leeds.

Ah, American Psychiatric Association, the association that VOTED homosexuality to be declassified as a disease. Hahaha, since when do doctors vote to classify or declassify something a disease?

So now APA (hey, notice that its acronym has an uncanny reverse letter ordering of PAP?) wants to classify everyday emotions as diseases. For those who still think what’s the big deal, the answer is that it is a big deal. Big bucks, that is. $$$$$

You see, for every emotion that is considered a disease, there is a chance for the these psychos who tell you that you are psychotic, to treat you. It also means that the pharmaceutical companies have big chance to siphon your money, expecting you to consume drugs that you don’t need in the first place.

Psychoism, er I mean psychiatry is not a hard science like say oncology, neurology or other fields of medicine. While diseases like cancer, diabetes, hypertension can be identified and treated, there really is no way for a psychiatrist to have an objective test to diagnose that you have a certain kind of disease. You just have to take his word for it.

APA, is an influential association, made up of a group of psychiatrists in US. It is supposedly set up to seek for the betterment of mental health of mental patients. Somehow, politics and greed have infiltrated them and now they tell you that you need to be treated for about anything at all. So the more diseases you have, the more money $$$$ they get! In other words, they want you to get yourself treated, even if you know you are not sick.

APA has also played to the gay gallery. In 1973, they voted to have homosexuality declassified as a disease.

The APA decision December 1973: declassification of homosexuality as an illness, Charles Kaiser argues, was the gay movement’s most revolutionary moment. (Bold beginnings).

Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal

But wait, who are these psychiatrists who campaigned to have homo voted to be declassified as disease in 1973? Take a look here.

Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists (AGLP)

AGLP Traces its roots to the late 1960s when gay and lesbian members of the American Psychiatric Association met informally at the annual meetings. In 1973 the APA removed homosexuality per se as a mental disorder from the new diagnostic manual (DSM-III) facilitating a more open association of lesbian and gay psychiatrists.

So please note that APA, the very influential association of psychiatrists in America, is being controlled by gays and lesbian psychiatrists. These gays and lesbians, who have strong influence over APA, are now telling the world how you should view homosexuality.

Note that the advice given by APA, is based on the influence of gays and lesbians and bears NO SEMBLANCE of any medical research, but simply BY VOTES.

APA Officially Rejects Reorientation Treatment for Homosexuals

The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution Wednesday urging mental health professionals to avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. The decision rejects the hundred years’ worth of research indicating the effectiveness and benefits of sexual reorientation therapy due to “serious design flaws.”

The resolution also advises that parents, guardians, young people and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness and rather seek treatments “that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth.”

The approval was made at the APA’s annual convention with a 125-4 vote. At the convention, a task force presented a report that in part examined the efficacy of ‘reparative therapy,’ or sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).

However, not all psychiatrists agree.

Mega Analysis of Over 100 Years of Research Shows Treatment for Unwanted Homosexuality Beneficial

The study, What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the American Psychological Associations Claims on Homosexuality, examines over 100 years of professional and scientific literature as well as over 600 reports from clinicians, researchers, and former clients principally published in professional and peer-reviewed journals.

This research, assembled over a period of eighteen months by three of the leading academics and therapists in the field and under the direction of the NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee, refutes claims made by some factions of the American Psychological Association and several other professional mental health organizations.

Radical elements in the American Psychological Association have posited that: (1) Homosexuality is fixed and unchangeable (2) Attempts to therapeutically assist those with unwanted homosexuality are harmful (3) There are no quality of life differences in those who engage in homosexual and heterosexual behaviors.

The study, conducted by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, found that a change in sexual orientation is possible for some individuals and does not cause psychological harm on average.

“This research is a significant milestone when it comes to the scientific debate over the issue of homosexuality,” said NARTH president Dr. Julie Hamilton. “It also confirms what we have seen evidenced in hundreds of individuals who have benefited from the help of NARTH therapists.

“We believe that every person should have the right to independently determine their own course in life and for many that involves seeking counseling options that affirm their personal beliefs.”

Recap and Summary

APA, the most influential psychotic, I mean psychiatric association in America declassified homo as disease, and now wants to include everyday emotions as diseases.

APA has been infiltrated by gay and lesbian psychiatrists, who now have a strong influence over what APA tells you to believe and do – including getting you treated for everyday emotions on top of telling you not to seek treatment for homosexuality.

