Search the Community

My brief take on the 377A Penal Code .by Nicole Seah (佘雪玲) on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:46am.A number of people have asked me about my stand on Penal Code 377A which criminalises homosexuality, because of the current situation with Vincent SDP. My personal take on this is very clear. But it is not in line with many parties' stances apart from SDP, because it is a touchy topic. Singaporeans should ask themselves this - Regardless of whether you are homophobic or otherwise, do you think it is right to say that these people have committed a crime, being who they are? Do you think that we need a law to cast a darker shadow over the way they live, in ADDITION to the current stigma that is already prevalent throughout society? Many have argued that passing such a law will dilute the nuclear family unit. As I mentioned before, reality is not as simple as rhetoric. Item A will give you Item B in a mathematics formula, but reality is such that there are so many other factors at play. Think about it. So what is eroding the fabric of society? Is 377A even as big a problem as it is made out to be? Single mums not being entitled to benefits that nuclear family units have, which may partially contribute to hindering their child's upward mobility in comparison to kids who grow up with better resources. Low-income families, having to wait for 8 months before getting a rental flat in Dakota Crescent, because there is no space and flats originally set aside for low-income families are being leased out to foreigners at a $1500 profit. Exorbitant housing prices, which are deterring young couples from settling down. Bureaucratic red tape and demand outstripping supply that makes it frustrating for young couples to apply for a flat to settle down. I personally know of a couple who had to go through 7 rounds of rejection before getting a flat. Whether you are a diehard supporter of the current Penal code, or if you buy into the argument that repealing this code will have a direct causal effect to erode the fabric of society, do take some time to think about what you have observed around you as a Singaporean over the past few years. .As referenced from : https://www.facebook.com/notes/nicole-seah-...141136845957395

Got this from an email. http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/ Section 223 Penal Code Escape from confinement negligently suffered by a public servant. 223. Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence, or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such person to escape from confinement, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both. Section 129 Penal Code Public servant negligently suffering prisoner of State or war in his custody to escape. 129. Whoever, being a public servant, and having the custody of any prisoner of State or prisoner of war, negligently suffers such prisoner to escape from any place of confinement in which such prisoner is confined, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 221 Penal Code Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of a public servant bound by law to apprehend. 221. Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape, or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished — (a) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with death; (b) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years; or © with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term less than 20 years. Section 217 Penal Code Public servant disobeying a direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. 217. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.