This year, it's on 15 May 2010, a Saturday from 5:00pm to 6:30pm. The theme this year is "Focusing on Our Families" and here's a very moving video of Jamie and her family.



http://pinkdotsg.blogspot.com/

Labels: civil society, lgbt, singapore

By now, everyone in Singapore is aware of the second part of the hostile takeover of AWARE saga.

Smarting from their defeat, a group of likeminded people (parents and others) who are more or less allied to the ideas of Thio Su-Mien, Josie Lau and company have bombarded MOE with allegations about AWARE's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) "promoting" homosexuality, pre-martial sex, etc. by the mere mention of them in neutral terms.

Neutral because the course is supposed to give students the facts AND encouraged them to think about actions and consequences.

But knowing how "some people" operate, they chose to take certain lines from the material out of context, blow it out of proportion and go "LOOK!! SEE!! AWARE is promoting homosexuality, pre-martial sex, etc. by not using negative terms against it!!"

It has even spilt over to JC General Paper (GP) lessons, which is kind of stupid and sad considering that in GP lessons, students are made to think through and analyse topics of the day. These include terrorism, religious fundamentalism, etc. etc.

The main point is to get them to think. But some paranoid and overprotective parents are so afraid that the mere mention and discussion of homosexuality will turn their JC kids gay. Gosh... I guess there should be a lot of new terrorists and religious fundies in JC by now.

This whole episode shows the absurdity of Singapore's education and parents' expectations. First we complain that our kids and university graduates don't know how to think, analyse, write properly and have knowledge and opinions about current issues of the day. Then we scream in horror when teachers try to equip them with the skills necessary to do so.

I mean like what do we expect GP teachers to do? Discuss less controversial topics like water desalination, COE prices and state of canteen food?

But parents being parents will always see their children as kids who need to be protected and guided regardless of how old they are. Not realising that kids are way much smarter than we give them credit for. They do have an opinion and they don't take everything at face value.

And as for the CSE programme, if they don't get their knowledge from school with the right tools to make informed and responsible decisions, guess where they are going turn to?

The internet of course!

And that should worry parents much more than CSE and GP teachers discussing "controversial" topics. Because if parents have actually been on the 'net, they should know that nothing there is regulated. Information, misinformation, hard core pornography and all that would turn their gut inside out is available to all who search for them.

Without the necessary knowledge and with misinformation from the 'net and hear-say from their peers who may be just as ignorant as them, one shouldn't be surprised if they start experimenting with disastrous results.

Ignorance or innocence, your choice.

Anyway, I think this post by a GP teacher who is in the know more than me has said more than I could. It was forwarded to me by a friend and I have posted it on my "Stolen Goods" blog (with full credit). Check it out here.

Labels: education, lgbt, religion, singapore

Well, that's it. The 5^th column-elected new exco of AWARE has resigned in the wake of a no-confidence motion and a new one unaffiliated with the Anglican Church of our Saviour (COOS) or Thio Su-Mien (TSM) has been elected.

All this saga and waste of time and money brought on by Christian extremists who are way too fixated on one "bogeyman".

Bogeymen or cause célèbre is nothing new. Political and religious movements have used it countless of times throughout history to rally their adherents (ie: The Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch trials, burning of witches and perceived heretics, etc etc). Of course in modern day Singapore, it is too politically sensitive and incorrect to use another religion (like Islam in some Western countries) as their bogeyman. So what do TSM and her COOS fellow members do? They learn from their American co-religionist and target homosexuality. Delusional, they sincerely believe there is a hidden gay agenda with a gay mafia in Singapore.

Hypocritically I might add. Since there are countless things the bible denounced and yet they don't seem to have an issue with. For example, remarriage after divorce is adultery according to Jesus and adulterers do not inherit the kingdom of god. Yet we don't seem to hear TSM or Pastor Derek Kong having a field day with that.

But you know what's really sad? It's how AWARE got dragged into TSM and COOS's "spiritual warfare". Yes, they call their fight "Spiritual Warfare". "Holy War" chope by another religion lah.

As far as AWARE and everyone (everyone except you know who) is concern, they are a feminist organisation dedicated to the fight for equality and non-discrimination of females regardless or race, religion, age, language, cultural, financial and sexual background. Since their establishment in 1985, they have advocated, taught, researched, conducted workshops, counselled, etc. etc. Great work if you asked me. Of course some may disagree.

But never were they ever a "homosexual" organisation. The bone of TSM and COOS's contention is just a very small part of their comprehensive sexual education programme for schools which covered homosexuality in neutral terms (neither for nor against) for about 5 minutes or so.

Somehow or other, this was taken out of context by TSM and COOS and blown way out of proportion. All of a sudden, a feminist organisation became a "homosexual one" and fell into the holy gun sights of the extremists. And before they knew it, a fifth column was secretly installed and their members voted into the exco.

I don't blame the original AWARE for this. Never in their right mind did they think that a religious group in Singapore (of all places) won't do such a thing and never did they think they would be a target. I mean they are a feminist organisation dedicated to issues concerning women in Singapore, nothing too controversial about that right?

And who would have thought that a religious group that prided itself on being on the moral high ground would have resorted to such underhanded and distasteful (though legal) hostile takeover tactics usually practiced by greedy corporate raiders of the 80s.

Well, the battle is won for inclusiveness but the war is not over. The extremist likes of TSM and COOS will continue, just like comic book villains, always in the background but showing up once in a while to fight the heroes of the Marvel and DC comic universe.

