Singapore's not ready

[Elfenstar]

I beg to difffer from you

 

in singapore we have a multi-racial society

it is difficult to balance social freedom

a large proportion are still conservative and many religion are not exactly welcome gay with open arms

 

personally I have nothing against gay

among my gay friends that i know there are among the most creative and talented lot

so respect them as decent human beings

 

 

so the balance for the government is to:

have a law against gay but dont act on it

in short them are trying to please everybody in a diplomatic fashion

 

so in short

in this case the government has done a good job

 

 

forget about the "noise" in the background look at the bigger picture

 

dont get distracted

next election vote for PAP they are number 1

 

we are not ready for the Western type of democracy yet perhaps in another 20 - 30 years yes maybe but NOT now

 

 

in Malaysia for eg if in the early stage of their country development if they removed the bumiputra privileges, the whole country would be in chaos

today it is different, many malaysia now know that it does not benefit the country and do not benefit the majority of the bumiputras so at this point a change is inevitable

 

everything takes time so be patient

 

I understand what you're saying (which is pretty much what our law minister said), however it still does not make it right.

 

Whats worse (and the point for the thread) is their excuse for it, which IMHO is making a mockery out of us. When it suits them, they force something on us, when it doesn't suit them, they claim its because of "majority opinion", which in this case is not even substantiated by polls etc, but just a guess. Do they actually think we're stupid???

 

The only reason I will vote PAP is because IMHO our oppostion parties are mostly incompetent, only know how to b|tch at the PAP's policies without coming up with something on their own, and thus won't be able to do as well as them. This means you're right though , they are no 1. LOL

 

[Drive_carcar]

Oh err.... administrative law, contract law, equity and trust law, property laws, are largely judge made. There is no statues like the Penal Code, Company Law and Family Law (the infamous Women's Carter).

 

What do I mean by judge made then? It means whenever such cases come before the judges, the decision made is partly based on reference to other judges's prior decisions and rationale behind the decisions. In cases which are unique, then it's based on common sense and what is called "natural justice". When the courts look at other judges decisions, it can be reference to other countries (usually Commonwealth countries - England, Austrialis, Hong Kong, Malaysia courts have been refered to), but these are only pursuasive in nature, not compelling.

 

Previous CJ - Yong, was know to disregard all rationale and make his own decisions. All judges were also known at some cercumstances to make decisions that were exceptionally companssionate, or exceptional punitive.

[Elfenstar]

Errmm...well, errrmmm...I dunno but I don't think this gay rights movement thing should be allowed to take place in Singapore. Gays are an alright bunch of people I guess, but PLEASE keep any displays of intimacy behind closed doors can?? It makes alot of people very uncomfortable...

 

I don't think thats the issue since from what I've seen, they generally keep intimacy hidden (even holding hands in public is rare), unlike us who decide carpark H at East Coast is a good place for sex LOL

 

The issue i feel could be one of these or more likely a combination of these two factors:

1) People are afraid of what they don't know about,

2) perceive it to be wrong due to socially constructed reasons, or

3) it could simply be that homosexuals challenge stereotypes on what masculinty and femininity are supposed to be, and that scares people as it takes some of their identity away.

 

[Elfenstar]

Thank you!

[Flight_skoda]

thinking of the scene of man screwing man make me want to vomit.....

 

Same here initially, but in view of diversity and inclusion, I have grown to accept that is on-coming - as with many countries are coming to terms with gays and lesbians relationships.

 

[Flight_skoda]

For a long long time, this is by far the best logical argument I have seen. Clarity with simplicity.

Thanks for putting your thoughts thru'.

 

 

 

I said it before, my point got lost in the static. So I'll say it again: we should strive not to become a tyranny of the (moral) majority.

 

The argument of an alarming number of people (as evidenced by the postings here) seems to go: the majority of Singaporeans are "moral" and "conservative" and hence not accepting of homosexuality in others.

 

Should that be allowed to influence law? Heck, no!

 

Think about how ridiculous it would be if other "moral majority" viewpoints were enforced by law. From the census data on Wikipedia, more than 40% of our population consists of Buddhists. Going by logic analogous to the anti-gay justifications, let's take a hypothetical scenario where Buddhism becomes the compulsory, enforced faith of the land by law. No-one is allowed to practice any other faith - you Christians/Muslims/Hindus/atheists would be forcibly converted (made to formally repudiate your cherished faith or lack thereof) under penalty of a jail term and fine. How does that sound? Sick, right?

