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

[heliumduck]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/move-away-from-stance-that-diversity-is-a-weakness-for-singapore-cherian-george

 

Move away from stance that diversity is a weakness for Singapore: Cherian George

 

Quote

SINGAPORE - Singapore's political leadership needs to move away from the narrative that race and religion are fault lines that make the country vulnerable, said Hong Kong Baptist University media professor Cherian George on Friday (Oct 26).

"That is partly true, but it is surely not the whole story," Prof George said. "We need to move towards what is in fact a reality - that racial and other forms of diversity are, in fact, a source of what makes Singapore wonderful."

He added: "The overwhelming message is that these are fault lines that cannot be wished away, which means that diversity is overwhelmingly a risk factor... As long as that's the case, we are not going to get far."

Prof George was giving his views at a panel discussion on the politics of diversity management, alongside Senior Minister of State for Transport and Communications and Information Janil Puthucheary. The panel was chaired by Associate Professor Suzaina Kadir, who is vice-dean of academic affairs at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

The dialogue, which surfaced differing views over issues like race, religion and sexual orientation, was part of a conference held at Marina Bay Sands to mark the Institute of Policy Studies' 30th anniversary. It attracted 820 people, including academics and tertiary students.

In his speech, Dr Janil said Singapore deals with issues of diversity differently, depending on what is at stake. These include, for example, how an issue might be politicised or how it could influence the economic opportunities of those affected by it.

 

 

But the primary outcome, he added, is to achieve "an increasingly cohesive society, through an increasingly enlarged common space, together with a shared sense of progress".

To make progress in this area, he added, issues must not be framed as a zero-sum game with winners and losers. And historically, the Government has not approached issues such as race, language and religion as a zero-sum game, he said.

"Could you imagine a sense of cohesion today if, in each of these dimensions, there were winners and losers?" Dr Janil said. "We want and we need progress around equality, around diversity, without the sense of anyone losing - and our approach thus far has worked."

Both men also crossed swords on the issue of the Government's attitude towards the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, after one audience member pointed out that this group is not well represented on local television, which does not help foster constructive dialogue.

Dr Janil replied that before the mainstream media tackles such topics, people must first be able to have a constructive dialogue in person.

"I don't know that we are there yet," he said, adding that dialogue on this topic has been very polarised to date. "We need to find a way to have a conversation about this where people are not vilified or demonised in either direction."

Responding to Dr Janil, Prof George pointed out that under other circumstances, the Government has not hesitated to lead the way on other issues where it saw fit.

"The Singapore Government didn't wait for the majority of Singaporeans to agree that spitting is not a good thing... before it took action," he said. "It led from the front, often using a great amount of force and coercion."

Prof George added that the Government has been trying to be in the middle on certain important issues, and that this is an ideological choice and not a neutral one.

"If you look at the conservative-progressive spectrum on many of these issues where the Government says that it is just playing a referee, in fact it is not," he said. "It is a biased referee."

In response, Dr Janil said: "I think that many of these are practical, pragmatic political choices."

"It is the selectivity of coercion, the selectivity of liberalisation, that is worrying," Prof George replied. "But, of course, if indeed that is the Government's position, then come out and say it."

12

 

[lovehandle]

they get to vote!
but the part on 我什么苦，还有什么没吃过，and the shoot like 蜘蛛侠 is funnie

 

[lovehandle]

time to hear what they said about fair marriages?  (so that all of u can paper-debate online)
i was xpecting it to have more debaters, rather than just 2!

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by lovehandle

[Guest Disgusted]

瘤姓异 is a disgusting self loathing christian faggot-in-denial.

 

Married my ass! He gave off rancid vibes of a psychopath, male chauvnist, misorgynist and sexist pig.

[Guest guest]

From Channel News Asia:

 

'Serial predator' admits to sexually assaulting, molesting man with mental disability

 

SINGAPORE: A repeat offender admitted in court on Wednesday (Nov 7) to sexually assaulting and molesting a 21-year-old man with mild mental retardation.

 

Teo Koon Tian, 62, pleaded guilty to one sexual assault charge and two charges of using criminal force to outrage the victim's modesty.

 

This was Teo's fourth conviction for sexual offences. In 1990, he was convicted under section 377A for outrages on decency and was jailed for six months. The other two offences for outrage of modesty were committed in 2004 and 2014.

 

All three of his latest crimes occurred on the same day - Sep 17 last year - in Teo's home, the court heard.

 

The victim, who cannot be named due to a gag order, was in Yishun Ring Road for dinner that day. He shared a table with Teo, whom he did not know, although Teo had seen him in the neighbourhood before.

 

Teo, who was drinking beer, asked the victim for his age. The younger man did not tell him, although Teo guessed that he was in his 20s. Teo believed that the victim had some mental disability, as he had seen him taking his medicine after his meal, Deputy Public Prosecutor Gail Wong said.

 

After the victim finished eating, Teo asked him to follow him back home, saying he would give him money.

The victim did not want to do so at first, but agreed after Teo said he could watch television at his home.

 

Teo led the young man to his home, holding onto his wrist as he led him into the lift, which was captured on police camera footage.

 

Inside his home, Teo asked the victim if he wanted to "play down there", while molesting him, despite the young man's protestations.

 

Teo then suggested that they go to the toilet to shower. The victim said he did not want to, but Teo insisted. Inside the kitchen toilet, Teo performed a sexual act on the victim, despite being asked to stop.

 

Before the victim left, Teo asked him to visit him again. A few days later, the young man called the police as he was afraid that Teo might molest him again.

 

A report by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) found that Teo has sexual interest in men and has had consensual casual sex with adult men in the past.

 

While he denied having recurrent and intense sexual urges towards young or pre-pubescent children, Teo admitted to the IMH psychiatrist that he had brought the victim home to engage in sexual activity with him.

 

He was assessed to have no mental illness or intellectual disability. Although he was likely to have been intoxicated, he was "aware of the wrongfulness of his actions and not of unsound mind", the court heard.

 

The prosecution, who described Teo as a "serial sexual predator", is seeking a sentence of 10 years' preventive detention.

 

District Judge Jasvender Kaur called for a preventive detention report. Teo was remanded and is expected to be sentenced on Nov 21.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/serial-predator-admits-to-sexually-assaulting-molesting-man-with-10905398

 

 

[Guest residents split]

Singapore residents split on whether 377A repeal would lead to breakdown of family unit: survey

Nicholas Yong

Assistant News Editor

Yahoo News Singapore26 November 2018

View photos

A participant poses next to a wedding studio during a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride parade to support same-sex marriage in Taipei, Taiwan on 27 October, 2018. (PHOTO: Reuters)

This is the first of four stories based on the responses by Singapore residents to questions in a Blackbox Research survey related to Section 377A of the Penal Code. 

Singapore residents are divided on whether a repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code would lead to a breakdown of the family unit, according to a survey conducted by market research consultancy Blackbox Research.

Section 377A criminalises sex between men but authorities in Singapore have said it is rarely enforced.

One of the questions posed by a recent survey commissioned by Yahoo News Singapore was: “Repealing Section 377A would lead to the breakdown of the family unit in Singapore. Do you agree?”

Of the 1,000 respondents, 36 per cent strongly agreed or agreed with the statement while some 28 per cent strongly disagreed or disagreed with it. The remaining 36 per cent of respondents were neutral on the issue.

By age group, fewer respondents aged 15-24 years old agreed with the statement, compared with those from the older age groups. Only 25 per cent from the age group strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, followed by 35 per cent who were neutral and 40 per cent who strongly disagreed or disagreed with it.