The upside to this whole fiasco? It has exposed the face of Christian fundies in our midst and has also shown the whole of Singapore that religious extremism is not the sole monopoly of one religion and not all extremists are locked away by ISD.

As for AWARE, I hope the indignation, outrage and passion shown by old and new(est) members will translate into more zest and groundbreaking good work by them.

As for the rest of us, I think after this incident, not just AWARE but all civil societies and NGOs in Singapore should start looking into and tightening up their constitution to prevent another hostile takeover by outsiders.

***

• For minute by minute (well almost) updates of the EGM yesterday, please refer to http://wayangparty.com/?p=8732
  
  
• Also, do read the opinion of a neutral bystander who was appalled by how the new exco behaved at http://wayangparty.com/?p=8513

Labels: civil society, lgbt, religion, secularism, singapore

Same-sex marriages have finally become a reality in California on Monday. Two solemnisations were the focus of media attention, but the one that moved me most was that of octogenarian lesbian couple Phyllis Lyon (83) and Del Martin (87) in San Francisco.

They met and fell in love five decades ago when being seen as queer was dangerous and holding hands in public was unthinkable. What a journey it must have been for them: from forming the Daughters of Bilitis, considered the first lesbian rights group in the United States, to witnessing the gay liberation movement that transformed the city and now this, marriage.

What a sight it must have been: Phyllis Lyon pushing Del Martin in a wheelchair into the office of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom who had the honour of marrying them (again).





This is actually the second time Mayor Newsom married them. The first was in 2004 after the mayor ordered that marriage licenses be given to same-sex couples who requested them. They were however nullified by the California Supreme Court on 12 August 2004. In May this year, the same court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and this set the stage for Monday's celebration.

What remains unknown is whether Californian voters will overturn the court's decision in November's election. I hope not. In Phyllis' words after the August 2004 nullification, "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time."

Labels: america, human interest, lgbt

From The New York Times, "Aging and Gay, and Facing Prejudice in Twilight"



It was the above picture that grabbed me more than the article itself. It shows a Bruce Steiner, 76, feeding his partner, Jim Anthony, 71, who has Alzheimer’s disease for more than a decade and can no longer feed himself or speak.

On one hand, you see a gay man who sticks by his man regardless of what happens. And on the other, you come face to face with the prospect of aging and what it would mean to gays and lesbians; or for that matter, any single straight person.

I think this is an issue that we in Singapore have to start thinking about very soon. Aging and being gay. Where can we find our support when we need it and who can we turn to? If old straight people are finding it hard to live in a youth-obsessed Singapore, what more gays and lesbians.

Labels: aging, lgbt

While a lot of people have either been in a state of shock or been mourning over the loss of five young lives snatched away for no particular reason over the weekend, I received a copy of "The Act" (published by AfA) and read one of the editorials which affected me quite a bit:


I too have had my fair share of positive results during my time as a volunteer. And the record for me was a boy no older than 18 and obviously not in NS yet. I still remember him from our short chat - he was well spoken, plays a musical instrument and dressed neatly; obviously a son from a middle class family probably living in a private apartment or house.

After I had completed testing the person after him and was in the midst of placing the slip on the counter top, I noticed the dreaded red line on one of the slip. Immediately, I knew it was him. Even though the result was obvious, I was hoping beyond hope that the control line wouldn't appear and hence, make the test strip defective.

Unfortunately, the control line did appear 15 minutes later. I was almost on the verge of tears when I informed the supervisor who would be taking over the case.

When the boy came in to get his confirmatory test done, his face was expressionless. I didn't know what was going through his mind or if anything was going through it at all. I guess he was in a state of shock.

He was so young. And while I know that being HIV+ is not a death sentence, I was wondering how he was going to cope. How is he going to tell his parents? How long can he keep it a secret before they find out when he goes for his FFI before enlistment or when he needs to start on his medication?

The trend is obvious. More young men are getting tested positive. They are usually in their late teens to mid 20s. I keep wondering why this is happening. Are they getting the right information? Or is the information denied to them because of some authority figure's opinion that talking about sex will only encourage the young to experiment?

I know the government is taking the approach of abstinence. But at what cost? Even if we harp and nag about abstaining from sex, we can't ignore the fact that a certain percentage will still experiment. And without the necessary information on safe sex, should we be surprise that they get infected.

This is Singapore's head in the sand. In our self-righteousness, we stigmatise certain categories of the population and criminalise homosexual sex (while not pursuing the letter of the law) and thus preventing ourselves from reaching out to those most at risk - the young Singaporeans - because of that same judgemental and self-righteous attitude.

We may make it an offence for those who are unaware of their HIV status and unknowingly infect another person. But this does not prevent the young and ignorant from experimenting and engaging in high risk activities.

It is a sad fact that some people in the establishment assumes that any activities relating to HIV prevention is a cover for "promoting homosexual behaviour". If this continues, we should not be surprise to see the level of infection shoot up and become an official epidemic.

So what have our country done to reach out to the general population? Nothing much considering how some PAP ministers (I shan't name names here) still believe that HIV is caused by "the homosexuals". Hence, they do the only thing they are best at, blame "the homosexuals" and pass more laws.

But unfortunately, laws can only do so much, and it's only after the fact. I am afraid that with the current attitude of our ignorant technocratic ministers, I will see more and more teenagers, male and female, getting tested positive.

Who do we blame and prosecute then? And what is the use of pointing fingers when it can never reverse time and un-infect the teen.

