Jump to content
Male HQ

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


groyn88

Recommended Posts

On 6/27/2019 at 5:02 AM, tomcat said:


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?

 

 

Pacifism is in conflict with reality.   There is no guarantee that "all is on the same page" will happen. 

We see from history that most progress has come through conflict, fights,  some more passive than others.

In biblical times,  homosexuals "deserved death".  Thousands of years since, society has not yet "got on the same page" about gays.

and this is why you have 377A... still!

 

But 50 years ago, a group of bitchy gay guys put up a fight at Stonewall Inn, N.Y.   And in a very short time,  we gays have reached equality with straights in marriage and other civil rights.  THE CONFLICT was the catalyst that changed the awareness of the US population, which now supports same-sex marriage by majority.

 

Gandhi put up a passive fight that got The British Empire out of India.  And collaterally out of your country too.  He didn't wait that the British agreed to leave on their own.

And America threw out the British in the fight for independence.  Washington didn't wait for them to decide to leave.

The American Civil War lead to the abolishment of slavery.  The slave owners didn't release them by themselves.

Martin Luther King didn't wait for Alabama to end segregation.  He fought for it in the civil rights movement.

And the list can continue...

 

Hopefully you realize the importance of being tough. This is not the same as being mean. :thumb:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

 

 

But 50 years ago, a group of bitchy gay guys put up a fight at Stonewall Inn, N.Y.   And in a very short time,  we gays have reached equality with straights in marriage and other civil rights.  THE CONFLICT was the catalyst that changed the awareness of the US population, which now supports same-sex marriage by majority.

 

 

 

I m curious.

 

Is there totally no stigma for being a gay in US?

 

Can a gay be totally at ease and be completely accepted by the majority?

 

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

18 minutes ago, fab said:

 

I m curious.

 

Is there totally no stigma for being a gay in US?

 

Can a gay be totally at ease and be completely accepted by the majority?

 

 

As we know, there is a wide variety of people in the US.   Today a 63% majority supports same-sex marriage, and considers it morally acceptable.

 

We gays can be at ease and be accepted by the majority.  But "totally" and "completely" are nearly impossible to guarantee.

The majority of the population also accepts and does not discriminate against Blacks. But serious racial problems persist.

 

Here is a chart that illustrates the progress in gay acceptance:

 

k_zvsnecteytriphifwwkq.png.caec433a5c29d0a98da436a007738d54.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fab said:

 

I m curious.

 

Is there totally no stigma for being a gay in US?

 

Can a gay be totally at ease and be completely accepted by the majority?

 

 

 

In the major cities like New York, San Francisco etc. being gay is norm. Pretty much anyone living in those cities will have encountered or know someone who is gay. While being gay may be an issue are more on the conservative and rural places, particularly in the South. Most coastal states, and parts of the Central and Mid-West are more progressive. Hence less stigma to being openly gay. However, even in places where I used to think are more conservative in the South, I was pleasantly surprised when I visited, to find them very much open. However, those trips, I stayed within the major cities like Houston, Dallas, Louisville, etc. where people are more open and accepting. 

 

I work in a pretty conservative industry, but everyone knows I am gay. I never felt the need to hide who I am. Even when we have clients from  the Middle East, or China, etc. my sexuality was never brought up as an issue, even when it was raised. My company's senior partners value me to what I bring to the table at work, not the gender of the person I fuck. 

 

377A will be around as long as the government decides to do nothing about it. While it is true that the law was never used against a citizen, its existence legitimizes that gay sex is a criminal act. Like it or not, there is a trickle down effect that impact the lives of gay men, or those who are questioning. 

 

 

Edited by doncoin

Love. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doncoin said:

 

377A will be around as long as the government decides to do nothing about it. While it is true that the law was never used against a citizen, its existence legitimizes that gay sex is a criminal act. Like it or not, there is a trickle down effect that impact the lives of gay men, or those who are questioning. 

 

[While it is true that the law was never used against a citizen], 

 

This law was used several times, the last time was in 2010. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

 

On 24 September 2010, criminal lawyer M. Ravi filed an application in the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting adult male in a locked cubicle of a public toilet.

 

What the Minister said in Parliament is that they will "not pro-actively enforce it".  Meaning it is still enforceable..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gsky said:

 

[While it is true that the law was never used against a citizen], 

 

This law was used several times, the last time was in 2010. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

 

On 24 September 2010, criminal lawyer M. Ravi filed an application in the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting adult male in a locked cubicle of a public toilet.

 

What the Minister said in Parliament is that they will "not pro-actively enforce it".  Meaning it is still enforceable..

 

 

 

Thank you for correcting me. Good to know. Even more important that the 377a is abolished. 

Love. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

 

Pacifism is in conflict with reality.   There is no guarantee that "all is on the same page" will happen. 

We see from history that most progress has come through conflict, fights,  some more passive than others.

In biblical times,  homosexuals "deserved death".  Thousands of years since, society has not yet "got on the same page" about gays.

and this is why you have 377A... still!

 

But 50 years ago, a group of bitchy gay guys put up a fight at Stonewall Inn, N.Y.   And in a very short time,  we gays have reached equality with straights in marriage and other civil rights.  THE CONFLICT was the catalyst that changed the awareness of the US population, which now supports same-sex marriage by majority.

 

Gandhi put up a passive fight that got The British Empire out of India.  And collaterally out of your country too.  He didn't wait that the British agreed to leave on their own.

And America threw out the British in the fight for independence.  Washington didn't wait for them to decide to leave.

