Singapore Local Gay News [LGBT Related News] (Compiled)

[bearhunt]

This fella's got a damn good point. Read on...

[Guest artemov]

Welcum back bearhunt

[Guest Guest]

As far as MOE is concerned, Otto Fong has opened a pandora box not only in school but the society as a hole.There is no going back ands i'm sure the garment will address/discuss this issue of homsexual in the open. Remember that Goh Joke Tong had publicly announced/allowed gay in the civil service? Why the RI is against the garment?

[reflection]

I think education is a more sensitive issue because it involves teenagers of some parents, many of them are conservative or homophobic. Perhaps it is assumed that this group should be allowed to explore themselves because they are still under the umbrella of their parents. It is not just the students who are coming out but it is his family who is also coming out to face society, relatives, friends, etc. There is a Chinese saying

[Guest Guest]

How about building a school for PLU and their children, if any?

[Guest artemov]

http://tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,141898,00.html?

....

Disagreeing, a gay teacher in his late 20s said he had reservations about coming out to his students, whom he feels are 'too young' to deal with suchissues.

Most of his students are 13 and 14 years old.

He said: 'It's unclear whether teens at that age can actually be swayed by a person in a position of authority like a teacher, but I'd prefer not to impose my personal values or beliefs on them, while they are still relatively immature.'

He added that he feels teaching is a profession which requires drawing a clear line between the personal and professional domains.

'There are still many misconceptions people have about gay people - that we are promiscuous, and that we are out to prey on children.

'Being too open at this point will only cause unnecessary anxiety within the school, and among parents.'

...

What a load of hogwash.

If you don't want to out yourself out of concern for your career, I can fully empathize and support. But please don't come and tell me about "imposing my personal values or beliefs on them, while they are still relatively immature."

How else do you think youngsters form their value and beliefs? By looking at the stars or listening to ocean waves? Please lah, they get their beliefs from the words and behaviours of adults around them. Do you want to wait till they are mature in the beliefs that gays are disgusting perverts (no doubt implanted by those religious freaks who obviously have no problem imposing their beliefs on young kids).

If they are old enough to learn about sexuality, then they are old enough to learn about homosexuality. Show them that gays can be good, decent folks who earn a decent living and live their passion as teachers, engineers, scientists, counsellors, businessmen, ... in other words, good positive role models.

But then again, sexuality programs in our schools these days are mostly conducted by xtians in sheep's clothings. Talk about "imposing my personal values or beliefs on them, while they are still relatively immature." Haha.

[reflection]

http://tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,141898,00.html?

....

Disagreeing, a gay teacher in his late 20s said he had reservations about coming out to his students, whom he feels are 'too young' to deal with suchissues.

Most of his students are 13 and 14 years old.

He said: 'It's unclear whether teens at that age can actually be swayed by a person in a position of authority like a teacher, but I'd prefer not to impose my personal values or beliefs on them, while they are still relatively immature.'

He added that he feels teaching is a profession which requires drawing a clear line between the personal and professional domains.

'There are still many misconceptions people have about gay people - that we are promiscuous, and that we are out to prey on children.

'Being too open at this point will only cause unnecessary anxiety within the school, and among parents.'

...

What a load of hogwash.

If you don't want to out yourself out of concern for your career, I can fully empathize and support. But please don't come and tell me about "imposing my personal values or beliefs on them, while they are still relatively immature."

How else do you think youngsters form their value and beliefs? By looking at the stars or listening to ocean waves? Please lah, they get their beliefs from the words and behaviours of adults around them. Do you want to wait till they are mature in the beliefs that gays are disgusting perverts (no doubt implanted by those religious freaks who obviously have no problem imposing their beliefs on young kids).

If they are old enough to learn about sexuality, then they are old enough to learn about homosexuality. Show them that gays can be good, decent folks who earn a decent living and live their passion as teachers, engineers, scientists, counsellors, businessmen, ... in other words, good positive role models.

But then again, sexuality programs in our schools these days are mostly conducted by xtians in sheep's clothings. Talk about "imposing my personal values or beliefs on them, while they are still relatively immature." Haha.