Meanwhile, the rest of Singapore will always see it as someone else's problem. Until that someone else is themselves or someone in their family. Then, it's too late.

Labels: hiv/aids, lgbt, singapore

        "It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual. You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society." – South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu in an interview with BBC Radio 4

Labels: lgbt

By now, the news about Alfian's "abusive" email to Thio Li-Ann is known by practically everyone who reads the English papers. Contrary to what some people assume, that email was written months before the repeal 377a campaign was even initiated. And from what I read, it may be rude but I won't consider it harassment. After all, "fucked up" is a general term that has been used by all and sundry to describe someone (either in the first or third person) as dysfunctional or messed up in the head.

To play it out further, she has taken on the role of the aggrieved victim who is above such things. However instead of ending it there, she wrote and had her letter published on the Straits Times with Alfian's e-mail address, obviously intending to make him the target for her lobby group.

Considering the impolite and slanderous terms and accusations she levelled at all gay men, it is rather artful of her to demand civility in the debate when she was the one who launched the first salvo.

To quote Alex Au:

        "When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more."

And if one can't take the heat, then one should get the hell out of the kitchen. One shouldn't launch attacks on others and then cry foul when a return volley comes your way.

Anyway, what's the big deal about someone pissing on your grave? When they bury you after you are well and truly dead, it is usually with earth that has been mixed with manure (as fertiliser). And as we all know, manure is generally made from cow faeces. I would think urine is the lesser of the "evil". And furthermore, you can consider it a favour as it will help the surrounding vegetation grow better so as to beautify your final resting place.

Interestingly enough, Thio had the audacity to bring up the spectre of a defamation suit against Alfian. In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation (as quoted from Wikipedia). I think she brought more disrepute on herself without the assistance of Alfian. "Hatemongering" and "vicious crusades against sexual minorities"? Guilty as charged. No need Alfian's email to tell us that.

I did a trawl through the blogosphere today, and I noted with great interest that all post which mentioned her by name is nothing but negative. And mind you, a lot of them are written by straight people and some are... how shall I say it... not nice at all. Not only was her speech in parliament criticised, but her views and her actions thus far.

One post that caught my eye is by a Mollymeek who sees the hypocrisy of Thio's hope that the "House joins" her "in deploring these malicious attacks which also assault academic freedom". (underscore is mine)

Anyway, true to form, Talkingcock has come up with a hilariously interesting and productive way to put piss on her grave to a better and more environmentally friendly use. Click on the picture below for the full story. FUNNY!



On the same topic, a "La nausée" has written a post that shows up the ridiculousness of her sensitivity to such emails. But more important than that, he has highlighted something that has escaped almost everyone's attention: the clear and present danger of Thio's assertion "that religion should not be excluded from public policy debates, and that to do so would be undemocratic".

Now why is it dangerous?

Along with the penal code overhaul, section 298 (which makes it a crime to speak ill of any religion) was beefed up.

Of course the intent of this (as stated by Senior Minister of State Ho Peng Kee on 22^nd October 2007) is to "criminalize the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion".

So is there any other implication?

Yes. To put it simply, the playing field is not level. While religious groups can hide behind this act and use their perceived religious righteousness to attack secular beliefs, ideals, or policies. No one can attack their views because to do so is an offence which might see you in jail.

Let's use the campaign to repeal section 377a as an example. They can assert publicly that all homosexuals are the same as paedophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles, etc. But that law prevents us from attacking their religious views that's fundamental to these fallacious beliefs. They may rant and rave in parliament that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and that all homosexuals can change "with the grace of god". But if we were to say that their views are erroneous and most homosexual did not choose to be one, they can very well claim we are "wounding" their religious views and thus guilty according to that section.

So if we are not allowed to criticise them or their religious views, then it is only fair that they are not allowed to publicly air those same views and criticisms of government policies and other people's "lifestyle" be they straight or gay. Because if things go the way Thio wants it, then she and her cabal can very well attempt to hijack public policy debates and no one can say anything in dissent.

Now this is the real slippery slope if you ask me. But it will be interesting to see how our government manages this, especially when there are a few competing religious lobby groups trying to influence public policies.

Before I end this post, I would like to bring your attention to yet another straight person (a female) writing on the 377a issue. Though I disagree with her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (probably heard it too many times from the likes of Thio that she thinks it is), I do like the line of reasoning she took on the "we are not ready" excuse. Hers is the first I've read on this issue. Check it out on "absolute-ly missy".

Labels: lgbt, politics, singapore

Some interesting legal questions posed by respected legal academics from NUS in a new book entitled "Lives in the Law" that honours three eminent (now retired) professors in Singapore's legal academia.

Hmmm... Someone's opinion seems to be missing though. :-)

Click the link below for some hypothetical situations and issues which may very well arise in the near future.

Straits Times - NUS don warns of 377A fallout

I've reposted it in my "Stolen Goods" blog just in case it expires from Straits Times' archive in the near future.

Labels: law, lgbt, singapore

My friend brought my attention to two rather interesting things to read on the web today.

One is an article in the New York Times about how the conservative evangelical churches and lobby group in the US seem to be changing directions. Among some of the reasons put forward is the retirement or passing on of the politically inclined leaders like Falwell and Dobson, while at the same time the evangelical congregants have grown tired of the endless political tirade of their spiritual leaders at the expense of their personal faith and growth.


It's a pretty long article, but worth the read to get a sense of how the religious-political landscape of the US is changing. And though some might argue otherwise, it also has possible political ramifications in Singapore considering how some churches here seem to be aping the political stance of their co-religionists in the US.