Among those aged 50 years and above, 41 per cent agreed that the removal of the law, first introduced during the British colonial era, would be detrimental to the Singapore family unit. About 33 per cent of the respondents in the age group were neutral on the statement and 26 per cent strongly disagreed or disagreed with it.

The respondents in the Blackbox poll, which was conducted from 12-19 October this year, are Singaporeans and permanent residents.

View photos

(INFOGRAPHIC: Blackbox Research)

The debate over Section 377A, introduced in Singapore in 1938, was reignited after the Supreme Court of India ruled on 6 September that consensual gay sex was not a crime in the country following a two-decade legal battle.

The landmark ruling stirred heated discussions between LGBT activists in Singapore, who argue for a repeal of the law, and those who are against such a move.

Veteran Singapore diplomat Tommy Koh waded into the debate when he encouraged Singapore’s LGBT community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A in a Facebook post.

Walter Woon and V K Rajah, both former Attorney-Generals (AG), have pointed out that Section 377A poses a constitutional problem given that the government had stated that the authorities will not proactively enforce the law. Woon said 377A sets a “dangerous precedent” whereby the political authorities are informing the public prosecutor – who is supposed to be independent – not to enforce some laws.

But current AG Lucien Wong said his office has discretion on whether to initiate proceedings for any offence under 377A. 

The views among the leaders of the different faiths are somewhat divided on the issue, with most taking a firm stance in urging Singapore to keep the law.

The president of Buddhist Fellowship (Singapore) Lim Phang Hong, had signed the petition to repeal Section 377A and written on Facebook in support of such a move.

On the other hand, religious bodies such as the National Council of Churches, Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (Pergas) and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore have strongly urged the authorities to retain the law in order to safeguard the traditional family unit.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest residents split reactions]

The reader comments are so good... just love to browse them...

•  

  

23 hours ago

I believe The Casino Control Act (Chapter 33A) introduced more than 8 years ago, has already broken down many families.

 

 

 

21 hours ago

Can the Yahoo conduct a separate survey to find out what is the purpose of marriage?
I understand that marriage is between a man and a woman is to become parents and raised a family.

 

 

 

16 hours ago

It would means the end of religion as we know it because they preach that marriage is between Man and Woman as GOD intended it to be.Repealing 377A would effectively create 5 official categories of sex orientation: Male, Female, Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual. Or maybe religious leaders in the near future could re-interpret their Holy Teachings as God intended sex to between living Human Beings regardless of their sexual preference.

 

 

 

6 hours ago

Just look at the recent history of UK :
1967 - Sexual offence Act is passed to decriminalize Homosex acts in Pte.
1972 - 1st Pride festival in London.
1994 - Gay Male age of consent lowers to 18.
2000 - Homosexuals allow in Armed forces.
2001 - Gay Male age of consent lowers to 16.
2002 - Same-sex couples granted rights to adopt children
2003 - Promotion of Homosexuality in schools
2004 - Civil Partnership granted for gay couples
2006 - Equality act passed business can't refuse serving gays (bake that cake you bigot)
2014 - Same-sex marriage is legal

All these because they repeal 377A.

 

 

 

20 hours ago

Family breakdown or not, 377 must stay! LGBT in Singapore, not NHFO! Go Cananda and spawn. Singapore already under populated. Don't need LGBT to adopt other kids to increase population. If you give birth of your own, then you are welcome

 

 

 

23 hours ago

Why no survey on public's opinion on elected presidency? These surveys are just propaganda tool.

 

 

 

15 hours ago

Marriage is meant to be the start of a meaningful and productive family. Repealing 377A opens the door to gay-marriage, which is a perversion and fake version of the true marriage. When a society has a tarnished view of Marriage then family is no longer meaningful and productive as it should be. Marriage, as long as it is heterosexual, is always a better choice for a better prospect to raise healthy and normal children. Some heterosexual couples may not have children but at the very least they gracefully uphold the image of a meaningful marriage that supports other marriage that goes further to become a larger family with children.

 

 

 

23 hours ago

The Bold challenge by the LGBT community across Asia is not likely and easy to be reckon with. The matter to start with is nothing new of sort. In Developed countries such entity exist or rather co exist with the greater community as a social norm, as acceptance never needed much to air their "differences" if any, such is maturity and consensus living under a Global Village. Herein they wanted to flaunt, to taunt and to teach the main stream individuals and families that they have to be accepted, respected and in fact enacted as 'law permitting' always challenging the people and even Authority. It ain't maturity, is a cult movement wanna be, and left unchecked warrant a backlash in the core value of a being, let alone family unity. LGBTs ARE made, given the right environment of choice and sexual orientation amid acceptance violation of basic rights, opening the Pandora door could only lead to the deterioration of a society, a state and even a country. Imagine a Country where majority of the population are LGBTs? To Be or not To Be? why can't let it be, as have been, given the voice of choice, as have always been, never loudly spoken and to taunt the value of the greater society amid that one's sexual orientation is best kept in the bedroom, no?

 

 

 

21 hours ago

It would appear that eventually this law will be repealed. This is because if you look at the 15~24 year olds, there are more supporting it. As time pass, the older generation will pass on and reduce those that are against. This is as predicted in the Bible.

 

 

 

6 hours ago

Man and Woman that's all. Not 60+ and counting different genders.
There are countless success stories of people coming back to being normal.
Some even had their manhood severe and return back to becoming a man.
There is never born that way. I agree that this is a fallen world and less than perfect and these people are indeed going through tough life growing up that shaped their identity. But to continue to feed their perception is wrong. Bringing them back to being a man and woman is right.

 

and these people are indeed going through tough life growing up that shaped their identity. But to continue to feed their perception is wrong. Bringing them back to being a man and woman is right.

 

 

 

20 hours ago

is this better ?? ..........

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/kelantan-man-who-married-11-year-old-denies-it-was-lust

PETALING JAYA • A 41-year-old Malaysian man who took an 11-year-old Thai girl as his wife has denied that it was an act of lust as he had wanted to marry her since she was seven.. Read more at straitstimes.com.

PETALING JAYA • A 41-year-old Malaysian man who took an 11-year-old Thai girl as his wife has denied that it was an act of lust as he had wanted to marry her since she was seven.. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

 

 

 

58 minutes ago

The national referendum which stated that they accept marriage between man and woman, was passed by 7 millions of voters, well above thee 4.9 millions threshold.

 

 

 

10 hours ago

377A doesn't split families but 38 Oxley does.

 

 

 

23 hours ago

https://www.yahoo.com/news/yahoo-news-explains-vatican-enough-address-sexual-abuse-church-152621968.html

The Vatican halted a plan by U.S. bishops to address the age-old sexual abuse issues plaguing the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vatican halted a plan by U.S. bishops to address the age-old sexual abuse issues plaguing the Roman Catholic Church.

www.yahoo.com

 

 

 

23 hours ago

You mean the survey consisted only of ONE question? Or, only report the best/most favorable result(s)? When one read a book, does one only read the final chapter or the last page and can gauge the full story, hor?

 

 

 

23 hours ago

Is there an increase in Pink doters in the population?

 

 

 

8 hours ago

Fake News.
Google other news that report that polls still shows that the majority still favor keeping 377A. About 73%

Lies. Yahoo has a liberal agenda, and reports bias news to pursue their own agenda.

 

 

 

23 hours ago

consenting adults in private will be allowed. -- its a crime, as with any gender like, in public, rape, underage, etc etc. -- same s marriage is not on the table as the process complicate lots of legal issues. -- for both sides, cant repeal but can amend.