Please remember that all these recommendations given by APA are nothing more than decisions made BY VOTES which can be lobbied, influenced or even bought.

So it is not an over-statement that the gays and lesbians have infiltrated institutions to spread their ideals to the world.

>Another Pandora’s Box – Gays testing out Sedition Act

>By now you would have known that as many as 85 gays have lodged a police report against Pastor Rony for offensive remarks against homos. It appears that gays are trying to test out if they could be protected under the Sedition Act, the way followers of religion are. Here is an excerpt of the Sedition Act.

3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —
(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;
(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;
(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore, if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.
(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.

I made an earlier post in this blog (Gays and Gay Activists, You can’t have your cake and eat it) and highlighted that if gays want to be protected under the Sedition Act, they have to abide ALL TERMS that come with it, which includes them being identified as a group, such that they need to be registered under a society – just like the followers of religion. That also means that they will then have to stop propagating homo sex to the public if it offends others, just like religionists are not allowed to preach in public if it offends others!

Are gays willing to accept that? Are gays not opening a Pandora’s Box for themselves?

In this post, I will delve a little more in detail pertaining to the Sedition Act itself. Note that perhaps the only way for gays to be protected under the Sedition Act is to interpret that “classes of population” (as bolded in the excerpt of the Sedition Act above) include sexual minorities. Now that may sound cool to a gay because he may want to consider sexual minorities “a class of population”.

Oh, really? Here are some technical points, if gays want to argue that way.

To be identified as a class of population, such that you are covered under the Sedition Act, that class has to be very unambiguously identifiable. I can identify a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh. I can also identify a Chinese, a Malay, an Indian or any other ethnic race. I can identify a man, a woman, a boy, a girl or an adult or a child.

Now, how do we identify sexual minorities such that they fall under a “class of population”? That he has a sexual orientation that is such he is attracted to same gender? Hey, that discriminates transsexuals, who have already had their sex changed on the ICs and are now technically attracted to opposite sex! And what about bisexuals?

So there really is no definite way for the public to identify you as a sexual minority – unless – UNLESS – yes, let’s say it, UNLESS the gay, lesbian, transsexual, bisexual DECLARES PUBLICLY for the whole world to know that he/she is an LGBT!

Awww…..now do I hear all LGBTs cry foul on that?

Well, if you want to be a “class of population” which is IDENTIFIABLE to the public such that if anyone offends you and you have that ability to invoke the Sedition Act, you have to make yourself IDENTIFIABLE such that you clearly fall in that particular class, for you to invoke the Sedition Act, correct?

The Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and all followers of religion do that, so why not you?

Otherwise, that call for LGBTs to be under the Sedition Act is nothing but a farce! Anyone can claim he represents a “class of population”. Then there would be no one calling anyone fatso because that is offending the horizontally challenged people under the Sedition Act. No calling names like shorty because it offends the vertically challenged under the Sedition Act. No calling anyone morons for that offends the intellectually challenged under the Sedition Act. Aw, come off it.

So I suggest that either:

1. Sexual orientation be clearly stated on ICs like race and gender – that may of course mean you may lose your job if you are a teacher, but heck, you asked for it, no?

OR

2. LGBTs set up a society or association like churches or any other religious groups, so that they are now considered a “class of population”. Of course that would mean that their office holders will have to be screened by the CID, their accounts and minutes of meeting be submitted to Registry of Societies and all movements be monitored by government agencies – just like the religious societies.

So LBGTs, I invite you to put up a petition that you consider yourselves “a class of population” in Singapore and I suggest that you make your sexual orientation known publicly so that anyone who meets you, will know in an instant, you are a sexual minority. How about that?

I also want you to remember that if you do fall under the Sedition Act, you will no longer have the privilege to call anyone a homophobe just he because he does not agree with you on LGBT ideas, because that is offensive to non-LGBTs. And of course, all your preachings about LGBT ideas in public domain has to be severely restricted, the way preaching of religious ideas is severely restricted.

At least now the police or any government agency will have the legal means to fairly and squarely arrest gays, if they step out of their boundary, preaching gay ideals in public domain, if a non-gay were to report that he has been offended by gay literature flying about all over the place. Ha!

Game enough to open this Pandora’s Box? If you are, so am I.

So where’s the petition?