Another article (or rather a blog post) I read is this "Reverse Redacting Thio Li Ann" which attempts to draw parallels between her speech in parliament and her article in the Straits Times with "The Homosexual Rights Agenda: Reframing the Debate" published on "The Road to Emmaus: A School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics".

Pretty interesting I must say. I think it helps people see where she is coming from and where she gets (or who she shares) some of her ideas (with).

Which brings to mind what I wrote about her in my post dated 19 January 2007:


Thank god for people like NMP Siew Kum Hong and the PAP MPs who spoke up against the retention of 377a. At least there's some people in the house who could speak in opposition to her.

I don't know, but maybe I might have been wrong about it being PAP's idea to have her chosen as an NMP because of her homophobia. Then again, that was pure speculation on my part.

Labels: america, lgbt, politics, religion, singapore

I think one of the more interesting things about the recent campaign to repeal Section 377a is the amount of pro-repeal blog posts and articles written not just by gays, but by straight people who are not personally affected (so I assume) by this piece of archaic British colonial-era law.

Not only are these writings personal, but some are pretty analytical in demolishing some of the arguments of the retain 377a group and that of their spokesperson Thio Li-Ann. Here are some I have read and found interesting enough to direct all of you to.

The first one (which I happen to like a lot) is written by a heterosexual father of two kids who live in the "conservative" heartlands and who also happen to have a gay couple as neighbours. Read what he feels in his post "The Irrational Section 377A". The "conservative" heartland? I think the diverse and non-monolithic heartland is closer to the truth when I consider the above post along many others written by fellow heartlanders, gay or straight.

Then there is this amusing one written by a straight male Singaporean who claims the reason why 377a is retained is because "Singaporeans are scared sh*tless by gay people". Hmm... I guess there is some truth in it. After all, we usually fear what we do not know or understand. And a lot of Singaporeans either do not know any gay people or even if they do, do not understand them.

Getting nation-wide publicity and readership is the senior Straits Times correspondent Janadas Devan who picked apart Thio Li-Ann's logic in his Saturday "Thinking Aloud" column. An online version is found here.

And adding his voice to his former colleague's thoughts is the former journalist and now division head at NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information Asst Prof Cherian George (husband of journalist Zuraidah Ibrahim) in his post "ST's Janadas Devan exposes Li-Ann's Thiology".

There are too many out there to search out and list. But I think the above four should suffice for now.

Read it at your own leisure and enlightenment.

Meanwhile, like what PM Lee Hsien Loong said in parliament, Singapore will follow (maybe a few decades behind) but not lead in this issue. Hence, Singapore will be the only Chinese-majority country in the world where homosexual male sex is still illegal. China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have already done away with it. So much for progressiveness.

I guess the difference between those countries and Singapore is the amount of credence and clout they allow some religious groups, and of course the percentage of adherents of those same religion in relation to the general population.

And on that note, I would like to direct you to a infamous speech/essay written by the famous British philosopher Bertrand Russell, the 3^rd Earl Russell of Kingston Russell in the County of Dorset. Please scroll down and read the section entitled "The Emotional Factor". Of course whether you agree with it or not is entirely your prerogative.

***

Addendum 30 Oct 2007:

I would like to include belatedly "Sam's Thoughts". Gosh this straight guy has written so much about repealing 377a and refuting the views and logic of the anti-gay lobby that it puts me, a gay man to shame. But considering the amount of stuff written by gay writers, it's refreshing to let the straight ones take the centre stage and make it known that there are straight people who think likewise.

I like his latest post "The plants in the garden" which attacks the ridiculous fallacy of the so-called "gay lifestyle". I mean like what the hell is the "gay lifestyle"? It's a label coined by the you-know-whos to dump all gays under. Makes it easier for them to target and attack I suppose.

Labels: lgbt, politics, singapore

And just in case I gave the impression that NMP Siew was the only one speaking for the repeal, I have to state here that the PAP MP Hri Kumar also lent his legal opinion on the inconsistency of this law.

Text of his speech and others are available at the links below:

PAP MP Hri Kumar - Section 377A is inconsistent

Chris De Souza's speech

Indranee Rajah's speech

Thio Li-Ann's speech

To be honest, I have not read Thio's speech and I am not going to. I get pretty frustrated and infuriated by the amount of falsehoods and bigotry she spews all the time on this issue. And unsurprisingly, her speech in parliament today followed the same trend.

Anyway, she has a history of creating lies and assumptions about the "gay agenda" and of tarring all gay men with the same brush which she no doubt obtained from the US conservatives. There is no way to talk sense to this person, much like there is no way to talk sense to an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber who is motivated by the rightness of his or her religious "calling".

Besides NMP Siew Kum Hong and PAP MP Hri Kumar, two other PAP MPs, newbie Baey Yam Keng and senior backbencher Charles Chong, also spoke in support of repealing this section. Unfortunately, I can't find the text to their speeches but here's a video clip of excerpts from it.

I am thankful for their voice of reason.

Labels: lgbt, politics, singapore

I've just finished reading the text of NMP Siew Kum Hong's speech in parliament yesterday and I have to say that I am very very grateful to him for sticking by his principles and making a stand on this issue. He is indeed brave for daring to go against the grain even though he is a heterosexual male who should have no vested interest in this "gay" issue.

The speech may be long, but it brought his point across clearly and calmly. But what really moved me were some comments left by some signatories of the online open letter.


