Management of gays revisited, part 2

The curious thing about the Management of Success, Singapore revisited, is how the gay issue worms its way through it. This is both despite and because of the book being a “retrospection and introspection”, in ISEAS Director K Kesavapany’s words,  about many aspects of Singapore governance and society. It is “despite” it since the book covers a diverse number of topics, from foreign policy to Singlish; it is “because” of it because the gay issue has in recent years become one of the major faultlines of our society as we ambivalate between going forward and staying traditional.

In Part 1, I discussed the chapter by Michael Hor in which he contends that Section 377A is unconstitutional. Section 377A is the law that criminalises sex between men.

Sociology academic Laurence Leong Wai Teng, in his chapter 31, also deals with the policing of sexuality. Putting the spotlight on the “We Asians are conservative” justification, he observes that as a multicultural society, ours can neither be uniform nor consensual. Moreover, the influx of foreigners calls forth greater acceptance of diversity and differences.

Page 587:

Perhaps the construction of Singaporeans as “sexually conservative” tells us more about the constructors than about Singaporeans?

The elite of the ruling People’s Action Party, Leong observes, are a humourless bunch, characterised by dedication to task and rules, and abstemious with respect to pleasure. Leong suggests that they project their own selves and personalities onto society as a whole and misconstrue the population as similarly conservative.

Even the recent relaxation of policy towards the gay community is less than meets the eye.

Page 588:

the state relates to gays in instrumental ways, based on not how much the state loves gays, but how much gays can contribute to the economy. It is not gays as a generic group that is embraced (hence, no civil rights are instituted); only those specific gays who are talented, entrepreneurial, and economically successful would have a place in Singapore.

Of course, this instrumentalist approach can also be seen in the way the government relates to heterosexuality. In supporting it through various matchmaking, housing and “baby bonus” schemes, what comes out clearly is the “productionist ethic of sex”. The government treats

Page 591:

sex as procreation principally to supply talent, labour and demand for the economy.

In Chapter 28, Russell Heng puts the gay issue in the context of political dissent. Together with filmmakers, bloggers, artists and some opposition politicians, gays and lesbians have recently demonstrated the politics of resistance, and the government has in response, rewritten some rules, giving a bit more leeway in some ways and tightening up in others.

Nonetheless, the rules are still characterised by their sweeping natures, partly intended to deter from the sheer uncertainty of their scope and meaning, partly intended to empower the authorities in the event of creative, unanticipated moves by dissenters. But,

Page 529:

Whether it is public gatherings as innocuous as a concert in a small garden and a run in a park, or the making of films about politicians or blogging about elections, the injunctions would firstly, be regarded as ridiculous, and secondly, unfair; unfair in the sense that people are aware of similar gatherings being held with state blessings.  Such restrictions, no matter how legal they are, invite ridicule, circumvention or defiance. Faced with resistance, law enforcers are uncertain how to proceed. It would seem the political dilemma at the top that wants to enable but also restrict activism has put civil servants in an unenviable position of policing harsh laws with a soft touch.

With respect to 377A, Thio Li-Ann might prefer it be enforced harshly. Best known for her vituperative parliamentary speech defending the anti-gay law, she created a dichotomy between rights and interests in her chapter on human rights (Chapter 20). Activists she wrote, seek to appropriate the language of rights “to legitimize their political agenda”, which in her view, cheapens human rights.

Referring to the way gays, lesbian, bisexuals and transgenders refer to themselves collectively as sexual minorities, and picking up a gigantic tar brush, she said the term “sexual minorities”

Page 362:

obfuscates the moral issues at stake and would presumably include minority sexual practices like necrophilia, bestiality, and paedophilia. . .

She argues that gay activists are unfair in the way they characterise their political claims as rights, for doing so

Page 362:

erects a serious juridical and pseudo-moral obstacle towards challenging such claims, thus loading the dice of public discourse heavily in favour of a desired outcome (internal quotation marks removed).

Presumably, she would rather the discourse proceed on the basis of evil wanting to supplant moral good, even when the debate is about law and equality. Even when your rights are violated, you’re not supposed to discuss it in terms of rights because doing so disadvantages the rights-violators?

Declaring victory by citing the prime minister’s words in October 2007 that homosexuals were not considered a minority “in the sense that we consider . . .  Malays and Indians as minorities, with minority rights protected under the law,” she points out that the Singapore constitution does not recognise enforceable collective or group rights.