 

 

 

9 hours ago

When 377a stay theres no family breakdown for sure.

 

 

 

13 minutes ago

There are many, many reasons to appeal or not. Therefore, it is just not about breaking up family unit or the law is not being enforced. By the book or the law, if it stay, it is telling every Singaporean such act is a crime. Thus, I ask myself, is this a crime?

 

 

 

21 hours ago

Yahoo is a powerful social media that provides answers to the difficulties and dilemmas faced in their daily lives instead of focusing on the narrow perspective that there must be acceptance of same gender relation and marriage.

 

 

 

4 hours ago

Yahoo article written by supporters of repeal 377A. Stop lying about being ;
50-50 split in opinion. It more like 90% wants law to stay

 

 

 

1 hour ago

All these surveys are rubbish, not reliable (骗吃）。 Should follow Taiwan to hold national referendum (公投）which was held together with mid-term election on 24 November. Over 7 millions of voters voted that they marriage only between man and woman. Taiwan is more objective, fair and democratic than Singapore to gather feedback from citizens.

 

 

 

21 hours ago

There is never a split, only the very minority is trying to make it a major issue.

 

 

 

10 hours ago

The question is very ambiguous - done on purpose? What is meant by "family unit"? A man, his doggie & his flying pigs living happily in a house can also be a "family unit". Recall just a couple weeks back, a doctor was caught substituting the HIV-blood of his partner with his own blood sample. Apparently that gay couple also intended to form a "family unit" in SG. Yahoo should be responsible to inform everyone if the said survey had established with its respondents what "family unit" meant in their survey. If it is a "TRADITIONAL family unit", where there is a father, a mother, their children, their dog/cat/flying pig, then the results to that question could be very different - and perhaps clearer.

 

 

 

21 hours ago

Can Yahoo seek possible solution from experts in the different professional fields to assist the unfortunate man or woman to live a normal life as natural as possible within the capabilities and capacities of this unique group of people?

 

 

 

21 hours ago

Can the Yahoo conduct a separate survey on how the family members can maintain the relationship with the children who are unfortunately does not live a life of a natural man or woman?

 

 

 

21 hours ago

aiya pinkies you want to same sex marriage go overseas if you really cant be straight. People can change. stop wasting your time la
how is children gonna react if they have no mother? Don't live in wonderland l, that's reserved for Alice.

 

 

 

6 hours ago

Its frightening that the younger ones are getting it wrong.

 

 

 

22 hours ago

Family break ups, HIV Aids, what else?

 

 

 

23 hours ago

https ://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-46233684?ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ocid=socialflow_facebook

Nathaniel Hall explains how he coped with learning he was HIV positive while he was still a child.

Nathaniel Hall explains how he coped with learning he was HIV positive while he was still a child.

www.bbc.com

 

 

 

22 hours ago

Gay's rights? o ya dude, then what? Lesbian's right, Heterosexual also want rights, the bisexual wants it, the transsexual wants it too and go on and on ... the the pedophiles claim rights, as they are sick in the mind... the list goes on, tell you what, whatever happens in Sg stay in the island ok, then all shall be cool, ain't my business, ain't my neighbor no? after all, a cool reminder ...do not get drunk and by the ally way lest not knowingly you get inserted , period!

 

 

 

18 hours ago

Dumb survey. What has straights to do with the crooked? Repealing it doesnt affect the straights because they are marriages between straights. Bit it will reduce the number of straights marriages in the future because many more would have become crooked (gays). Dont ask what will happen to the market butchers if you keep growing cabbages. Its a dumb question.

 

 

 

23 hours ago

Repealing 377A will turn me into a homosexual and destroy my lovely family? I oppose!! Cannot repeal plsss

 

 

 

6 hours ago

Whoever's writing this article is on a high dose weed mate!

 

 

 

23 hours ago

Follow Taiwanese to disallow this madness !

 

 

 

yesterday

I supposed those who think Section 377A is for FUN.

Just like that Lim Phang Hong(president of ....)

He can challenge the Authorities:-

Try letting a Gay "Screw" him in the Open(perhaps Dear Tommy Koh can help.)

Let's see if Action will be taken.

Don't talk when you are just a "Stupid" Mouth Piece for NO-ONE.

Phui....

 

 

 

2 hours ago

Just legalize it! Nobody's business what preference one might have!!!!!

 

 

 

23 hours ago

The first time Nathaniel Hall had sex, he contracted HIV. He was 16 years old and had only recently come out as gay. Fear, shame and self-loathing caused him to keep his diagnosis a secret from his family for the next 14 years. - BBC

 

 

 

yesterday

Repeal of 377A will only result in an increase of same sex intercourse IF homosexuals are NOT currently having same sex intercourse. Anyone naive enough to think there are actually homosexuals being detered by the existence of 377A?

 

 

 

22 hours ago

Once you allowed them to repeal, you will never get back the chance to re-instate it . period

 

 

 

4 hours ago

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

 

 

 

1 hour ago

After so long, still don't give up..person who did the survey must be a LGBT. Spore population will further decrease & more FT coming to take over..with increasing LGBT.

 

 

 

9 hours ago

Do not let Singapore become a Sodomy country. If Singapore becomes a LGBT Country, the punishment for Singapore might be sunk below sea level or fire will burn Singapore to ashes.

 

 

 

22 hours ago

Must be FT's stir sheets here.If not oppies then its pappies @Relax.....LoL

 

 

 

yesterday

Same sex making sex === HIV. And after Fing around it passes on. Its not matter of choice, is that you have no choice.
Which part of it you cant understand?

 

 

 

10 hours ago

Can human rights start
FIGHTING for RIGHTS of PADEPHILE Relationship
+ INCEST RELATIONSHIP ???

CANNOT CROSS THE RED LINE of BASIC VALUES
for the sake of SEX PERVERSION !!!

 

 

 

8 hours ago

Are they chickening out in IMPLEMENTING LAW FULLY 'cos
either themselves INDULGING in the SEX perversion or they have
members of their own families INDULGING in it ????

If so, it STINKS !!!

Even if NO, but still NOT IMPLEMENTING in FULL
means they are NOT ANCHOR on VALUES
that will TRULY keep SINGAPORE to
GROW and PROGESS for CENTURIES to come !!!

Just SHORT TERM outlook for their own political careers !!!

Either way, they are NOT WORTH the SALT to be LEADERS !!!

 

[Lux Iesous Rafael]

I have been hearing this thing about repealing 377A lately :

If you want to repeal 377A , you have to do long term volunteer work with organizations to help the weak and the poor of society and at the same time show your sexual orientation for who you are

 

You reap what you sow

[Guest discussion culture in SGP]

 

 

 

MP allegedly walks out of discussion with resident after being asked for her views on anti-gay law

 

 

A meeting with Nee Soon GRC Member of Parliament (MP) Lee Bee Wah last night turned awkward, according to an activist representing the Ready4Repeal movement.

Edward Foo, a volunteer of the group that wants the contentious Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code abolished, wrote about his experience on Facebook after he attempted to speak with Lee yesterday during a Meet The People Session in Yishun. He brought along with him a petition containing 859 names of residents in her constituency who signed their support to repeal the colonial-era ruling that criminalizes gay men.

But the MP, according to Foo, had no interest at all in hearing him out, choosing instead to leave instead of engaging in honest, open discussion.

