Jump to content
Male HQ

Singapore's LGBTQ News & Section 377A Discussion (compiled)


groyn88

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Guest Autocracy said:

Singapore is an autocratic state with its state courts controlled by the Lee dynasty.

 

Pseudo-democracy pales in comparison to the UK and other first world, developed nations.

Unfortunately, those "other first world, developed nations" are now struggling with Covid-19 ...

皆々様には、御機嫌麗しゅう、恐悦至極に存じ奉ります。

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Supercilious
11 hours ago, SuperSentai said:

Unfortunately, those "other first world, developed nations" are now struggling with Covid-19 ...

Are you suggesting that as a side effect of a transparent and democratic election system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As unsurprised as I am with the outcome, I still feel irritated by the suggestion that a law should be upheld for "safeguarding public morality."

Thank you to the guys for continuing to push for the repeal and for creating awareness. While it is tempting to be contented with a verbal promise that it will not be actively enforced, unless the stigma of consensual gay sex is officially rejected there is very little room to talk about putting in place protections that LGBTQ individuals need - much less true equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Qing Shi Huang

We are basically, China. With an english speaking population and delusions of open-mindedness and liberty. We are closed-minded, parochial, stubborn and bigoted. That's who we are in our dna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest Lor Ye

Many homosexual Singaporeans from the older generation, baby boomers and gen x that is, are lost causes. 

 

Many of these people are married to the opposite sex. Hence if 377A is removed, the gen x gays in heterosexual marriages especially will feel increasingly alienated and left out, as many of them are only in their early 40s, and would want to divorce their wives to pursue their prefered sexual and romantic relationships.

 

The reason why 377a is not removed by the courts and parliament, is pressure from many of those opposed to opening this pandora box, where many married men and women will want divorce in order to pursue their sexual and romantic fantasies.

 

The movements to lobby the government to continue LGBT legal oppression is mostly undertaken by closeted LGBT gen x people, many of whom are married christians and muslims.

 

A significant portion of them are probably also just gen x gay people trapped in heterosexual marriages who are frightened by the prospect of changes that could be brought about by removing 377A and disruptions to the status quo which

they had invested heavily in upholding throughout their lives.

 

I suspect many middle and high rank civil service positions in our local institutions are also held gen x LGBT people in heteeosexual marriages. These are the people most invested the status quo and will have the most to answer for, lose and re-adapt if it is ever changed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lor Ye

It is true when commenter Adeline Lee Hui Lee from Pinkdot facebook said the most harm and abuse inflicted upon LGBT people are by LGBT people themselves.

 

The oppressed, by upholding oppression upon others, has become the most powerful oppressors.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Example only

Ok. It like you cannot smoke in a room. But I close one eye. If I say you can smoke and at the end of the day so many people smoke in that room and it nearly or burnt down that room down, what do I do put up the notice again saying no smoking in that room? If that happens I will be making a full of myself. Got it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guest Lor Ye said:

It is true when commenter Adeline Lee Hui Lee from Pinkdot facebook said the most harm and abuse inflicted upon LGBT people are by LGBT people themselves.

 

The oppressed, by upholding oppression upon others, has become the most powerful oppressors.

 

 

 

 

 

That is very true. LGBT society is pretty divided. Doesn't only apply to Singapore though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Singapore has very little reason not to decriminalise gay sex.

We are not Muslim majority (even though it is actually legal in most of Indonesia!!)

We claim to be international, cosmopolitan

It is already legal in China, India, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, etc, etc

Can Singapore actually be MORE conservative than all these places???

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, And then said:

Actually Singapore has very little reason not to decriminalise gay sex.

We are not Muslim majority (even though it is actually legal in most of Indonesia!!)

We claim to be international, cosmopolitan

It is already legal in China, India, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, etc, etc

Can Singapore actually be MORE conservative than all these places???

 

 

Because sg wants to be politically correct and yet pretend to be international and cosmopolitan. 

 

We are always reactive and slow in policies formulating. We always observe what others do regionally first.

 

 

鍾意就好,理佢男定女

 

never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want.