Suddenly I realize why some gays become anti-gays like Larry Craig, trying to live like a straight to conform to the straight world.....the reason being suppressed during their growing up years

Oh no, I think the more students should have the opportunity to explore their sexuality, else they become another 'misfit' - neither here nor there

Once a mental growth is suppressed unnaturally, it will become like a BONSAI trying to grow like a tree

[Guest Guest]

The way I see it otto coming out is a well thought move.He has more to gain than lose.He already has a 2nd career (play wright and cartoonist) and he is getting all the attention and publicity to launch his 2nd career to greater heights, after all how much can he earn from a teacher salary compare to writing play, directing it and publishing his cartoon book at least he will earn more pink money! and enjoy more freedom as a "coming out gay".GOOD MOVE OTTO :thumb:

This is amazing !!!

How U know all these stuff ... ??

or you are here making an assumption, assuming what he going to do next based on what you think he will do?

isn't it clear that he is not going to quit from teaching, then y u think that he is going into his 2nd career !!!

[dienasaw]

guess only otto knows and only time will tell. wait and see...

[mitch7272]

I believed that there are many occasions when we wished to share our thoughts as a gay or from a gay point of view, but simply being closeted prevented us from doing so... it came to a point we didnt feel short-changed at all...

I am closeted, how I wish I have the courage to come out... no matter how I ponder, I still dont see how I can/will do it... maybe I live my life to please others and not myself... I forgo my right to be who I am in public (at least for now)...

Simple me believed that Otto just want to have the right as a person and a gay... at the same time, (in this writing) he educated his readers that gay is as human as heterosexual which I think is important...

For those who worried that gay teacher might impose their values... let ask ourselves this question:

Any striaght person speak of their life experience presuming the audiences are heterosexual is sharing.

Any gay who speak of their life experience is considered as imposing?

My admiration and support to Fong.

[Guest Guest]

otto is only guilty for being himself he is looking for his comfort zone.For crying out loud he is a electronic enginer he should be writing electronic text books instead of cartoon book.he is bursting with artistic juice to the seam.Leave him alone he is chasing his dream.GO GET IT GIRL!!! :clap:

[TopChinese]

Tired of going through 5 pages? Catch up with the topic via our own sexy uncle YawningBread's coverage:

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-791.htm

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-792.htm

Kudos to Otto for his brave move. We are all behind you, Mr Fong! (and admiring the rear view?)

[reflection]

Tired of going through 5 pages? Catch up with the topic via our own sexy uncle YawningBread's coverage:

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-791.htm

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-792.htm

Kudos to Otto for his brave move. We are all behind you, Mr Fong! (and admiring the rear view?)

Indeed another sharp and insightful analysis by Yawningbread

[Asura]

Will the PLU community and people who supprted him starts calling ourselves Bonsai ?

Maybe that will wake up those idiots on top...

[reflection]

http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/index.aspx

[Ferrari]

Straits Time dated 8 May 2008

The first case of 43 yr old HIV+ man was charged in court yesterday for engaging in oral sex with a 16 yr old teenage boy in a toilet cubicle in Northpoint in Sep 2007. His foto is published. He faces a jail term of two years or fine of $10000 or both.

However, he is lucky this time because the new Infectious Disease Act has not taken effect and it has a stiffer sentence of having jailed for up to 10 yrs and/or fined up to $50000.

Remember : If you are found guilty of having unprotected sex (oral sex included) even if you dont know but have reason to believe that you have or have been exposed to HIV, you are subject to the new Infectious Disease Act which will take effect in the near future.

If the foto of the man was your sex partner before, please go to

- DSC at http://www.dsc-sexualhealth.com.sg/ or

- CDC at http://www.ttsh.com.sg/new/specialtiescent...ommunicable.php

for a counseling + screening

People who are sexually active with multiple partners and who dont go for routine HIV screening, watch out !

Edited May 8, 2008 by Ferrari

[jason]

pity the poor teenager have to face the consequenes and shame

[TopChinese]

This guy is disgusting.