 

Have we gone down that road? No, because it would be absurd. We have *freedom* of religion, we are even free to choose to *reject* religion entirely. These freedoms are enshrined in law. That's the correct moral and legal stance in a pluralistic society.

 

If people can make their peace with that concept, I wonder why they have so much trouble with the gay thing. It's not like someone is asking everyone to be gay. Merely to accept that there might be others who are gay, and accord them with the right to be who they choose to be.

 

Tolerance is key, whether it pertains to religion, sexual orientation, or something else.

 

For the record, I'm straight. But I bemoan the narrow-mindedness in this country.

 

Also, a lot of posters have missed elfenstar's point about the government. This govt is not hesitant to take unpopular decisions and steps if need be - when it suits their purposes, e.g. banning chewing gum, raising GST and minister's salaries ad nauseam, etc. Were the majority in favor of those decisions? I think not. But the govt is not foolish (on the contrary, they're very smart). They know they can get away with the "big stuff" if they appear to be pandering to the unwashed masses once in a great long while. Hence, when it's a fight they don't really want to win, out they come with all the rhetoric about being sensitive to the sensibilities of the majority of Singaporeans. And you guys actually buy it. For shame.

 

[Elfenstar]

Oh err.... administrative law, contract law, equity and trust law, property laws, are largely judge made. There is no statues like the Penal Code, Company Law and Family Law (the infamous Women's Carter).

 

What do I mean by judge made then? It means whenever such cases come before the judges, the decision made is partly based on reference to other judges's prior decisions and rationale behind the decisions. In cases which are unique, then it's based on common sense and what is called "natural justice". When the courts look at other judges decisions, it can be reference to other countries (usually Commonwealth countries - England, Austrialis, Hong Kong, Malaysia courts have been refered to), but these are only pursuasive in nature, not compelling.

 

Previous CJ - Yong, was know to disregard all rationale and make his own decisions. All judges were also known at some cercumstances to make decisions that were exceptionally companssionate, or exceptional punitive.

 

You're talking about common law and case law (which is a subset for the former). In Singapore's case, the judge is not bound by precedent(s) (although they do usually take it/them into consideration) unless the precedent is from a Singapore court of law. Even then if the precedent was set my a more junior judge, the senior judge can still set a new precedent, or as some of our high court judges have done, not follow it based on more modern social constructs.

 

This is all fine and dandy in civil cases. However, our laws against homosexual men (yes why does 377A just target male homosexuals???), are not civil. They are criminal in nature, thus the only play a judge has would be via sentancing, as what constitutes a criminal act is not open to interpretation, but set in stone through the Penal Code. The only way to not find someone liable (if proven so) for a criminal act would be for our judiciary to throw the law out thus forcing parliament to amend or repeal the law. This last bit is kind of what the indian judges have done, and india's parliament will have to amend the act or make an appeal to be heard by the UK's Privy Council (which means the law does not have to be amended as yet).

 

We don't have the last option thanks to the case against Jeyaratnam's being thrown out by them resulting in our government amending our laws so that our highest court of appeal is our supreme court. Oh and they didn't give a rats arse about what the majority wanted then either. They just did it as it suited them.

 

Anyway my friend, I don't want this thread to degenerate any further into a homosexuality is ok vs is not ok thread. Even if the laws change this will still go on. What I wanted to was to show and discuss the implications and inconsistencies of our policy making process.

 

I would also like to know if we have an option to debate policies openly and in person with our policy makers, and if what our law minister said is their current stance, can we petition for laws regarding non-divisive (towards us singaporeans) elements like foreign worker policies which they will create and uphold if we have a majority of the population behind us?

Edited July 6, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Elfenstar]

thinking of the scene of man screwing man make me want to vomit.....

 

It still turns me off, but here I will be, standing beside them supporting the freedom to love!

[Elfenstar]

For a long long time, this is by far the best logical argument I have seen. Clarity with simplicity.

Thanks for putting your thoughts thru'.

 

Agreed! He's not the first (lightbringer comes to mind) that has stated similar viewpoints, however nobody has put it better than he has.