The rejection

Foo, along with his close friends and another volunteer of the Ready4Repeal movement, had arrived at the session venue in Yishun, ready to speak to Lee about their views on Section 377A. To be fair to the MP, the matter was sprung on her as the group did not declare their intentions to her assistants, but knowing how sensitive the topic is, the group might not even get some face time with Lee if she knew what they were planning to say.

Nonetheless, the group managed to have a sit down with the MP, who was said to have shooed everyone except Foo away. According to him, Lee stated that she had an inkling of what he was there for as she had heard her fellow MPs mentioning similar cases.

When asked for her views on the ongoing debate about Section 377A, she abruptly left the room, wrote Foo. But not before stating: “I have other residents with real problems”. Which is a perturbing statement to make if Foo’s account is true — it implies that the discrimination, shame, and the official refusal to accept the LGBT community are no “real problems”.

The MP returned after fifteen minutes but allegedly refused to entertain Foo, “actively avoiding” his table and ignoring the calls made by him and her assistant. Eventually, he got her attention and tried to pass her the petition.

“She gestured her hand away and asked me to pass it to the volunteers instead,” noted Foo.

The MP has yet to respond to Foo’s post, which has since gone viral after he posted it last night.

A firm stance

As much as Ready4Repeal remains hopeful that its volunteers can make their voices heard by Singapore’s politicians, the reaction hasn’t been encouraging. Back in September, a petition urging for the law to be abolished signed by 44,650 citizens and permanent residents was submitted to the Home Affairs and Law Ministries, but an official spokesman informed The Straits Times that the government does not have any plans to repeal Section 377A.

The Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam himself has insisted that a majority of Singaporeans remained opposed to the removal of the controversial ruling, even after India abolished its own colonial-era ruling that outlaws consensual gay sex.

Religious groups here have also chimed in their opposition to the repeal, stating that decriminalizing consensual sex between men is a slippery slope that could lead to the utter devastation of Singapore.

While Foo’s attempt to bring the matter up to the MP was lauded, some pointed out that a Meet The People Session was not the right avenue to air his view.

 

 

 

[Guest guestki]

Foo , should have discuss about ping pong and table tennis with miss super power woman Bee Wah.

its her forte.

 

and also issues about Chong Pang hawkers not ablr to make a living and durian varieties also her forte.

 

Why approach that 村姑 about  difficult issues that requires brain power and difficult to take sides.

 

What does she know about issues about human rights, equal rights, and life fulfilment.

 

She belongs to the old school  of MPs .

Don't rock the boat and just follow LAW.

 

She is a  村姑，村姑，村姑 and will die a 村姑。

 

what excites her is what happens to Chong Pang village and the hawkers there.

 

To be fair, she has helped many families with low income and difficulties making ends meet. That is forte.

 

Human rights and rights to love is not her forte.

Foo has also put her in a difficult position.

 

Her constituents will ask her point blank, " you support the man to man poke backside is it ?" 

 

had she received and acknowledge the petition.

[Guest She is a wymon]

Lee Bee Wah is a malaysian who came from a kampong that worshipped lky. She also said she is not friends with any of the workers’ party. She studied engineering, worked in construction and doesn’t wear make up.

 

Obviously a born again heterosexual. Forget about her!

 

[Guest 脏子姨]

8 hours ago, Guest She is a wymon said:

Lee Bee Wah is a malaysian who came from a kampong that worshipped lky. She also said she is not friends with any of the workers’ party. She studied engineering, worked in construction and doesn’t wear make up.

 

Obviously a born again heterosexual. Forget about her!

 

 

LOL

[LeanMature]

No matter how hardcore, their minds will follow the direction of wind of politics. 

[Guest John]

23 hours ago, Guest guestki said:

Foo , should have discuss about ping pong and table tennis with miss super power woman Bee Wah.

its her forte.

 

and also issues about Chong Pang hawkers not ablr to make a living and durian varieties also her forte.

 

Why approach that 村姑 about  difficult issues that requires brain power and difficult to take sides.

 

What does she know about issues about human rights, equal rights, and life fulfilment.

 

She belongs to the old school  of MPs .

Don't rock the boat and just follow LAW.

 

She is a  村姑，村姑，村姑 and will die a 村姑。

 

what excites her is what happens to Chong Pang village and the hawkers there.

 

To be fair, she has helped many families with low income and difficulties making ends meet. That is forte.

 

Human rights and rights to love is not her forte.

Foo has also put her in a difficult position.

 

Her constituents will ask her point blank, " you support the man to man poke backside is it ?" 

 

had she received and acknowledge the petition.

Man to man poke backside, haha so funny 

[Cube3]

4 hours ago, Guest John said:

Man to man poke backside, haha so funny 

 

You mean you'd prefer to poke 村姑 ? Even funner!

[Guest Pergas rejects]

Pergas rejects repeal of Section 377A as it can cause 'worrying implications'

Published

Sep 20, 2018, 1:31 am SGT

 

SINGAPORE - The Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (Pergas) said that it does not support the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men.

 

This is because it can cause several "worrying implications", such as affecting the growth of Singapore's population, the association said.

In a statement on Wednesday evening (Sept 19), Pergas said: "This stand is based not only on religious grounds, but also due to our concern towards moral and social values that can affect the family institution as well as the fabric of society."

 

The statement follows renewed debate about the legislation, sparked by the Supreme Court of India's decision on Sept 6 to strike down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which made consensual gay sex a crime.

Pergas said that, according to syariah objectives, the purpose of the family unit is to give birth to the new generation and protect the existence of mankind. "To achieve these objectives, Islam emphasises on the formation of a family through legal marriage between a man and a woman," Pergas said.

It added that a repeal of Section 377A would affirm and normalise the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer lifestyle.

 

The association said this conflicts with the Government's policy of building strong family units to strengthen the fabric of society, and could cause confusion among the younger generation regarding "morality and moral values".

Pergas is of the opinion that if Section 377A "is to be repealed, it will further affect the population growth of this country, which we understand is a major concern of the Government", it added.

 

The association also cited a recent survey by Ipsos Public Affairs, an independent market research company, which showed that 12 per cent of Singapore residents opposed Section 377A. Pergas said this reflects the view that most Singaporeans still hold on to traditional family values, and a repeal of 377A would go against this view.

 

But despite the differences in opinion, members of society, especially the Muslim community, should "maintain good manners and act wisely" in discussing the issue, said Pergas.

The head of the Catholic Church in Singapore and the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) have also rejected repealing Section 377A.

 

Archbishop William Goh said in a letter on Tuesday that Section 377A should not be repealed under the present circumstances.

He said that "until and unless Parliament puts in place a formulation that more perfectly encapsulates the spirit of the law, guaranteeing the protection of the rights of the majority who favour the traditional family, and that no further demands be made to legalise same-sex unions, same-sex adoption of babies, surrogacy, or to criminalise those who do not support the homosexual lifestyle, I am of the view that 377A should not be repealed under the present circumstances".

The NCCS said it believes "that the homosexual lifestyle is not only harmful for individuals, but also for families and society as a whole".

Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam has said that any decision on Section 377A is "a matter for Parliament", adding that public opinion is "often relevant" during policymaking in Parliament.

 

The Government has made clear that an "uneasy compromise" to keep but not enforce Section 377A "remains the only viable position" for Singapore at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest What could happen if 377A]

What could happen if 377A is repealed? Lawyers weigh in

 

Salt&Light // September 13, 2018, 6:30 pm

 

The ruling by the Indian Supreme Court to strike down Section 377, thus legalising consensual gay sex in the country, has sparked off fresh debate over a similar rule here in Singapore.