 

结缘不结

不解缘

 

After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say.

 

看穿不说穿

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, fab said:

 

Because sg wants to be politically correct and yet pretend to be international and cosmopolitan. 

 

We are always reactive and slow in policies formulating. We always observe what others do regionally first.

 

 

Don't understand what you mean by "politically correct"

 

Well, are we waiting for it to be legalised in Brunei and Saudi Arabia first???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/lgbt-activist-seeks-court-order-for-parliamentary-bill-on-repealing-section

SINGAPORE - A lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights activist has applied to the High Court for a mandatory order for Cabinet to move a Bill in Parliament to abolish the law that criminalises sex between men.

In another attempt to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, Dr Roy Tan Seng Kee, 62, argued that the Attorney-General's position on the non-enforcement of Section 377A renders the law otiose, meaning it is useless and serves no practical purpose.

The retired general practitioner said in a statement on Thursday (Dec 3) that Section 377A had become a "dead letter" - an obsolete law that has outlived its relevance - and its retention is unlawful, given the Government's decision not to enforce it.

Under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, the High Court can issue "any person or authority any direction, order or writ for the enforcement of any right conferred by any written law or for any other purpose".

In applying for a mandatory order, applicants can also ask the court to make a declaration, or a statement of the court's authoritative opinion on a matter.

According to court documents filed by lawyer M. Ravi, Dr Tan is also seeking a declaration that Section 377A is incongruous and inconsistent with various other laws, including the Criminal Procedure Code.
Dr Tan had filed a constitutional challenge against Section 377A last year, arguing among other things that the Government's stance on not enforcing Section 377A was incompatible with Sections 17 and 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Section 17 requires the police to unconditionally investigate all complaints of suspected arrestable offences, while Section 424 makes it compulsory for anyone who is aware of any possible commission of a crime to inform the police of it.

Justice See Kee Oon dismissed his case in March this year, along with two other cases filed in 2018.

In a judgment released in March, Justice See said some of Dr Tan's arguments had taken issue with the enforcement of the law, not its constitutionality.

He noted that these issues were separate and distinct, and that the manner in which a provision was enforced, even if arbitrary, could not in itself render the provision unconstitutional.

"The appropriate recourse in such a situation would be to seek administrative review, not constitutional review," the judge said.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), the respondent in all three previous challenges, had argued that the question of whether to repeal Section 377A is a "deeply divisive socio-political issue" which should be decided by Parliament, not the judiciary.

Dr Tan is now hoping to have the matter considered in Parliament.

He noted that Section 9A (1) of the Interpretation Act requires the courts to interpret a written law in a way that promotes the purpose or object underlying that law.
"Parliament's undertaking not to proactively enforce Section 377A renders the courts unable to perform their legal obligation," Dr Tan said.

He added that he will draw on recent precedents in British common law to support his case.

 

Edited by groyn88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-lgbt-court-trfn/retired-doctor-launches-new-legal-bid-to-end-singapores-gay-sex-ban-idUSKBN28E12Z

December 4, 2020
Retired doctor launches new legal bid to end Singapore's gay sex ban

By Michael Taylor

(Thomson Reuters Foundation) - A retired doctor has filed a fresh legal challenge to force the Singaporean government to either fully enforce or introduce legislation to scrap a colonial-era law that can jail men for engaging in gay sex.

Tan Seng Kee, 62, a prominent LGBT+ advocate better known as Roy Tan, launched his legal bid in Singapore’s High Court this week to target a section of the country’s penal code - known as Section 377A - that criminalizes gay sex.

“It’s a recourse that every citizen has when adversely affected by the administration of the law by the government,” Tan said on Friday.

“Once the administration of law is inconsistent due to a policy or action of the government, we can have recourse at the High Court or Court of Appeal to force the government to undo their action or policy,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Section 377A can imprison men for engaging in gay sex for up to two years, although prosecutions are rare in the modern but socially conservative city-state.

Singapore has a vibrant LGBT+ scene and last year Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that while LGBT people are welcome to work in the country, Section 377A would remain “for some time”, according to media reports.