[Guest diguested]

I hope he gets the maximum sentense. And please, dear judge, do put him away in an all-women detention camp for life. May he never see or touch another cock again.

[Guest gammaguy]

Well in the midst of condemning the man, let this also be a warning to all those who actively seek toilet sex. There was no mention in the article that the man was caught in the act but mind you toilet whores, you are being watched.

[taxme7]

Can post his pic here?

[Ferrari]

It is always easy to point a finger at someone.

"people who live in glass houses should not throw stones"

Unless we are so pure and holy, who are we to judge? Many people here do 'dark' things only known by their deepest heart....until caught red-handed one day

Edited May 8, 2008 by Ferrari

[Ferrari]

Can post his pic here?

What is your reason for wanting to see his pic here?

[taxme7]

What is your reason for wanting to see his pic here?

No special reason... if dun have then never mind lor....

[Guest no harm]

post his pic here lar so that those did not read the paper can see mah

[Tight Ass]

He look very unelitist to me. Not my type, so i am safe. Still miss my hotel guy, he has the greatest cock of all that matches my tight ass.

[Guest Guest]

tats the risk for playing with someone u dunno ... whether it is toilet sex or at sauna...the risk is there.

[taxme7]

That little boy must be devastated. His whole life is destroyed by this disgusting old man..

Please put the selfish man behind bar for the rest of his life

[Guest Guest]

That little boy must be devastated. His whole life is destroyed by this disgusting old man..

Please put the selfish man behind bar for the rest of his life

did the boi kenna HIV? how they found out? caught in the act or boy got HIV and lead the police to this guy?

[Guest Guest]

HIV man didn't tell teen partner

First to be prosecuted for not disclosing status, he faces hefty fine, 2 years' jail

By Elena Chong, Court Correspondent

ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW

IN THE first case of its kind, a chef infected with HIV was charged in court yesterday with engaging in oral sex with a 16-year-old without first informing him of the risks of contracting the virus that causes Aids.

Chan Mun Chiong, 43, pleaded guilty to that charge as well as to another of committing an act of gross indecency with the teen.

The Ministry of Health summons charge said he had oral sex without first telling the teenager about the HIV risk. He also failed to get him to voluntarily agree to accept that risk. The offence carries a fine of up to $10,000 or up to two years in jail, or both.

The sex charge said that the bespectacled, spiky-haired man and the boy performed the sex acts in a cubicle of a men's toilet at the Northpoint Shopping Centre in Yishun on Sept 15 last year. For the gross indecency charge, he faces a jail term of up to two years.

Chan, who did not have a lawyer, was released on $10,000 bail. He is expected back in court today for his case to be dealt with.

He does not face stiffer penalties that were passed by Parliament last month as they had yet to go into effect.

Under amendments to the Infectious Diseases Act, those found guilty of having unprotected sex even if they do not know but have 'reason to believe' that they have or have been exposed to HIV can be jailed for up to 10 years and/or fined up to $50,000.

The Health Ministry has in the past investigated some cases, but no one has been prosecuted until yesterday.

One case was compounded last year. In another case, a foreigner being investigated left the country in 2005 before he could be charged.

elena@sph.com.sg

[TopChinese]

Wonder how he got caught?

[metalmickey]

Wonder how he got caught?

Very good question. The report does not say how they were caught. Conjecture: probably, they were caught by the mall's security. Also, I wonder if the boy got infected through this encounter.

Edited May 9, 2008 by metalmickey

[Guest no name]

HIV man didn't tell teen partner

First to be prosecuted for not disclosing status, he faces hefty fine, 2 years' jail

By Elena Chong, Court Correspondent

ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW

IN THE first case of its kind, a chef infected with HIV was charged in court yesterday with engaging in oral sex with a 16-year-old without first informing him of the risks of contracting the virus that causes Aids.

Chan Mun Chiong, 43, pleaded guilty to that charge as well as to another of committing an act of gross indecency with the teen.

The Ministry of Health summons charge said he had oral sex without first telling the teenager about the HIV risk. He also failed to get him to voluntarily agree to accept that risk. The offence carries a fine of up to $10,000 or up to two years in jail, or both.

