The first to get the chop was this writer's photo exhibition, titled Kissing, and comprising 80 photographs of volunteers in same-sex mouth-to-mouth kisses. The Media Development Authority, in refusing the licence for the exhibition, declared that it would "promote a homosexual lifestyle."

Associated Press did a story immediately, which went around the world via the International Herald Tribune (IHT), the San Francisco Chronicle, the Guardian (UK) and other newspapers. The following day, IHT carried the story a second time, with a longer write-up by its own correspondent from Singapore.

The next to be hit was Ng Yi-Sheng's work, titled Lee Low Tar, a hilarious farce based on a fictional rejection letter by a certain censorship body. This fictional letter explained that the censors found the work, about a young man with a fetish for old men, to be "a specimen of the most degraded pornography known to man."

The real-life Media Development Authority in their real-life letter to Ng, told him that the fictional letter was "beyond good taste and decency in taking a disparaging and disrespectful view of public officers."

A case of reality imitating art.

This time it was Agence-France Presse that was first off the starting gun. They sent the news of the ban worldwide via Yahoo News and France24. There were probably other channels I don't know of.

The third to be banned was Professor Douglas Sanders. The police had earlier approved a permit for his public lecture, titled "Sexual orientation in international law: the case of Asia," but then succumbed to pressure from a well-known ex-cabinet minister and Christian fundamentalist, and cancelled the permit at almost the last minute. Prof Sanders was also denied a visa.

The reason the police gave for the cancellation was that the event "is unlikely to be held in the public interest," with the suggestion that he would be interfering in domestic politics. This even as they had neither seen his paper, nor spoken with him about the contents of his talk.

Associated Press got the prize again, and the story made headlines in USA Today, the Washington Post and others. "Singapore bans gay rights forum," they both said.

Then the Pink Picnic took centre-stage. Originally planned for Aug 9 at the Botanic Gardens, it was blocked by the National Parks Board after a well-known anti-gay crusader, Professor Thio Li-Ann from the National University of Singapore's infamous law school, complained to the authorities.

Following that, I fielded calls from Associated Press (again), Asian Wall Street Journal, IPSnews, and later tonight, I am expecting a phone interview from California.

Why this madness?

All these bans expose the hypocrisy of the Singapore government, although even saying that may be giving them too much credit, since that presupposes a stable dual-track course. It is entirely possible that what we're witnessing is just a shambles of conflicting policies coming out of different ministers and departments, some more sympathetic to the crazed Religious Right than others, but none with any clue as to how much damage Singapore's reputation is suffering abroad.

In April this year, elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew spoke of "an inevitable force of time and circumstance" in referring to the need for accepting gay people. He underlined his views a few days later to Reuters: "Let's not pretend it doesn't exist," he said, adding that he saw "no option" for Singapore but to decriminalise homosexual sex.

But how does one square this with ban after ban this month? Or for that matter, with the thriving gay scene? As one journalist to whom I was speaking asked, "But Singapore has gay bars and saunas, doesn't it?"

"And wasn't there a gay play recently?" He was referring to Alfian Sa'at's Asian Boys Vol 3 - Happy Endings, staged by Wild Rice Theatre.

To get anywhere near understanding what is happening, it is important to see the distinction between entertainment and speech, although sometimes the two fuse together (as in a play). So long as entertainment is low key, e.g. a bar that doesn't advertise itself widely, the government allows it to exist.

In this, they are living up to Juvenal's advice to the Roman emperors - to ensure that the people are fed with bread and circuses - lest they revolt. Thus the Singapore government's obsession with economic growth while granting some allowance for entertainment. Everything else is dispensable.

Gay equality is a civil rights issue, and civil rights is seen as an obstruction to efficient government. Thus the paranoia with respect to Gay Pride.

Yet Lee, in his characteristic high-profile way, has pointed to the direction that Singapore must move - towards decriminalisation and tolerance. Why did he do that? It is clear from his prefacing remarks, that it had everything to do with economics. "If this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that
interconnected world and I think it is, then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it."

But the schizophrenia is evident from the next few lines: "If we want creative people then we got to put up with their idiosyncrasies. So long as they don't infect the heartland."

This suggests a desire to give the appearance of acceptance to the outside world, at the same time to fence the "idiosyncrasies" off from Singaporeans.

Can that ever be realistic? It's not a question that anyone seems to be asking.

While clear thinking is in short supply, furious reaction from the Christian fundamentalists isn't. Letter after letter has been written to the newspapers. Appeal after appeal has been made to ministers and senior civil servants to "take action." Given the large number of Christians in government and the civil service, such appeals enjoy much sympathy. In any case, once the gay activists are painted as a threat to national security - the euphemistic phrase being "contrary to the public interest" - many government officers switch onto autopilot.

Ban, ban, ban.

And then we get headline after headline flying around world. No kissing, no humourous story telling, no speaking by professors, no picnicking in the park.

Meanwhile, as part of the city-state's National Day celebrations, the slogan on billboards all over the city say "Singapore - a city of possibilities". Yeah, right.