Test 2

Please select your preferred language.





Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile


More About Us

10 Feb 2009

'Sodomy' laws show survival of colonial injustice

More than half of the world's remaining "sodomy" laws - criminalising consensual homosexual conduct - are relics of British colonial rule. In 1860, British colonisers introduced a new criminal code including Section 377 to occupied India and other colonies.

The 66-page Human Rights Watch report This Alien Legacy: The Origins of 'Sodomy' Laws in British Colonialism, describes how laws in over three dozen countries, from India to Uganda and from Nigeria to Papua New Guinea, derive from a single law on homosexual conduct that British colonial rulers imposed on India in 1860. This year, the High Court in Delhi ended hearings in a years-long case seeking to decriminalise homosexual conduct there. A ruling in the landmark case is expected soon.

The photograph on the cover of the report shows the British Viceroy of India and his wife in the 1930s, in their robes of state, together with Indian attendants. The report further noted: ''Through law and example, British imperialism strove to impose Western practices on its colonised peoples - including promoting models of Victorian propriety, and criminalising sexual behaviours that did not conform.''
"Half the world's countries that criminalise homosexual conduct do so because they cling to Victorian morality and colonial laws," said Scott Long, director of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights program at Human Rights Watch. "Getting rid of these unjust remnants of the British Empire is long overdue."

Some national leaders have defended sodomy laws as reflections of indigenous cultures. Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, for example, has called gays and lesbians "un-African" and "worse than dogs and pigs." The Human Rights Watch report shows, however, that British colonial rulers brought in these laws because they saw the conquered cultures as morally lax on sexuality. The British also wanted to defend their own colonists against the "corrupting" effect of the colonies. One British viceroy of India warned that British soldiers could succumb to "replicas of Sodom and Gomorrah" as they acquired the "special Oriental vices."

In the early 19th century, the British drafted a new model Indian Penal Code, finally put into force in 1860. Section 377 punished "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" with up to life imprisonment.

Versions of Section 377 spread across the British Empire, from Africa to Southeast Asia. Through it, British colonists imposed one view on sexuality, by force, on all their colonised peoples. Over time, these laws came to seek punishment against not particular acts but whole classes of people. The British, for instance, listed "eunuchs" - their term for India's hijras, or transgender people - as a "criminal tribe" because they were prone to "sodomy." Simply for appearing in public, hijras could be arrested and jailed for up to two years.

Today, international human rights standards have compelled former colonial powers to acknowledge that these laws are wrong. England and Wales decriminalised homosexual conduct in 1967. The European Court of Human Rights found in 1981 that a surviving sodomy law in Northern Ireland violated fundamental rights protections. In 1994, the UN Human Rights Committee - which authoritatively interprets the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - held that sodomy laws violate the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination.

The laws nonetheless persist in many of Britain's old colonial possessions. Moreover, the model British-era sodomy law made no distinction between consensual and non-consensual sex, or between sex among adults and sexual abuse of children. As a result, these surviving laws leave many rape victims and child victims of abuse without effective legal protection.

"From Malaysia to Uganda, governments use these laws to harass civil society, restrict free expression, discredit enemies, and destroy lives," Long said. "And sodomy laws add to the spread of HIV/AIDS by criminalising outreach to affected groups."

Colonies and countries that retain versions of this British sodomy law include:
In Asia and the Pacific: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, India, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Myanmar (Burma), Nauru, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Western Samoa. (Governments that inherited the same British law, but have abolished it since include: Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong, and New Zealand.)
In Africa: Botswana, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Eleven former British colonies in the Caribbean also retain sodomy laws derived from a different British model than the one imposed on India.

Why was criminalising consensual homosexual conduct important to the colonial, and post-colonial, state?, page 2
From This Alien Legacy, click here to read the report in its entirety

III. Colonial Power on the Street and over the Body

Why was criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct important to the colonial, and post-colonial, state?

