Adam Lambert concert promoting gay lifestyle at StarPAC

Posted on March 2, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Church feels the heat over gay singer’s gig’, 2 March 2013, article by Tessa Wong, ST

THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is looking into a complaint about a church-owned venue hosting an upcoming concert by openly gay singer Adam Lambert. Lambert is due to perform next Friday at The Star Performing Arts Centre, a commercial entity fully owned by Rock Productions, the business arm of New Creation Church.

New Creation is a member of the NCCS, which represents about 200 churches in Singapore. NCCS general secretary Lim K. Tham said the council had received a complaint from a Christian that “the gay lifestyle may be promoted at the concert, and that the concert venue is owned by a church,” he said.

“The NCCS has conveyed this concern to New Creation so that it can make a response.”

The Media Development Authority (MDA) said it has also received feedback from some members of the public “expressing concern” about the concert. It declined to reveal what their concerns were. Even though it is not the first time that Lambert has performed here, the NCCS said it did not receive complaints about his previous gigs. The MDA declined to say whether it received any complaints about him previously.

He performed at Resorts World Sentosa in 2010 and sang at the Formula One Grand Prix at the Padang in 2011. (He ‘came out’ in 2009)

…This is not the first time that Christians have raised concerns about a pop concert in recent months. The MDA previously met with the NCCS and LoveSingapore, a network of 100 churches, about Lady Gaga’s concert in May last year. It is understood that they had raised concerns over how she may have insulted Christians and promoted homosexuality at her concert.

The Star PERFORMING ARTS centre at Buona Vista sounds like a venue for an evening of ballet and other classy types of refined entertainment, like an uglier Esplanade of the West. Yet it showcases a diverse range of celebrities from golden oldies to K-pop, saccharine David Foster to Bollywood, sleepy Norah Jones jazz to the flamboyant razzle-dazzle of American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert. Earlier this year, the church-owned theatre wowed male audiences with  an all-girl group from Japan known as the Ebisu Muscats. Unbeknownst to many, the Muscats are in fact a spin-off novelty act consisting of nude models and PORNSTARS.  The NCCS said nothing then. Oh I forgot, those guys don’t watch porn. They were also seemingly fine with singing pastor Sun Ho’s China Wine video.

NCC insists that its Star stage operates independently from the workings of the Church, like a secular debauched fantasy realm of its own, though the theatre is just an escalator away from a Christian book and music shop. Lambert’s music is not known to promote any agenda for ‘free love’ or cast a cursory eye on religion unlike Lady Gaga’s overt references to biblical characters (Black Jesus, anyone?). Last year, 300 Protestant South Koreans gathered for group prayer cum protest against Gaga’s Born this Way Ball. I wonder if anyone has already booked Hong Lim Park for a similar vigil to save humanity from Adam Lambert. A commenter from the NCC Facebook page refers to Lambert’s gig as an ‘appearance of evil’ (1 Thessalonians 5:22). The actual quote from the Bible is ‘Abstain from all appearance of evil’, or ‘If you see a gay dude with eyeliner, run far, far away’.

You can pray and Air guitar at the same time, it seems

As the singer proudly proclaims, he’s just here ‘for your entertainment’, though that entertainment may include him kissing his band guitarist amid the gothic ‘glitter and leather’ extravaganza. Up yours S377A!

The people complaining to NCCS and Malaysia’s hardline opposition party PAS have something in common then, both terrified of a gay epidemic, with the latter forbidding Lambert from even showing fans his nipples. In response to allegations of promoting homosexuality in Malaysia, he said:

Does my show ‘promote the gay lifestyle’? It promotes living ANY lifestyle that includes the freedom to seek love and intimacy

Lambert’s ‘We Are Glamily‘ tour was also recently cancelled in Manila due to ‘unforseen circumstances’. This is the same country where Christian and Muslim brotherhoods unite to banish demonic singers. Interestingly, the ‘Glamily’ title was left out for the Singapore promo. Sistic calls it ‘Adam Lambert Live in Singapore’. Imagine how outraged the church elders must feel if it had been left intact. Some gay singer coming here to break up the family unit! Dear Lord!

I wonder what the wholesome folks at NCCS think of Elton John (who has a male spouse, surrogate child and an orchid named after him) performing Candle in the Wind for charity here. Elton John is the last person Singaporean teens would look up to on sexuality matters of course, nevermind that he implores you to ‘Feel the Love Tonight’ on a Disney cartoon. Lambert is gay AND cool, which in the conservative Christian’s mind is an equation that adds up to ’666′.

A question every openly gay singer will have to ask when seeking to meet their fans in this part of the world is: Whaddaya want from me? Whaddaya want indeed. All together now…

Yeah, it’s plain to see (plain to see)
that baby you’re beautiful
And it’s nothing wrong with you
(nothing wrong with you)
It’s me, I’m a freak (yeah)
but thanks for lovin’ me
Cause you’re doing it perfectly

About these ads

Filed under: 2013, Art, Concerts, Gay stuff, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Repealing 377A a looming threat to the family unit

Posted on January 19, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Pastor’s plea to retain S377A sparks online furore’, 18 Jan 2013, article in Today online.