Singapore’s ministry of home affairs did not respond to requests for a comment.

Tan was part of a similar challenge that focused on constitutional rights and was rejected by the High Court in March but is now with the Court of Appeal.

The petitions in Singapore were launched after India scrapped a similar law in 2018.

Across Asia, socially conservative attitudes prevail with Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei banning sexual relationships between men, and Indonesia seeing an increase in raids targeting LGBT+ people in recent years.

The argument of inconsistencies in Singaporean law that is being used in the latest legal action had rarely been used before, said Tan.

“There are two ways they can do this: the first way is to make 377A enforceable again but that would be unthinkable because it would mean every gay man who had sex in private would have to be hauled up to the police,” he said.

“The best option would be to get rid of Section 377A completely and that in one fell swoop would eliminate all these inconsistencies, which is what I’m aiming for,” added Tan, who helped organise Singapore’s first Pink Dot gay pride rally.

The latest High Court bid is expected to be heard in 10 months but will be scrapped if the constitutional challenge case is a success at the Court of Appeal first, said Tan.

M. Ravi, a human rights lawyer representing Tan in his High Court bid, said not reporting or enforcing parts of the penal code - either by citizens or police - was “problematic”.

“(The government) have already acknowledged that 377A should not be proactively enforced because it is deemed discriminatory,” he said.

“We know that they cannot go back. The only way is to repeal 377A completely.”

Edited by groyn88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always admire Dr Roy for his guts and aspiration.  First time I noticed his presence was many years ago when he (and another guy), wearing nothing,  "hijacked" Chingay parade and waving a rather large rainbow flag, in the middle of orchard Road.  Then he pioneered the birth of "Pinkdot" in Singapore and the rest became history.  Now, I wish him, and for everyone of us, success in fighting discrimination against gay people in this country.  Our Parliament needs to advance in its thinking, cleanse itself from insecurity and prove that it can truly uphold its pledge as one country one united people.  Justice cannot be properly served with an outdated law and placed our kangaroo in a rather difficult position of neither agreeing nor disagreeing, not enforcing the efforceable and eventually relented and pushed everything back to parliament.  Singapore S377A, is akin to handcuffing someone and at the same time giving him the key to be free.  S377A It is a complete joke that MERELY adds-on to clutter the whole  legal systems.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Allan Page

Think Parliament will throw it back to court saying they are not in the position to interpret the law for the country. 

 

Cannot always let them hide behind the lame excuse of conservative society, people not ready. Some people will NEVER be ready for LGBT equal rights. Will be futile like waiting for the lost cow to come home by itself.... sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

377a.JPG

Section 377A was introduced to Singapore’s penal code in the middle of 1938. It reads: “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person.” 

 

Simply put, 377A criminalises sex between two consenting male adults. It is generally believed that the law derives from the British government’s desire to ‘safeguard’ public morality by prohibiting homosexual activity in the Straits Settlements. 

However, documents recently declassified by the British government reveal that this is not the case. 377A was, in fact, motivated by a scandal in which prominent white European men were discovered to have slept with Asian male prostitutes. This drove the Straits Settlement government into a panic because it saw the scandal—of the white man succumbing to the native boy—as a threat to its colonial rule.

Read more at link below:
https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-features-history-377a-racism/



 

 

 

Edited by tomcat

🌑🌒🌓🌔🌕🌖🌗🌘🌑

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there is a slightly different theory too.. notice it was introduced in 1938 and only in two heavily fortified British colonies- Singapore and Gibraltar.

 

That was the time tensions were building with Japan.

There's a theory the Brits were worried the Japs would plant spies among the male prostitutes ("Catamites" as they were called) so they didn't want their military officers seeing them.

 

The 12 377A cases that went to court here all involved British military personnel. Then WW2 happened and this law wasn't revisited after.

 

So this theory was it had nothing to do with morality or Western colonial mindsets, but more to prevent espionage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest good read

Loved reading the admission of this army / police officer Gerhold, poor man, because he was lonely he was seduced by Javanese and Sumatran men during his time in Malaysia. You have to open the PDF to read it. 