No single explanation can describe what happened-what is still happening-in places as distant and different as Zambia and Singapore. One hint, though, lies in the other laws and practices colonizers imported along with anti-sodomy provisions. Those provisions were part of a package, one that extended the "civilizing," reforming mission-and the power and the knowledge-of the still-tenuous colonial apparatus over both broader and more intimate areas of life. The state rigidly policed the public sphere and people's bodies. Many of its mechanisms are still working.

From "Vagrant" to "Eunuch"

Vagrancy laws target people whom officials see as wandering or loitering with no purpose. Beyond that, though, they help to rid the public sphere of people not wanted there: to "alleviate a condition defined by the lawmakers as undesirable," as one commentator observes. They do not require a "proscribed action or inaction," another writes, but depend on a "certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character." They make people criminals for what they are, not what they do. And not every "wanderer" qualifies as a target. Enforcement usually aims selectively at despised groups such as migrant laborers, the poor, the homeless, beggars, travelers, or street children.

In Europe for centuries, legal and administrative measures controlling "vagrancy" criminalized poverty, to keep it and the effects of economic dislocation out of sight. Brutal laws in England had been a fixture at least since the Tudor period, when enclosures and privatizing common land had caused vast increases in the numbers of homeless, drifting poor. A 1572 act required "Rogues, Vagabonds, or sturdy Beggars" to "be grievously whipped, and burnt through the gristle of the right Ear with a hot Iron." The United Kingdom's 1824 Vagrancy Act systematized both classification and punishment of undesirables for a bourgeois age. Anyone begging or sleeping out, as well as appearing to engage in prostitution or acts associated with a "disreputable mode of life," could be convicted as "idle and disorderly" and sentenced to two weeks' hard labor. Multiple convictions, or conspicuous poverty, led one to be classed as a "rogue and vagabond" or, worse, an "incorrigible rogue," in a descending ladder of permanent legal stigma. This breadth and sweep of preemptive classification remained a feature of vagrancy laws into the twenty-firstcentury. (In California, for instance, a 1950s legal change revised the former common-law definition of a vagrant as "a wanderer from the place where he worked," to one where any "idle, or lewd or dissolute person" could be classed as vagrant.)

The 1824 law was a model for equally broad criminalization of "vagrancy" throughout British colonies. The Bengal Vagrancy Act and the Bombay Beggary Prevention Act are classic examples. Most such colonial-era laws used the same tripartite distinction between "idle and disorderly persons," repeat offenders who are "rogues and vagabonds," and "incorrigible rogues"; many laws heightened punishments over their British forebear. And most of these laws still remain in effect. Zambia's Penal Code, for example, makes any "idle or disorderly person" (including "every person who, without lawful excuse, publicly does any indecent act") liable to a month in prison; a repeat conviction can cause one to "be deemed a rogue and vagabond" with a far steeper sentence. These categories give the government wide latitude to control public expression (Section 27 of the 1906 public nuisance law in Singapore includes under "rogues and vagabonds" people who show "any obscene print, picture or other indecent exhibition") as well as almost any other conduct in public. (In Zambia, "rogues and vagabonds" include "every person found wandering in any public place at such time and under such circumstances as lead to the conclusion that such person is there for an illegal or disorderly purpose.")

In the colonies, these laws both served the "civilizing mission" and gave police enough power to punish almost any behavior, or people, they wanted. Sexual conduct-or sexualized identities-were among those singled out. The 1899 Sudanese Penal Code is an instructive instance. As noted earlier, this code, unique among British colonial laws, did not punish consensual sodomy. It compensated, however, by creating a new identity within the "habitual vagabond": the "catamite." (The Northern Nigeria code also followed this example). The code listed seven types of "vagabonds," one of them the "catamite," defined as a "any male person who 1) dresses or is attired in the fashion of a woman in a public place or 2) practises sodomy as a means of livelihood or as a profession."

A person's clothing became not only criminal in itself, but potentially the sign of a criminal sexual history. One legal commentator clarified that "catamite" meant a "habitual" practitioner of sodomy, adding that "it is not necessary to prove when and where any individual act of this nature occurred." Beyond the person's appearance, no evidence was needed for his (or her) arrest and jailing.