A plea by a church pastor — made during morning service last Sunday — to Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong against the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men, has drawn strong reactions from the online community. Mr Goh happened to pass by the Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) during his regular walkabout in his Marine Parade constituency and was invited by the church leaders to meet the congregation.

While Mr Goh was on the stage in the church’s auditorium, FCBC senior pastor Lawrence Khong read from a prepared statement. Among other things, he called the effort to repeal Section 377A “a looming threat” to the family unit, which he defined as “a man as father, a woman as mother, and children”.

“We see a looming threat to this basic building block by homosexual activists seeking to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code,” said Mr Khong, who also urged the Government to “provide moral leadership in preserving this basic building block and foundation of our society”. In response, Mr Goh made a general remark that people are free to stand by their beliefs: “You stand by your belief, and you’ll be fine.”

There are many other educated voices out there in a better position than myself to argue for the repeal of 377A, but what concerns me here is whether someone of Khong’s calibre should be endorsed by Goh Chok Tong to ‘stand by’ such divisive beliefs and if taking this moral high ground would be detrimental not just to the livelihood of gays of the faith, but gays of society in general. In his statement, Khong talks of the repeal ‘attacking religious freedom’ and changing the way sex is taught in schools. If a religious leader expresses an irrational fear of a certain group of individuals and crudely labels it a destructive force, is it all ‘fine’ and dandy? Two gays having consensual sex in private doesn’t hurt anyone. One influential man telling every Christian or Catholic that homosexuality is a form of spiritual defilement is not someone simply expressing a ‘belief’. In some civilised societies, such condemning of an alternative lifestyle choice is considered a hate crime. Here, the ex Prime Minister of Singapore gives you an encouraging pat on the shoulder for ranting about the impending ‘gaypocalypse’. If I ‘believe’ the PAP is running the nation to the ground, will I get the same assurance?

I’m not sure that we, for the benefit for fellow humans with feelings, should tolerate such attitudes disguised as old biblical axiom. What Khong is implying is that homosexuality needs to be ‘controlled’ before it becomes a ‘norm’ and wrecks everything we hold dear. If you replace ‘homosexual’ with groups like the elderly, the sick, the handicapped, the mentally impaired, atheists, rapists, liars, gamblers, cheaters etc you have someone essentially advocating mass sterilisation of ‘undesirables’ from the pulpit. On the other hand, if one speaks up against the Church while ‘standing firm’ to a belief that monotheistic faiths are the viral scourge of humanity, you’ll be FINED rather than ‘fine’, if not jailed for sedition and ‘disrupting religious harmony’. Meanwhile, men of the cloth spew discriminatory hokum and get away with it because they have scripture to back them up, the same scripture that justifies genocide of the ‘deviants’. If a pastor is allowed to take a sweeping crack at homosexuality, so should I be able to exercise my ‘right’ to critique his sermons as being arcane, merciless and downright nonsensical. Jesus, just look what one of your heterosexual clergy have done to a 15 year old follower this past month. And you want to talk about 377A when you can’t even control your guys from the ‘proper’ family units.

The argument for the preservation of the ‘family unit’ and its role in nation building is as stale as unwashed foreskin. In 2009, Senior Pastor Derek Hong from the Anglican Church of our Savior said:

Accepting homosexual practices and endorsing any education programme that teaches our children that such practices are neutral or normal would lead to the erosion of the sound family values on which Singapore society has been built.

The infamous Rony Tan from Lighthouse Evangelism compared homosexuality to a plague of barrenness, that if left alone, ‘half the world’ would become homosexual, like the spread of some zombie pandemic. John Chew, head of the Anglican Church, told the ST in 2006 that:

 …‘It may be a cultured way of depicting a certain lifestyle, but two generations later, it will be an accepted lifestyle…If Elton John can do it, imagine the impact on his fans…It is just too dangerous, we have no fallback…It’s not like in the West, where these things take time to trickle down.”

Yang Tuck Loong, pastor of Cornerstone Community Church and LoveSingapore member, had this to say in his ‘Firing the First Salvo’ statement (Church network to speak up for S377A, 22 Jan 2013, ST), a terrifying metaphor which is hard to differentiate from a call to arms by the Knights Templar.

We must not be oblivious to our responsibilities as an army to push back the powers of darkness

PM Lee seems to think we are still at heart a ‘conservative’ society, and are not ready for change. Look at the sex scandals in your own cabinet : A heterosexual Speaker of Parliament running wild. Right under your nose.