Thank you Mr Siew. Whether the petition moves minds or not, you have my utmost respect and gratitude. As far as I am concern, you have performed your job as a nominated member of parliament as per the NMP's mandate admirably.

Labels: lgbt, politics, singapore

http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2057&viewarticle=1

Labels: law, lgbt, politics, singapore

Labels: lgbt, politics, singapore

'Nuff said...

Click on it to find out more.

Labels: lgbt, politics, singapore

I don't know if this sort of articles will still appear on the Wall Street Journal now that the ultra-conservative republican allied Rupert Murdoch has bought over Dow Jones and with it, the above publication.

But before he can sink his hands into it and mould it to his liking like the other publications in his stable, here is an enlightening article written for the benefit of the international audience. The article is reproduced on my "Stolen Goods" page in case it disappears into some hidden WSJ archive in the near future.

http://blog.gerek.org/2007/08/singapores-gay-balancing-act.php

Guess it's time we change our tourism tagline from "Uniquely Singapore" to "Ironically Singapore".

Labels: lgbt, singapore

Well, looks like Rupert Murdoch, the arch-conservative world media baron has gotten his hangs on Dow Jones; and with it, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Murdoch also owns the ultra-conservative liberal bashing Fox News.

Even though he has said he will respect the editorial independence of WSJ, I am not sure his respect will last that long. After all, he is known for his "interventionist" style of management and his penchant of hiring like-minded (read: conservative or republican) managers and editors to head the different publications that he owns.

Anyway, while the deal is being finalised and papers signed, the Wall Street Journal is working on a story that is closer to home: the impact of continued criminalisation of gay sex on the economy of Singapore and its ability to attract and retain talents.

Read more below. And if you have any experience or know of anyone who do, please click on the picture to contact the person who's working on it now. Let your voice and stories be heard.

Labels: lgbt, politics, press, singapore

I was waiting to use the toilet at Coffee Beans last evening when I saw a magazine sitting on a shelf. Flipping through it to kill time, I came across this quotation from Nelson Mandela which I thought was quite appropriate for the issue I am most concern with, the repeal of Section 377A:

Labels: lgbt, singapore

...and a very encouraging one from Sir Ian McKellen some more!

Labels: art, lgbt, singapore

Pang Khee Teik wrote in Kakiseni.com in his review of "Asian Boys Vol. 2", "Go, not because it's gay theatre, it's great theatre." And I can say that this bold statement is equally true for "Happy Endings - Asian Boys Vol. 3".

I have written about this play in an earlier post, but now, I write with the greatest conviction that this is the best play I have ever seen so far gracing our local stage and one that you have to watch.

Was it perfect? No, but then again, I don't believe that perfection exist and even if it does, it is subjective. Adapting a book ("Peculiar Chris" by Johann S Lee in this case) to a play is not easy and I guess the playwright had quite a challenge dealing with certain characters and placing them in his story arc set in the future.

It is a moving and reflective tale of innocent first love, missed opportunity, growing up, losing the things that you treasured about yourself in your youth to be the person who you want to be as an adult, fighting for who you are and your own path to happiness. Lots of lumps in your throat sort of thing and all of it were played out smoothly and movingly on stage.

The script was great, the direction and realisation was superb and the cast did a fantastic job. Everyone held their own and became the anchor that grounded the story. Of course, some like Karen Tan shone more than the rest.

It was a bit strange to see the character of Johann, the author of Peculiar Chris acted out on stage. Strange because parts of his real life were mentioned and strange because I had the opportunity of meeting him a few years ago in person, in a way having a brief interaction with this person who is now acted by Ben Xiao on stage. And I guess, in a small way, I am part of the larger story too.

There were a lot of scenes that made me tear but the one that moved me a lot was when Koey Foo's uber-macho dragon boating and partying Nicholas confronted his younger effeminate and flamboyant self, realising what he had lost to become this object of desire.

And when I stood up to give my standing ovation, I could feel the tightening of the muscles around my eyes and my nose as I fought back the emotions. I knew that if I let it go, I would be weeping and sniffling like crazy. So powerful was the emotions it stirred in me and I knew that this is a play I have to watch again before it finishes its run on the 29^th of this month.

It is that good.

Rarely have I recommended someone to watch a movie or a play, but for this, I was busy last evening mass-SMSing the 200 or so contacts on my mobile phone telling them not to give this play a miss. This is how strongly I feel about it.

And you my readers, regardless of your sexuality, should really give this play a chance. I believe that some of the themes it addresses go beyond sexuality. It is about the human condition and what it means to live, grow and find your own way to your own happiness. Worth every cent of the ticket.

Late last afternoon after waking up from a much needed nap, I received an e-mail from a friend. Sir Ian McKellen had accepted the invitation and went for the 3pm show.


So quoting Pang again, "Go, not because it's gay theatre, it's great theatre." The playwright has outdone himself.

Date: From 11 - 29 July 2007
Time: 8pm, with 3pm matinees on Saturdays and Sundays
Venue: Drama Centre Theatre @ National Library (Level 3, 100 Victoria Street)

More details here: http://www.wildrice.com.sg/procurrent.html

Labels: art, lgbt, singapore

I am sure by now most Singaporean bloggers or blog readers would have heard about Sir Ian McKellen's famous interview on Channel NewsAsia (see end of post). Unknown to some (including me), he had also said something "controversial" (to use his own words on Channel NewsAsia) on Class 95 FM (as reported on Fridae's feature) and on page 3 of Wednesday's Life! section of the Straits Times.