In Europe, vagrancy laws targeted the poor, but rarely had an explicitly racial side. In the colonies, everything was racial. These laws regulated the movements, and controlled the conduct, of the non-white population. In British India, moreover, legislation notoriously marked out whole tribal (and other) groups as intrinsically, unchangeably criminal. The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 in India, inspired by vagrancy laws, defined certain tribal communities collectively as dacoits, thieves, and undesirables. These provisions are a high-water mark in European legal racism. "Nomadic tribes are invariably addicted to crime," one administrator wrote. To be born in a community that was listed as a criminal tribe put one under permanent legal disability. All members of criminal tribes had to register individually with the authorities; non-registration could lead to prosecution. Once registered, the tribe member's movements were restricted to authorized areas, and she or he could be arrested if found outside them-or even inside them, if discovered in suspicious circumstances-with a penalty up to three years in prison.

British authorities associated nomadism not only with crime but with sexual immorality. The criminal tribes "implied absolute licentiousness" to the colonizers, one historian notes. A British administrator's 1914 study monotonously repeats its judgments on one ethnic group after another: "The women of the tribe are notoriously immoral"; "Nearly all the girls of the tribe are reserved for prostitution"; "Immorality is very prevalent"; "The women, from their vagrant life, naturally bear an indifferent character. Girls have considerable liberty before marriage, and lapses from virtue on their part are not seriously dealt with"; "Their women are all prostitutes."

Along these moralizing lines, authorities amended the Act in 1897 expressly to include "eunuchs" as a notified group. A eunuch was "deemed to include all members of the male sex who admit themselves, or upon medical inspection clearly appear, to be impotent." In practice, this meant India's hijras, presumed to be sexually immoral and guilty of "sodomy."

Hijras - possibly derived from the Urdu word ezra meaning a nomad or wanderer-form a large community of people in India who, born male, live their lives as female or third-gender. In many traditional Indian cultures they had a defined and permitted social niche. Under the statute, though, any "eunuch" who appeared "dressed or ornamented like a woman in a public street or who dances or plays music or takes part in any public exhibition, in a public street" could be arrested without warrant and imprisoned for up to two years. The law denied eunuchs legal personhood, including the rights to draw up a will or to adopt children. Local authorities had to keep a register of all eunuchs "reasonably suspected" of "committing offences under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code."

The British considered hijra communities in India a "distasteful nuisance." Colonial authorities obstructed their traditional rights, including rights to land and money they owned, in villages across India. Anti-begging provisions in vagrancy laws, such as those in the Bombay and Bengal Presidencies, also criminalized the customary social niche of hijras as mendicants. The 1897 amendment-subtitled "An Act for the Registration of Criminal Tribes and Eunuchs"-linked "eunuch" identity to Section 377. It showed how the vagrancy and sodomy provisions stemmed from the same motive: to place not just behaviors, but classes of people, under surveillance and control. Colonial vagrancy laws ultimately made the "personal condition" of being a hijra a criminal offence. One Indian human rights organization observes that:

The sexual non-conformity of the eunuch thus earned severe strictures and penalties from the colonial administration. Being a eunuch was itself a criminal enterprise, with surveillance being the everyday reality. The role of the police in inflicting violence through and outside the law governed their lives as much as it governed the lives of the former criminal tribes. However it is important to note that because of the stigmatized nature of their sexualities, the eunuchs never found a voice in nationalist or subaltern histories.

The categories of the vagrant catamite and criminal eunuch allowed the state to arrest people on the presumption of sodomy, without proof of an actual act. Being, or looking like, a certain kind of person became the basis for harassment, arrest, detention, and abuse.

This report was researched and written by Alok Gupta, consultant to Human Rights Watch.