So from the right-wing religious point of view, homosexuality is ‘contagious’ and is ‘unacceptable’ based on what appears to be it breaching a sacred union, though any link between this perfect union of penis and vagina and the success and happiness of a kingdom or nation has yet to be reliably shown. It doesn’t say if a polygamous marriage has run afoul of the Bible’s teachings (in fact it was probably rampant at the time the Bible was written). It also says nothing about the millions of men and women who made a difference to society as orphans or products of single parents and broken families, nor does it acknowledge that perfect families are as likely to produce a saint or President as a Hitler or serial killer.

Lawrence Khong and like-minded leaders need to be put in their place before such remarks are taken as a war-cry against the ‘fallen’ and a stamp of government approval for something akin to militant eugenics. The Archbishop was once told to stay the hell out of politics for commenting on the ISA, so shouldn’t a pastor be censured for interfering in our legislation as well? Likewise, politicians should know better and stay clear of mixing policy with religious affairs. Did Khong pull a Houdini here as he does on a regular basis as a trained MAGICIAN? Maybe that explains the hocus-pocus reasoning coming out of his mouth.

He should make himself disappear

Filed under: 2013, Gay stuff, Politicians, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Orchard streetwalkers soliciting expats

Posted on September 16, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Streetwalkers: Stores vigilant’, 16 Sept 2012, article by Nathaniel Fetalvero and Nicholas Yeam, and ‘Streetwalkers getting more blatant at Orchard Road’, 10 Sept 2012, TNP

Foreign women touting sex services are no longer just operating around Orchard Towers. They are now covering areas as far as Far East Shopping Mall. The minute they spot a potential customer, usually a male tourist, they would approach them with offers of ‘massage’. Said one expat: “It’s like running a gauntlet. If you make the mistake of looking at them, they’ll be all over you in seconds.”

…ON WEDNESDAY, two days after The New Paper reported on foreign women soliciting expatriates on Orchard Road, it appears that not much has changed. At the stretch between Orchard Parade Hotel and Orchard Towers, we spotted one or two women standing around, but after an hour, more emerged, loitering on the sidewalks.

Businesses, like Modesto’s Singapore, said the women do not pose a problem. A spokesman for Modesto’s Singapore told TNP that “if some ladies enter and ask for a table, they will be seated and served because we cannot judge who they are. “However, if they are seen to be then going to single men and hassling them, they will be immediately asked to leave our restaurant.”

Orchard Towers, also known to foreigners as the ‘Four Floors of Whores’, wasn’t always the dark seedy underbelly of our country’s premier shopping district. In 1974, it was hyped as a ‘new-idea in office home development’, boasting a state-of-the-art theatrette on the 3rd floor, as well as ‘medical, scientific or technical’ offices on the 4th and 5th floors of the front block facing Orchard Road. It was also home to ‘fine art’ exhibitions, and its Premier Theatre screened selections of the ASEAN film festival in 1980. From Gallery of Fine Arts to Bongo Bar and Top Ten Disco; what the hell happened that turned a centre for art appreciation into the girly-bar hotbed of sleaze and sex that we know today?

In April 1980, Johnny Teo (a name as pimp as it can get) was fined $3000 for managing a brothel from his Orchard Towers apartment, housing mostly Thai prostitutes. Things started to heat up once Premier cinema shut down operations in 1983, with Top Ten Disco taking over after a brief conversion of the auditorium to a ‘live show theatre’.  By 1988, Orchard Towers was an entertainment hub and yuppie den with bars, pubs and ‘social escort agencies’ making their foray into the premises. Some recognisable names in the entertainment business also cut their teeth in Orchard Towers, including singers Wendi Koh (Celebrities bar), Cantopop sensation William Scorpion (Utopia) and DJ Brian Richmond (Peyton Place). Before there were ‘streetwalkers’, pubs like Utopia had ‘public relations officers’ to provide ‘companionship’ and ‘conversation’. By then it would also have its fair share of transvestites and transsexuals, who found acceptance and metaphorical ‘beginnings’ within the building’s four walls, only to be rounded up by the police, who were also on a rampage against homosexuals.

By 1991, Orchard Towers began to be ‘plagued’ by fly-by-night foreign hookers, with the police cracking down on the trade in Dec the same year (Orchard Towers cleared of fly-by-night prostitutes, 28 Dec 1991, ST). In 1992, Singapore’s ‘largest KTV’ opened at the basement of the building (Orchard KTV). In 2002, Orchard Towers was the scene of a high-profile murder, after bodies were found in an abandoned vehicle in the car park. 4 years later, Top 10 rebranded itself as Top 5, its evolution over the years in sync with the gradual moral decline of the entire complex. Today the disco houses private rooms named ‘Desire, Passion, Seduction, Temptation, Obsession’, named after ‘ladies’ emotions, which also describes perfectly the naughty shebang happening on the streets outside. Cross-dresser comedian Kumar also performs there at 3 Monkeys bar these days, and being risque in Orchard Towers is like baring it all in a nude colony.