If you're still unsure, yes, Sir Ian McKellen is gay and a veteran activist who's involved with a few LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bi-Trans) organisations and charities in the UK. So it's natural that he's cued in to what's been happening here recently over the debate on repealing Section 377A - "those dreadful laws that we British left behind," says Sir Ian.

I think what's interesting about all this is the timing.

First, you have the statements made a few months ago (and also recently) by MM LKY on the need to progress and in time, decriminalise homosexuality in Singapore. Then you have the moving (as reported by friends and strangers who have seen it) new play by Alfian Sa'at entitled "Happy Endings - Asian Boys Vol 3" which also addresses some of these issues. And just last Sunday, the forum that was organised as part of the play to addressed the issue of repealing Section 377A where one PAP backbencher (Baey Yam Keng, MP for Tangjong Pagar GRC), one NMP (Siew Kum Hong) and a retired former Bishop of the Methodist Church for Malaysia and Singapore (Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao) sat as part of the panel (see previous post).

And now, we have Sir Ian adding his weight and fame to the issue in a very public way. Which I think is sorely needed as no one has either addressed these issues on the broadcast media or been allowed to do so.

Of course some smartass might have a fit and rebuke him for "daring" to meddle with local politics while forgetting that we have the proxies of American evangelical fundamentalists trying to hijack the local agenda here.

But you know what? The issue of public acceptance of homosexuality that has always been used as a reason by the government to retain that law has not changed much.

Of course the term "majority" or "public" is rather vague as no one has really quantified this segment of the population. It's up to different people to draw their own conclusions about the size of this group in a way that suits their agendas. To me, this seemingly "huge" segment of the population is just a very vocal Christian minority that makes the loudest noise. So who's right? That's another topic altogether.

Anyway, while I was having coffee with a friend in Jurong West just now, he brought up a very salient point about the artfulness or stupidity (depending on how you look at it) of this government.

On one hand, you have the "public" not being accepting. And on the other, you have the government (through MICA, home of the censorship board) refusing to allow anything that seemingly portrays "homosexuals" and the "homosexual lifestyle" in a positive light - I'm using the quotation marks here because these are the official terms used by the government and not something I necessarily agree with (especially the all-encompassing term of ignorance, "homosexual lifestyle").

So if all they allow are negative portrayals on broadcast media and ignorant generalisations by civil servants and their mouthpieces, how can the "public" (as if tax-paying and NS-serving gays exist outside this sphere) progress to a point where decriminalisation is not a controversial issue anymore.

Or perhaps repeal is not even part of the plan and the whole exercise of MM LKY's pronouncement and the attendance of MP Baey is just a public relations exercise to show the world that hey! Surprising Singapore is indeed moving forward after bar top dancing *yawn* and Integrated Resort (read: casino).

As long as this government refuses to allow any sort of positive portrayals of gays and allow the very vocal Christian fundamentalist minority to commandeer the debate and agenda, this society is never going to be ready for progress.

But then again, is society's readiness for progress and acceptance really the issue here? The integrated resorts (not one, but TWO casinos might I remind you) was unacceptable to the seemingly large and very vocal segment of the population. And regardless of that, construction works are progressing at full speed in Marina Bay and Sentosa despite our "unreadiness".

I guess it's all a very "chicken and egg" question. Which comes first? In the case of repealing Section 377A, you have the chicken waiting for the egg to be laid before it could be hatch and the egg waiting for the chicken to lay it.

But for the integrated resorts, one of them said "fuck it" and made the first move.

So really, is it all PR or is it the real McCoy?

The interview of Sir Ian McKellen (if you haven't seen it) below:

Labels: law, lgbt, politics, singapore

Yes, I was at the "Peculiar Legislation: 377(A)--Symbol or Statute?" forum organised by Wild Rice in conjunction with their latest play "Happy Endings: Asian Boys Vol. 3".

The panel was made up of the usual people like Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao, Stuart Koe and Alex Au. But what was surprising was the presence of a PAP backbencher Baey Yam Keng who is the MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC (probably kena arrowed by his senior parliamentary colleagues) and NMP Siew Kum Hong.

For those not in the know, Siew has written quite a number of times in support of the repeal and has spoken about it in parliament. (See his conveniently unpublished by Straits Times reply to Andy Ho's article here)

But I was hoping for the likes of NMP and Prof Thio Li-Ann or maybe Asst Prof Yvonne Lee (both from NUS's law faculty), who are both known for their opposition to the repeal of section 377(a), to air their opinions on the issue. At least we would be able to hear both sides of the argument and especially that of religious conservatives (Li-Ann being one of the more out-spoken ones).

Actually I heard that apparently Yvonne was invited and seemed to be keen on attending till she said she had an overseas trip to make and hence could not be there.

Hmmm... fear of lynch mob? =)

Anyway, I was late so I didn't get to catch the earlier part of it but there were a lot of opinions voiced and some insights into how the government makes policy and legislative decisions. So since I was late and there have been quite a few write-ups on it, I will just point you to the various articles.

AsiaOne - MP all for repealing anti-gay law

Channel NewsAsia - Hundreds attend forum on decriminalisation of homosexual acts

Fridae - MP, NMP attend forum on repeal of gay sex law

Labels: law, lgbt, politics, singapore

I read "Peculiar Chris" at least a decade after it was first published even though I had heard about it way before that.

I was a book snob and I had never really bothered to pick it up as it was "just another local novel".