On Monday, disc jockey Johnson Ong Ming filed a court challenge against Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law that criminalises acts of “gross indecency” between men.

Ong’s filing comes after online survey findings among 750 Singaporean Citizens and Permanent Residents found that 55% of Singaporeans support Section 377A, compared to 12% against the statute. 

Online petitions, both to keep and repeal 377A, were launched over the weekend, with the “keep” petition nearing 100,000 signatories at time of writing.

Several high-ranking government officials have also voiced their opinions on Section 377A.

Professor Tommy Koh, Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called for the LGBTQ community to challenge Section 377A, while Chief of Government Communications Janadas Devan wrote on Facebook that he personally hopes Section 377A will “disappear one day”.

Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam said that any decision on Section 377A will be for Parliament to decide.

One of the arguments raised in favour of keeping the statute is the possible ramifications of removing it. 

Salt&Light spoke to several law professionals to discuss possible legal, economic and social implications of repealing Section 377A.

Those interviewed are: Lee Ee Yang, the Managing Director of Covenant Chambers, Jonathan Cho, an Associate Director at Covenant Chambers, and a senior civil servant with extensive experience in the legal sector, whose name has been withheld.

How will a repeal affect family laws in Singapore?

LEE EE YANG: We could see a greater lobbying for homosexual couples to be accorded the same marital rights as heterosexual couples. From what we observe in other jurisdictions, decriminalising homosexual sex is the first step.

After that, the LGBTQ community may ask that the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex be equalised, then for anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation be enacted, and lastly for marriage and child adoption rights to be granted to same-sex couples.

“Repealing Section 377A means we will have to relook at the laws surrounding alimony, divorce, child adoption and children.”

 

We already see this in different jurisdictions, like the US, UK or Canada. For example, in most parts of the UK, gay marriages were legalised in 2013. Before that, since 2004, same-sex couples in the UK could enter into same-sex civil partnerships.

Repealing Section 377A means we will have to relook the laws surrounding alimony, divorce, child adoption and children.

JONATHAN CHO: We may also have to reconsider criminal provisions which involve marriage relationships. For instance, the recent Penal Code review proposed the lifting of marital immunity for rape, where a husband may potentially be prosecuted for raping his wife. Clearly these issues relating to marriage relationships are being revisited and reconsidered. If so, we may also need to consider the dynamics between different provisions (ie, whether fresh provisions need to be created or provisions removed), if homosexual relationships are considered marriage relationships in future. 

SENIOR CIVIL SERVANT: The current laws under Singapore’s Women’s Charter, which generally and traditionally favour the wife in terms of maintenance and interest in matrimonial property, may also need to be amended, as there will no longer be a clear definition of “wife” in a marriage.

The laws currently suggest that care and control of younger children in divorce cases should generally be under the care of the mother. This may have to be reconsidered as the definition of “mother” in a marriage could become unclear.

An example of other Penal Code provisions that may have to be changed would be Section 354 on the outrage of modesty, as existing case history would have to be re-evaluated.

Could the freedom of religious practice be curtailed?

LEE: In Singapore, Article 15(3a) of the Constitution states that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. Every major religion is allowed to regulate their own practices. Of course, it is subject to limitations. Religious groups can’t refuse to pay tax, for example.

“I am not so certain that religious leaders can be compelled to officiate a gay wedding if their beliefs don’t permit them to.”

 

But if it comes down to an issue such as officiating a gay wedding, I am not so certain that religious leaders can be compelled to perform one if their beliefs don’t permit them to. 

CIVIL SERVANT: The experience in some countries is that religious communication, whether verbal or written, that expresses or implies that homosexuality is wrong, could be considered hate speech and discriminatory.

In the American experience, this has led to frivolous court cases filed against florists, bakers and pastors who refuse to participate in gay weddings on the basis of their faith.

The choice for religious men and women to refuse to officiate homosexual weddings or unions could be removed because the basis of their refusal would be considered unlawful.

How might business practices, or the economy, be impacted?

LEE: If we look at the case of the Colorado baker who refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against him because of the state’s anti-discrimination law. So there was legislation that dealt with discrimination.

In that sense, just the repeal itself will not result in a similar case in Singapore. Anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation need to be enacted first. 

But this could be possible if there is legislation enacted after the repeal to regulate such practices.

CHO: In her 2007 speech in Parliament, Professor Thio Li-Ann mentioned some of the health risks involved in homosexual activities. As far as that is concerned, our healthcare system and infrastructures will have to consider how they are equipped to handle such risks.

CIVIL SERVANT: Apart from laws, some of the Singapore Government’s policies may have to be revisited. For example, male foreign spouses of Singapore men will also have to be considered for Permanent Resident status and eventually citizenship, like female foreign spouses of most Singaporean men.

Same-sex couples will be entitled to the same housing policies as heterosexual couples, so the rules there will need to be addressed. This will have implications on the property market.

Does the law set or reflect the moral standards of society?

LEE: Laws reflect the values of society. So one argument against the repeal is that you are sending a signal that this kind of conduct is okay. But the petition and surveys show that the majority of Singaporeans are still not comfortable with repealing Section 377A, and these views are represented in Parliament.

Petitions on their own cannot bring about change, but they are regarded by the Government as important in shaping Singapore’s legislation.

 

CHO: One of the things that Parliamentarians also look out for are areas of sharp rises in crime rates, or the proclivities of the common man.

For instance, the Penal Code review committee has proposed new offences to deal with voyeurism (ie, peeping Tom/upskirt video cases) amid a rise in such cases. But you don’t necessarily need to hear from the ground first before laws are reconsidered or enacted to bring about changes, although there is always public consultation. 

Such review committees are typically made up of judges, civil servants, people from the criminal bar, and perhaps even other professionals. Every review involves a thorough and robust process, which also includes hearing the voice of the public.

LEE: There is a vigorous mechanism behind every Penal Code review, and after that, they solicit feedback via public consultations, before reviewing the proposals again. However, for this round of the Penal Code review, the government has made it clear that Section 377A is not the subject of the review.

Are petitions really able to bring about changes? Not on their own, but they are regarded by Parliament as important in shaping Singapore’s legislation. In 2007, there were two petitions – one to repeal Section 377A, another to keep. Both were cited in the debates.

In 2014, there was a case arguing that Section 377A violates Article 9 and 12 of the Constitution, or the rights to equal protection under the law, and life and liberty. Is Section 377A inhumane?

LEE: The arguments from the LGBTQ camp is that homosexual acts are not immoral because they are not causing any harm. Their activity is done in private. But we have to ask ourselves: What is the definition of harm?

For example, in the case of pornography, someone watching pornography in the privacy of his or her own bedroom can say that any effects of it will be on him or herself.

“Society has to ask itself whether it is ready to welcome changes if Section 377A is repealed.”

 

If they are not causing any harm to anybody else, why do we stop the distribution of obscene materials? Because we take a broader concept of harm. If I allow people to buy and sell pornography freely, my children will inevitably be vulnerable to greater exposure. 

CHO: On the point of harm and the issue of pornographic materials being distributed, I think most would agree that the proliferation of such materials will have an impact on children as they grow up – what they perceive as right and wrong, as you are exposed to certain kinds of acts that you think are normal. This, in turn, could lead to a rise in sexual offences of a specific nature. 

LEE: So if homosexuality becomes mainstream, our educational curriculum will have to be adjusted to cater to such a value-system. Our healthcare system will also be affected. Society has to ask itself whether it is ready to welcome these changes.

If very few people have been prosecuted because of Section 377A, why is this law so significant?