Sex, rock n roll, transgender performers, has-been celebrities, even murder. This building has seen it all, and should be curated for being a seething well of all imaginable contradictions, an antithesis to the safe, sterile Singapore brand. If the National Stadium is the Grand Dame, this place is the Wretched Slut. Orchard Towers remains the ‘original’ sex destination for rich foreigners on exotic dirty pilgrimages, despite the vice and sleaze leapfrogging over to the other end of Orchard Road at Orchard Plaza and Concorde Hotel shopping centre. Unlike the sleek, squeaky clean, ultramodern behemoths like Ion and 313, the one and only ‘Four Floors’ remains unabashed about its sordid associations and services, one of the last buildings in town with a hint of CHARACTER and history. A stubborn stain on the gleaming tourist showcase that is Orchard Road, it still has many stories to tell, even if they’re not ones you really want your children to hear.

Filed under: 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2012, Clubs, Gay stuff, Nightspots, Orchard Road, Sex, Shopping malls, Transsexuals | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Girl-on-girl kissing at Star Awards

Posted on May 4, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Girl on girl kiss to be censored in re-run of awards show’, 4 May 2012, article in asiaone.com

A kiss between female actresses Vivian Lai and Kate Pang has sparked a furore among Singaporeans. Actress-host Lai, 36, kissed actress Kate Pang, 29, on the lips for one second when she was announced as one of the Top 10 Most Popular Female Artistes during Sunday’s live telecast of the Star Awards Show 2.

Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao reported that many viewers called its hotline to say they were offended by the kiss. They said that while some women may find kissing each other to be “trendy”, they were not used to it.

Some also said that it was strange to see female artistes dressed sexily and kissing each other. The Media Development Authority (MDA) said it will probe the incident to ascertain whether it has breached content guidelines of the free-to-air TV programme code.

A spokesperson for broadcaster MediaCorp told The New Paper that the “kiss” will be censored for this Sunday’s repeat telecast as some viewers may not be comfortable.

They should have won Most Favourite Couple

This will probably be the most useless snip in the history of television, regardless of what people think of two women kissing. Even if there were erotic undertones here beyond a ‘sisterly’ peck, it would have went unnoticed if the people obsessed with ‘lesbianism’ hadn’t cried foul over it. Perhaps cleavage just fails to shock anymore,  that there’s only a few ways to display one’s assets,  to the point that even the underboob has been milked dry. This Western glam concept of celebrity lip smooching has taken the attention away from boring speculations of boob jobs or waiting for wardrobe malfunctions to occur. The awards  have become secondary and our Mediacorp artistes are being ravaged on the red carpet for tasteless frocks, if not accused of aping the decadent West and turning viewers gay with their antics. People who’ve never seen a single Mediacorp drama the entire year would have at least heard of this event, but only for the wrong reasons. Soon no one will even remember or care about who won the Best Drama or Actress, nor male artistes who dress like hobos, and the Star Awards will be known just for two things: Ann Kok’s ample bosom and a hot girly kiss. Pity the former wasn’t involved in the latter, or you would have the prudes getting cardiac arrests before even writing in to complain about too much sex on TV.

This spontaneous couple seem to have taken a cue off Britney and Madonna, who locked lips on stage at the 2003 MTV awards, with a hint of tongue too. Nobody’s calling either a lesbian.

Our authorities have also banned the first hit single from Katy Perry titled ‘I Kissed a Girl’, which anyone can download off Youtube below, although no girls were actually kissing in the video. Katy went on to marry comedian Russell Brand in a rather short-lived romance, proof that she too wasn’t a lesbian.

Our censors also deleted scenes off critically acclaimed films like The Hours, and banned films like Shame altogether because of threesome scenes which I presume, would have some girly action as well. Kissing used to be a fun thing; experimental, playful and affectionate, and celebrities have the privilege of playing fast and loose with their PDA as they deem fit. Because they ARE celebrities.  Better that they engage in same-sex kissing than snort cocaine. These complainants are treating the act as if someone dropped a box full of forceps in the middle of a life-saving surgery.

Football players smooch each other all the time after scoring goals, yet no one talks about censoring matches because these contain ‘harmful’ scenes of sweaty men kissing, that boys who watch them may end up spending more time in the locker room than necessary. If two men kiss, it’s awkward or a prank, especially when presidents do it. If two ‘sexily dressed’ ladies kiss, however,  a ‘guideline’ has been breached and the innocent need to be protected.

One thing’s certain though; the kissing video would garner more hits than the  combined viewership of both live and rerun shows, even among people who have no idea who Joanne Peh is. Kate Pang may even score the Top 10 favourite artist list every year from now on, even if nobody has seen her act. Going near topless to boost a lacklustre career doesn’t work anymore, and it’s no longer peek-a-boo but ‘peck-a-(chio)bu’ that makes the Star Awards worth saving.