When I finally decided to give it go, it had been out of print and not on sale for many years. By some sheer luck, I happened to be at a second-hand book store at Holland Village shopping centre during lunch when I decided to see if they might have it. The answer was a disappointing "no", but they kindly took down my number and promised to call if they locate it. About half and hour after I left, I received their call on my mobile.

Bingo! They managed to dig it out from god-knows-where.

Rushing back to the store, I laid my hands on an old and worn book with a brownish-sepia picture of someone I assumed to be Chris looking downwards at an angle. Opening the cover, I saw a few names scribbled on the first page, it had been through at least two or three owners. Unfortunately, the book at present has been borrowed by someone and hasn't been returned.

At my last Google search (a few minutes ago), someone is selling a used though "like new" copy of the book through Amazon at US$72.16. That's like SGD$109.70!!!

BI-ATCH!! WHOEVER HAS MY COPY, I WANT IT BACK!!!

Of course you can get a cheaper copy at €15, but you'll need to be able to read Italian.

Anyway, the book was an easy but engaging read; I finished it within a day. And though I couldn't identify much with the characters in the story, it somehow resonated with me. It spoke of something that I could somehow identify with - a sort of love/growing-up story of a gay male that was set on this tiny red dot that we call home; moving in its own way. And besides, it is the first of its kind in Singapore no matter its flaws.

A few years later, I was honoured to meet the man who the put the tale to paper the old-fashioned way; no typewriter, no word processor, just good old pen on paper.

Interestingly, he seemed somewhat discomfited by the attention he received from Singaporeans who had read the book and met him in person. I guess it was part of a past he had left behind when he moved to London eons ago where no one knew him or had read his book.

And now, 15 years after it was first published, the book has been adapted into a play by Alfian Sa'at entitled "Happy Endings: Asian Boys Vol. 3". The first performance will be tonight at 8pm. Am I excited? You bet. I have been waiting for it since I heard that it's going to be on stage.

Should you watch it? Of course. It's going to be a gay story with a happy ending. We already have too much of those usual tragic suicidal stuff that comes out of Hong Kong, Taiwan or China.

And even if you're not gay, it's more than just about sexuality. Gay or straight, our yearnings, our hopes, our wounds, our tears and fears are all the same. It all happens on a tiny little red dot.

Besides, this is the last gay play that Alfian will ever write; for the foreseeable future that it. So don't miss it lor.

Labels: art, lgbt, singapore

Well, well, well. Oh so quietly, the ministerial pay raise controversy disappeared without even a cloud of smoke (it just wasn't there anymore) with the mention of the "gay issue" at the Young PAP's bash at St James power station on 23 April 2007.

The government needs no public relations company to do the public clean up, all it takes is a short comment on a "potentially divisive" (to the Christian fundies lah) issue by an "influential" genro to distract the people.

*applause*

Labels: lgbt, politics, singapore

So I decided to see what our local papers had to say about that topic. Turning to page H-4 in the Home Section of The Straits Times, my eyes quickly scanned down to the article in question.

It's interesting to note that the Reuters slant seems to be that the government may be considering decriminalising consensual sex between men, whereas the Straits Times version seems to reinforce the current practice of maintain the law but not proactively pursue enforcement.

So my take? Glacial pace to liberalisation lor. That's what I gathered from the Straits Times article which says a bit about LKY's idea and yet doesn't say that much either; a bit of LPPL here.

You can click on the picture above to read the full Straits Times article that I typed out.

PLU - Law Society presses for decriminalisation

PLU - Enough of enigmatic words, time for government to act

Yawning Bread - Beware being caught out when the tide turns

Labels: law, lgbt, politics, singapore

I woke up today to a very interesting bit of news which I have just cut and paste to my "Stolen Goods" blog.

Of course I tend to view it with a bit of caution. I mean, things have been said to that effect before and we know how that went.

I think the most important part is to let it take its course within the hallowed halls of the governing party and we shouldn't make the mistake of pressing the issue too hard. Experience has taught that when we push, they resist. Politics in Singapore is played this way: outright opposition or championing of an issue will not work; you have to work with and through them as opposed to against them if you want progress.

Actually, I feel that things are quietly beginning to change in a positive way. Based on an interesting conversation I had last evening with someone who is in the middle management of... how should I put it... "the industry", things are also improving slowly in quite a few areas within crime and punishment and other social issues. But it's a bit hush hush at the moment so no one can really talk about it.

Do note the word "slowly". It's not going to be a revolution, that's too disruptive. It's going to be an evolution. But the question for me is will I see it to fruition within my lifetime?

Labels: law, lgbt, politics, singapore

AP Entertainment: Chinese Web site to launch show on gay issues with gay host

Wah... China so progressive one meh? What happened to all those Asian values that LKY and his ilk sprout once in a while to justify some of their policies?

Interestingly, it seems that this progressive stance on homosexuality is common in countries where a majority of the people speak Chinese: China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. The only anomaly is of course you-know-where lah.

So is the concept of Asian values a myth? Does it really exist or is it a political/social catch phrase thought up by some leaders to justify certain repressive policies, their hold on power, and etc. (Note: This is a rhetorical question. No need to answer it. Of course it you want to, I can't stop you lah)

Maybe some of our policy makers are conflating their "Christian Values" with "Asian Values".

Labels: china, lgbt, tv

I was directed to this article by my friend's blurty post. It's from men.style.com and it is an incredible and harrowing story about a gay Iraqi by the name of Ali Hili (real name suppressed to protect him), his tribulations and persecution faced for being gay as well as the numerous stories of his friends and other Iraqis who were killed because of who they are.

