Connect with us

Current Affairs

MDA: Abnormalizing the normal?

Published

on

by Joshua Chiang


“Homosexuality will eventually be accepted. It’s already accepted in China. It’s a matter of time before it’s accepted here.”

– Lee Kuan Yew, Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going

The funny thing about our Government sometimes is how the more they try to put a lid on certain issues, the more publicity they give to those very issues. There was the episode with Alan Shadrake, in which the contempt of court charge against him made his book ‘Once A Jolly Hangman” an instant hit. Then the attempt to gazette The Online Citizen doubled its readership overnight. And now this unprecedented move to limit the screening of the movie “The Kids Are Alright” to just one print. To be honest, I haven’t even heard of the movie until I read the news this morning. (Yes I have been living under a rock for quite some time.) Now after this move by the MDA I am pretty sure people will be rushing to catch the movie. And the gay debate will no doubt be reignited again.

Alex Au summed it up very nicely why MDA’s latest move is so reprehensible. In his blog he wrote:

“Gay sex can be suggested in non-explicit ways in film, but gay people living ordinary, respectable lives, doing non-sexual things, (e.g. raising a family and looking after children) cannot. It really boils down to reinforcing a policy that has been in effect for a long time: Gay people can be depicted as deviants that come to tragic ends, but any positive portrayal must be cut out.”

Of course, the MDA can claim that its policies on gay-themed films are based on the fact that the majority are not ready to accept it. However as Kirsten Han pointed out in her blog:

‎”If Singaporeans are consistently taught in school that homosexuality is abnormal and that homosexual acts (between men, strangely not between women) are criminalised, and the tightly-controlled media constantly implies that homosexuality is a vice, isn’t it really a self-fulfilling prophecy to say that the government needs to take such a stance against homosexuality because the people aren’t ready for homosexuals?”

The point is, the Government cannot claim to be only doing what the ‘majority’ wants as if it had nothing to do with it, especially when evidence of how it’s misrepresentation of homosexuality is abound in its very rules and regulations.

According to the Board of Film Censors classification guidelines, “films should not promote or normalise a homosexual lifestyle”.

The first question that comes to my mind was, what’s abnormal about the ‘lifestyle‘ of a homosexual anyway? True, some people may consider gay sex to be abnormal and against nature. But a more troubling aspect isn’t the orientation or even the sexual act itself, but how the label of abnormality has been cast onto all aspects of the homosexual person –  his/her very life.

You see, it isn’t enough for a homosexual to have a different sexual orientation. He/she needs to have a lifestyle. Quite frankly, I have no idea what a homosexual lifestyle is. I put up a tongue-in-cheek post on The Online Citizen’s Facebook page in which I asked readers if they exhibit certain ‘lifestyle’ traits people often stereotype homosexuals with, for eg – going to the gym often and having more than one sex partner.

Quite a few responded that they had some of the traits, but they were straight. There were others who were deeply offended as they believed I was making a very tasteless joke. Unfortunately, it would be funny if it isn’t true that many people still hold such views of the homosexual person.

The point is, besides sexual orientation, how many homosexuals are truly different from just about anyone on the street? And yet it is much easier to close our eyes such normality, and choose inside to confine the entire homosexual community to the caricature of the effeminate gay, the ‘butch’ lesbian, the drug-taking casual-sex loving hedonist. But the caricature serves a very strong purpose. It gives validity why homosexuality should be discouraged and censured at all costs. It makes the very wrong action of discrimination seem right. God forbid that the homosexual is actually very normal. We can’t be seen to be discriminating against normal people who happen to swing another way. But we would be justified if they are doing anti-social stuff, like taking drugs, soliciting for sex in public toilets (have there been any official statistics on the number of people caught for public indecency and how many of them are actually homosexuals? And yet the gays get all the limelight in the papers) and partying like there’s no tomorrow.

That is not to say there are no homosexual who fit these descriptions. But the homosexual people I know generally don’t. (In fact I learnt to my dismay that a very straight-looking girl I was trying to date in the past is a lesbian) Their lifestyles include going to work, shopping, eating, going to the mall, reading, you know, boring stuff. I know of quite a few straight friends who have a much more interesting lifestyle.

So what exactly is MDA trying to prevent from being ‘normalized’? Was ‘The Kids Are Alright’ glamorizing homosexuality or was it merely showing the protagonists, a lesbian couple as being no different from ordinary folks like you and I?

It’s one thing to say a certain law exists because the majority of people do not accept the lifting of the law, and another that justifies its existence by artificially creating the need for its existence to begin with.

In his latest book, the Minister Mentor wrote: ”I take a practical view. I said this is happening and there’s nothing we can do about it. Life’s like that. People are born like that. It’s not new, it goes back to ancient times.”

Unfortunately, MDA’s latest move shows that as far as homosexuality is concerned, the Government is determined to keep it’s citizenry in the Victorian age while pretending that it is the people who wants it that way.

This article first appeared on The Offline Citizen. The writer is also the Chief Editor of The Online Citizen. When he is not busy writing for The Online Citizen, he moonlights as a blogger in which he posts stuff not related to TOC. Recently he’s been finding the lines increasingly blurred.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Ng Eng Hen: Dust clouds likely caused armoured vehicle collision during Exercise Wallaby

Dust clouds limiting visibility likely contributed to the collision between two Hunter vehicles during Exercise Wallaby, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained in his parliamentary reply. 12 servicemen sustained mild injuries, but safety measures prevented more serious outcomes. A formal investigation is ongoing to ensure further safety improvements.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Low visibility caused by dust clouds was identified as the likely cause of the collision between two Hunter armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) during Exercise Wallaby last month, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a written parliamentary response on Tuesday (15 October).