Filed under: 2012, Censors, Gay stuff, Local actors, Local TV shows, Sex | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

LKY’s Haram Truths

Posted on December 10, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘M’sia religious body still studying Hard Truths’, 10 Dec 2011, article in Today

Malaysia’s government has said that a book on Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew is “still being studied” despite federal Islamic authorities earlier confirming that it has been placed on a list of books declared “haram”, or forbidden to Muslims.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Mr Jamil Khir Baharom, said the book, Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going (picture), was being “examined”. “It is under the Home Ministry … it is not haram,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

When told that the book was one of 15 listed by the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) as haram, the senator replied that “this just means it is being examined by the censorship committee”.

In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a ‘fatwa’, technically a death sentence and manhunt, against Salman Rushdie for ‘The Satanic Verses’, declaring it ‘against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran’.  LKY’s Hard Truths, as its title suggests,  isn’t a work of fiction (though probably no less entertaining) like Rushdie’s Verses. If it weren’t written by a powerful politician, Hard Truths might have been regarded as more blasphemous than it really is and incite Muslim extremists to call for the old man’s head as well.

Our own authorities have a habit of putting authors in prison for exposing the criminal justice system (Alan Shadrake’s Once a Jolly Hangman, for example), so it would be indeed ironic if certain religious councils in our neighbouring countries call for more than just a ban on Hard Truths the book, but issue ‘fatwas’ on its prolific and outspoken author as well. Incidentally, Hard Truths speaks of Muslims marginalising themselves from society by being too ‘strict’ with their beliefs.

Memoirs aside, here’s a terrifying list of non-food things classified as ‘haram’ by Islamic authorities around the world.

  • Yoga: A fatwa was issued against yoga in 2008 by Sarawak authorities, and Muslims were advised to do other forms of physical activity to keep healthy, because yoga originated from ‘Hindu spiritual teachings’.
  • Aerobics: According to the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), aerobic moves ‘tended to spark sexual desire and therefore were contrary to Islamic mores’. Practitioners of this erotic exercise should also refrain from wearing ‘transparent clothing’.
  • Valentine’s Day: The JB state Religious Department issued a fatwa for V-Day in 2005, stating that such celebrations ‘involved elements of vice’.
  • Poco-poco: Though not eventually banned, this dance routine was frowned upon by the Perak Fatwa Committee, not because it was overtly erotic, but because the steps involved making a cross with your feet. Heck, some states even ban public SINGING and dancing altogether (No public singing and dancing, decrees Kelantan government, 7 Oct 1995, ST). Yet there’s a Malaysian Idol?
  • Sperm banks: The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI)  declared that the presence of sperm bank in the country was haram or prohibited. “Sperm donor is haram, so is sperm bank”, so says a spokesman. One can only speculate why the generous life-giving  act of donating sperm is forbidden.
  • Taking part in SMS contests: Jakim says this tantamounts to betting, and betting is a form of gambling, which is forbidden in Islam. I guess carnival ‘games of chance’ should be banned as well.
  • Tomboys, or ‘pengkid’: The fatwa reads ‘Pengkid, that is, women who have the appearance, mannerisms and sexual orientation similar to men, is haram in Islam’. It was supposed to ‘save these women from lesbianism’.
  • Marrying a transgender: In 1982, the national Fatwa committee in Malaysia ruled that it is haram for a man to marry another man who has undergone a sex change to be a woman (Sex change marriage is haram, 17 April 1982, ST)
  • Buying a cucumber: Not surprisingly this comes from Al Qaeda in Iraq. What about bananas then?
  • Elton John:   Josephine Teo would surely approve.
  • Wearing wigs: Especially those made of human hair
  • Body building contests: Banned by the Sarawak Religious Affairs Dept (Jais) for over-exposing bodies (Sarawak bans bodybuilding contests for Muslims, 24 Aug 1997, ST). I suppose Abercrombie and Fitch is haram too.
  • Delivering a buffalo head to appease a sea demon: Don’t ask why.

Filed under: 1950s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2011, Fun and games, Gay stuff, Marriage, Nudity, Politicians, Religion, Sex | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Orchid named after Elton John

Posted on November 26, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Why orchid for Elton’? 26 Nov 2011, ST Mailbag

(Josephine Tay): I read with great disappointment that Elton John has been given the honour of having an orchid named after him (Orchid Named After Elton John, Prime, Nov 19). I am dismayed that his partner David Furnish and their adopted son Zachary (both right with John) were also publicised to ‘share his honour’.

There are other celebrities and dignitaries more deserving than this pair. Singapore would be seen in a much better light on the world stage if, for example, recent F1 champion Sebastian Vettel had been accorded this privilege instead.

Is homosexuality to be openly encouraged and endorsed by the Government?

Can you feel the love tonight?