 

[Piyopico]

So while we are at it, why stop at repealing section 377.

 

Why dun we decriminalise incest too? I could go on .........

 

 

[Elfenstar]

So while we are at it, why stop at repealing section 377.

 

Why dun we decriminalise incest too? I could go on .........

 

Don't worry, our incest laws are quite light. It just means a person cannot sleep with his/her grand-parents, parents, siblings, and children. 1st cousins, and parents siblings are alright.

 

This is because in almost every culture these are the people a person has emotional ties with, and it would be quite easy to warp it to the extent where they can't even make a clear distinction between these ties and the type of love we're talking about, this is even when they reach adulthood. Even when they can make a distinction, they are more likely to feel obliged due to this (often warped) emotional state. This is the same reason a person who is raped by a close friend or close family member is less likely to report them. There is also the genetic degradation of their offspring (if any) which is technically physical harm to someone else, but that is only secondary.

 

This is already off topic (if you've been following the thread), but is there anything else I can help you with?

Edited July 6, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Falc]

Did you not say "Come on, those victims are in their prime, not in the sunset of their lives, still need what performance enhancing." Aren't you insinuating that heterosexual people who are not in their prime don't take it for peformance enhancement? Don't worry, I'll let you know more abt anal sex as soon as I try it on someone. However I'll let you in on a secret first on why younger males do take these. Drugs. They impede male performance.

 

Using your school analogy, it would not be stereotyping because the parent has not judged all the students based on half of them. They have simply judged that the school is not capable of teaching their child the values that they believe should be taught. It would be stereotyping if they did not allow their child to mix with any of the students in the school based on that.

 

Remember to skip the brand those victims used. I don't want to read about you in the papers.

 

That's naive. Influence in school comes from teachers and also peers. The bad eggs do cause more bad eggs, and vice versa. If the parents forbid the child to go to that school, it is for a miss of the bad influence there as much as that of the teachers'.

 

 

 

[Falc]

Tolerance is key, whether it pertains to religion, sexual orientation, or something else.

 

For the record, I'm straight. But I bemoan the narrow-mindedness in this country.

 

Also, a lot of posters have missed elfenstar's point about the government. This govt is not hesitant to take unpopular decisions and steps if need be - when it suits their purposes, e.g. banning chewing gum, raising GST and minister's salaries ad nauseam, etc. Were the majority in favor of those decisions? I think not. But the govt is not foolish (on the contrary, they're very smart). They know they can get away with the "big stuff" if they appear to be pandering to the unwashed masses once in a great long while. Hence, when it's a fight they don't really want to win, out they come with all the rhetoric about being sensitive to the sensibilities of the majority of Singaporeans. And you guys actually buy it. For shame.

 

It is not merely decriminalizing homosexuality - this is only step one. Once this is done, the natural progression and push will be to accord and enshrine more rights and recognition to homosexuals like what's going on in the States. Rights to marry, same tax relief for the homo family, have children, etc the society will be embroiled in all these. By allowing step one, the govt can foresee more to come and hence the importance of barring step 1. Anyway the law is not enforced, it is a way of saying yes homos are tolerated and not persecuted, but no more rights will be entertained.

 

Our MIW are shrew politicians afterall. BUT we should note that the govt has stated clearly the stand and that they do not wish this homo issue to be divisive. I agree they have done many other things to "buy" the hearts of certain segments of the populace which they have capitalized for election, but this homo issue is not one of them.

[Elfenstar]

Remember to skip the brand those victims used. I don't want to read about you in the papers.

 

That's naive. Influence in school comes from teachers and also peers. The bad eggs do cause more bad eggs, and vice versa. If the parents forbid the child to go to that school, it is for a miss of the bad influence there as much as that of the teachers'.

 

Dont worry abt the brand. I hate (synthetic) drugs All natural yo

 

I just read the new paper. Was right. 3 diff types of drugs found in him... he may have passed on, I'm sorry but he was an idiot.

 

I don't think its naive coz a school is both staff and students. If the predominant culture clashes with our norms and we dont put our kids in the school, it doesn't mean that the parents think that all the students follow that culture. Like I said, if they don't allow their child to mix with anyone from that school then its possible that there's stereotyping, but if they do allow, but not place their child in that school, it means they haven't stereotyped since they haven't labeled all of the students.

