I must admit that I am a total arse of a character. I am poor, fat and balding. I refuse to work in the civil service, even though it would enhance my career prospects and I have decided I will avoid the model of Singapore womanhood - namely young, Chinese graduates. I drink too much, exercise too little and smoke whenever it suits me. And yet, instead of accepting my place as a worm, I've decided to spice up my life by poking fun of those who are rich, successful and obidient.
So, since this is my blog, I think I'm going to continue my previous topic of making fun of Mr Nicholas Lazarus, whom, for those of you, who read the last entry is a highly successful lawyer, trying to show off his powers of analysis on the Young PAP blog. Mr Lazarus, as on record, made his views on homosexuality well known.
While I fully support his right to have his views, as well as sharing a dislike for a good many homosexuals, I find his ability to argue his case in a logical manner, free of personal prejudice to be rather ammusing. The fact that Mr Lazarus has made his way into a senior position in a party that has dominated Singapore for so long, makes him a depressing symbol of my generation's ability to apply common sense in daily life. We have, I fear, become a generation so able to absorb what we read, that we have become incapable of think for ourselves.
On July 28, 2007, Mr Lazarus informed cyberspace that he felt that any moves to abolish a law that served no purpose would create social tension within Singapore. He painted a picture of how abolising the law against a private act between consenting adults would lead to...horror or horror's - people holding hands on the MRT. I won't repeat myself, but do take a look at his comments in the previous posting and try to work out the logic in his statements.
When the rest of cyberspace pointed out that he was speaking rubbish, Mr Lazarus proceeded to post the following reply on July 29, 2007:
Leaving aside my religious views on this matter, I am against any change of law/policy on homosexuals because:
1. They threaten the social fabric of the nation. Their ways represent an alternative for which we should not accept as being mainstream.
2. They cannot procreate and thus cannot produce offspring for our nation.
3. They cannot serve as soldiers because instead of serving alongside our men in green, they are more keen to sodomise them.
I do not accept the notion that homosexuals are "creative" and thus we need homosexuals to make our nation more "creative". There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are any more or less creative than heterosexuals.
If an analysis is done, they seem to bring more problems than benefits.
This is the analysis on a trained lawyer. My Young Politician from Pasir Ris GRC was most offended by my decision to riddicule Mr Lazarus's efforts to protect the 'moral' fiber of the majority. But since Mr Lazarus has decided to post his views in cyberspace, he's made his views, public property. More importantly, because Mr Lazarus has made his membership of the rulling party public, the public has every right to scrutinise his postings and assess what it says about his thought process and what he's likely to do if he gets political power.
Let's take a look at this lawyerly analysis:
Point 1 - They threaten the social fabric of the nation. Their ways represent an alternative for which we should not accept as being mainstream.
a - How do they threaten the social fabric of the nation? Does homosexuality cause a rise in HIV? Not if you believe the Ministry of Health's statistics, which show that HIV/AIDS is a predominantly a hetrosexual disease. Does homosexuality cause an increase in violent crime? - thus far there are no global statistics to suggest that it does. - What evidence has this lawyer shown that "They" threaten our social fabric?
b - Their ways represent an alternative for which we should not accept as being mainstream. - What is it about 'their' ways that their ways that the rest of us don't accept? Is it because men hold hands? Well, obviously Mr Lazarus remains removed from Little India, where hetrosexual construction workers from ASIA hold hands as part of their culture. There are plenty of Asian men who like Fat girls - this is unacceptable to many people, but is it criminal?
I'm not sure what the argument is over here? Is he suggesting that if the government were to decriminalise a private act between consenting adults, the population would turn homosexual?
Point 2 - They cannot procreate and thus cannot produce offspring for our nation. -
a - Obviously he never studied biology? A homosexual male is able to produce the same sperm with the same capability of impregnating a woman. Homosexual's do not reproduce because their sperm ends up in places where there is no human egg.
b - Which is exactly the same for hetrosexual couples that chose not to allow the male semen and female eggs to meet. If one follows Mr Lazarus's logic, homosexuals should not be allowed to have sex because it does not lead to procreation - which is the same logic for having birthcontrol.
c - Would it be illegal for a homosexual man to donate his sperm to a single woman? WIth IVF, homosexuals can easily reproduce.
Point 3 - They cannot serve as soldiers because instead of serving alongside our men in green, they are more keen to sodomise them.
a - Where is the evidence that homosexuals are keen to sodomise everyone?
b - In the 1990s, the US Army allowed homosexuals to serve on a "Don't Ask, don't tell," basis. Thus far, there have been no major reports citing vast ammounts of sodomy taking place within the US military.
c - More importantly, any of the decline in morale in the US military since then seems to come from combat fatiqgue in Iraq than from fear of being sodomised by homosexuals on their own side.
Finally, Mr Lazarus, along with the 'moral' crowd missed the point that 377A was about criminalising a particular sexual act rather than homosexuality itself.
I'm no lawyer, it was pretty darn easy to destroy Mr Lazarus's case. If this fat, balding, unemployed drunk who prefers the company of Geylang's residents to the Tai Tai's group can demolish Mr Lazarus's analysis of a situation, what can his clients expect when they go to court and face opposing counsel?
I hope I'm wrong about Mr Lazarus. Perhaps, like Mr Neil French, former WPP Gloabl Creative Head, Mr Lazarus is a genious for self-publicity - the 70 plus responses he got have given him good positions on Google. But I wonder. Is showing off your inability to analyse and getting caught trying to fool the world into thinking you can analyse what you want to be known for, especially if you have political aspirations?