That is SIR ELTON JOHN to you, Ms Tay. Not exactly a fan of his music myself, but what could be more appropriately named after a gay, knighted, man than a flower? I think the writer’s main beef is not so much that Sir Elton is homosexual, but that homosexuals are settling down and bringing up children and the media is treating such families as if they were normal.  The ST report also used euphemisms like ‘partner’, as if it were applied in the context of how the Rocket Man himself had a songwriting partnership with Bernie Taupin ( a collaboration that produced some of the most endearing Elton John hits), to subtly conceal the fact that these are two MEN IN LOVE, MARRIED and are bringing up a CHILD together. Incidentally, Zachary was born to a surrogate mom with Elton as biological father, and not ‘adopted’ like what the writer presumptuously states (The original ST text says ‘baby’ son).

There’s also a sense of sweet nobility in this, that Elton’s husband David was willing to forsake any contribution to Zachary’s genetic make-up, and that the spotlight will always be on the celebrity and his son but never himself. In some circles, that would be called love. To people like the writer, this will always be about two gay men picking up a kid from an orphanage, or buying it off parents who can’t afford to raise one.  And naming a racecar driver like Vettel after an orchid is like giving a boy a doll instead of a firetruck for his birthday.

But talk about double standards; Earlier this year, there was much furore over how critically acclaimed film ‘The Kids are Alright’, which celebrates the fostering of children by a lesbian couple, was granted only a limited one-print release. Which makes this orchid honorific something of a hypocritical publicity stunt, not only to showcase our national flower and attract big names here, but to subtly tell the world how ‘progressive’ and open we are to gay relationships (when in fact we severely restrict any media promotion of gay marriages internally).  Orchids were traditionally named after visiting royalty, heads of state including  Prime ministers like Indira Gandhi,  and First Ladies ( Aranda Barbara Bush AND Mokara Laura Bush). Most recipients are also female, with  exceptions such as Nobel Laureate Sydney Brenner, Jackie Chan, Nelson Mandela and Bollywood stars Shah Ruhk Khan and Amitabh Bachchan. In 2009, Dendrobium Thien Sein was named after a visiting ‘leader of the despotic military junta of Burma’, which means if Kim Jong Il ever came for a visit, he would be probably be given a similar honour as well, an orchid-Venus fly-trap hybrid perhaps. So it’s OK to dignify politicians with blood on their hands (Mandela and Thatcher included) but not gay singers who wouldn’t harm a fly?

It was only in 2006 that a local celebrity had an orchid named after her (Stefanie Sun). Which leads me to wonder why local music legend Dick Lee hasn’t gotten his. If anything, the man deserves a hybrid as flamboyant as Sir Elton’s. Doritaenopsis Sir Elton John isn’t the first flower to be named after an entertainer with a ‘complicated’ sexual history either. Renaglottis Ricky Martin (2003) was named after the Latino superstar of  ‘She Bangs’ and ‘Shake Your Bon-Bon’ fame. Ricky’s also gay, based on a 2010 confession (Does that mean we should call the Renaglottis something else? Didn’t everybody already KNOW beforehand?) Dendrobium Bae Yong Jun (2004) was named after the  star of ‘Untold Scandal’ and ‘April Snow’, Korean movies straddling the line between arthouse and flesh-flick, while no such recognition was given to our most successful local actor to make it to Hollywood mainstream to date, Ng Chin Han. What about drag queen  diva Kumar? Hell, even  dedicating an orchid to Singaporean porn star Annabelle Chong would be something, though a pink creation with spotty, flappy petals comes to mind.

In a recent Forum letter (‘In Search of Vanda Miss Joaquim’, Sep 2011), someone was wondering if our national flower Vanda Miss Joaquim was ‘going extinct’, and that she should be cultivated in all schools before it’s too late. Looking at the booming business of creating celebrity goodwill hybrids for foreigners , whether they are singers, actors, princesses or dictators, and displaying them in VIP sections of the National Orchid garden instead of lining our streets, it’s really not hard to see why people  would think our Vanda has disappeared altogether.

Filed under: 1980s, 2000s, 2011, Environment, Gay stuff, Kids, Names, Parenting | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Museum’s ham-fisted censorship of Hotel Munber

Posted on March 28, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Museum censors explicit art work’, 28 March 2011, article by Corrie Tan, Life! ST

An installation with graphic homosexual content at the ongoing 2011 Singapore Biennale has been altered by the Singapore Art Museum without the artist’s consent.

The installation (Welcome to the Hotel Munber) by award-winning British artist Simon Fujiwara converted a gallery in the museum into a Spanish hotel bar with a bar counter, bar stools, barrels of wine and legs of ham hanging from the ceiling. But a row of gay pornographic magazines that were placed on top of a cupboard behind the bar counter…have been removed.

(Tan Boon Hui, Singapore Art Museum director): Given the diversity of visitors at SAM, including audiences who may not appreciate seeing such material in full view, we made the decision to remove it…The museum will always work with the curators and artists whose works deal with, or contain, potentially sensitive subject matter to determine how to best display their works for our audiences, without altering their artistic intent.