This of course is big fat red herring, for the issue is not that of granting special group privileges to gay people, but of extending the rights enjoyed by heterosexuals to them in the name of equality. She concedes, however, that the

Page 362:

basic philosophy is that the rights of minority groups would be realized by securing the rights of their individual members under the Article 12 equal protection clause.

Which is exactly what (1) gay people have been saying, and (2) where Michael Hor in his chapter in the same book says Singapore falls short.

Lai Ah Eng’s chapter 18 is on religious diversity in Singapore. In a short subsection touching on the 2003 debate about homosexuality in the media, which occurred right after then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong spoke about permitting openly gay officers to serve in the civil service, she mostly cites Kenneth Paul Tan, who found the debate that year stunted by an

Page 321:

artificial distinction between the religious and secular,  and the insistence on formal secularism that excludes all religious reasons from the public sphere.

Religious people can have a range of views, from the conservative to the most liberal, but the effect of demonising religious reasons transforms that discourse into a defensive one,

Page 321:

with complexity, subtlety, variety, and engagement being distorted into simple “us” versus “them”modes of reasoning.

Lai believes that there is a need to develop a culture of debate and discussion that admits more nuanced arguments than merely the “pro”and the “anti”.

* * * * *

The Management of Success, Singapore revisited is published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, and edited by Terence Chong of the same institute. It is a sequel to an earlier book of similar name published in 1989.

53 Responses to “Management of gays revisited, part 2”

  1. 1 Shock 30 September 2010 at 09:45

    Rightly so that the law be kept and enforced. Act against the order of nature does no one any good. People who suffered from this illness can seek treatment and be cured. There are many examples of such cure.

    • 2 Gard 30 September 2010 at 11:25

      We use ‘manage’ to talk about managing an incurable and/or chronic disease like asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc.

      The discussion should include ‘treatment’ and ‘cure.’ Having a law to punish sick people without rehabilitative recourse seems quite unjust, albeit a means to raise the tax coffers via fine and prison work.

      Maybe Alex can enrich the discussion by highlighting what does the law deal with people with other forms of illness and by citing from the book what the experts were saying about ‘cure’.

    • 3 wikigam 30 September 2010 at 11:38

      To : Shock

      Open you mind , homesexual isn’t an illness but homophobia is an illnes can’t cured because Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias, neither in DSM or ICD; homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense

      1)Classification of Homophobia :
      Homophobia manifests in different forms, and a number of different types have been postulated, among which are internalized homophobia, social homophobia, emotional homophobia, rationalized homophobia, and others. There were also ideas to classify homophobia, racism, and sexism as an intolerant personality disorder.

      2)Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) :
      DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. It is used in the United States and in varying degrees around the world, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and policy makers.

      The DSM has attracted controversy and criticism as well as praise. There have been five revisions since it was first published in 1952, gradually including more mental disorders, although some have been removed and are no longer considered to be mental disorders, most notably including homosexuality.

  2. 5 xtrocious 30 September 2010 at 12:45

    Yup, homophobes are seriously delusional…hahah

    And what is the order of nature?

    Us humans wearing clothes, driving cars, taking airplanes are all against nature – why the discrepancies?

  3. 6 newbie 30 September 2010 at 14:42

    i think against the order of nature means the guy is having sex wirh a guy rather than a girl so excluding man invention of condom, in an act that dont produce offspring. i dont know whther clear enough for you or not. it is not the act itself cause the guy can have anal or oral sex with the girl but the choice of partner.

  4. 7 KiWeTO 30 September 2010 at 16:06

    Order of nature
    – as we understood it back in the Stone age, Mesopotemic Age, the Victorian age, the Georgian age, or the present age?

    The world has moved on (enlightened) about it’s understanding of nature (and continues to come up with new hypotheses about what is ‘natural’; It is the (xxx)phobes of all kinds that believe that man had all the answers 2000 years; yet are willing to fly in modern aeroplanes and wear polyester that was beyond the nature of stone-age man.

    Enlightenment – one can only hope.


  5. 8 curious 30 September 2010 at 16:20

    I think the order of nature means the nutural stuff. Imagine if in the whole world, guys only go with guys, how human race continue? That is why homo is against the order of nature?

    • 9 Gard 30 September 2010 at 18:56

      “If in the whole world, guys only go with guys” – then to continue the human race, some guys have to mate with women, assuming evolution does not intervene. I doubt they need to give up homosexuality to do so.

      It does not seem like we need a lot of unique reproductive individuals. Animal analysis point to a minimum of 300 tigers, for example, to sustain species preservation for healthy gene pool.