LEE: Section 377A is a signpost. It spells out society’s norms and values. As some key ministerial figures have stated before, keeping it shows that Singapore is still a traditional, conservative society with Asian values.

CIVIL SERVANT: Section 377A has the effect of dividing society according to their views on homosexuality.

Right now, keeping it is in keeping with the apparent views of the majority.

Removing it will only lead to more infighting – society will be further polarised.

Where there is division in the community, the safety and social infrastructure that we know will be dissipated. 

[SuperSentai]

On 12/15/2018 at 1:32 PM, Guest What could happen if 377A said:

What could happen if 377A is repealed? Lawyers weigh in

Does the law set or reflect the moral standards of society?

LEE: Laws reflect the values of society. So one argument against the repeal is that you are sending a signal that this kind of conduct is okay. But the petition and surveys show that the majority of Singaporeans are still not comfortable with repealing Section 377A, and these views are represented in Parliament.

Petitions on their own cannot bring about change, but they are regarded by the Government as important in shaping Singapore’s legislation.

 

CHO: One of the things that Parliamentarians also look out for are areas of sharp rises in crime rates, or the proclivities of the common man.

For instance, the Penal Code review committee has proposed new offences to deal with voyeurism (ie, peeping Tom/upskirt video cases) amid a rise in such cases. But you don’t necessarily need to hear from the ground first before laws are reconsidered or enacted to bring about changes, although there is always public consultation. 

Such review committees are typically made up of judges, civil servants, people from the criminal bar, and perhaps even other professionals. Every review involves a thorough and robust process, which also includes hearing the voice of the public.

LEE: There is a vigorous mechanism behind every Penal Code review, and after that, they solicit feedback via public consultations, before reviewing the proposals again. However, for this round of the Penal Code review, the government has made it clear that Section 377A is not the subject of the review.

Are petitions really able to bring about changes? Not on their own, but they are regarded by Parliament as important in shaping Singapore’s legislation. In 2007, there were two petitions – one to repeal Section 377A, another to keep. Both were cited in the debates.

In 2014, there was a case arguing that Section 377A violates Article 9 and 12 of the Constitution, or the rights to equal protection under the law, and life and liberty. Is Section 377A inhumane?

LEE: The arguments from the LGBTQ camp is that homosexual acts are not immoral because they are not causing any harm. Their activity is done in private. But we have to ask ourselves: What is the definition of harm?

For example, in the case of pornography, someone watching pornography in the privacy of his or her own bedroom can say that any effects of it will be on him or herself.

“Society has to ask itself whether it is ready to welcome changes if Section 377A is repealed.”

 

If they are not causing any harm to anybody else, why do we stop the distribution of obscene materials? Because we take a broader concept of harm. If I allow people to buy and sell pornography freely, my children will inevitably be vulnerable to greater exposure. 

CHO: On the point of harm and the issue of pornographic materials being distributed, I think most would agree that the proliferation of such materials will have an impact on children as they grow up – what they perceive as right and wrong, as you are exposed to certain kinds of acts that you think are normal. This, in turn, could lead to a rise in sexual offences of a specific nature. 

LEE: So if homosexuality becomes mainstream, our educational curriculum will have to be adjusted to cater to such a value-system. Our healthcare system will also be affected. Society has to ask itself whether it is ready to welcome these changes.

If very few people have been prosecuted because of Section 377A, why is this law so significant?

LEE: Section 377A is a signpost. It spells out society’s norms and values. As some key ministerial figures have stated before, keeping it shows that Singapore is still a traditional, conservative society with Asian values.

CIVIL SERVANT: Section 377A has the effect of dividing society according to their views on homosexuality.

Right now, keeping it is in keeping with the apparent views of the majority.

Removing it will only lead to more infighting – society will be further polarised.

Where there is division in the community, the safety and social infrastructure that we know will be dissipated. 

 

I guess this means that since adultery is legal, it means our society is OK with it, and that adultery is in line with our society’s norms and values? And also, adultery does not cause harm to anyone since it is legal, although it tears a family apart? I like their blind reasoning.

[Guest guest]

1 hour ago, SuperSentai said:

 

I guess this means that since adultery is legal, it means our society is OK with it, and that adultery is in line with our society’s norms and values? And also, adultery does not cause harm to anyone since it is legal, although it tears a family apart? I like their blind reasoning.

 

Well the answer   is , Singapore has the women's charter to protect them and their rights as wives and daughters,

 

it is not that Adultery is approved or legal, but the thought is that it will take up too much of  police  time to enforce what is essentially a personal moral weakness, women rights are protected under womens' charter, So   you need to read up and go to wikipedia Singapore women's charter . to increase your knowledge.

[Guest Monotheistic Idolatry]

12 hours ago, SuperSentai said:

 

I guess this means that since adultery is legal, it means our society is OK with it, and that adultery is in line with our society’s norms and values? And also, adultery does not cause harm to anyone since it is legal, although it tears a family apart? I like their blind reasoning.

They are a christian website, so being biased, dishonest, misguided, malignant, intolerant and hateful is their forte.

 

They think they are the "salt of the earth that season its people", light of the world that makes people see the truth.

 

They being arrogant, proud and not at all bashful in saying that says a lot about them already. Empty vessels make the most noise!

 

 

[Guest Monotheism Idolatry]

Silly evangelical fear mongering preachy websites. Their empty rhetoric exposes their hollowness in content. Most of the time they just shoot their mouths off with careless thinking and end up shooting their own feet. Salt and light indeed. Their hatred blinded them to the truth, seasoning the world with misinformation and suffering. Clearly a cult!

[Guest okay]

LGBT rights advocate files case against Attorney-General, stating Section 377A of Penal Code is void

Published

4 hours ago

 

SINGAPORE - An LGBT rights advocate has filed a case against the Attorney-General, stating that Section 377A of the Penal Code - which criminalises sex between men - is "inconsistent" with portions of Singapore's Constitution, and "is therefore void".

Mr Choong Chee Hong, better known as Bryan Choong, filed it at the Supreme Court in November last year.

Mr Choong, 41, is the former executive director of Oogachaga, a non-profit organisation working with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

 

According to court documents, Mr Choong stated that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution, which states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law."

The two other portions deemed "inconsistent" are: Article 12, stating that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to its equal protection; and Article 14, which states that every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Article 14 also states that all citizens of Singapore "have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms" and have the "right to form associations".

 

Mr Choong, who declined to be interviewed, is represented by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal from Cavenagh Law, as well as a team from Peter Low and Choo law firm.

They are lawyers Remy Choo Zheng Xi, Priscilla Chia Wen Qi and Wong Thai Yong.

Responding to queries from The Straits Times, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) said it has received the papers and is studying them.

The AGC spokesman added: "We are unable to comment further as the matter is now before the courts."

 

On Sept 10 last year, a disc jockey also filed a court challenge against Section 377A arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

Mr Johnson Ong Ming, then 43, who goes by the stage name DJ Big Kid, filed his challenge four days after India's Supreme Court struck down a similar law.

That decision sparked a renewed debate on Section 377A in Singapore, with camps on both sides starting petitions either to keep the law or repeal it.

In the wake of the Indian decision, Professor Tommy Koh, Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also suggested that a new attempt be made to challenge Section 377A in the courts.

 

A legal challenge to strike down Section 377A failed in 2014, when the highest court in Singapore rejected that the provision was unconstitutional.

Gay couple Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee as well as Mr Tan Eng Hong had then argued that the provision was discriminatory.

Mr Choong and Mr Ong's cases are still pending.