…(Oliver Henry, photographer and gallery owner):..It’s entirely unacceptable for a museum to change a work like that. You might change the work’s integrity and message. ..I find it extremely alarming that someone else can just take the responsibility and creative freedom to change an artists’ message and work.

 

Fate of artwork well hung in the balance. Pic from designboom.com

Well I wouldn’t know about the significance of gay porn and Iberian ham in a Spanish bar, but how’s this any less sleazier than building an entire bedroom around the Merlion, knowing damn well the kind of activity that would go on in there beyond getting an up-close, hands on experience with our icon’s wet nozzle? Since the Merlion hotel is an installation in itself, and its occupants are, in a lewd, abstract sense, part of the artwork too, shouldn’t the ‘art police’ do some live action censoring there too and barge in with pails of icy water whenever they sense the slightest fooling around? Surely SAM should have done their homework and at least some preliminary vetting of Hotel Munber before even putting it for show. It’s such witless interventions which convince internationally renown artists that the only way to draw a crowd in Singapore is to build your masterpiece around monuments, be it the Merlion, the Raffles Statue, or some famous forefather’s tombstone in Lim Chu Kang cemetery.

Pulling such objectionable items off the shelf is akin to dabbing the cleavage off the Mona Lisa, or chipping the testicles off David’s statue with a hammer. Some would go so far to even deem it as an act of vandalism, rather than censorship, since the artist owns the materials and has been allocated design space to showcase his work on his own terms. Especially so coming from professionals who should know better considering how their job entails setting up ‘DO NOT TOUCH’ signs on all their exhibits. This comes as no surprise, of course, following the Board of Censors’ clamping down of ‘homoerotic’ films like the Kids Are Alright. The only difference though, is Kids remained unscathed despite being severely restricted in exposure, but Munber has become the unfortunate victim of a visual emasculation, and SAM still expects audiences to treat the piece as if the ‘artistic intent was not altered’. It’s a shame that there has been so much fanfare over the Biennale, that even the shabbiness of Old Kallang Airport exuded enough charm to entice the most spoilt Singaporeans, only to be dampened by some overzealous swiping of gay porn mags by the prying, itchy hands of the same people trying to promote the arts in the first place.

Filed under: 2011, Art, Bureaucrats, Censors, Gay stuff, Nudity, Sex | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Kids are Not Alright

Posted on February 23, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Same theme, different takes’, article by Boon Chan, 23 Feb 2011, ST Life!

…The Oscar nominated American drama The Kids are All Right…(about a lesbian couple raising two children) was given a R21 rating and a one-print release restriction by the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) Board of Film Censors (BFC).

The Hong Kong Film, All About Love, (two bisexual lovers deciding whether not to start a family together) was rated R21 with no further conditions.

…According to the (film classification) guidelines…’Films should not promote or normalise a homosexual lifestyle. However, non-exploitative and non explicit depictions of sexual activity between two persons of the same gender may be considered R21′. The Kids Are All Right has overstepped the boundaries because it portrayed the two lesbians and their children as a normal family.

…The consumer advisory for Kids was ‘homosexual theme’ and that for Love was ‘homosexual content’. According to MDA, ‘homosexual content’ means only certain portions of the film contain homosexual elements, while ‘homosexual theme’ means a large portion, or the entire film, contains homosexual elements.

…The BFC’s decision to allow Kids to screen  in Singapore on one print has been viewed as a step backward by some and a step forward by others.

(Dr Soh Poh Choong): Allowing the film to be shown is already being very open. Even if it’s restricted to one theatre, it does not make a difference as people will find ways to go and watch it.

…(Joanna Koh-Hoe): We believe children are a gift and heritage, and thrive best in a home where both mother and father are committed to raising them with love, attention and care.

Sideways, female version

Original Sideways poster

If the BFC hadn’t made a fuss over a film seemingly having ‘large portions’, if not made up ‘entirely of homosexuality’ hence the frustratingly patronising choice of words, nobody would have guessed, looking at the poster above, that this small film would have the potential to wreck havoc on the very fundamentals of our family structure. In fact, in this age of 3D, robots in disguise and fighting pandas, chances are that few would have bothered to catch it at all, especially if it were sneaked out with a PG instead of a steamy R21 rating. Now that you’ve given it an official forbidden fruit status, it’ll be a daily sellout in that single restricted cinema, and those who can’t catch it will download it online anyway. Thanks for nothing, BFC, for depriving mature arthouse fans of tickets and tickling the fancy of dirty old uncles hoping to see some auntie on auntie lezbo action when they’re likely to walk out cold, disappointed and wish they’d had been to Yangtze instead.