The litany of abuses and horrific death is mind boggling:

1. Haider "Dina" Faiek (male transsexual) - beaten by uniformed officers who doused her with gasoline and set her on fire while she was still alive.
   
2. Emad (transgendered woman) - killed by being run over with a car, literally, with tyre marks over the body.
   
3. Ahmed (gay) - hand grenade thrown onto his friend's lawn while he was visiting, sending shrapnel through the windows and embedding it in their faces.
   
4. Ahmed's friend (gay) - Assailants shot him dead in his home, execution-style.
   
5. Ahmed's boyfriend (gay) - As he was entering the local gym with Ahmed; assailants ambushed them there and opened fire. Ahmed reached the bathroom and hid there; his boyfriend was killed.
   
6. Two teenagers were killed, reportedly for working as gay prostitutes; an actor was holed up with five others in an impromptu shelter; another transgendered woman was assassinated; a lesbian couple from Najaf were slain, etc.

It seems to have started with a fatwa issued by the Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who said that anyone involved in homosexuality "should be killed in the worst, most severe way possible."

Of course one would think upon reading this, "So what? Many Iraqis are dying every day. What difference does it make if they die because they are Sunni or Shia, gay, straight or transgendered, etc?"

And further more, reading and hearing about bombings and killings of ordinary Iraqis everyday have somehow numbed us to the brutality that is the reality of life in Iraq after Bush's adventure. I stand guilty of that too.

But reading the above article somehow brought that awful reality closer to me. The only similarity between Ali and me is that we are both gay men. Apart from that, we are as different as a white European is different from a black African living in say... Nigeria. However his story made him a real person as opposed to just another casualty figure if he had died as a result of the ongoing sectarian war or as a result of being killed for his sexuality. Thank god he made it out alive.

And if we think that this really doesn't concern us, we need to remember that regardless of whether we are straight or gay, who we are and where we were born in is a result of our involuntary and compulsory participation in the great ovarian lottery (to use Warren Buffet's term).

What if we were born a gay man or woman in Baghdad instead of here in Singapore or wherever we are living now in relative peace and prosperity?

Do read Ali's story, it may be a bit long, but I can assure you that it's not boring. In it, you will get to meet a kind and charitable gay couple like Jean Philippe de Bliek (41) and Edwin Dadema (48) and you get to discover that Amsterdam is a stopover hub in the great gay Underground Railroad for gay people in search of freedom.

On a slightly different note, I find it kind of ironical that this whole chaos that is Iraq now is a result of Bush's attempt to liberate that country from tyranny, oppression and dictatorship.

It's obvious to anyone that the country now is in the grips of something that is way more oppressive, tyrannical and dictatorial than Saddam Hussein. That tyrannical dictator is chaos and hate, and it emanates not just from one single source like Saddam, but from a host of people, known or unknown, influential and powerful or not, and armed with some very serious weapons and an awful agenda. It seems like the country was kicked out of purgatory and directly into hell.

And on the subject of Bush, I read this very interesting article on Yahoo News (directed there by my sister) recently.The rest of the article is available via the linked title above.

Thank god Bush's term is ending soon. But sadly, the chaos he created in Iraq will not disappear when his term ends. I frankly doubt if it's going to end anytime soon.

Labels: bush, iraq, lgbt

At the risk of adding my two cents worth to the op-ed that was written by a certain senior writer that was published in the Straits Times on Saturday, I really wonder what he thinks of some of these publications targeting the heterosexual male population that are widely available in Singapore (ie: news stands, 7-11, etc).



Men's entertainment? Soft porn? Projection of men's ideal on what a woman should look like?

If his argument holds water, why don't I see him protesting that "this is because porn promotes an illusion of females as young, voluptuous, gorgeous and big-breasted. This fantasy is quite at odds with the bodies that most real women have. Fed a diet of stereotypical images of perfectly shaped women with large breasts, women may develop unrealistic expectations of their own bodies. This can only compound the pre-existing feelings among women that society marginalizes them because of their sex". (words in bold are mine, see original quote from that senior writer here)

Then again, his leap of logic in equating Leslie Kee's photo book of scantily-clad or nude (with juicy bits artistically hidden from view) Asian celebrities, both males and females, with gay male porn totally defies all logic. What?! Slightly nude male=gay porn. So what does that make the female celebs in the book? Fag hags?

And if he is really so concern that these images will cause gay men to have unrealistic expectation of their own bodies, he need not worry as most gay men in Singapore aspire to have bodies that are way beyond what most of the male celebs in the book have. And let's not even talk about penis size here.

If the issue is really about gay male's having unrealistic expectations of their bodies, then a quick glance around Singapore will show that this issue is not unique to gays but to our society as a whole. What with all the advertisements for slimming centres and gyms, men and women fitness magazines, etc, it seems everyone is bombarded with images of what their ideal body should look like. Heck, I don't see him protesting the sale of these magazines or businesses.

Gosh... If he has absolutely nothing to write about to prove he is worth the salary SPH is giving him, then retire. I know Singapore is boring with nothing much of interest to blab about, but please! Have some intellectual pride.

(The book in question)

Labels: lgbt, press, singapore

I got this off my friend's LJ. It looks like a nice movie. At least the trailer looks interestingly sweet. Check it out below:



And the movie website is at http://www.theconradboys.com/

An excerpt of the interview with writer, director, editor, co-producer and main actor, Justin Lo (Half Chinese, Half Jewish-Caucasian):

Labels: lgbt, movies