The American Civil War lead to the abolishment of slavery.  The slave owners didn't release them by themselves.

Martin Luther King didn't wait for Alabama to end segregation.  He fought for it in the civil rights movement.

And the list can continue...

 

Hopefully you realize the importance of being tough. This is not the same as being mean. :thumb:

 


Thanks for sharing, Steve. But once again, a different context entirely. Singaporean problems cannot be solved by applying an American filter. 

I'm not sure if you saw Crazy Rich Asians, but that is also a story that revolves around Injustice, discrimination, misunderstanding, misuse of power, status etc. It has more than enough parallels to being gay and an outsider.

 

The way it plays out for Asians, is very very different. The moment you declare war and lose your cool in the eyes of your opponent, it means you have already lost, because you have resort to uncouthness and most probably violent ways. Within Chinese history, you will also be familiar with the mental chess game that is required. Most of the people who depicted as warmongers are shown as uncouth, because honestly, it simply means you are not in control and not in the right state of mind.

 

And that takes away from the real purpose of the "conflict" to begin with - It is not to obliterate or remove straight people but it's so that gay people have a better standing amongst them and larger society. 

 

As you saw in the film, which mirrors Asian societies very much, ( i am mixed race and we despise public outbursts on both ethnic sides) Peace and Understanding was ultimately gotten, but it was not through force. It was done through a solid show of character, belief, perseverance and also wit.

This is a threadline that exemplified Asian values, and within Singapore especially, which has one foot in Asianess and the other in global exposure, this is the one true way to integrate. When society actually looks at us as a value, instead of a demerit. Like in the film, they do not need to like us, or agree to what we do, but they have to respect us. 

In the past weekend, Lee Hsien Yang attended Pink Dot with his son and partner. Also in attendance, was his wife, and the in-laws. That shows 4 individuals of the pioneer generation who are 1. willing to look beyond their old-generation programming, 2. are brave enough to look others in the eyes, and say, Yes my son is gay, and he is happily married. So what?

No permission or conflict needed. 

🌑🌒🌓🌔🌕🌖🌗🌘🌑

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, tomcat said:


Thanks for sharing, Steve. But once again, a different context entirely. Singaporean problems cannot be solved by applying an American filter. 
---
No permission or conflict needed. 

 

I don't apply an American filter.  I am not a native American.  I was responding to your statement that forced change is not true change, but it needs to wait until all are on the same page.   It is a reality that some change calls for compulsion, force.  The French Revolution was a positive change and it did cost some noblemen their heads.

 

Why should Asian values be different from values elsewhere?  Are Asians not members of the human race like we all are?  Aren't Asian children disciplined by their parents, by force sometimes,  or they wait until they are "on the same page"? 

 

Your Pink Dot celebration went fine without permission nor conflict.  But this was helped indirectly by the conflict years ago in Stonewall Inn, which saved you from conflict.  Similarly, you didn't have to invent the cellphone, the computer, the car, the electricity,  since the struggle to procure these technological wonders was done elsewhere.  Similarly, you didn't have to fight for liberation from the Japanese at the time since they were defeated by the Allies, and the short return to British government ended when its colonialism had to end.

 

So you didn't have to fight for most of the benefits you may consider being earned by patience to wait until all are on the same page.  Maybe this is why your idea of Asian values is to wait for benefits to arrive by themselves? 

.

Edited by Steve5380
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

 

I don't apply an American filter.  I am not a native American.  I was responding to your statement that forced change is not true change, but it needs to wait until all are on the same page.   It is a reality that some change calls for compulsion, force.  The French Revolution was a positive change and it did cost some noblemen their heads.

 

Why should Asian values be different from values elsewhere?  Are Asians not members of the human race like we all are?  Aren't Asian children disciplined by their parents, by force sometimes,  or they wait until they are "on the same page"? 

 

Your Pink Dot celebration went fine without permission nor conflict.  But this was helped indirectly by the conflict years ago in Stonewall Inn, which saved you from conflict.  Similarly, you didn't have to invent the cellphone, the computer, the car, the electricity,  since the struggle to procure these technological wonders was done elsewhere.  Similarly, you didn't have to fight for liberation from the Japanese at the time since they were defeated by the Allies, and the short return to British government ended when its colonialism had to end.

 

So you didn't have to fight for most of the benefits you may consider being earned by patience to wait until all are on the same page.  Maybe this is why your idea of Asian values is to wait for benefits to arrive by themselves? 

.


Children are unformed, these are adult matters which require reflection and actually a lot of de-programming. I don't think the two can be compared. 
By saying that a whole nation must be forced, like a misbehaving child, is exactly why Singapore finds itself in the predicament it is in.

 

We had a strict dragon father in LKY, and for all his good intentions, it created a nation of people that are, for the lack of a better word, incapable of thinking for themselves, that applies to gay and straight alike. The nature of being spoonfed what to do is still incredibly strong here, and if not told, we revert back to what we have been taught - which is why many closetted gay men find themselves in the crossroads, even today. 

 

To cut to the chase, essentially, singaporean society needs to be taught new things. And be shown diversity rather than a binary. Why do you think Pink Dot still manages to survive despite attempts to clamp or narrow it down. It attracts now not just gay men, but their families, friends, allies?

While Stonewall paved the way in some arenas, you have to admit that Pink Dot is NOT a pride parade. There is no "pride" element, which has a different ethos altogether. Pink Dot does not operate by the "we are here, we are queer" sentiment so once again, just because something looks similar, doesn't make it the same.