Reader's Comments

1. 2009-02-10 20:04  
You should keep in mind these were old rules that the ex colonies could have removed at any time after independence. It is a reflection on that society, not on British society which has changed considerably since, that there are still such laws.
Comment #2 was deleted by its author
Comment #3 was deleted by its author
4. 2009-02-10 20:27  
Yes, we did it guv; or at least a group of prudes in the Victorian government did. Apparently homophobia was very much a minority thing in India until the colonisers made it mainstream.

At least these days the UK diplomats across the world have been requested by the UK government to help local gays. It's some small recompense.

By the way, it's now months since the 377 court case in India; why is the judgement taking so long?

5. 2009-02-10 21:23  
Does the UK still have these laws in place?

Surely if the originating culture no longer abide by these laws, that would be a signal to change?

Then again, it all comes down to the education of the leaders of the individual nations. Many are unfortunately still too ignorant and scared by narrow-minded societal pressures to do anything visionary.
Comment #6 was deleted by its author
7. 2009-02-11 00:57  
It's all about Control, Power and Politics. Countries that practice suppression of its citizens, do so with any means and laws that they can configure to work religious morals into them and pass them off as the laws of their gods to abstain true humane moral accountability; namely, countries that revolve blindly around the 3 main faiths of the Book.

All other copycats into the Victorian "immoral" code, where none existed before in their own generic cultures, are strictly elitist vanity wannabes. Hypocrites.

Post #1-livewires--> Exactly! ;)
8. 2009-02-11 02:43  
With regard to Singapore: the main issue seems to be CONTROL. The government wants to CONTROL the people. Thank God that I do not live in Singapore!
With regard to Malaysia: the Muslim religion comes into play. The relics of fanatical medieval Islam.
Interesting that in the countries which came under the control of France (e.g., Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), there are no such anti-sodomy laws. And, of course, none in (free and independent!) Thailand. I don't know what if the situation in Indonesia: it may depend on which part of the country one is talking about. As for The Philippines: I don't know what the laws are --- if there are any legacies, those would derive from (Catholic) Spain and the U.S.A., respectively; but there certainly is anti-gay discrimination in practice.
9. 2009-02-11 08:50  
Well with regard to France and its colonies, Napoleon was not homophobic and had gay generals in his army, and the Napoleonic criminal code did not criminalise gays.
10. 2009-02-11 10:44  
Canada was a former colony. In 1919 we decided English titles were unacceptable. So we have no 'sir' this or 'lady' that. And we ditched the sodomy law in the 60s when Trudeau famously declared that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

One thing we got from England that was useful was the Common Law. We used that to overturn the marriage law in spite of Parliament itself.
Comment #11 was deleted by its author
Comment #12 was deleted by its author
Comment #13 was deleted by its author
14. 2009-02-11 15:48  
Post #4 jammyboi says "All other copycats into the Victorian "immoral" code, where none existed before in their own generic cultures, are strictly elitist vanity wannabes. Hypocrites."

My sentiments exactly...goddamm the colonisers! Also the pompous wannabes blindly aping their masters of yesteryear, shamelesssly supressing their very own people....how ridiculous they all looked doing that!!!! Pffft...btw the part abt
anti-sodomy laws being a British
'Victorian' legacy...nt true.... Indonesia was once the unfortunate inheritor of anti-sodomy laws imposed on by pseudo-aristocrat Dutch merchants...though now it's the jihardists' turn :p
Situationally speaking though, we are very much like the United States...sodomy is outright banned in many deeply conservative regions like Aceh, but in Jarkarta you have a good network of PLUs as well as great nightlife ;))
No anti-sodomy laws here too..thank God!
Still, the quality of glbt life here is far fr ideal, consisting of parties, fun, parties...& little else.
I for one wld really like to meet a girl who's serious about me & nt my wallet. Sigh.
Comment #15 was deleted by its author
Comment #16 was deleted by its author
17. 2009-02-11 17:00  
Btw, there's already a very positive example of former British colony Hong Kong that formally abolishes those goddam laws even after their handover to China. If anything I think this article clearly touches the spotlight at the very problem gays face in Asia...so next time a clueless bigot comes up to u & abdomishes you for being
'un-Asian' or copying western 'norms' you know it's a complete fallacy. :p
18. 2009-02-11 18:47  
Sorry to correct you girlongirl, but the sodomy law in HK was repealed before the handover, to the annoyance of conservatives there. A lot has been done since of course. But ironically, if the law hadn't been repealed when it was, HK might now be in the same grotesque position as Singapore.
19. 2009-02-11 18:56  
I assume the "conservatives" however were the right-wing pseudo christian lobby imported from the US. That is the real colonialism these days.
20. 2009-02-11 23:37  
Have to agree with Livewires. It's a misnomer to blame these laws today on Victorian morals. There's been lots of opportunity to debate and change them. But if it means moving away from one's armchair and favorite TV show, then there's little outward support and courage to resist and speak out about them. The Stockholm syndrome exists .
21. 2009-02-12 11:01  
can't someone in Singapore use the courts to get rid of this old antique and send it the way of the Polaroid camera, Morse Code, and Anita Bryant's great hits?