      Therefore, it is possible for a world where homosexuality is natural, one of those ideas that defy conventional wisdom until you think about it.

      Unfortunately, ‘thinking’ is unnatural. Bacteria and many organisms have survived ages without thinking.

    • 10 xtrocious 1 October 2010 at 14:22

      But what if the act of sex does not lead to reproduction, then it’s also unnatural no?

      And here’s a triva for you – dolphins – besides humans – also have casual sex i.e. intercourse just for pleasure…

  6. 11 curious 30 September 2010 at 19:52

    Gard, I like your idea. If more men go only with men, it means many women will share 1 guy!

  7. 12 Saintly Anne 30 September 2010 at 20:24

    It’s enormously surprising that the publishers included a chapter from the sweet and delectable Li An, as she is very obviously ill-informed about the nature of sexual orientation, yet persists in writing about it as if she were an authority. One could be forgiven for imagining she is suffering from some kind of homophobic obsession.

    From your quote, one of the disturbing things about her (and her reputed associates at that famous Church – the ones apparently running school “sexuality” programs) is that they seem unable to distinguish between naturally occurring sexual orientations (heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual) and paraphilias.

    It is of course a common tactic of American religious extremists wherever possible in discussions to raise a straw man that they can easily knock down, such as outrageous paraphilias that easily raise disgust in the minds of the listener, e.g. necrophilia. I believe there is guidance on the internet telling them to do this, and we saw this tactic used very publicly in a video of the pastor Rony Tan, which he was made to remove from his website.

    To find that this disingenuous propaganda technique is apparently being applied in a supposedly serious book, presumably published by a reputable company, is alarming, and cheapens any serious points the writer may have been making, leading one to suspect that a large part of the chapter may consist of contrived propaganda – simply to justify the anachronistic criminalisation of the gay community for narrow and extreme religious reasons.

  8. 13 KT 30 September 2010 at 21:51

    To those who say homosexuality is not natural: prove it!

    To those who say homosexuality is natural: prove it! And no, just because it’s not listed in the DSM doesn’t necessarily mean it is natural or it’s not a mental disorder. The diagnosis of mental disorders is not always 100% science or value-neutral. That’s why the DSM changes from time to time.

    To those who say homosexuality will lead to the end of mankind: so what, even if it does? I don’t care! Do you care, really?

    To those who imply derogatory towards the mentally ill: take a look at your own attitude. You are no different from how homophobes look at homosexuals.

    To newbie: for god’s sake, improve your English!

  9. 14 sam 1 October 2010 at 00:33

    you’re not plugging the rather expensive book, alex? haha

    but thanks for sharing this!

  10. 15 Han 1 October 2010 at 03:55

    To Saintly Anne,

    You seem to assume that “paraphilias” like necrophilia and paedophilia are not naturally occurring. What if there is evidence that these sexual preferences are innate too?

    I think it is misguided to defend homosexuality on the basis that it is innate or “natural”. Many behaviours that people would consider immoral might be innate too – e.g. some people might be biologically predisposed to violence. There is a need for a more coherent theory distinguishing homosexuality from other more frowned-upon sexual practices, instead of just insisting that they are clearly different. Some people use the argument from harm – but that doesn’t work for practices like necrophilia, coprophilia or zoophilia where no (living) person is directly harmed.

    Personally I think there is nothing immoral with homosexuality and other sexual practices that do not harm anyone. The only way to distinguish them morally is to argue that corpses or animals have consent rights, which would lead to all sorts of moral implications that many people would not be able to accept (e.g. that it is wrong to kill animals for meat).

    In conclusion, even though I support gay rights, I don’t think it is disingenuous for the anti-gay brigade to lump it together with other more repulsive sexual practices. There *is* a plausible argument that homosexuality is morally equivalent to certain paraphilias, and gay rights supporters need to take seriously these arguments and either come up with a coherent theory distinguishing homosexuality from other paraphilias, or admit that the moral injunctions against necrophilia/coprophilia/zoophilia are similarly based on irrational disgust.

    • 16 Robox 1 October 2010 at 08:34

      “I think it is misguided to defend homosexuality on the basis that it is innate or “natural”… even though I support gay rights, I don’t think it is disingenuous for the anti-gay brigade to lump it together with other more repulsive sexual practices [like necrophilia, coprophilia or zoophilia where no (living) person is directly harmed].”

      Neither do I think it is particularly ingenous for heterosexuals to defend the “normalness” or “naturalness” of their sexual orientation on the same grounds.


      1. Necrophilia involving individuals who would normally identify as “heterosexual” presumably takes place at the same rate as it does with those who do identify as “homosexual”,all things being equal.

      2. Ditto for zoophilia.

      3. I had to look up the meaning of “coprophilia” to be able to write this post, but the same argument applies here: presumably, it is a repulsive practise among heterosxuals as it is with homosexuals.(Or it could be even more prevalent among heterosexuals since they seem to be very conversant with a wide range of ‘repulsive sexual practices’ that gays seem to be in the dark about.)

      Yet, no one thinks about criminalizing heterosexuality on those bases; it is only when the question of homosexuality comes up that they do.

      Why the heck didn’t all of you make the same arguments involving zoophilia, necrophilia, and now coprophilia, as possible abuses of legal privilege when debates about baby bonuses, positive discrimination towards heterosexuals in housing, to mention just two heterosexual privileges, were taking place?

      And exactly how many people in Singapore have been charged under laws against necrophilia and zoophilia since they have been passed that this has become so pressing an issue amongst many as to take centre stage?

  11. 17 Bigdeal 1 October 2010 at 07:38

    Gard, May I correct you that what make you think that bateria can not think? How do you think that they can overcome antibiotic and survive and in fact when your day come to meet your maker, likely the bateria is the one that put in the finishing touch!(infection)

    Just becuase human is unable to detect or measure bateria ability to think does not mean they cant think. So you may want to do some thinking before you write or open your mouth!

  12. 18 Bigdeal 1 October 2010 at 07:47

    KT, dont ask newbie to improve his English when you are poor at it yourself. For example, when you state “To those who say homosexuality is not natural: prove it!
    To those who say homosexuality is natural: prove it!” This is more of a straight translation from Chinese to English type of statement. Plus the use of “:” is not the correct way of using the : in a sentence. I shall not go into a full analysis of your post but enough said!

    This is not a site to show your supremancy of the Englisg language so dont make stupid remark.

  13. 19 Sad 1 October 2010 at 08:16

    KT, you state “To those who say homosexuality will lead to the end of mankind: so what, even if it does? I don’t care! Do you care, really”

    Yes, not everyone is as self centred and selfish like you. Many people do care about humanity irrespective of their sexual orientation. You are just one of the minority that dont deserve to consumer the limited natural resources on earth!

    • 20 Nonchristian 1 October 2010 at 12:36

      Well said.

      This kind of people careless of what the gays are going through. It’s cruel to ask the victim to prove their innocent and existence against the accusation by evil and hatred spreaders.

      Ministry of Health / Institute of mental health is not high enough medical authority to them.

      They rather believe those ‘churches’ and pass judgment on others.

  14. 21 walau 1 October 2010 at 16:00

    Nonchristian, I agreed with you. I think both Gard and KT are non thinking morons!

  15. 22 kudaclub 3 October 2010 at 09:21

    The official position of our kuda club is we support the legialation and against act that against the order of nature as outlined by earlier posts.

  16. 23 walau 3 October 2010 at 09:25

    Who or what is kudaclub?

  17. 24 kudaclub 3 October 2010 at 09:54

    Walau, kudaclub was formed by a group of friends who enjoy going to karaoke clubs with karaoke hostess. We do not believe in act against the order of nature when we ride.

  18. 25 walau 4 October 2010 at 05:51

    kuda club, ride my ass! really pathetic

  19. 26 tk 4 October 2010 at 14:20

    alex i think you need to start moderating these comments more…

    they’re beginning to reflect very poorly on the mental health, education level and general intelligence of your heretofore very sensible and considerate readership.

    as a reflection on the “religious” mind however, they are extremely instructive.

  20. 27 smart 4 October 2010 at 18:34

    Alex, please delete posts made by Gard, KT and kudaclub

  21. 28 natural & unnatural 5 October 2010 at 09:39

    An act being natural or unnatural has nothing to do with whether or not it is an moral or immoral act.

    For example, it is unnatural for a person to use his mouth to hold a pen to write. But it is not immoral. Some handicaps who lost their arms use their mouth to hold a pen to write or draw.

    Christians who use the arguments about nature should note that in Romans chapter 11, God is described as having acted “contrary to nature” or against nature. God “crafted contrary to nature” a wild olive branch into a cultivated olive tree.

    Not all natural acts are moral. Not all unnatural acts are immoral. Moral and immoral are measured by some other criteria, and not by whether or not something is natural/unnatural.