 

 

[Guest guest]

58 minutes ago, Guest okay said:

LGBT rights advocate files case against Attorney-General, stating Section 377A of Penal Code is void

Published

4 hours ago

 

SINGAPORE - An LGBT rights advocate has filed a case against the Attorney-General, stating that Section 377A of the Penal Code - which criminalises sex between men - is "inconsistent" with portions of Singapore's Constitution, and "is therefore void".

Mr Choong Chee Hong, better known as Bryan Choong, filed it at the Supreme Court in November last year.

Mr Choong, 41, is the former executive director of Oogachaga, a non-profit organisation working with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

 

According to court documents, Mr Choong stated that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution, which states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law."

The two other portions deemed "inconsistent" are: Article 12, stating that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to its equal protection; and Article 14, which states that every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Article 14 also states that all citizens of Singapore "have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms" and have the "right to form associations".

 

Mr Choong, who declined to be interviewed, is represented by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal from Cavenagh Law, as well as a team from Peter Low and Choo law firm.

They are lawyers Remy Choo Zheng Xi, Priscilla Chia Wen Qi and Wong Thai Yong.

Responding to queries from The Straits Times, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) said it has received the papers and is studying them.

The AGC spokesman added: "We are unable to comment further as the matter is now before the courts."

 

On Sept 10 last year, a disc jockey also filed a court challenge against Section 377A arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

Mr Johnson Ong Ming, then 43, who goes by the stage name DJ Big Kid, filed his challenge four days after India's Supreme Court struck down a similar law.

That decision sparked a renewed debate on Section 377A in Singapore, with camps on both sides starting petitions either to keep the law or repeal it.

In the wake of the Indian decision, Professor Tommy Koh, Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also suggested that a new attempt be made to challenge Section 377A in the courts.

 

A legal challenge to strike down Section 377A failed in 2014, when the highest court in Singapore rejected that the provision was unconstitutional.

Gay couple Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee as well as Mr Tan Eng Hong had then argued that the provision was discriminatory.

Mr Choong and Mr Ong's cases are still pending.

 

 

 

Wow, this is news, 

 

so daring these brave ones, 

 

I hope there.is progress

 

[Guest okay]

 

I feared it died off already...  I mean the discussion about abolishing 377A

 

Big applause for such guys to step out and challenge.

 

We need more penguins like this....

[Fit4Masc]

Huge respect to those who took up the challenge.

[Guest Believe or not]

Hold your horses before starting a war of words against his stance.

WP chairman, MP Pritam Singh, not only asked 3 questions but also gave 5 ways moving forward.

What do you guys think about the paradigm he put up to support his stance? What are some things there that you fundamentally agree with or not quite agree with?

I feel overall some reasonable points were covered.

*Please be kind to each other and avoid making this into an emotionally-charged thread. Thanks*

[Guest Believe or not]

https://mothership.sg/2019/04/workers-party-pritam-singh-377a-repeal-lgbt/

[Guest Guest]

Haha...WP is against gays. Lets see if the other opposition support gays or not..SDP, do not need to ask, they do opposite of whatever PAP is doing. Tean Lin, Tan Cheng Bok, approve of M2M sex or not?

[Guest Gay]

My opinion.... until society progresses.... dont ask... dont tell... dont discriminate...

[Guest Priorities]

I think there are so many more pressing issues that needs to be tackled, this will probably take a back seat.

[Guest Guest]

3 minutes ago, Guest Priorities said:

I think there are so many more pressing issues that needs to be tackled, this will probably take a back seat.

Omg!! Typical pap supporter! So many more pressing issues? Whats more important than our identity and dignity????

[auscent]

Its not just about us.

 

Its about collective dignity given to àll community members: special needs students, caretakers with no income, gay ppl, foreign workers. Once u tackle a discriminatory law against 1 group, u send a signal that all groups need to be respected on equal terms.

 

[Guest Priorities]

46 minutes ago, Guest Guest said:

Omg!! Typical pap supporter! So many more pressing issues? Whats more important than our identity and dignity????

 

Yes there are more pressing bread and butter issues. Only myopic shit for brain losers like you label everyone as pap supporters.

[Guest Guest]

2 hours ago, Guest Priorities said:

 

Yes there are more pressing bread and butter issues. Only myopic shit for brain losers like you label everyone as pap supporters.

 

This is a different Guest from the one above, and I agree with Guest Priorities. There are more important issues than sexuality matters for the country to manage now. Whether the party is pro-gay or anti-gay should not be a concern for whom we should be voting for. In fact, if we fall into the trap set by the pro-PAP supporters and get into this argument, and the political parties start taking the sides of the LGBTs, they will lose the majority votes and thus the entire war, even if they win this small battle for LGBTs. The smart thing for the political parties to do for now, is to take a Live-and-Let-Live approach on this matter. If you do not have the power to keep the boat afloat, then do not rock the boat at this moment of time with this issue. Because if the boat is to tilt, it will tilt towards the most conservative party, which is the very one leading down the country down this current path of regression due to their lack of ideas of how to bring the nation forward because of their extreme conservative nature.   

[Guest Really?]

Why a party supporting 377a repeal will cause voters to stop voting for it? 377a support is the be-all and end-all indicator of a party’s capability to do good for the country?

 

This country’s citizens that myopic?

[Guest Guest]

Opposition supporters goalpost change? Lol. WP oppose man sex with man. 

[Steve5380]

"Pritam said the moral courage required to address 377a is not in reveling in the glory of taking absolute stances on what we believe is right, but in lowering ourselves, swallowing our pride and listening to another."

 

Let's see how this applies to other issues, for example, to Brunei, to Hitler's extermination of Jews:

 

"The moral courage required to address the cutting of hands and the killing people by stoning and crucifixion is not in reveling in the "glory of taking absolute stances on what we believe is right" but in "lowering ourselves, swallowing our pride and listening to another".

 

"The moral courage required to address the Holocaust is not in reveling in the "glory of defending what we believe is right" but in lowering ourselves (?), swallowing our pride (?) and listening to another"

 

This Pritam sounds like a coward dirty politician. He will not do what is right, but lower himself and disregard his conscience so that he has a higher chance to win the election.  So he is a boneless wishy-washy good-for-nothing politician that only cares for perpetuating the status quo, and has the nerve to extract some pseudo-moral out of that with polished words.  He probably will also lower himself and swallow his pride if he gets offered sufficient money for anything that money can buy.

[Steve5380]

21 hours ago, Guest Believe or not said:

 

Hold your horses before starting a war of words against his stance.

 

 

How should you respond to the war of words this Pritam waged against repealing 377a?

.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Steve5380

[Alponsu]

I think the only party I can remember which supports 377A's repeal is Reform Party?

[LeanMature]

Repealing or not repealing is not the only consideration when cone to voting for any party.

[gsky]

 

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/377a-will-be-around-some-time-will-not-inhibit-how-spore-attracts-tech-talent-pm-lee

 

377A will be around ‘for some time’, will not inhibit how S’pore attracts tech talent: PM Lee

By NG JUN SEN

 

Mediacorp

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong taking questions from the audience after his speech at the Smart Nation Summit on Wednesday, June 26, 2019.

 

SINGAPORE — Section 377A of the Penal Code — the law that criminalises sex between men — will be around for some time, but this will not hinder Singapore's efforts to attract tech talent, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in response to a question on Wednesday (June 26).

The session, which was held at the Marina Bay Sands, also saw Mr Lee tackling audience questions that ranged from Singapore’s digital economy to his favourite durian.