The sex charge said that the bespectacled, spiky-haired man and the boy performed the sex acts in a cubicle of a men's toilet at the Northpoint Shopping Centre in Yishun on Sept 15 last year. For the gross indecency charge, he faces a jail term of up to two years.

Chan, who did not have a lawyer, was released on $10,000 bail. He is expected back in court today for his case to be dealt with.

He does not face stiffer penalties that were passed by Parliament last month as they had yet to go into effect.

Under amendments to the Infectious Diseases Act, those found guilty of having unprotected sex even if they do not know but have 'reason to believe' that they have or have been exposed to HIV can be jailed for up to 10 years and/or fined up to $50,000.

The Health Ministry has in the past investigated some cases, but no one has been prosecuted until yesterday.

One case was compounded last year. In another case, a foreigner being investigated left the country in 2005 before he could be charged.

elena@sph.com.sg

[Guest no name]

This man was always spoted loitering in Yishun MRT toilet, that is opposite NP. I believe the situatoin is much serious then just one innocent being victimied. An infectioin chain may have already established.

[taxme7]

This selfish man was a chef which means that he handled and processed food. :twisted:

[Ferrari]

This selfish man was a chef which means that he handled and processed food. :twisted:

So what are your trying to imply ?

[Guest Guest]

the chances of spreading the virus by being a chef is low lah. unless he chop onion cut his finger bleeds...but even so, virus will die within seconds after exposure to air.

[Guest Guest]

wonder if they were caught in the act ?

[metalmickey]

wonder if they were caught in the act ?

Most probably they were, but rather troubling is the fact (as pointed out by others in another related thread in this forum) that the man in this case was actually charged with committing "gross indecency" which is the offence that falls under Section 377A that prohibits sex between males, regardless of whether the act is consensual or not. So, contrary to what we have been led to believe recently, the authorities will enforce Section 377A, as long as such acts take place in public.

Edited May 12, 2008 by metalmickey

[Lungker]

If it is done in public my friend.

This act was done in a public toilet in a shopping centre. The man was probably cruising for victims there. The government says they do not use 377A aginst gays who have private consensual sex and they had not done so. In the past, they had used 377A against those who have sex at public toilets.

MM until you have proof that the government is using 377A against gays who had private consensual sex, then get your facts straight before you mouth off again.

[metalmickey]

If it is done in public my friend.

This act was done in a public toilet in a shopping centre. The man was probably cruising for victims there. The government says they do not use 377A aginst gays who have private consensual sex and they had not done so. In the past, they had use 377A against those who have sex at public toilets.

MM until you have proof that the government is using 377A against gays who had private consensual sex, then get your facts straight before you mouth off again.

With all due respect to you, Lungker, I did not say,"the government is using 377A against gays who had private consensual sex." You are putting words in my mouth. What I am trying to say is that contrary to the popular misconception that the police has stopped enforcing 377A, this case clearly shows that they will not hesitate to do so, as long as such an act takes place in public. I did not say that the police will prosecute men who engage in consensual sex with other men in the privacy of their own homes or some other private space. Please try and read my statements carefully before you jump the gun and accuse me of things I did not say or mean! Thank you very much!!!

Edited May 12, 2008 by metalmickey

[Lungker]

Most probably they were, but rather troubling is the fact (as pointed out by others in another related thread in this forum) that the man in this case was actually charged with committing "gross indecency" which is the offence that falls under Section 377A that prohibits sex between males, regardless of whether the act is consensual or not. So, contrary to what we have been led to believe recently, the authorities will enforce Section 377A, as long as such acts take place in public.

This post has been edited by metalmickey: Today, 06:00 PM

You edited your earlier post to say " as long as it takes place in public" AFTER I post my reply.

You are a sneeky conniving little person MM.

I am asking you now. Did you edit your post after I made my reply? Don't lie.

[Ferrari]

I was about to zero into that time of editing at 6pm......

It is so difficult to say sorry, isnt it?

[metalmickey]

You edited your earlier post to say " as long as it takes place in public" AFTER I post my reply.

You are a sneeky conniving little person MM.

I am asking you now. Did you edit your post after I made my reply? Don't lie.

You already can see the evidence for yourself, so why bother to ask? Anyway, the phrase that I replaced originally read,"as they see fit," which still does not change my original meaning. If the police see fit to prosecute those who engage in homo-sex in public, then there's really nothing wrong in what I've said, is there?

And so what if I see fit to edit my posts? As long as I have the privilege to do so to clarify my original intent and meaning, what concern is it of yours? And really your name calling is very unbecoming.

Edited May 12, 2008 by metalmickey

[metalmickey]

I was about to zero into that time of editing at 6pm......

It is so difficult to say sorry, isnt it?

Me say sorry? I think I would expect the reverse for such an unkind and uncalled for accusation by my main plaintive in this case!

[Ferrari]

The moral of the story : it's wiser to quote someone's original text before shooting arrows....unless the moderators are able to trace the original text

Edited May 12, 2008 by Ferrari

[Lungker]

I am truly shocked that people like MM exists amongst us in this forum. Sneeky little rat.

By adding these words "as long as such acts take place in public" after I had posted my comment, he thinks he can get away with making an irresponsible remark by editing his earlier comment!!! WTF?

The fact of the matter is the police will also use 377A against those who had gay sex, consensual or not, at a private dwelling or not, with a juvenile.

In this case, this man, who knew he was HIV+ had unsafe sex with a 16 years old boy in a public toilet in a shopping centre. One wonders how many other men have he had unsafe sex with without telling them of his HIV status. It would be ignorant to think that this is the only incident. Did he infect anyone? If so, then how many?

[metalmickey]

I am truly shocked that people like MM exists amongst us in this forum. Sneeky little rat.

By adding these words "as long as such acts take place in public" after I had posted my comment, he thinks he can get away with making an irresponsible remark by editing his earlier comment!!! WTF?

The fact of the matter is the police will also use 377A against those who had gay sex, consensual or not, at a private dwelling or not, with a juvenile.

In this case, this man, who knew he was HIV+ had unsafe sex with a 16 years old boy in a public toilet in a shopping centre. One wonders how many other men have he had unsafe sex with without telling them of his HIV status. It would be ignorant to think that this is the only incident. Did he infect anyone? If so, then how many?

I still stand by what I originally said, which does not at all contradict Lungker's statement: "The fact of the matter is the police will also use 377A against those who had gay sex, consensual or not, at a private dwelling or not, with a juvenile." So, you cannot in all fairness say that I had made any irresponsible remark at all.

And as for calling me names, you know the rhyme, "Sticks and stones, may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

[Lungker]

You already can see the evidence for yourself, so why bother to ask? Anyway, the phrase that I replaced originally read,"as they see fit," which still does not change my original meaning. If the police see fit to prosecute those who engage in homo-sex in public, then there's really nothing wrong in what I've said, is there?

And so what if I see fit to edit my posts? As long as I have the privilege to do so to clarify my original intent and meaning, what concern is it of yours? And really your name calling is very unbecoming.

If your original comment did not clash with my reply, why did you have to edit it?

And then later made a comment "What I am trying to say is that contrary to the popular misconception that the police has stopped enforcing 377A, this case clearly shows that they will not hesitate to do so, as long as such an act takes place in public." to bolster your post?

If you had not edit your initial comment, how could you have rebutted my reply?

[metalmickey]

If your original comment did not clash with my reply, why did you have to edit it?

And then later made a comment "What I am trying to say is that contrary to the popular misconception that the police has stopped enforcing 377A, this case clearly shows that they will not hesitate to do so, as long as such an act takes place in public." to bolster your post?

If you had not edit your initial comment, how could you have rebutted my reply?

Regardless of whether my comment is in its original form or in its edited form, the intended meaning is still the same. So, your argument that I could not justify myself by first editing my original comment is completely irrelevant. It makes no difference at all. I could just as easily replied in the same way to you, regardless of whether I made the minor edit or not.

Edited May 12, 2008 by metalmickey