Christians got rid of this law in the USA long ago, except in Texas and Utah and Alaska and Okalahoma, and my mom's house:)
Comment #22 was deleted by its author
23. 2009-02-12 14:32  
lol....gt the facts mixed up, thks for the reminder steveuk :) bt speaking of HK....if I'm nt mistaken they have a '1-country-2-systems' thingy going on with China? Does tht mean anti-sodomy law is still in place there, even in cities like Shanghai? Or is it like in Indonesia, depending on location, region,etc?
24. 2009-02-13 10:29  
I noticed Singapore is the only "developed nation" in the list above which has retained the archaic laws. Shows you that while it may have developed as an economy, it has not made much developments as a society and in its legal system.

Less than 20 years ago, our postal code was changed from 4 to 6 digit because someone made a joke saying that Singapore was too small to need a 6-digit postal code.

Now all we need is to highlight this fact and let the people in charge feel the shame, then it might make a difference.

Funny how when it comes to development, infrastructure and modelling, we are told we need to be like the Swiss, Japanese and now the Chinese. But when it comes to the legal system and social change, we need to stay in the Dark Ages for fear of offending the "conservative majority".

It's not just about chewing gum and caning. These are the mechanisms. What it all points to is fear. A government and society that fears change is doomed to be irrelevant. Like being the only "developed" nation on the list above.
25. 2009-02-13 18:24  
Post #15 Jules_Tinman says (Posted : 13 February 2009 10:29) :

"I noticed Singapore is the only "developed nation" in the list above"... Oh my, what a loss of 'face'
for the Singapore govt. :p
Comment #26 was deleted by its author
Comment #27 was deleted by its author
Comment #28 was deleted by its author
Comment #29 was deleted by its author
Comment #30 was deleted by its author
Comment #31 was deleted by its author
32. 2009-02-15 11:42  
It's a sad thing when stuffed shirt colonists impose their supposed moral standards on another people (on on their own countrymen). But it is even more sad when current stuffed shirt politicians maintain an outdated Victorian view of morality.

Speaking as a Brit (and I am not apologising for the colonial era) this, among other laws that are hand overs from another time, like corporal and capital punishment, should now be consigned to the legislative shredder. The problem is that today's politicians are too afraid of the public reaction to lead opinion preferring to follow like sheep the herd mentality of an unenlightened and uneducated public.

But it is interesting to note that those tiny places that are still British colonies, or crown protectorates
have abolished the laws relating to homosexuality under pressure from the UK government and the EU.
Comment #33 was deleted by its author
Comment #34 was deleted by its author
Comment #35 was deleted by its author
Comment #36 was deleted by its author
Comment #37 was deleted by its author
38. 2009-02-15 13:14  
How times change :). And opinions sway like wild grass, according to the direction of the wind.

It is time to have some modern History lesson.

As far as I can remember, being gay was never an issue other than the once in a while inconvenince of police raid at the disco. But the party goes without much of a hitch.