On the issue of inclusiveness, Mr Lee said that Singapore has been open to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

He was answering an unidentified audience member at the Smart Nation Summit, who had asked about how the country’s regulations can be made more diverse to attract tech talent, including those with other sexual orientations.

The session, which was held at the Marina Bay Sands, also saw Mr Lee tackling audience questions that ranged from Singapore’s digital economy to his favourite durian.

On the issue of inclusiveness, Mr Lee said that Singapore has been open to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

“You know our rules in Singapore. Whatever your sexual orientation, you are welcome to come and work in Singapore,” he said.

“But this has not inhibited people from living, and has not stopped Pink Dot from having a gathering every year.

“It is the way this society is: We are not like San Francisco, neither are we like some countries in the Middle East. (We are) something in between, it is the way the society is.”

Such a “framework” would not hinder the technology scene here, added Mr Lee. The Pink Dot event is set to take place on Saturday.

The question of attracting tech talent to spur the growth of the digital economy surfaced at several points in the session. Mr Kevin Aluwi, co-founder of ride-matching firm Gojek, had asked Mr Lee about the need for more engineering talent in Singapore as his company has seen demand for these people outstripping supply.

Mr Lee said in response that Singapore has been producing more tech talent as the education system has, by design, produced a disproportionate number of engineers due to its focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

While the response from students has varied from time to time, he said students have noticed that the IT market is now heating up. As a result, the number and quality of students going to study IT has also gone up sharply, he said.

“When there is a shortage, we will increase the capacity. But the flow will grow. We don’t only have to depend on our own, we can bring in people from overseas, and we welcome those coming from abroad and also our locals who are working overseas to come back,” he said.

...........

 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by gsky

[Guest Politics of lies]

17 minutes ago, gsky said:

 

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/377a-will-be-around-some-time-will-not-inhibit-how-spore-attracts-tech-talent-pm-lee

 

377A will be around ‘for some time’, will not inhibit how S’pore attracts tech talent: PM Lee

By NG JUN SEN

 

On the issue of inclusiveness, Mr Lee said that Singapore has been open to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

 

“It is the way this society is: We are not like San Francisco, neither are we like some countries in the Middle East. (We are) something in between, it is the way the society is.”

Such a “framework” would not hinder the technology scene here, added Mr Lee.
 

I would have agreed with him if there is no bigots, like wearing white campaign to spew hate speech or banning pinkot from putting up banners in shopping mall . No point of attracting IT talents when you also import another group of religious bigots into our society and defended them with S377A against our innocent people.

[LeanMature]

"For some time" means there will come a time, but don't know when. 

[Guest around for long time]

"377A will be around ‘for some time’, "

 

Probably he won't be around for a long time anymore... but that's another story.

 

Now, if a very conservative state like Bhutan abolishes criminalisation of gays, Singapore intends to follow the route of Brunei and keep the criminalisation?

You really want to stick in a list of countries  that criminalises gays and perpetuates discrimination?

 

Probably, there is still that sort of arrogance, that he thinks Singapore is an important world center and is sufficient attractive for high profilers to be interested to work here.

But never forget, the world is moving fast...

What was today, can be quickly outdated tomorrow...

What message are you telling the world?

 

If he praises "Pink dot" so much, then I think the PM should be the Guest speaker for Pink Dot.

 

 

 

[Guest Sighhhhhh]

20 minutes ago, Guest around for long time said:

"377A will be around ‘for some time’, "

If he praises "Pink dot" so much, then I think the PM should be the Guest speaker for Pink Dot.

 

He won't.  It will defeat his purpose of trying to win the religious voters.  S377A would have long gone down the drain if that guy is strong-willed and truly believe in inclusivity.  Unfortunately, we are one of his game card, like the reserved presidency. 

[mate69]

It's all about the votes, of course.

[tomcat]

377A is just a symbol of what the govt stands by. It is a reactive symbol too - because its power is dependent on those who believe or uphold it.

 

to be honest, no men will be persecuted under this act - we are more or less allowed to do what we want behind closed doors, same as straight people. so this archaic law  is just one of the last teeth hanging in the mouth of the old guards. once everyone is on board, the act, and what it means as a stance, will be powerless and then the govt will drop it without fanfare.

 

so rather than direct the energy to the govt that won't change, it's more fruitful to be upstanding and live honest lives to show the ones around us. how long this act stays depends on how soon gays can be accepted. and for us to be accepted, more diversity and variety of our community needs to come out - not just the blatantly gay, but every hue. even those who don't identify themselves as part of the community needs to come out - this is the power an "ally" brings to the equation.

there is no gay agenda - there are only human interactions. as long as we act and behave righteously, what do we need to hide? most gay men need to get over themselves and understand that it is scary to be exposed or come out. no one can take that fear away, so be afraid but do it anyway.

 

 

[FattChoy]

6 hours ago, gsky said:

 

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/377a-will-be-around-some-time-will-not-inhibit-how-spore-attracts-tech-talent-pm-lee

 

 

As long as there's no one in Sg who believes that this law is infringing on their rights as per enshrined in the Constitution, it'll continue to be the same.  

 

You need pressure from inside and outside before something successfully changes.  Look at Tw and Hkg.  Anyway, good luck with that.  In the meantime it's illegal to stick your kukubird into some other man's hole and vise versa. 

[Guest Invisible Trap]

2 hours ago, tomcat said:

so rather than direct the energy to the govt that won't change, it's more fruitful to be upstanding and live honest lives to show the ones around us. 

 

 

Gov't won't change doesn't mean we should not exert more pressure.  Look at Hong Kong. That Carrie Lam was too self-serving and refused to change her stance until  a quarter of HK population  exerted pressure on her to come out of her fox hole to apologise to the public.      That S377A is like a pit,  covering it up with filmsy sheet doesn't mean it is not there.  Why not just seal it with concrete, once and for all, to avoid the danger of it being used by future govt to trap the LGBTQ.  Don't be so myopic to accept what the current govt said as gospel. A trap is still a trap and don't be fooled by its invisibility for now.

[tomcat]

54 minutes ago, Guest Invisible Trap said:

Gov't won't change doesn't mean we should not exert more pressure.  Look at Hong Kong. That Carrie Lam was too self-serving and refused to change her stance until  a quarter of HK population  exerted pressure on her to come out of her fox hole to apologise to the public.      That S377A is like a pit,  covering it up with filmsy sheet doesn't mean it is not there.  Why not just seal it with concrete, once and for all, to avoid the danger of it being used by future govt to trap the LGBTQ.  Don't be so myopic to accept what the current govt said as gospel. A trap is still a trap and don't be fooled by its invisibility for now.

sorry but forced change is not true change. soon another player will come to do what she did. 

 

true change is when all is on the same page, that happened once a long time ago in singapore - so there is a precedent.

 

but whether we can put aside our differences and just be better human beings to each other, will be the measure of whether it can happen or not.

 

gay guys are so bitchy, even if they are not effeminate. why? cos being mean is equivalent to being tough. why is that important?

 

because growing up, how many of y'all kena called pondan, bapok, ah gua, fag, softie. we all grow out from collective trauma.

 

not many ppl realise, so how can you even start to accept yourself when our background OS is still programmed to lash out?

if we are all happy, and "gay" as our namesake, blowingwind as a forum wont even exist. lonely ppl, sad ppl, confused ppl.

too much truth for some to handle, sometimes i say it out get a lot of hat. but at times, it needs to be said, haha.

i'm not saying im better or worse, but this is the community i am a part of, and I accept it.

 

acceptance is the first step of change. can you accept?