I find we take a lot of inspiration from our asian neighbour, Taiwan, rather than US. Taiwan in itself, has had its own take on the pride march, I've attended it multiple times, and it is not debauchery, it is not aggressive. There are christian and buddhist groups that take part, parents associations, children of gay parents, and majority are gay societies of the local universities. The youngest participants are from 10+, the oldest are grandparents.

 

There are no protest signs from either sides, and generally, even if they are those who don't agree, they don't show up but respect the event. Because they understand that gay people are different, but they are people too, and as a society they must respect their needs, even if these needs differ from theirs.

 

THIS is the right note for change, especially in Asia. I reiterate that the Western way does not work here.

🌑🌒🌓🌔🌕🌖🌗🌘🌑

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest abolish
2 hours ago, gsky said:

 

[While it is true that the law was never used against a citizen], 

 

This law was used several times, the last time was in 2010. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

 

On 24 September 2010, criminal lawyer M. Ravi filed an application in the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting adult male in a locked cubicle of a public toilet.

 

What the Minister said in Parliament is that they will "not pro-actively enforce it".  Meaning it is still enforceable..

 

 

To me the problem is, that there can always be a shift in policy (if 377A) is in place.

What is if Singapore has a very religious, strong believing, religiously fundamental Home Affairs or Law minister.

Can we guarantee that 377A  will not "pro-actively be enforced" ?

 

No, we can't.

Due to many reasons, there can always be a shift in policy or even a group of police officers taking some action.

Can anyone reprimand such a group of police officers , for example raiding a sauna or private house? No, not even the law minister can, because there is an Act, which makes gay sex criminal.

 

We don't want to rely on the mercy of a PM, Minister or any other.

 

What is the difference of abolishing it now or in 5 years?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest abolish
1 hour ago, tomcat said:

This is a threadline that exemplified Asian values, and within Singapore especially, which has one foot in Asianess and the other in global exposure, this is the one true way to integrate. When society actually looks at us as a value, instead of a demerit. Like in the film, they do not need to like us, or agree to what we do, but they have to respect us. 

In the past weekend, Lee Hsien Yang attended Pink Dot with his son and partner. Also in attendance, was his wife, and the in-laws. That shows 4 individuals of the pioneer generation who are 1. willing to look beyond their old-generation programming, 2. are brave enough to look others in the eyes, and say, Yes my son is gay, and he is happily married. So what?

No permission or conflict needed. 

 

I don't take anything from the fact that a brother of the current Prime Minister turns up at Pink Dot. And it doesn't much matter if his son is gay and his son married a man in some African country.

Is he actually pushing an agenda?

If he is, then maybe he should have staid away.

 

It might even be counterproductive to the whole issue.

Ever thought out of this angle???

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomcat said:

 

The way it plays out for Asians, is very very different. The moment you declare war and lose your cool in the eyes of your opponent, it means you have already lost, because you have resort to uncouthness and most probably violent ways. Within Chinese history, you will also be familiar with the mental chess game that is required. Most of the people who depicted as warmongers are shown as uncouth, because honestly, it simply means you are not in control and not in the right state of mind.

 



In the past weekend, Lee Hsien Yang attended Pink Dot with his son and partner. Also in attendance, was his wife, and the in-laws. That shows 4 individuals of the pioneer generation who are 1. willing to look beyond their old-generation programming, 2. are brave enough to look others in the eyes, and say, Yes my son is gay, and he is happily married. So what?

No permission or conflict needed. 

 

The problem is in Singapore, no one dare come out and say anything.... no marches, no demonstrations, no gathering, nothing is allowed.

People here are not willing to put themselves on the line, cos we are simply too "comfortable"

 

Look at Hong Kong, I am full of admiration that such a practical "people" are willing to stand up for what they believe.

 

I cannot disagree with you more regarding your opinion about Chinese history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, we have fantastic responses from our spirited sisters here!

I am waiting to watch you guys then - one to organise a riot, one to organise a political inquest, and another to do a checklist against what we have done to match up the west. Let me roll out the red carpet for all you heroes to actualise what you believe? Can?

Til then, I'll pick my struggles from down here on Earth.  Sorry lah guys, all these bombastic feedback I've read before a gazillion times for the past decade. In public forums, in FB groups, on blogs. Online everyone has such an iron will and silver tongue, everyone waxes poetic about these issuse but you all go back home, watch Ch8 drama, eat the same foods and still wake up the same way you do everyday.

So i'll stick to my own way of affecting change. I acknowledge what good is done and encourage them to do more. I take what is good, and display it as permission for others to do likewise. I can't force, but I can support the others who are trying to get somewhere.

 

Sometimes that is what they need most, a physical body in support of what they believe in. This applies to every issue we have here in SG, food scarcity, hidden poverty, zero waste movement. There is politics out there, but everyone forgets the personal politics. Until you can change the politics around you, right now, you have no chance of affecting true change. And by that, I don't mean HK riots, haha.

 

You all can fight out our mental wars in your heads. Reality needs real people, thanks.

🌑🌒🌓🌔🌕🌖🌗🌘🌑

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gsky said:

 

[While it is true that the law was never used against a citizen], 

 

This law was used several times, the last time was in 2010. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

 

On 24 September 2010, criminal lawyer M. Ravi filed an application in the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting adult male in a locked cubicle of a public toilet.

 

What the Minister said in Parliament is that they will "not pro-actively enforce it".  Meaning it is still enforceable..

 

 

PUBLIC toilet ...

 

2 hours ago, tomcat said:


Thanks for sharing, Steve. But once again, a different context entirely. Singaporean problems cannot be solved by applying an American filter. 