The whole package of 377 was left behind by the brits and as far as I can remember, only incidents I can think off are the toilet queens caught for public sex etc etc. No big deal as the mainstream gay community prefers to confine 377 in the private bedroom.

When the "Nation Party" was held in Singapore, 377 and the whole package was around and chorus singing praises highlighting "Advance", "Gay Friendly", "A must visit venue for Gays", " Spend all the pink dollars here" came poring in from all over the world. At the parties, drugs also flowed like water on the dance floor. There were many strange looking people watching the scene, whom many believed where people from the Central Narcotics Bureau, standing out like sore pricks from the way they dress. The "beautiful" grouped together in 3s, 4s, 5s, 6s and more, and disappearing to private parties, and sex. A tale of mainly unprotected sex , sex, drugs and more drugs.The party goers seems unfazed under the watchful eyes of the "Badly Dressed Men".

I was at every Nation Party in Singapore and remembered the crackdown on drugs during the last party. The axe came down. Nation Party ended, followed by the aftermath of curses from those people who were caught and banned.

Who on Earth holds a party right next to a conservative Church. ( The military ball was held at Suntec City, the where a conservative born again Church holds their masses every weekend ). The party goers were so stoned before the party started and were scantily dressed, kissing and parading blantantly at their turf.

The Anti-Singapore Crusade was started by those affected by the banning of the Drug and Sex Parties.

Put it this way, we the gay Singaporeans were given a big chance to showcase ourselves both to the world and to our local Singaporeans but we screwed up Big Time.
39. 2009-02-16 10:39  
Ah, finally some light is shed...thank you gymhotbod, for yr little history lesson.
Now I finally know what my ex means when she says the Singapore Govt wants creativity without the mess. :) They want the gays to come, bt not when it involves sex & drugs party...did I get it right? Wow, that's very noble of them...keep up the good work!!! Funny thing though- I've seen even more sex & sleaze, esp.those involving drunken US sailors + local prostitutes, happening in clubs all around the island...& hey!!!
One trip down Orchard Rd & it's quite easy to see callgirls & their customers (usually lecherous-looking old white men) quite openly, lotsa 'action' around Orchard Towers & of course, the most infamous GEYLANG- which, btw, happens to be near a very respectable middle-class suburb, if I remember correctly???- my oh my...will the ever-noble Singapore govt look into this matter?
40. 2009-02-16 10:51  
Oh, yes, heard there was a high-profile drug-bust involving local celebs in Singapore bk in 2004...
they must all be gay...yes,anything involving drugs must all be gay.
Comment #41 was deleted by its author
Comment #42 was deleted by its author
Comment #43 was deleted by its author
Comment #44 was deleted by its author
Comment #45 was deleted by its author
46. 2009-02-16 18:20  
girlongirl, you are angry. Of cos I know Orchard Towers. We cross swords over your support for the toilet queen who was killed by a group of young boys and I said that he deserve it. Oh how dearly you will fight for the right of those who want to have sex with young boys.

You know which country allows lecherous-looking old white men to lavious their young ? . Remember the 60 over yo priest who had sex with many unbderage boys recently ?? It was on BBC just 3 days ago.

And for your information, Sex & sleaze, esp.those involving drunken US sailors + local prostitutes involves those above the legal age here and it should remain that way. Another point to add - most prostitutes here are not local. Some are exports from your motherland.

Clean your own turf first before you try to meddle with other's.
47. 2009-02-16 18:33  
Post #20 girlongirl says "Oh, yes, heard there was a high-profile drug-bust involving local celebs in Singapore bk in 2004...they must all be gay...yes,anything involving drugs must all be gay."

Hmmm bingo ?? the trafficker was gay in the case .... so sad.
48. 2009-02-16 18:34  
Post #21 gymhotbod , you're illogical.
I for one do not want to cross swords you, but you keep flaming the posts & tried tarring with anyone who doesn't agree with you as toilet-queen supporters, without so much as a coherant explanation- from what I've seen in yr posts so far.

I know about that priest, & many others too... make no mistake- I am NO fan of the Indon govt & their policies. Get yr facts straight before mindlessly aiming & shooting arrows.

What I am very uncomfortable with is the use of these cases as 'justification' for further repression & oppression of plus esp. here in Asia...lots of heteros do drugs, f*** like rabbits & change partners like underwear too- why are they not penalized? Remember the Einstein quote?
"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
You may laugh at me as foolish but if there is even a tiny shred of a chance to balance excessive power fr the hierachy & to help the underdog, I will do so. Here's another quote I abide by:
"If you can in this life help other people; if you can't don't huirt them." - Hare Krishna
Comment #49 was deleted by its author
Comment #50 was deleted by its author
Comment #51 was deleted by its author
Comment #52 was deleted by its author
Comment #53 was deleted by its author
Comment #54 was deleted by its author
Comment #55 was deleted by its author
56. 2009-02-16 19:12  
The thing is this girlongirl, I am a Singaporean and I am proud to be one.

It is only natural that I will defend what I believe is right. Afterall, nobody here in the web owes me a living but Singapore does.

Some people need to learn not to criticise other countries policies unneccessary. Yes we are against retaining retaining 377A, but the PM Lee had said that let the be a bit of untidyness, the more we fight, the stronger will be the resistance. We fully understand that the people who oppose repelling are those from the dynasaur era. They will go, 10 years maybe. USA already had their 1st black president, something unthinkable even in the 80s. We are comfortable with things here.

Not logical ?? Well I agree but this is how we work. A love / hate relationship but notice the world is exactly like that ??

And I support "The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." How do you know we are not ???. Change there will be and too fast we will go down like the dinasaurs too.

Let the older generation go to their grave, and together the old ways will go with it.
Comment #57 was deleted by its author
58. 2009-02-17 17:54  
You know, gymhotbod, you (almost) touched me & I was about to say sorry to you- when I re-looked Post #21. So finally you speak from yr heart what you really think of Indonesian girls & women.
Poor sod...in fact I don't blame u- when I was there, people tend to look @ me a certain way...
Maybe in yr opinion we are no better than toilet queens...thanks for the message. Now you know why I am NOT a fan of Singapore now?
Comment #59 was deleted by its author
Comment #60 was deleted by its author
Comment #61 was deleted by its author
62. 2009-02-18 18:59  
girlongirl, It's call defending our honour.

Re-look at Post #19 on what you said. If you write such things, be ready for whatever that may come next.

It is only human.
63. 2009-02-20 11:30  
Have you ever considered elevating yr status to Above Human gymhotbod? See,since you are the pioneer for the Above Human moral standard as clearly shown by the way you write it's only natural I would expect nothing less than pure grace & elegance from you when defending the honour of yr good country. My moral standards are clearly not half as high as yours...in yr eyes at least. Right, right...that's why you're fond of calling me a toilet queen. Bt I've never pretended to be a saint in the 1st place. When you wrote in Post 20#...omg, 'toilet queens', 'lecherous-looking old white men', prostitutes fr yr motherland'...tsk,tsk,...that's not Above Human. Definately not graceful or elegant.
Ok,ok, I think some yr lines are lifted straight from me in retailation bt hey, remember I'm the trash & you the Role Model right? o of course, standards MUST be different for us. Bt that level is already Below Human, not Above Human at all. Still even in my trashiest at least I have the courtesy to call Singaporean hookers 'call girls' which sounds nicer, you added 'prostitutes' fr my 'motherland' for extra bile, which you'll be pleased to know, has the effect you intended. Bt oh no! That's not Above Human, not Above Human at all.
64. 2009-02-20 13:57  
Q: When will East Coast Beach ever be free of
litter & debris?

A: When Lee Hsien Loong approves of gay sex.

65. 2009-02-20 17:42  
Post #27 girlongirl, stop the instigations. You ask for it all.

Please log in to use this feature.

Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!


View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook


 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia