The Funny Pages
I know, in the past I have said some bad things about Singapore. I blame it on the fact that there are no real comedians or comedy shows here in Singapore. In Canada, when I needed a good laugh I would turn on my Comedy Channel and get bombarded with comedy shows or even stand up comics and laugh myself into believing that the world is a better place. Now, here in Singapore, when I read things like "he was ordered 24 strokes of the cane" or "man arrested for the murder of 15 year old step daughter-if convicted he will be hanged", I feel down hearted and look for my Comedy Channel, but there is no comedy to be found in Singapore. Once you take away the right to mock political leaders (Royal Canadian Air Farce or This Hour Has 22 Minutes in Canada) or make huge raging stereotypical comedy sketches (In Living Color or Saturday Night Live in Canada), you basically reduce comedy to "two individuals walk into a bar and one asks 'wanna get a drink?' the other says 'ok' and they have a really nice time talking and drinking responsibily" which really lacks the humour of life.
HOWEVER, reading the wonderful things that the PM and ministers have been saying about repealing the Penal code (specifically 377A), I found myself laughing hysterically at the absurdity of some of their statements. I especially loved the statements made by the PM today in The Straits Times (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/307344/1/.html):
He said: "Homosexuals work in all sectors, all over the economy, in the private sector as well as in the civil service. They are free to lead their lives, free to pursue their social activities. But there are restraints and we do not approve of them actively promoting their lifestyle to others or setting the tone of mainstream society."
Let me see if I get this right. Gays are free to live their lives, do what they want, just don't put it out in the street for the anal retentive conservatives to see cause they want to see the Nuclear (one man, one woman, 2 children) status quo? Don't rock the boat and give us something 'different' but give us just the same that we have seen so that people can go about their daily lives of working, contribute to Singapore Inc and die happily in their 3 room HDB flat? The funny thing is that the way he phrases it, works for all things in life. I am free to lead my life where it goes, I can pursue all my social activities, but if I want to wear a speedo when I am not working I should do it behind closed doors and out of sight of society, making some restrictions.
Oh, but wait, what about this little gem?
"Repealing the law would also not give gay activists what they want, which is acceptance. "
I wonder if it is a case of putting the cart before the horse? If you want to get accepted, then shouldn't it be considered legal what you are doing? I mean, if the law and state does not accept your sexual preference as 'normal' or 'in the status quo' then why should the people? I remember hearing one joke about people in a sinking boat and when asked what they will do all the nationalities do something except for the Singaporean that stays in the boat waiting for the 'gah-men'(?) to tell them what to do. So, if Singaporean follow what the legal system says, without questioning if it is justified, excessive or even acceptable, then if the law says that homosexuality should be considered illegal, then why would the people question it and accept them to be alright?
But, the piece de resistance of the entire article that got me howling in laughter at the whole escapade was:
He said abolishing Section 377A could send the wrong signal and push gay activists to ask for more, such as changing what is taught in schools and advocating same-sex marriages and parenting.
This is SOOOOO true. I mean, look at it. In the west, years ago, the men gave the women the right to vote, the right to be considered an equal in the eyes of the law, and what did that get us? women working, women wanting to be in the military, women wanting to change the school structure so that 'womens studies' or 'home economics' (baking, sewing, home management) would be taught in schools. Boy did we open up a HUGE landslide of problems there. If we, as westerners, had just kept it as it is then we wouldnt have had these problems. I am sure that Singapore has felt this as well. Give the women the vote, let them think that they are equal and accepted in the male dominated society and before you know it you have women wanting to be CEOs (I mean, who would think that a woman would be equal and accepted as a man and could run a major corporation like Temasek?), managers, supervisors and entrepreneurs?
I had to find this comment made by the PM as soo funny because it is soo absurd. What is wrong with the homosexual community to ask for equal rights? Is the gov't afraid that if 377A is repealed then you are going to have gay couples performing sodomy right out in the open fields? big drunken homosexual orgies because they now have the right to have sex? Is the view of homosexual discretion by the gov't so low that the gov't figures once given the green light you are going to have men making out with men and fondling them on the MRT home? If heterosexuals can keep it in their pants long enough to make it home before jumping the wife, then I am sure two men will be able to keep it in their pants long enough to make it home.
I liked how the one individual brought up the problem of gender biased in the Penal Code (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/307347/1/.html). Another thing that use westerners found out when we gave the women the vote and made them equal is that they started to demand equality in all directions EXCEPT where it was beneficial to them. Women wanted to be taken seriously in the work place, paid equally and have all the rights and freedoms of a man BUT they also wanted 1 year paid maternity leave (they got it) and equal treatment under the law (immunity to martial rape was removed from the Canadian law books LONG ago). HOWEVER, when it came to the part of benefits, they still wanted men to open doors for them, pay for meals, bring flowers and treat them like a lady. I know my wife grumbles about how she is treated as an inferior and wants to be an equal in business and work but when it comes to NS or being caned, she thinks that women should only be in the military if they choose and of course women can not be caned. I also like how the MP said that women can have their modesty outraged simply by words or gestures like having their buttocks brushed by a man on the train, but men dont have that under the law. Definitly time to get gender equality in the eyes of the law. NS for men AND women of age, caning and hanging for all applicable offences (I believe a woman that is guilty of a capital punishment offence that is pregnant can not be executed but has life imprisonment, but a man doesnt have this possiblility) for both genders, outrage of modesty for both men AND women so that a man can have a women fined if she grabs his butt. Hmm, but then what about the unequality and hypocrasy there? men are equal to women in the eyes of the law to the degree of ruling and punishment BUT homosexual people are not equal as them. So, sexual preference takes precedient over being human and demotes your equality? Oh well, if Singaporeans can handle the discrimination and hypocracy of equality ('No Indians/China' or "malay only" when looking to rent a flat or look for a job) then I am sure they can handle the hypocracy of the equality of Human to Homosexual.
So, yeah, thank you gov't of Singapore for giving me the best laugh that I have had in ages. Hearing their reasoning on this whole 377A issue was more comedic than watching "Police and Theif" and "My Sassy Neighbour" all rolled into one. Please, don't wait another year to being out the repealing of the Penal Code again. I think this should be a monthly, if not weekly, thing so that I can get another laugh and all out of the things that are said. These quotes are almost as good as when the football coach told reporters that he '...turned this team around 360' from where they were', meaning they were right back where they started. Sound bites like that make reading the funny pages fun.
HOWEVER, reading the wonderful things that the PM and ministers have been saying about repealing the Penal code (specifically 377A), I found myself laughing hysterically at the absurdity of some of their statements. I especially loved the statements made by the PM today in The Straits Times (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/307344/1/.html):
He said: "Homosexuals work in all sectors, all over the economy, in the private sector as well as in the civil service. They are free to lead their lives, free to pursue their social activities. But there are restraints and we do not approve of them actively promoting their lifestyle to others or setting the tone of mainstream society."
Let me see if I get this right. Gays are free to live their lives, do what they want, just don't put it out in the street for the anal retentive conservatives to see cause they want to see the Nuclear (one man, one woman, 2 children) status quo? Don't rock the boat and give us something 'different' but give us just the same that we have seen so that people can go about their daily lives of working, contribute to Singapore Inc and die happily in their 3 room HDB flat? The funny thing is that the way he phrases it, works for all things in life. I am free to lead my life where it goes, I can pursue all my social activities, but if I want to wear a speedo when I am not working I should do it behind closed doors and out of sight of society, making some restrictions.
Oh, but wait, what about this little gem?
"Repealing the law would also not give gay activists what they want, which is acceptance. "
I wonder if it is a case of putting the cart before the horse? If you want to get accepted, then shouldn't it be considered legal what you are doing? I mean, if the law and state does not accept your sexual preference as 'normal' or 'in the status quo' then why should the people? I remember hearing one joke about people in a sinking boat and when asked what they will do all the nationalities do something except for the Singaporean that stays in the boat waiting for the 'gah-men'(?) to tell them what to do. So, if Singaporean follow what the legal system says, without questioning if it is justified, excessive or even acceptable, then if the law says that homosexuality should be considered illegal, then why would the people question it and accept them to be alright?