I'm not sure if you saw Crazy Rich Asians, but that is also a story that revolves around Injustice, discrimination, misunderstanding, misuse of power, status etc. It has more than enough parallels to being gay and an outsider.

 

The way it plays out for Asians, is very very different. The moment you declare war and lose your cool in the eyes of your opponent, it means you have already lost, because you have resort to uncouthness and most probably violent ways. Within Chinese history, you will also be familiar with the mental chess game that is required. Most of the people who depicted as warmongers are shown as uncouth, because honestly, it simply means you are not in control and not in the right state of mind.

 

And that takes away from the real purpose of the "conflict" to begin with - It is not to obliterate or remove straight people but it's so that gay people have a better standing amongst them and larger society. 

 

As you saw in the film, which mirrors Asian societies very much, ( i am mixed race and we despise public outbursts on both ethnic sides) Peace and Understanding was ultimately gotten, but it was not through force. It was done through a solid show of character, belief, perseverance and also wit.

This is a threadline that exemplified Asian values, and within Singapore especially, which has one foot in Asianess and the other in global exposure, this is the one true way to integrate. When society actually looks at us as a value, instead of a demerit. Like in the film, they do not need to like us, or agree to what we do, but they have to respect us. 

In the past weekend, Lee Hsien Yang attended Pink Dot with his son and partner. Also in attendance, was his wife, and the in-laws. That shows 4 individuals of the pioneer generation who are 1. willing to look beyond their old-generation programming, 2. are brave enough to look others in the eyes, and say, Yes my son is gay, and he is happily married. So what?

No permission or conflict needed. 

 

Not sure about about yiruis parents but lhy n lsf r Not pioneer but merdeka generation.

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

6 hours ago, tomcat said:


While Stonewall paved the way in some arenas, you have to admit that Pink Dot is NOT a pride parade. There is no "pride" element, which has a different ethos altogether. Pink Dot does not operate by the "we are here, we are queer" sentiment so once again, just because something looks similar, doesn't make it the same.

I find we take a lot of inspiration from our asian neighbour, Taiwan, rather than US. Taiwan in itself, has had its own take on the pride march, I've attended it multiple times, and it is not debauchery, it is not aggressive. There are christian and buddhist groups that take part, parents associations, children of gay parents, and majority are gay societies of the local universities. The youngest participants are from 10+, the oldest are grandparents.

 

There are no protest signs from either sides, and generally, even if they are those who don't agree, they don't show up but respect the event. Because they understand that gay people are different, but they are people too, and as a society they must respect their needs, even if these needs differ from theirs.

 

THIS is the right note for change, especially in Asia. I reiterate that the Western way does not work here.

 

I am sorry that I don't see that "the Western way does not work here".

What I see is that the Western cars, Western airplanes, Western cellphones, Western TV and stereo equipment, Western medicine...  all work there.

And in the spiritual,  Asian pride marches are the same as Western pride marches.  If Pink Dot is not exactly the same, it is because SG gays don't have yet so much to be proud of, when you have sex you are still a criminal,  there is no same-sex marriage, no "civil partnerships".   Yet Pink Dot IS a GAY event.  No doubt from the videos I see about it, the speeches, the signs.  The Western pride marches are no more debauchery , protest, aggression than the Asian ones.  If sometimes some religious fanatics do protest, we don't usually see them because they are so insignificant.  And protest... we American gays have little left to protest about. 

 

Do you have a compulsion to separate the East from the West? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tomcat said:

Wow, we have fantastic responses from our spirited sisters here!

I am waiting to watch you guys then - one to organise a riot, one to organise a political inquest, and another to do a checklist against what we have done to match up the west. Let me roll out the red carpet for all you heroes to actualise what you believe? Can?

Til then, I'll pick my struggles from down here on Earth.  Sorry lah guys, all these bombastic feedback I've read before a gazillion times for the past decade. In public forums, in FB groups, on blogs. Online everyone has such an iron will and silver tongue, everyone waxes poetic about these issuse but you all go back home, watch Ch8 drama, eat the same foods and still wake up the same way you do everyday.

So i'll stick to my own way of affecting change. I acknowledge what good is done and encourage them to do more. I take what is good, and display it as permission for others to do likewise. I can't force, but I can support the others who are trying to get somewhere.

 

Sometimes that is what they need most, a physical body in support of what they believe in. This applies to every issue we have here in SG, food scarcity, hidden poverty, zero waste movement. There is politics out there, but everyone forgets the personal politics. Until you can change the politics around you, right now, you have no chance of affecting true change. And by that, I don't mean HK riots, haha.

 

You all can fight out our mental wars in your heads. Reality needs real people, thanks.

 

Hmmm....  I wonder what you mean.  You accuse your fellow guys of being passive, indolent, idealists, while you oppose any action because of being "Western influence" and you pick your own struggles by supporting everything that is Singaporean including all its status quo.   How are you different from them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest abolish
8 hours ago, tomcat said:

Wow, we have fantastic responses from our spirited sisters here!

I am waiting to watch you guys then - one to organise a riot, one to organise a political inquest, and another to do a checklist against what we have done to match up the west. Let me roll out the red carpet for all you heroes to actualise what you believe? Can?

Til then, I'll pick my struggles from down here on Earth.  Sorry lah guys, all these bombastic feedback I've read before a gazillion times for the past decade. In public forums, in FB groups, on blogs. Online everyone has such an iron will and silver tongue, everyone waxes poetic about these issuse but you all go back home, watch Ch8 drama, eat the same foods and still wake up the same way you do everyday.

So i'll stick to my own way of affecting change. I acknowledge what good is done and encourage them to do more. I take what is good, and display it as permission for others to do likewise. I can't force, but I can support the others who are trying to get somewhere.

 

Sometimes that is what they need most, a physical body in support of what they believe in. This applies to every issue we have here in SG, food scarcity, hidden poverty, zero waste movement. There is politics out there, but everyone forgets the personal politics. Until you can change the politics around you, right now, you have no chance of affecting true change. And by that, I don't mean HK riots, haha.

 

You all can fight out our mental wars in your heads. Reality needs real people, thanks.

 

Sorry, but with your negativity Najib would be still in power in Malaysia.

 

I think you forgot the fight and laudable initiative taken by the Pink Dot organisers.

Would there be a voice for gay topics in Singapore without them?

And Pink Dot is already something. It even goes into the mainstream Media news.

 

It has to start somewhere.

And we wouldn't want riots like in Hong Kong, or do we?

On the other hand, in many countries it took a small matter to get a population to explode and I would not want to exclude it for Singapore.

You just need to take the oppressive societies in Eastern Europe, but one day, all was gone through people's power.

 

I m very sure the younger generation won't be that patient as our generation. They will demand for more and will not be satisfied sitting in the back seat.

You can even see that they challenge the PM during discussion forums.

Who would have dared that 10 years back or with the late "old man"?

And if you talk about Western values do not fit into Asian societies, then you tell us here that you fell trick of one politician who was smart to make people believe something.

Human Rights are essential and all the same for everybody everywhere.

There might be an Asian culture but I wouldn't go so far to say that there are certain Asian values that prevent Human Rights to apply to all.

 

Complaining and whining will not improve things.

We all need to do our part (somehow).

 

I think most of you will understand.

 

Let's acknowledge: Gay topics already have a voice in Singapore and we have come a little "louder" than before.

Yes, we might not have the heroes we want to see in future to fight for our rights...

 

And not all are hiding below the bed sheets as before.

Surprising just today, I even saw a gay male couple walking hand in hand around Tanjong Pagar back to their offices.

 

All in all most gays in foreign countries did not need to throw stones to change things for gay rights and to fight discrimination.

 

Let's not discourage but let's build up. Aren't we know to be creative?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wiser battle is to strike when the chance of winning is high.

 

377A is a pain, but probably one which should be repealed once public opinion has shifted slightly against homophobia.

 

Somehow, I feel like it is something which we will actually see in our lifetime, though probably it's more like 25-40 years from now than 5-10 years from now.

“Do not take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive.” — Elbert Hubbard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, derryfawne said:

A wiser battle is to strike when the chance of winning is high.

 

377A is a pain, but probably one which should be repealed once public opinion has shifted slightly against homophobia.

 

Somehow, I feel like it is something which we will actually see in our lifetime, though probably it's more like 25-40 years from now than 5-10 years from now.

 

WHAT??!  25-40 years for a shift in public opinion?

What guarantees that you will be still around in 25-40 years?

What "battle"?  Your "strike" is to sit on your comfortable couch and wait for your public to love you, or die out.

You Singaporeans are a model of patience!

Edited by Steve5380
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, derryfawne said:

A wiser battle is to strike when the chance of winning is high.

 

377A is a pain, but probably one which should be repealed once public opinion has shifted slightly against homophobia.

 

Somehow, I feel like it is something which we will actually see in our lifetime, though probably it's more like 25-40 years from now than 5-10 years from now.

 

I just find it rather ridiculous and shameful that Singapore is hanging on to 377A

We are really in very bad company here, considering that gay sex is legal in China, India, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc etc

 

There is no way we are more conservative than some of these countries, yet the gahmen keep harping on about public attitude. Sheer laziness/ cowardice!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, auri said:

 

I just find it rather ridiculous and shameful that Singapore is hanging on to 377A

We are really in very bad company here, considering that gay sex is legal in China, India, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc etc

 

There is no way we are more conservative than some of these countries, yet the gahmen keep harping on about public attitude. Sheer laziness/ cowardice!

 

 

Non abrahamic.

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

41 minutes ago, fab said:

 

Non abrahamic.

 

Abraham probably didn't have a clue of how much trouble he was creating for future humanity!  This includes 377A  :lol:

 

 

12 minutes ago, Guest Gay moron said:

Gay needs to be financially ready to move out of singapore. No point lingering here with the haters.

 

Rushing out of Singapore, won't this facilitate the haters to spew more hate unopposed?

If financially ready to move out,  could it be a good deed to fight the haters,

since financial means are there to move out at any time if necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, auri said:

 

I just find it rather ridiculous and shameful that Singapore is hanging on to 377A

We are really in very bad company here, considering that gay sex is legal in China, India, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc etc

 

There is no way we are more conservative than some of these countries, yet the gahmen keep harping on about public attitude. Sheer laziness/ cowardice!

 

 

Too bad, 377A only exists in British ruled colonies.  That is to say, gay sex is legal by default in countries like Thailand, Japan, Vietnam etc. 

Don't read and response to guests' post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, gaysluttyme said:

 

 so its illegal in UK too ?

 

Gay sex was decriminalized in the UK in 1967.  (52 years later it is still criminal in SG!)

The UK offers one of the most liberal environments for LGBTQs   Same-sex marriage is legal in most of its lands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest abolish
2 hours ago, auri said:

 

I just find it rather ridiculous and shameful that Singapore is hanging on to 377A

We are really in very bad company here, considering that gay sex is legal in China, India, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc etc

 

There is no way we are more conservative than some of these countries, yet the gahmen keep harping on about public attitude. Sheer laziness/ cowardice!

 

 

It is ridiculous. In particular if you stress that you are a country of rule of law, and then you have laws that you say, they don't apply or will not be enforced.

 

In my personal view, just nobody wants to take up the baton and get rid of it. And the current PM doesn't intend to "tarnish" his image with such a topic at the end of his governing period.

Just wonder, when the sprint relay will be finalised...

 

I personally sense the governing just fear the fights and smear of the most religious organisations here. The discussion won't be going smooth, for sure. It will stir up emotions.

 

They (MP, government) missed the chance in 2006/2007, now with the Indian Supreme Court ruling it would be even more ridiculous to find reasons to uphold it in any new discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guest abolish said:

 

It is ridiculous. In particular if you stress that you are a country of rule of law, and then you have laws that you say, they don't apply or will not be enforced.

 

In my personal view, just nobody wants to take up the baton and get rid of it. And the current PM doesn't intend to "tarnish" his image with such a topic at the end of his governing period.

Just wonder, when the sprint relay will be finalised...

 

I personally sense the governing just fear the fights and smear of the most religious organisations here. The discussion won't be going smooth, for sure. It will stir up emotions.

 

They (MP, government) missed the chance in 2006/2007, now with the Indian Supreme Court ruling it would be even more ridiculous to find reasons to uphold it in any new discussion.

 

The thing is, the govt does not even need to do a public consultation to repeal the law.... I mean how many laws come about just because they say so.

I fear it is due to a lack of will.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

 

WHAT??!  25-40 years for a shift in public opinion?

What guarantees that you will be still around in 25-40 years?

What "battle"?  Your "strike" is to sit on your comfortable couch and wait for your public to love you, or die out.

You Singaporeans are a model of patience!

 

That's not what I said at all.

 

Clearly public opinion has shifted from the past vs. present. In the past, if you are a homosexual, you will be made fun of. Today, among the younger generation at least, you are more likely to be frowned upon if you show outright homophobia. This is not to deny that homophobia is still a problem, but it has certainly shown some improvement.

 

Fighting a battle is like playing chess. You have to infiltrate the bishops, knock off the fortresses of misconceptions, win more pawns on your side before you go for the big prize.

 

This means educating the public, raising awareness, gaining more support beyond what we have presently, wisely blending soft and hard powers and influencing public policies in strategic ways. This is a smarter way of battling the system.

 

Shouting "repeal 377A" aggressively without rhymes and reasons are not going to affect anything meaningfully, either. Try doing that in front of Istana right now and we'll see what it brings you. If anything, you are only going to provoke negative sentiments unnecessarily which could backfire and villify the LGBT community. Being confrontational without rallying enough support beforehand often gives you the opposite results.

 

The Singapore government has a clear stance and has always played the "safe" route. This is not to say whether its way is right or wrong, but if you want to affect meaningful change in the system, you gotta beat it on its own game.

 

As simple as that.

Edited by derryfawne

“Do not take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive.” — Elbert Hubbard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest abolish
5 hours ago, auri said:

 

The thing is, the govt does not even need to do a public consultation to repeal the law.... I mean how many laws come about just because they say so.

I fear it is due to a lack of will.

 

 

Yes correct.

I never wrote anything about public consultation.

 

I don't think it is fear due to a lack of will.

It is fear due to facing the brunt of negative feedback, the machinery of religious organisations, the society facing opposing fractions. It is just not a topic where 90 % agree instantly.

And it has this " the world will be tumbling down" moral background to face.

 

The argument to say that the society is still conservative was simply brought forward to bring silence on the topic. It is easy to say : "We are not yet ready/prepared/ sufficiently developed to change something...".

 

It just needed someone at the political party to say:

"let's get over it now for once and all!"

 

They won't win much time, because the topic will remain burning some days on a small flame and other days on a bigger flame.

With first African countries changing attitudes on this topic, Singapore will look even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, derryfawne said:

 

That's not what I said at all.

---

Fighting a battle is like playing chess. You have to infiltrate the bishops, knock off the fortresses of misconceptions, win more pawns on your side before you go for the big prize.

----

As simple as that.

 

You didn't say it,  you wrote it.  As simple as that.  
 

22 hours ago, derryfawne said:

377A is a pain, but probably one which should be repealed once public opinion has shifted slightly against homophobia.

Somehow, I feel like it is something which we will actually see in our lifetime, though probably it's more like 25-40 years from now than 5-10 years from now.

 

377A should be repealed... "probably"?  In my city, it will "probably" rain today.

 

No doubt your chances to win at chest are improved if you have a strategy.  But for that,  you have to sit down and play.  Same with winning a battle.  You have to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

 

You didn't say it,  you wrote it.  As simple as that.  
 

 

377A should be repealed... "probably"?  In my city, it will "probably" rain today.

 

No doubt your chances to win at chest are improved if you have a strategy.  But for that,  you have to sit down and play.  Same with winning a battle.  You have to fight.

 

There's no need to resort to word play and straw man argument.

 

None of my posts were "said" or "wrote" or whichever terming you choose to, translates to "wait for your public to love you" - that is your own early prejudgment which you refused to revoke despite the fact that I had re-clarified in my second post that the "fight" begins by affecting public opinion first, and calling-to-action for change second.

 

377A should be repealed... probably once public opinion has shifted - clearly you were either blind or just resorting to cheap attacks without a care for context or reason.