  22. 29 Shock 6 October 2010 at 05:48

    natural & unnatural, my point is act against the order of nature is not doing anyone good and it has nothing bto do with moral issue.

  23. 30 Kudaclub 6 October 2010 at 10:01

    We support shock. Men and women are made and built differently by nature and the tools to be used should be used properly to produce the next generation. We in Kudaclub have vowed that no matter what is the temptation, when we ride , we zero in only the right target.

  24. 31 beautiful 7 October 2010 at 12:21

    My goodness, kuda club is back with his nonsense again.I must admit that when I see two women making love,it is one of the most beautiful imagery I have viewed but somehow I can not say the same with two guys doing the same thing.Alex, sorry.

  25. 32 wikigam 8 October 2010 at 10:02

    TO : beautiful

    It’s regardless your objection of men to men sex. Male dominant the world in human or aminal of biology history.

    History proof that human’s sexual habit changed from time to time. In economy term , called ” Marginal Utility “. while men toward intrested to men, we have to accept it to reduce society’s impact.

  26. 33 kudaclub 8 October 2010 at 10:20

    wikigam, accept my ass. Why do we have to accept? frankly though i dont accept, as long as we do not encourage it, i am ok with it as long as we keep it in check. I do not mind as i hope the law would change for the rest of us to be entitled to more tan one woman since many become homo and not intetested in girls.

  27. 34 wikigam 8 October 2010 at 11:19

    Polygamy is a form of marriage in which a person has more than one spouse at the same time, as opposed to monogamy in which a person has only one spouse at a time. When a man has more than one wife, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman has more than one husband, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called group marriage.

    The term is used in related ways in social anthropology, sociobiology, sociology, as well as in popular speech. In social anthropology, polygamy is the practice of a person’s making him/herself available for two or more spouses to mate with. In contrast, monogamy is a marriage consisting of only two parties. Like monogamy, the term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether the relationships are recognized by the state (see marriage for a discussion on the extent to which states can and do recognize potentially and actually polygamous forms as valid). In sociobiology, and zoology polygamy is used in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating

    2)Countries Recognized under civil law
    Afghanistan,Algeria,Bahrain,Bangladesh,Brunei,Burkina ,Faso,Cameroon,Chad,CAR,Comoros,Congo,Djibouti,Egypt,Ethiopia,Gabon,The Gambia,India1,Indonesia,Iran,Iraq,Jordan,
    Myanmar,Niger,Oman,Pakistan,Palestine,Qatar,Saudi Arabia
    Senegal,Singapore,Somalia,South Africa,Sri Lanka1,Sudan
    Syria,Tanzania,Togo,Uganda,UAE,Western Sahara,Yemen and Zambia

  28. 35 kudaclub 8 October 2010 at 11:53

    Wikigam, Unfortunately many are muslim countries that I do not intend to move to. I still dont understnad why you mentioned hat we have to accept it to reduce society impact?

    We in Kuda club welcome one man many women system so we dont have to ride outside but in the comfort of home.

  29. 36 wikigam 8 October 2010 at 14:20

    Amendment of Constitution

    5. —(1) Subject to this Article and Article 8, the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law enacted by the Legislature.

    (2) A Bill seeking to amend any provision in this Constitution shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in Article 39 (1) (a).

    1) kudaclub , you can submit a petitiion on your “POLYGAMY RIGHT” for next amendment of Penal Code

  30. 37 kudaclub 8 October 2010 at 14:24

    Wikigam, You still have not explained the society impact bit. I am curious to know what you meant in that statement.

    On amendment, too much trouble lar. Just ride when needed so no need to be so troublesome!

  31. 38 curious 9 October 2010 at 13:35

    Waht riding are you talking about.Kuda in Malay mean horse?

  32. 39 wikigam 10 October 2010 at 21:34

    To : Kudaclub

    ac·cept   /ækˈsɛpt/

    –verb (used with object)

    1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.

    2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.

    3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.

    4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.

    5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.

    6. to accommodate or reconcile oneself to: to accept the situation.

    7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism.

    8. to regard as normal, suitable, or usual.

    9. to receive as to meaning; understand.

    10. Commerce . to acknowledge, by Signature, as calling for payment, and thus to agree to pay, as a draft.

    11. (in a deliberative body) to receive as an adequate performance of the duty with which an officer or a committee has been charged; receive for further action: The report of the committee was accepted.

    12. to receive or contain (something attached, inserted, etc.): This socket won’t accept a three-pronged plug.

