When the story first broke, what struck me most was the focus on lesbians. It is far more common in anti-LGBT speech for the reference to be either directed at gay males or framed with reference to gay male sex, at least in Singapore and the West. But coming from a lecturer in Malay Studies, I wasn’t surprised.
Archive for the 'homosexuality' Category
It’s difficult to make sense of what Pastor Lawrence Khong is trying to do. In the past few weeks, he’s taken the lead in attacking the Health Promotion Board (HPB), and now the Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, over the HPB’s FAQ on sexuality. Khong accused the HPB of disseminating a message that “condones same-sex relationships and promotes the homosexual practice as something normal”.
When Gan answered a parliamentary question from Lim Biow Chuan (PAP, Mountbatten) in a manner not to Khong’s liking, Khong turned his guns on the minister too. You can read Gan’s parliamentary reply here. Lim, in case people have forgotten, gave one of the most homophobic speeches in Parliament in 2007 when Section 377A, the anti-gay law, was debated. Continue reading ‘Is Lawrence Khong’s battle flag for victory or for show?’
I had a sense of deja vu when Law Minister K Shanmugam said that allowing migrant workers to challenge deportation orders through the judicial process would mean that “every foreigner is entitled to stay here at taxpayers’ expense, housed here at taxpayers’ expense” (source), while the cases wend their way through the courts.
The same “it costs too much” argument was regularly deployed by supporters of the death penalty in previous years. It goes along these lines: society should not be burdened with having to feed and clothe a prisoner on a life sentence; it’s more economical to hang him. However, the government itself did not, to my knowledge, use this argument. It came from various members of the public. Continue reading ‘Not at taxpayers’ expense’
Here is the film Boy (2008), by Filipino filmmaker Auraeus Solito. It had been selected for inclusion in Singapore’s 2009 International Film Festival but was one of two festival films banned by the Media Development Authority (MDA), the Orwellian-named department of censorship. Do note, it’s 1 hour 19 minutes long.
Judy and Dennis Shepard chose to turn their grief into action. They set up the Matthew Shepard Foundation to honour their first-born son, who was brutally tortured and killed in 1998. Fifteen years on, the parents are still going from school to school giving talks.
It’s not easy getting access to high schools, especially the public schools, Judy tells me. “All it takes is for one parent to say no,” and school administrators get cold feet. Continue reading ‘Shout out: bullying of LGBT kids must stop’
April 2013 in Natal saw South Africa’s first gay wedding conducted according to traditional Zulu rites. Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Africa since December 2006.
I understand that the Attorney-General has alleged that this article is in contempt of court (scandalising the judiciary). My lawyers have advised that this article be taken down while the case is ongoing. See AGC versus me, the 2013 round.
I discontinued my online subscription to the Straits Times earlier this year. The habit wasn’t easy to break. At first I found myself buying the print version about twice a week. Weekends, I often bought the Sunday Times — mostly for its Sudoku and two or three comic strips that I liked (most I didn’t). But lately, I’ve gone for perhaps two months without missing it.
Then a few weeks ago, I happened to leaf through a copy of the Sunday Times at a cafe and discovered that they had halved the Sunday comic strips. Sherman’s Lagoon was gone.
Well, that’s that, then.
Guest essay by Tania De Rozario
When I was first asked to present my personal thoughts on the “The Future of LGBT and the Arts in Singapore” at IndigNation 9 (August 2013), I was stumped where to start. Both our arts community and queer community are so diverse: At what points do they intersect? What concerns do they share? Is the issue queer artists or queer art? Does the latter even exist?
I’ve been working in the creative industry for just over a decade and yet still do not feel as though I have satisfactory answers to the above questions. So the first thing I did was run the brief by a number queer people across different creative disciplines: “What are your concerns with regard to the future of LGBT art-makers and art-content in Singapore?” Continue reading ‘Re-setting the standard, the Great Work begins.’
Guest essay by Vanessa Ho
Foreword by Yawning Bread: As in all LGBT communities around the world, there is a tension between those who would adopt the language and styles of the mainstream to advance the cause of gay equality, and those who argue that such “progress” is meaningless unless we also help protect those who are more disenfranchised and voiceless than us. This is often oversimplified into “mainstream gays versus radical gays” — a caricature that does the complex debate a disservice. Setting aside that oversimplification, I have always wanted to have a voice for radicalism on this site, and am pleased that Vanessa has taken up my offer.
Yet, as she concludes, what appears at first as radicalism may in fact be a lot more beneficial to a wider scope of people, including those who aren’t sexual minorities.
Singapore’s LGBT community should shift away from talk about marriage equality. I am not saying that we should *not* fight for marriage equality, but that there should be a much stronger emphasis on fighting for anti-discrimination legislation. Marriage equality is great for people who believe in monogamy, who believe in the significance of marriage, and who are in monogamous long term relationships. But this is not the case for everyone. Not to mention that some within our community may not have the good fortune to meet “Mr/Mrs Right” and thus do not get to enjoy the opportunity to get married. Continue reading ‘The case for anti-discrimination legislation — from an unexpected quarter’
Several people have pointed out by now how unprofessional it was to use the term “gay lifestyle” in a recent survey of public attitudes. The survey was conducted for the Singapore Conversation. For integrity, surveys must take great care to employ only clear and neutral vocabulary. “Gay lifestyle” fails both tests.
What this incident underscores is the extent to which conservative Christian influences have invaded our public bodies. Not only did the survey designers employ this loaded term, no one up and down the oversight chain stopped it. Either everyone thought it perfectly “normal” to use prejudicial language, or if anyone spoke up, he or she was a lonely voice and could not prevail. But it is only “normal” when one lives ensconced in prejudiced circles. Thus, the unthinking use of the term flags the degree by which members of these social circles have come to dominate government and their associated academic bodies.