 

His secondment to Palestine was surely a heavy punishment for him...considering dick sizes and the fairer skin of the locals in Palestine and I m very sure he never ever indulged into such acts again at this  new location, very sure....  or why else was the supervisor from Palestine asking for information from Singapore? ... ahem. 

 

What I think a bit over the top is linking the 377A to "racism".  

Wasn't it more to uphold "discipline" in the army/ police force ? Are there no reports for British army men having succumbed to Asian women in those days or when sent overseas you were either married or if single then gay? 

Should have been more the case of this general perception for gays in the army or other government positions being blackmailed for their deeds and the danger of passing secrets to introduce the 377A if it was really that Commissioner who enacted it into law in 1938. 

Usually they always said, it was copied from the Indian Penal Code. 

 

Let's not forget homosexual acts were still a crime in Great Britain during those years 1938. 

 

The other imminent question I had whether the fitness of the Sumatran Hasan for the post with Gerhold was also pre-tested by the Malays because he was said to have served three Malay police officers before he took the post with Gerhold. So many questions. ....

 

Won't get any answers for that, but touched my curiosity 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Carlofrcentral said:

But it’s homophobia that allowed it to still be in place up to this day.

 

Ya lor. Not sure why all the activists even think this lame ass revelation matters to your typical heartland Singaporean.

 

As long as the majority of Singapore remains largely conservative, 377a will remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Brain dead

Conservatism vs homophobia. The former is always used as excuse for latter. I think they are both mutually exclusive.

 

You can be conservative without fearing gays. Like you can disagree with gay rights while being a liberal, new age vegan.

 

You can even be piously religious while supporting gay people having equal rights. Just look at reverend Doctor Yap Kim Hao.

 

Abrahamic religious brainwashing is what created and resulted in this blind fear and irrational hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality aka homophobia, not religiosity, religiousness or conservatism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Brain dead

We should ban religious brainwashing of their flocks into gay disapproval. At the same time we should stop citing conservatism, Asian culture, traditional thinking and religious piousness as the reasons for not accepting gays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

On Monday, 1 March 2021, Leader of the Opposition and Workers' Party Chairman, Pritam Singh raised concerns in Parliament over discrimination against the LGBT community, citing an incident in January 2021 where a man had thrown a pride flag at a Lau Pa Sat eatery's staff members and hurled abuse at them. According to the female owner of the food stall SMOL, the man also told staff members to “go to hell”. “Not everybody supports LGBT … how can you put this flag? You are the kind of people who is destroying Singapore!” the man was alleged to have said. Singh added: “Beyond this incident it was concerning to read that one of the reasons the eatery owner uploaded the video was ‘to highlight the everyday reality that the LGBTQ community experiences when most incidents are not even caught on camera’. I am aware Minister for Home Affairs in particular has spoken up about the state’s intolerance of acts perpetrated against the LGBTQ community. Minister has stressed that the Government’s job is to protect everybody, and wants race, religion or sexual orientation as irrelevant.”

Minister of Home Affairs K Shanmugam reiterated that everyone in Singapore would be protected and treated equally, no matter their beliefs, pointing out that under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, action could be taken against religious groups that, using religion, attacked non-religious groups. This included the LGBT community, he explained. "Regardless of which community - what your social, religious or sexual beliefs are - everyone will be protected here, and I have said so categorically," he stressed. "We are all equal. We are not any lesser by reason of our sexual preferences." Action would be taken against those who stir hate speech against any sexual or religious community, he added. However, this did not mean action would be taken on every occasion, he elaborated, adding that the police would assess the situation and use their discretion.

Responding to Shanmugam's remarks that every community was equal regardless of its sexual orientation, Singh said: "I completely agree with this, I support this. I think it's a very powerful statement, a fair and egalitarian approach to dealing with the matter. I hope all Singaporeans, regardless of race or religion, actually coalesce around this, and have reasoned and respectful conversations on LGBTQ issues. And I think we'll be stronger as a nation for it," he opined.