But, the piece de resistance of the entire article that got me howling in laughter at the whole escapade was:
He said abolishing Section 377A could send the wrong signal and push gay activists to ask for more, such as changing what is taught in schools and advocating same-sex marriages and parenting.
This is SOOOOO true. I mean, look at it. In the west, years ago, the men gave the women the right to vote, the right to be considered an equal in the eyes of the law, and what did that get us? women working, women wanting to be in the military, women wanting to change the school structure so that 'womens studies' or 'home economics' (baking, sewing, home management) would be taught in schools. Boy did we open up a HUGE landslide of problems there. If we, as westerners, had just kept it as it is then we wouldnt have had these problems. I am sure that Singapore has felt this as well. Give the women the vote, let them think that they are equal and accepted in the male dominated society and before you know it you have women wanting to be CEOs (I mean, who would think that a woman would be equal and accepted as a man and could run a major corporation like Temasek?), managers, supervisors and entrepreneurs?
I had to find this comment made by the PM as soo funny because it is soo absurd. What is wrong with the homosexual community to ask for equal rights? Is the gov't afraid that if 377A is repealed then you are going to have gay couples performing sodomy right out in the open fields? big drunken homosexual orgies because they now have the right to have sex? Is the view of homosexual discretion by the gov't so low that the gov't figures once given the green light you are going to have men making out with men and fondling them on the MRT home? If heterosexuals can keep it in their pants long enough to make it home before jumping the wife, then I am sure two men will be able to keep it in their pants long enough to make it home.
I liked how the one individual brought up the problem of gender biased in the Penal Code (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/307347/1/.html). Another thing that use westerners found out when we gave the women the vote and made them equal is that they started to demand equality in all directions EXCEPT where it was beneficial to them. Women wanted to be taken seriously in the work place, paid equally and have all the rights and freedoms of a man BUT they also wanted 1 year paid maternity leave (they got it) and equal treatment under the law (immunity to martial rape was removed from the Canadian law books LONG ago). HOWEVER, when it came to the part of benefits, they still wanted men to open doors for them, pay for meals, bring flowers and treat them like a lady. I know my wife grumbles about how she is treated as an inferior and wants to be an equal in business and work but when it comes to NS or being caned, she thinks that women should only be in the military if they choose and of course women can not be caned. I also like how the MP said that women can have their modesty outraged simply by words or gestures like having their buttocks brushed by a man on the train, but men dont have that under the law. Definitly time to get gender equality in the eyes of the law. NS for men AND women of age, caning and hanging for all applicable offences (I believe a woman that is guilty of a capital punishment offence that is pregnant can not be executed but has life imprisonment, but a man doesnt have this possiblility) for both genders, outrage of modesty for both men AND women so that a man can have a women fined if she grabs his butt. Hmm, but then what about the unequality and hypocrasy there? men are equal to women in the eyes of the law to the degree of ruling and punishment BUT homosexual people are not equal as them. So, sexual preference takes precedient over being human and demotes your equality? Oh well, if Singaporeans can handle the discrimination and hypocracy of equality ('No Indians/China' or "malay only" when looking to rent a flat or look for a job) then I am sure they can handle the hypocracy of the equality of Human to Homosexual.
So, yeah, thank you gov't of Singapore for giving me the best laugh that I have had in ages. Hearing their reasoning on this whole 377A issue was more comedic than watching "Police and Theif" and "My Sassy Neighbour" all rolled into one. Please, don't wait another year to being out the repealing of the Penal Code again. I think this should be a monthly, if not weekly, thing so that I can get another laugh and all out of the things that are said. These quotes are almost as good as when the football coach told reporters that he '...turned this team around 360' from where they were', meaning they were right back where they started. Sound bites like that make reading the funny pages fun.
posted by Capt_Canuck at 6:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home