The incident, which occurred in Queensland, Australia, on 24 September 2024, resulted in mild injuries to 12 servicemen.

Dr Ng’s statement was in response to a parliamentary question from Mr Dennis Tan, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Hougang SMC.

Mr Tan asked for details on the accident, specifically its cause and whether any lessons could be applied to enhance training and operational safety within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

The collision took place during a night-time movement of Hunter AFVs at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The vehicles were returning to base when one rear-ended another. Dr Ng explained that the dust clouds generated by the AFVs’ movement significantly impaired visibility, might likely contributing to the accident.

The 12 affected servicemen sustained mild injuries and were promptly taken to the nearest medical facility.

None of the injuries required hospitalisation, and all 12 servicemen were able to rejoin their units for training the next day.

According to the minister, adherence to safety protocols—such as wearing seat belts and protective gear—played a crucial role in limiting the injuries to mild ones.

Following the incident, a safety pause was immediately implemented, with all drivers being reminded to maintain proper safety distances, especially when visibility was compromised.

Troops were also reminded to adhere strictly to safety protocols, including the proper use of safety equipment, Dr Ng added.

The safety lessons from the incident were shared not only with the affected units but also with other participating groups in the exercise, as well as units back in Singapore, through dedicated safety briefings.

Mr Tan also asked about the broader implications of the incident. In his response, Dr Ng said that a formal investigation had been launched in accordance with SAF’s safety incident protocol.

The investigation aims to assess the circumstances more thoroughly and identify any further measures that could be taken to enhance safety.

Dr Ng shared that recommendations arising from the investigation will be implemented where necessary.

Exercise Wallaby is SAF’s largest unilateral overseas exercise, and the 2024 edition began on 8 September, running until 3 November.

The exercise involves approximately 6,200 personnel, including 500 operationally ready national servicemen.

The exercise has been conducted at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland since 1990, and it is a key part of SAF’s overseas training program.

The Hunter AFV, one of the vehicles involved in the collision, is a state-of-the-art platform jointly developed by the Defence Science and Technology Agency, the Singapore Army, and ST Engineering.

It replaced the SAF’s aging fleet of Ultra M113 AFVs in 2019, which had been in service since the 1970s. The Hunter is equipped with advanced features, including a 30mm cannon, a 76mm smoke grenade launcher, and an automatic target detection and

tracking system designed to enhance operational effectiveness. It is also capable of traveling at increased speeds and covering longer distances, making it a versatile asset for the SAF.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Government to “carefully consider” Lee Hsien Yang’s demolition application for 38 Oxley Road

The Singapore Government will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY)’s application to demolish the house at 38 Oxley Road. LHY announced his intent on Tuesday morning following the recent death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, reaffirming his commitment to honour his parents’ wish for the house’s demolition.

Published

on

The Singapore Government has indicated that it will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) application to demolish the family home at 38 Oxley Road.

LHY, the youngest son of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), announced his intention to apply for the demolition in a Facebook post on 15 October 2024, following the death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October.

The announcement marks a significant development in the ongoing saga over the fate of the historically significant property, which has been at the heart of a family dispute since LKY’s passing in 2015.

In his will, executed in December 2013, LKY expressed his desire for the house to be demolished “immediately after” Dr Lee moved out of the property. Dr Lee, a prominent neurologist, had been the last remaining resident of the house.

LHY reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out his father’s wishes, stating, “After my sister’s passing, I am the only living executor of my father’s estate. It is my duty to carry out his wishes to the fullest extent of the law.”

He added that he would seek to build a small private dwelling on the site, which would be “held within the family in perpetuity”.

LHY also referenced his brother, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (LHL) remarks in Parliament in 2015, when he was Prime Minister, stating that upon Dr Lee’s passing, the decision to demolish the house would rest with the “Government of the day.”

In response to media queries regarding LHY’s announcement, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Development (MND) acknowledged the intended application and emphasised that the Government would “carefully consider issues related to the property in due course”.

The spokesperson also highlighted that any decision would need to balance LKY’s wishes, public interest, and the historical value of the house.

The house at 38 Oxley Road, where key decisions about Singapore’s path to independence were made, has been a focal point of public and political discussion.

The future of the house became contentious in 2017 when LHY and Dr Lee publicly accused their elder brother, LHL, of trying to preserve the house against their father’s wishes for political reasons.

LHL denied the accusations, issuing a Ministerial Statement in Parliament, where he also raised concerns over the preparation of their father’s final will. He clarified that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding the property and affirmed that any government action would be impartial.

In 2018, a “secret” ministerial committee, which was formed in 2016 to study the future of 38 Oxley Road, proposed three options: preserving the property and designating it as a national monument, partially demolishing the house while retaining the historically significant basement dining room, or allowing complete demolition for redevelopment. LHL accepted the committee’s conclusions but stated that no immediate decision was necessary, as Dr Lee was still living in the house.

In a statement conveyed by LHY on behalf of Dr Lee after her passing, she reiterated her strong support for her father’s wish to demolish the house. “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished upon the last parent’s death,” the statement read.

She added, “He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Despite selling the house to LHY at market value in 2015, LHL’s stance regarding the house’s preservation became a public issue, especially after the family disclosed that the Government had raised concerns about reinstating the demolition clause in the 2013 will. The ministerial committee had reviewed the matter, but a final decision was deferred until now.

The fate of 38 Oxley Road remains to be seen, but the Government’s decision will likely have lasting implications for the legacy of the Lee family and the conservation of Singapore’s historical landmarks.

Continue Reading

Trending