Links:

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_against_LGBT_people_in_Singapore

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Pritam_Singh's_views_on_homosexuality

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/K_Shanmugam's_views_on_homosexuality

Edited by groyn88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

OH! SIAO LIAO! You wrote something about PAP! Later PAP IB will make it disappear from this forum without a trace bery bery soon. 

 

But again hor .... this article is to 三脚 PAP one ... so maybe can stay... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
22 minutes ago, groyn88 said:

On Monday, 1 March 2021, Leader of the Oppostion and Workers' Party Chairman, Pritam Singh raised concerns in Parliament over discrimination against the LGBT community, citing an incident in January 2021 where a man had thrown a pride flag at a Lau Pa Sat eatery's staff members and hurled abuse at them. According to the female owner of the food stall SMOL, the man also told staff members to “go to hell”. “Not everybody supports LGBT … how can you put this flag? You are the kind of people who is destroying Singapore!” the man was alleged to have said. Singh added: “Beyond this incident it was concerning to read that one of the reasons the eatery owner uploaded the video was ‘to highlight the everyday reality that the LGBTQ community experiences when most incidents are not even caught on camera’. I am aware Minister for Home Affairs in particular has spoken up about the state’s intolerance of acts perpetrated against the LGBTQ community. Minister has stressed that the Government’s job is to protect everybody, and wants race, religion or sexual orientation as irrelevant.”

Minister of Home Affairs K Shanmugam reiterated that everyone in Singapore would be protected and treated equally, no matter their beliefs, pointing out that under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, action could be taken against religious groups that, using religion, attacked non-religious groups. This included the LGBT community, he explained. "Regardless of which community - what your social, religious or sexual beliefs are - everyone will be protected here, and I have said so categorically," he stressed. "We are all equal. We are not any lesser by reason of our sexual preferences." Action would be taken against those who stir hate speech against any sexual or religious community, he added. However, this did not mean action would be taken on every occasion, he elaborated, adding that the police would assess the situation and use their discretion.

Responding to Shanmugam's remarks that every community was equal regardless of its sexual orientation, Singh said: "I completely agree with this, I support this. I think it's a very powerful statement, a fair and egalitarian approach to dealing with the matter. I hope all Singaporeans, regardless of race or religion, actually coalesce around this, and have reasoned and respectful conversations on LGBTQ issues. And I think we'll be stronger as a nation for it," he opined.

Links:

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_against_LGBT_people_in_Singapore

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Pritam_Singh's_views_on_homosexuality

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/K_Shanmugam's_views_on_homosexuality

Hmmm.. what is WP’s official stand on LGBTQIA+? Do they agree to give LGBTQIA+ equal status as straights? Can we legally get married? The law protects anyone. Why must there be a specific law to protect gays? Should there be specific laws for trans? For non binary human? It’s a good move by WP as it surely make some gays think WP is pro gay rights when they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Reality check

If WP officially projected itself as pro LGTB they would soon realize they would lose a stack of electoral support.

Such ideas here in Singapore are only fanciful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue I saw was that the Minister only based any "action" or protection on the religious harmony Act. He did not mention the Section 298A Penal code on racial harmony but added race in the response, the latter not covered by the Religious Harmony Act.

 

What is if an atheist utters hate filled remarks against the LGBTQ without referring to religion or race?

 

Then, the Act would not apply.

 

This is a very limited angle to look at the issue and actually reflects any protection of LGBTQ is not certain, if race or religion is not involved.

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KNNBCCB

A Sham indeed.  He said that the government will not persecute anyone, depending on circumstances of the case, who attacked gay verbally or non-verbally.  Simply because it is a free country and everyone should respect one another whether they are religious or not.  KNNBCCB kind of reply.  The rainbow flag thrower is spared.  Why not just say so?  LGBT people no need to know the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Regardless of which community - what your social, religious or sexual beliefs are - everyone will be protected here, and I have said so categorically," he stressed. "We are all equal. We are not any lesser by reason of our sexual preferences."

 

I think he really meant: you'll be protected from violent crimes.