So let me get this straight: Brokeback Mountain, with its erotic tent humping and wet manly snuggles, got off the  one-print hook because 1) Only bits and pieces of it were about gay sex, and 2) It didn’t have a happy ending. Which suggests that the only way Kids could get a wider screening is for the film producers to sell to Singaporeans an alternate ending, where the moral of the story aligns with our conventional value systems, i.e Mum breaks up with er..Mum to start life afresh with an actual man. Kids rejoice that they have a father! With the BFC’s painfully clumsy handling of moral boundaries, one just has to ask how much of ‘content’ would actually qualify a film meeting the criteria of  a ‘homosexual theme’ advisory. If you have say, 10 scenes of gays kissing and 11 scenes of violent knocking around or swearing, does that mean the film is not really about gay sex? Can the people at BFC even tell the difference between the vague ‘homosexual elements’ and, say, ‘love’? If two gay characters stare deeply and knowingly in each others’ eyes in a scene, does that make our censors grip the edges of their seats with bated breath,  palms sweaty and fingers itching to pull out the celluloid snipper like a teenager fiddling with his little manhood encountering porn for the very first time?

Nobody will ever agree on gay parenting, just like nobody can never be on the same page about adopted children, polygamous families, or single parent families, ‘themes’ which can easily pass off as PG in movies here.  How is a single-parent family any less deleterious than one having two fathers or mothers? How many families do you know where Daddy’s flying most of the time and Ah-Boy is usually in the care of Mom and Sis/BFF/Grandma, essentially making it a same-sex parenthood anyway? In fact, how harmful is seeing gay parents peck each other on the cheek compared to R21 Saw movies (not one-print editions mind you) where cheeks are imaginatively ripped apart? It seems that the BFC’s stand on allowable sexuality is this, it has to be between a man and a woman (preferably married), no matter how gratuitous or degrading it is, even if whips, handcuffs, slapping and bruising are involved. But not a loving same-sex couple treating each other with respect and honour, even if there’s no nudity and no physical intimacy beyond patting each other on the back or sharing the same wine glass.  Not cool, Singapore. Totally not cool at all.

Filed under: 2011, Censors, Film, Gay stuff, Parenting, Sex | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

More boys like girls

Posted on June 5, 2010 by gdy2shoez

From various letters in ‘Cross-dressing’s a drag’ 5 June 2010, Life! mailbag ST

(Lee Kah Cheng, Grace): We have no issue with cross-dressing being featured on late-night programmes, in M-18 rated movies or at nightspots patronised by adults.

…Why is there a need to have cross-dressers in cooking programmes?

(Chuan Hwei Nuan): Cross-dressing is disgusting and in bad taste. It mocks gay people.

(Jeff Wong): Cross-dressing is a form of sexism….(it) degrades women.

(Vincent Ho): …Aunty Lucy is gross and disgusting. It is contrived, affected and not at all funny.

At least Kumar is not on TV. He performs in a bar, so if you want to watch him, you have to pay.

It’s people like Chuan Hwei Nuan above who reinforce the misconception that people who dress like women are necessarily homosexual. Such biased and erroneous statements are exactly the reasons why our kids will never grow out of their sanitised lifestyles. The complainants here assume that kids learn everything from TV, totally oblivious that in this day and age that even if one bans harmless drivel like Aunty Lucy from all programmes, they would dig underground to get more insidious sources from the internet, where they would realise that there’s more to cross-dressing than cheap laughs; a world of dark fetishism where exponents of the art take it dead seriously, like Buffalo Bill in the Silence of the Lambs for instance.

Only missing a boa

As usual, these people fail to consider the logic that if cross-dressing does statistically lead to an increase in the number of boys prancing about in bonnets and carrying handbags, what grevious harm would that do? Compared to say, breaking their spinal cords by imitating wrestling, B-boy dancing or parkouring? And don’t forget to censor the cartoons too, if that’s the case.

Boobs bunny and Grandma Wolf

The other silly argument is that men are permitted to dress up solely for the sake of storyline, which begs the question what would be considered an acceptable storyline? Is Mrs Doubtfire, a tale of deception and stereotyping of nannies, acceptable? How does having a storyline justify cross-dressing unless there’s a moral to the story that cross-dressing is wrong, which is exactly the stance of these writers? Does everything have to have a point and lessons to be learnt? Does Tinkie Winkie carrying a handbag in Teletubbies have a point? If instead of drag, you have men dressing as clowns or wearing afro wigs doing cooking shows, does that need any explanation at all? If you don’t like it, stop watching and stop coming up with groundless discriminatory arguments that cross-dressing turns children gay. Here’s the letter that started it all.

Filed under: 2010, Censors, Cross dressing, Gay stuff, Local actors, Local TV shows | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Gay parades

Posted on February 21, 2010 by gdy2shoez

From Stop this N-Day Party 9 July 2003 ST Forum

I am appalled that there is going to be a gay event, the Nation.03 party on National Day at Sentosa, modelled after the gay Mardi gras parade of Sydney.

I believe the Nation.03 party glamorises the homosexual lifestyle, something which runs counter to the moral values of most Singaporeans.

Filed under: 2000s, Fun and games, Public holidays | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 172 other followers