 

None of those change the core of my argument. That playing the long-term game by shifting the public opinion first is a more effective approach to impact actual change than confrontational shouts because you do not get what you want. Until you provide reasoning which proves otherwise, my case stands.

Edited by derryfawne

“Do not take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive.” — Elbert Hubbard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

 

You didn't say it,  you wrote it.  As simple as that.  
 

 

377A should be repealed... "probably"?  In my city, it will "probably" rain today.

 

No doubt your chances to win at chest are improved if you have a strategy.  But for that,  you have to sit down and play.  Same with winning a battle.  You have to fight.

 

Make your case by either agreeing or disagreeing with the crux of the issue:

 

1. Confrontational approach to call for the repeal of 377A without rallying enough support could provoke negative sentiments which backfire against LGBT community.

2. Educating the public, raising awareness, gaining more support, blending soft and hard powers to influence public policies is a smarter way of battling the system.

 

No amount of red herring, childish wordplay and quoting things out of context while avoiding addressing these two points would help you make your case. Arguing about semantics is just wasting both of our times.

Edited by derryfawne

“Do not take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive.” — Elbert Hubbard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, derryfawne said:

 

Make your case by either agreeing or disagreeing with the crux of the issue:

 

1. Confrontational approach to call for the repeal of 377A without rallying enough support could provoke negative sentiments which backfire against LGBT community.

2. Educating the public, raising awareness, gaining more support, blending soft and hard powers to influence public policies is a smarter way of battling the system.

 

No amount of red herring, childish wordplay and quoting things out of context while avoiding addressing these two points would help you make your case. Arguing about semantics is just wasting both of our times.

 

Your "probably" still stands.  What if the public opinion does not shift?  You don't think the Christian churches have influence over the public?  They have their GOD to back them up, something you don't have.  According to them,  all you have is an evil "active gay agenda".

 

It was 2007 when your Parliament reviewed the penal code and failed to repeal 377A,  in grand part due to Thio Li-ann.  How much has public opinion shifted in the 12 years since?  And if it has shifted, what is your excuse of staying passive and wait another 25 - 40  years, like you clearly wrote?

 

How can you educate the public, raise awareness if gay activities are sanctioned by the government, gays hide in closets and celebrities are afraid of supporting gays because of fear or reprisals?   You will always have some public that supports your cause.  Look back at successful battles for civil rights:  the fighters didn't wait to have the majority of the public on their side.  Their ACTIONS changed the perception of the public.

 

I am not suggesting that you should come out and demonstrate in front of City Hall.  I am giving my opinion that promoting passivity is the best way for things to stay the way they are forever.

 

Read again the issue of this thread:

 

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

 

Why was he able to get away with such statement smiling happily?  Why wasn't there an outcry about leaving it around "for some time"?

That it does not inhibit attracting talent is a poor excuse.

 

Why not have a law that criminalize women who give birth and leave it unenforced?  And justify it by saying that such law will not prevent women from having babies.  (!!!) 

.

Edited by Steve5380
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

And if it has shifted, what is your excuse of staying passive and wait another 25 - 40  years, like you clearly wrote?

.

.

.

I am giving my opinion that promoting passivity is the best way to letting things stay as they are.

 

Then I'll make it very clear that we are not in the same book and I urge you to to let go of that false assumption so that we can discuss this issue on its merits.

 

I have re-iterated for many times now that we need (to action by) educating the public, raising awareness, etc. first.

 

I may not have made it very clear what "it" in it will happen in 25 years means, but let's erase any doubts now. I had meant that we would likely see an actual repeal of 377A, and hopefully the legality of LGBTQ+ marriage sometime in the mid-future of approx. 25 years.

 

The 25 years is a statement of realistic reflection on when the change might actually happen and my hope that we will see it. None of these hope for change that I have suggests that we "wait", "be passive" and do nothing in between. Rome is not built in a day. I'm asking for us to fight, but smartly so that we might actually get the chance to see it repeal within that "realistic" time frame.

 

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

What if the public opinion does not shift?

 

Then more works need to be done to educate the public and raise awareness to bring about change.

 

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

You don't think the Christian churches lack influencing powers over the public?  They have their GOD to back them up, something you don't have.  According to them,  all you have is an evil "active gay agenda".

 

Proves exactly my point that the confrontational approach is an overrated strategy which most likely will only backfire.

 

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

It was 2007 that your Parliament reviewed the penal code and failed to repeal 377A,  in grand part due to Thio Li-ann.  How much has public opinion shifted in the 12 years since?

 

There are subtle, but important changes which clearly shows a more optimistic light and are interlinked with each other like a domino effect. Just off the top of my head:


- The fact that Pink Dot had kickstarted in 2009 and gradually gained traction - allowing forums for discussion with closed ones and dismantling misconceptions - none of us could have dreamed we could have an opportunity to "voice out" an issue so close to our identity this publicly two decades ago

- LGBTQ characters were mocked as caricature in the media, but today, LGBTQ issues are discussed as a serious subject in the press

- Corporations had since jumped in and promoted anti-discrimination policies in their companies, thereby creating a safe working environment for the LGBTQ community

- Built by the admittedly slow but steady traction in public support, public figures in Singapore had came out of the closet or show their allianceship by speaking about the issue

- Leading nations of the world had since legalized same-sex marriage, putting a further pedestal in the shift of global public opinion against outright homophobia

 

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

How can you educate the public, raise awareness if gay activities are sanctioned by the government, gays hide in closets and celebrities are afraid of supporting gays because of fear or reprisals? Look back at successful battles for civil rights: the fighters didn't wait to have the majority of the public on their side. Their ACTIONS changed the perception of the public.