 

Otherwise, for abuse that doesn't leave visible scars like religious abuse, harassment, housing insecurity, job discrimination... you're on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Best solution is to just get married, have children and don’t think so much. In your old age, you have a soulmate even if you don’t love her. That’s enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stop posting
2 hours ago, Guest guest said:

Best solution is to just get married, have children and don’t think so much. In your old age, you have a soulmate even if you don’t love her. That’s enough. 

look if you're straight and don't understand what gay is about or if you're a gay hater, then spare us with your posts. 

 

It is obvious you're not gay. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zyjd said:

"Regardless of which community - what your social, religious or sexual beliefs are - everyone will be protected here, and I have said so categorically," he stressed. "We are all equal. We are not any lesser by reason of our sexual preferences."

 

I think he really meant: you'll be protected from violent crimes.

 

Otherwise, for abuse that doesn't leave visible scars like religious abuse, harassment, housing insecurity, job discrimination... you're on your own.

Ok, means being gay is a new religion in Singapore?

 

Is that what the Minister was saying???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Guest Citizen Janet said:

Always knew indians are the romans/europeans/angmohs of asia.

 

Bravo?

Lgbt issue become racial issue. First of all, be a good human then we shall talk about lgbt. 

Edited by cutejack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

 

 

 

Speech given by NMP Thio Li Ann on 22 October 2007. Look specifically at 1:47 where her infamous statement was made in Parliament on "Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink" She didn't get any rebuke/censure from any of the PAP MPs for such a statement at all. And it was the actually the New York University students , where she was ironically a visiting human rights professor at the NYU School of Law until 2009, who released a statement calling for the condemnation of her "anti-gay hate speech" before Parliament. 

 

So Shanmugam, where were you in 2007 then? Did your new statement of "everyone in Singapore would be protected and treated equally, no matter their beliefs" happened only because you now only hold 83 out of the 93 Parliamentary seats in 2021, as compared to the 82 out of the 84 seats in 2007?

 

What people says will be remembered forever, no matter how hard you can try to POFMA or censor them. The internet never forgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Female feminist professor
13 hours ago, Guest guest said:

Best solution is to just get married, have children and don’t think so much. In your old age, you have a soulmate even if you don’t love her. That’s enough. 

You mean it is ok to use a turkey baster to impregnate your wife?

 

Have you spared a thought for the women folks? They aren't machines for giving birth.

 

They need foreplay, pleasures of the engorged penis rubbing against their clitoris and entering and exiting of their labia minoras too.

 

A dildo just won't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, zyjd said:

"Regardless of which community - what your social, religious or sexual beliefs are - everyone will be protected here, and I have said so categorically," he stressed. "We are all equal. We are not any lesser by reason of our sexual preferences."

 

I think he really meant: you'll be protected from violent crimes.

 

Otherwise, for abuse that doesn't leave visible scars like religious abuse, harassment, housing insecurity, job discrimination... you're on your own.

Did you really reflect and research on what you wrote there to see the numerous holes in your argument to the point? Visible scars? You are given all the basic and fundamental HUMAN protection thus far in Singapore as anyone that live here (that includes people who are LGBTQ) :P Why would you think you need an EXCLUSIVE 'recognition' as a tiny crop of folks? And what mental gymnastics you do to figure Str8 normal folks gets protected locally and BUT that LGBTQ has to fend for themselves?

 

So someone at work discriminate you for example means, if straight MOM for will fight for you but you gay worker, MOM will not? Some fire you on the ground you are gay has merit of discrimination too and they will have to protect you too. But it has to go thru the process too just like it would for a str8. Or you mean only if they see you have a dagger in your back?

 

So we come to that 'logic' now like in the US where cultural wars is getting stupider and illogical? When you start to look (or overlook with a magnifying glass) for fault where there is none worth raising a fuss about? hahahah.