    13. to receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without adverse reaction. Compare reject ( def. 7 ) .

    –verb (used without object)
    14. to accept an invitation, gift, position, etc. (sometimes fol. by of ).

    Based above listed use of “accept” , in my sentence i mean accept as ” understand”

  33. 40 Kudaclub 11 October 2010 at 14:10

    I am asking about your statement on what do you mean by society impact and you gave me the English dictionary!

    On Curious, this is a relatively high class site so it is difficult to explain in more details to you by put it this way, imagine how does one ride a horse? Just substitude the horse with a girl with same motion. Get it?

  34. 41 wikigam 11 October 2010 at 14:35

    1) Freedom of speech
    Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation, or both. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on “hate speech”.

    The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as “the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression.Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.

    2)Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

  35. 42 Kudaclub 11 October 2010 at 15:42

    Wikigam, I think u live in your own world! U like definition too!

  36. 43 wikigam 12 October 2010 at 01:16

    Legislation from October 2007

    After the exhaustive Penal Code review in 2007, oral and anal sex were legalised for heterosexuals and female homosexuals only. The changes meant that oral and anal sex between consenting heterosexual and female homosexual adults were no longer offences but section 377A, which dealt with gross indecency between consenting men, remained in force

    1) after amendment , it show an in-equality between male and female . God will not create gay or lesbian but man and women, since that the nation of singapore dislike man , god will reducese the production of man , Govt have to import man for the generation when such law retains.

  37. 44 kudaclub 12 October 2010 at 12:30

    Wikigam, give ma a break, How can two female homosexualskudaclub have anal sex? They dont have the sticks!

  38. 45 kudaclub 12 October 2010 at 13:48

    Wikigam, give ma a break, How can two female homosexuals have anal sex? They dont have the sticks!

  39. 46 wikigam 12 October 2010 at 15:49

    I would not down grade my IQ to answer your quenstions.
    Have a nice day.

  40. 47 Kudaclub 12 October 2010 at 20:26

    Yes, man with definition and high IQ my ass!

  41. 48 sinhole 17 October 2010 at 17:31

    very interesting exchanges for all the posts but I think wikigam is an asshole! hehe

  42. 49 wikigam 18 October 2010 at 10:11

    1) Asshole, a variant of arsehole, which is still prevalent in British and Australian English, is a common word for the anus and is usually used as an insult. The word arse in English derives from the Germanic root *arsaz, which originated from the Proto-Indo-European root *ors- meaning buttocks or backside. The combined form arsehole is first attested from 1500 in its literal use to refer to the anus. The metaphorical use of the word to refer to the worst place in a region (e.g., “the arsehole of the world”) is first attested in print in 1865; the use to refer to a contemptible person is first attested in 1933.Its first appearance as an insult term in a newspaper indexed by Google News is in 1965. But as with other vulgarities, these uses of the word may have been common in oral speech for some time before their first print appearances. By the 1970s, Hustler magazine featured people they did not like as “Asshole of the month.”

  43. 50 Neil Cal 18 October 2010 at 12:49

    The idea that Singapore is a sexually conservative is only true when the sexuality in question isn’t of the heterosexual man.

    Just walk down Circular Quay in the evenings, visit the Four Floors of Whores, talk to a taxi driver about recommending the best places to find *insert reference to a kitten here*… or observe the sexually suggestive advertising depicting Asian women in tight, almost non existent clothing.

    More accurately, Singapore is a very patriarchal society interested in conserving and re-enforcing their own particular orientation and the suppression of others.

  44. 51 wikigam 23 October 2010 at 01:22

    Ignorant :lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact.

    I prefer refer singaporean as sexually ignorant instead of sexually conservative .

    In many developed countries, ignorant group may come from lower education population . But in singapore , it come from lower to upper layer (high) education group.

  45. 52 wikigam 23 October 2010 at 01:49

    1) “nature” may refer to the general realm of various types of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects–the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth, and the matter and energy of which all these things are composed.

    2)human don’t included in ” nature” because human don’t change of their own accord. Human changed from century to century in various type and pattern.

    3)Human Sexual orientation can’t category in term ” order of nature” because sexual Hehavior of Human are un-natural if compare with don’t call ‘ heterosexual’ equal to natural of order of human sexual orientation.

  46. 53 Kudaclub 25 October 2010 at 16:34

    wikigam,said who that sexual bahaviour of Human are unnatural if compared with animal/ They are just the same. Once you put a guy and a woman in a room naked, they bahave just like animals. Unnatural my ass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: