Hallelujah, it’s raining bullshit, yeah heh.


If only it rained money like it rained bullshit today.

Raging homophobia, religious fundamentalism; sad Tan Cheng Bock; MPs talking out of their asses… as if that’s not enough, apparently there are TWO musicals based on LKY in the works.

TWO. MUSICALS. Did you get that? One dancing LKY is not enough, they need two.

Just like how one needs two hands to properly “angkat bola”.

So today’s bitchfit is about the things I’ve read this week and bookmarked with a “screw this shit” in my mind. Lets lay these stinkers out in chronological order:

#01 – Hri Kumar reflects on Anton Casey, after everything has kinda blown over, and prescribes a token regular Singaporean friend ( or more!) as a cure. In this Facebook post, he says: “The real cure for Anton Casey and others like him is simple. It is not to issue apologies or perform demonstrations of contrition managed by public relations firms. Neither is it to issue death threats or make life miserable for his family, especially his young son. The cure for Anton Casey is for him to get to know and make friends with Singaporeans, especially those who are not as wealthy as he is. Only then will he truly understand the wrong he has done, and start on the road to salvation. ”

Honest to goodness, who the heck wants to be “that friend”? And how does he know AC don’t have Singaporean homies? He married one, surely she has some MRT riding relatives?

So screw this kumbaya shit Hri Kumar, tokenism is wrong, no one wants to be a “symbolic” friend. I wanna have a rich friend to wean me off my anti-establishment tendencies, care to go for lunch?

#02 Lawrence Khong and MP Lim Biow Chuan form unwitting tag team against logic.

Earlier this week, Health Promotion Board put up a very comprehensive article on the frequently asked questions on sexuality. An objective article that I should think is really helpful for those grappling with the issue of sexuality. Much as some factions would like to ignore, there is a part of the population who are gay or confused about their sexuality. And they have families who will have to deal with it too.  So a round of applause for the brave, unyielding souls who gave it the go-ahead. I doubt this was approved without the understanding that it was going to attract some type of shitstorm. Because see? Here comes Lawrence Khong and his backup dancers with his 7 page rebuttal.

The controversy sparked off a petition for a review of the FAQ, prompting the HPB to take down links to certain relevant websites. And that sparked off a COUNTER petition against the edit. 

And amid the angry/concerned typing over form fields and word prcessors, the supreme stinker thus far arose – MP Lim Biow Chuan and his “disappointment”:


You know, earlier this week, I had a discussion about “hypocrisy” on fb. I came to the conclusion that hypocrisy is a ubiquitous human flaw which we should accept to a certain degree in order to stay sane, but at the same time, it has different levels of impact, depending on how it manifests itself.

MP Lim Biow Chuan’s statement REEKS of the type of damaging hypocrisy that is so flimsily disguised that it’d be a crime to not call it out.

“I cannot agree that ‘A same-sex relationship is not too different from a heterosexual relationship’. The two relationships are different and they go against the Government’s policy of promoting heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units.”

Here are some FAQs (Furiously Asked Questions) of my own to Mr Lim and his ilk:

  1. How are the two relationships different? Save for the way it is consummated?
  2. How do gay couples in long term relationships affect the government’s policy? They are not stopping the straight couples from marrying, applying for their BTOs, having their 2.5 kids. And if government policy is in place to compel the population to congregate and procreate like cattle, regardless of their orientation and essentially their right to attain their own personal happiness, is it right? Really what you are suggesting, is a populace restrained by policy, rather than one that shapes it, and I am deeply concerned with your seat in parliament because of what you represent and the incoherent manner in which you defend your stand. Which brings me to the next question.
  3. Are you just homophobic and padding your homophobia with confused arguments that leave me with more questions than answers?

But having a homophobic conservative type or two in parliament is not really a huge issue. I believe as long as there is diversity, there will be discordant views. The next “screw this shit moment” is dedicated to the non-homophobes in parliament who have chosen to walk the tightrope rather than take a firm stand.

#03 Talking about you – MP Baey Yam Keng

In this report by Today, Baey weighed in with these thoughts:
‘“It’s a bit bold of them to take this approach,” said Mr Baey, who previously had expressed support for the repeal of Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men. While he found some of the answers objective and explained in a clinical way, Mr Baey felt there were some that were too simplistic and may lead to people making judgements that are not as well-informed.

“For example, this point about the differences between same-sex and heterosexual relationships, I felt that the answer lacked another dimension, which is about the Asian values of family,” he said. He added that some social norms, such as how same-sex couples are not able to get married here, could have been reflected in the answers.”‘

Why Yam Keng? Why? I’d held you in high regard because I saw you on national news openly supporting the repeal of 377A in a forum organised by Wild Rice. What a brave and honest move from a politician here, I had thought to myself. But your comments on the HPB FAQs marks to me a progression in political savviness but a regression as a representative of the people.How can you possibly support the repeal of 377A, a law which criminalises sex between two men, but turn around and espouse “asian family values” as a valid reminder that could be added to the article? It is a weak counter point in the face of such confident and thoughtless expressions of homophobia by so many MPs in the House.

So while us dirty hippies cringe at the sheer bigotry among our supposed representatives in parliament, maybe we should also consider the reasons why there is such a resounding LACK of rebuttals by members who by most counts are supportive of the LGBT community here?

Put that as a number in the LKY musicals… What do you say, Dick Lee?