 

The way HATE SPEECH is defined these days especially in the west, any and every damn thing can be called HATE SPEECH. Not about understanding helping any situation we face but just to shut you up but prevent further discussion. This is what I fear coming from the crazy west. And it is coming. Why? Politicians and charlatans even in Singapore are watching them, figuring out ways to use those silly tactics and argument to advance their agendas, look 'heroic' and fighting the good cause. Those you see they go after today? Tomorrow can be you for whatever reason they choose if you do not obey. Slowly but surely if you allow this. Today you can already see how blatant people make claims or position to protect or fight this cause or that cause. But when get into office, act blur.

 

So to choose side, be very careful who you think you should choose to sleep next to you base on outwardly appearances. You do that with people you cruise for sex, you do that with others in general too who claim to be on your side too. People who hate you are just a handful of instances or minor irritants like a shouting mad man who threw a rainbow flag, shout crazy talk and walk off. While it is easy to point to that and make your CONFIRM case of hate for your believe or cause  whatever that may be. But do not forget also the SUPPORT it garnered from overwhelming number of people online and offline who come to the defence too of the staff.

 

If all you see is talk about is HATE then look no further than how much worst that will get if you too want to wield that word as a weapon like what that crazy man did to the retail staffs. There will always be evil people. Knee jerk reaction overtime will not solve the problem. And sometime take a step back to see that this is not a gay issue. Many bad we experienced or witnessed happens to everyone not just exclusive to gay folks like us and because we are gay. Every word we want to use to describe a bad act or word, in some form of it has been used on normal folks too.

** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Captivated audience
6 minutes ago, upshot said:

Did you really reflect and research on what you wrote there to see the numerous holes in your argument to the point? Visible scars? You are given all the basic and fundamental HUMAN protection thus far in Singapore as anyone that live here (that includes people who are LGBTQ) :P Why would you think you need an EXCLUSIVE 'recognition' as a tiny crop of folks? And what mental gymnastics you do to figure Str8 normal folks gets protected locally and BUT that LGBTQ has to fend for themselves?

 

So someone at work discriminate you for example means, if straight MOM for will fight for you but you gay worker, MOM will not? Some fire you on the ground you are gay has merit of discrimination too and they will have to protect you too. But it has to go thru the process too just like it would for a str8. Or you mean only if they see you have a dagger in your back?

 

So we come to that 'logic' now like in the US where cultural wars is getting stupider and illogical? When you start to look (or overlook with a magnifying glass) for fault where there is none worth raising a fuss about? hahahah.

 

The way HATE SPEECH is defined these days especially in the west, any and every damn thing can be called HATE SPEECH. Not about understanding helping any situation we face but just to shut you up but prevent further discussion. This is what I fear coming from the crazy west. And it is coming. Why? Politicians and charlatans even in Singapore are watching them, figuring out ways to use those silly tactics and argument to advance their agendas, look 'heroic' and fighting the good cause. Those you see they go after today? Tomorrow can be you for whatever reason they choose if you do not obey. Slowly but surely if you allow this. Today you can already see how blatant people make claims or position to protect or fight this cause or that cause. But when get into office, act blur.

 

So to choose side, be very careful who you think you should choose to sleep next to you base on outwardly appearances. You do that with people you cruise for sex, you do that with others in general too who claim to be on your side too. People who hate you are just a handful of instances or minor irritants like a shouting mad man who threw a rainbow flag, shout crazy talk and walk off. While it is easy to point to that and make your CONFIRM case of hate for your believe or cause  whatever that may be. But do not forget also the SUPPORT it garnered from overwhelming number of people online and offline who come to the defence too of the staff.

 

If all you see is talk about is HATE then look no further than how much worst that will get if you too want to wield that word as a weapon like what that crazy man did to the retail staffs. There will always be evil people. Knee jerk reaction overtime will not solve the problem. And sometime take a step back to see that this is not a gay issue. Many bad we experienced or witnessed happens to everyone not just exclusive to gay folks like us and because we are gay. Every word we want to use to describe a bad act or word, in some form of it has been used on normal folks too.

Wonderful gymnastic practise! 

 

Now you deserve a milkshake and a break. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • G_M changed the title to Singapore's LGBTQ News & Section 377A Discussion (compiled)
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...