 

P.S. I don't think anyone would disagree that our polititans are shrewed. I would even go further and say that they're sneaky. In this case they're trying to say "see, because we think the majority feels this way, we are not going to change the laws", then they turn around and tell the homosexual men "I'm sorry, we love you, but because the majority feels different, our hands are tied".

 

There is nothing wrong with giving homosexuals full equality. They're just different. You might as well say (using turboflats analogy) that since non-buddists are different (a.k.a. wrong) we should take away all rights from them until they turn buddhist! How would you like to labeled as wrong, deviant, unnatural etc just for being Christian (if I rememeber correctly)?

Edited July 6, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Falc]

Not picking that school for the child is the best way of preventing the child from mixing with any of the 50% bad eggs! Of coz other schools also have bad eggs, but it's all about statistics.

[Elfenstar]

Not picking that school for the child is the best way of preventing the child from mixing with any of the 50% bad eggs! Of coz other schools also have bad eggs, but it's all about statistics.

 

I'm not disagreeing with that, but thats not stereotyping because the other 50% have not been labeled as "bad eggs".

 

[Gnoikj]

hmm... pro gay groups should demand for proof from the gahmen then...why do they say that majority opposes homosexuality. If there is proof, then they can cop out to having to agree with the majority...

[Ahhuat]

For homosexuality according to this article

 

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC09...pores-not-ready

 

However that's not what I want to point out... its seems to me that Singapore is not ready for a truely honest government! Most of you know that I am quite pro-government, however it doesnt mean that they're not snakes. Here's a classic example of it.

 

"Singapore's not ready

 

Law Minister says Govt careful of being ahead of public opinion

 

by Teo Xuanwei

05:55 AM Jul 06, 2009

 

FOLLOWING an Indian high court's recent landmark decision last week which overturned a 150-year-old British colonial era law criminalising homosexuality, is it time for Singapore - whose laws are "copied" from India - to repeal Section 377A?

 

The answer is no, says Law Minister K Shanmugam, because Singapore society is "not ready" for that. "There is a group that is actively committed to saying that homosexuality is okay," said Mr Shanmugam, who is also the Second Minister for Home Affairs.

 

"But probably a majority of Singaporeans are still very conservative and say that this is totally not acceptable. So, the Government has to respect both sides." So we're basing decisions on assumptions and guesses now are we? You're being grossly overpaid to find out not guess Mr Shanmugam

 

He was responding to a question posed by a resident, Ms Khartini Abdul Khalid during a dialogue session when he visited Punggol Central Division yesterday.

 

While the Government has to "set the standards" on many issues, it must "be careful about being ahead of public opinion," he said.

 

"If the majority of our population is against homosexuality, then it's not for the Government to say we are going to force something against the wishes of the people," he said, reiterating the Government's stance when a motion to repeal the law banning homosexual acts in Singapore was intensely debated in Parliament in 2007. Right... except that although the people didn't want ERP or COE, it will still forced down our throats. What about your grossly obscene salaries in which there is more consensus from the people than in anything else that you are all undeserving of?? We are still forced to pay taxes to maintain them. Not to mention even more recently when we are having voices from all the different groups asking for a strong control over outsiders working in Singapore, the government refused to listen and forces us to accept them even when Singaporeans are losing jobs.

 

Section 377A - which makes those convicted liable to imprisonment up to two years - was not repealed eventually, even though the Government said it would not actively enforce it.

 

Mr Shanmugam explained that India's laws on homosexuality have not changed. Instead, it was the New Delhi High Court's interpretation that "with the current evidence available and the current social situations in many parts of the world ... you can no longer consider homosexuality to be a wrongful sexual activity", he said.

 

Mr Shanmugam stressed that Singapore's courts are likewise free to interpret the law the same way.

 

"Whether the courts will take the same interpretations, I don't know, but it's up to the courts.""

 

i'm actually quite happy with his answer. while it paints one picture, the reality is that homosexuals have quite a bit of leeway in singapore despite our official stance. Since my days serving NS, it amazed me on how the reality of things dont match up to the official stance of our government. there are some who, despite our official stance, would hope that the government would clamp down further. reality is that many ppl are ok with homosexuality, as long as their kids are not, and nobody brings a homosexual home. sad but true.

 

but with that said, I'm pro-inclusiveness. they are just people.