 

It's a gradual process, kick-started by educating the public and gaining their support to show acceptance of their fellow LGBTQ community members that these LGBTQ public figures build strength to come out and use their voice to speak against the institution.

 

Look at real-life case study of USA where the Bible Belt clearly has their "loud opinions".

 

It was 1971 when the same-sex marriage ban was first contested in the Supreme Court in Minnesota (and failed). It has since been contested many, many times.

Why do you think it has taken 44 years until 2015 for the government to finally pass legislation for same-sex marriage across all states?

 

Is it through public opinion - through the pressure of the public, organizational groups, influential figures, media and corporations that the battle was won.

The impact of public opinion and the legality of same-sex marriage is well-documented by Gallup.

  • In 1996, only 27% of the public supported same-sex marriage.
  • After 1.5 decade, in 2011, the number rose to 53%. This is the first time in American history that the number rose above 50%. This is also the year New York legalized same-sex marriage, coincidence much?
  • In 2015, the number rose to 60% for the first time, leaving the "halves" behind and becoming a majority voice for the first time. This is the year same-sex marriage becomes legal across all states.

 

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/234866/two-three-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx

 

The government works to serve the public interest at large. By showing that LGBTQ issue is a a major affair which concerns the public interest at large is one of the most effective ways to affect actual change.

 

The great Martin Luther King Jr. is known for advancing racial minority rights, precisely through his nonviolent resistance approach. Again, this proves exactly my point that education, rather than blind protest, is what had helped major civil rights movement made the impact that it did. I'm not going to get more detailed into this, though, as clearly an actual same-sex rights example has more relevance and implication to Singapore's LGBTQ rights than a not-so-direct parallel from the racial rights battle which has their own different type of struggles, challenges and opposition voices.

Edited by derryfawne

“Do not take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive.” — Elbert Hubbard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, derryfawne said:

 

Then I'll make it very clear that we are not in the same book and I urge you to to let go of that false assumption so that we can discuss this issue on its merits.

 

Proves exactly my point that the confrontational approach is an overrated strategy which most likely will only backfire.

 

 

There are subtle, but important changes which clearly shows a more optimistic light and are interlinked with each other like a domino effect. Just off the top of my head:


It's a gradual process, kick-started by educating the public and gaining their support to show acceptance of their fellow LGBTQ community members that these LGBTQ public figures build strength to come out and use their voice to speak against the institution.

 

Look at real-life case study of USA where the Bible Belt clearly has their "loud opinions".

 

It was 1971 when the same-sex marriage ban was first contested in the Supreme Court in Minnesota (and failed). It has since been contested many, many times.

Why do you think it has taken 44 years until 2015 for the government to finally pass legislation for same-sex marriage across all states?

 

Is it through public opinion - through the pressure of the public, organizational groups, influential figures, media and corporations that the battle was won.

The impact of public opinion and the legality of same-sex marriage is well-documented by Gallup.

  • In 1996, only 27% of the public supported same-sex marriage.
  • After 1.5 decade, in 2011, the number rose to 53%. This is the first time in American history that the number rose above 50%. This is also the year New York legalized same-sex marriage, coincidence much?
  • In 2015, the number rose to 60% for the first time, leaving the "halves" behind and becoming a majority voice for the first time. This is the year same-sex marriage becomes legal across all states.

The great Martin Luther King Jr. is known for advancing racial minority rights, precisely through his nonviolent resistance approach. Again, this proves exactly my point that education, rather than blind protest, is what had helped major civil rights movement made the impact that it did. I'm not going to get more detailed into this, though, as clearly an actual same-sex rights example has more relevance and implication to Singapore's LGBTQ rights than a not-so-direct parallel from the racial rights battle which has their own different type of struggles, challenges and opposition voices.

 

I have no "false assumption" to let go.  You and me look at the issues from different angles which share parts of the truth.

 

You put the greatest importance into educating the public, influencing pacifically the public opinion,  while I favor resistance, confrontation that raises awareness and thus changes public opinion.

 

In the US there was not a direct path to same-sex marriage.  One hurdle were the "sodomy laws" that existed in many states. They were rarely enforced, and lingered around with sufficient relevance to convince the public that there was some criminality in gay sex (like the 377A law).  In 1998 police by mistake broke into an apartment and found two adult gays having sex.  They were charged with the sodomy law, a misdemeanor, and fined.  They didn't submit but appealed.  After many legal turns, the US Supreme Court heard their case and in 2003 declared sodomy laws unconstitutional throughout the country.   AFTER this, public opinion started to shift and many predicted that the legal reasons for opposing same-sex marriage were on shaky ground,  and indeed in 2015 the Supreme Court struck down the obstacles to same-sex marriage by ONE vote.  Those TWO GAYS in Texas started the ball rolling that lead to this !!!

 

In the battle of civil rights for Blacks,  ONE person, Rosa Parks, started the ball rolling by refusing to give her seat to a white man in her bus in 1955. Like she, Martin Luther King advanced his cause through pacific civil DISOBEDIENCE.  Of course they had public support, but this support really took off after the initial episodes.

 

I think that we both can conclude that BOTH organizing public opinion AND taking firm stands against unjust laws is what advances our rights and freedoms. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2019 at 3:14 AM, Steve5380 said:

 

I have no "false assumption" to let go.

 

 

Where I felt very misunderstood that the educational approach was perceived as doing nothing, but glad we get that sorted out.

 

On 7/3/2019 at 3:14 AM, Steve5380 said:

 

In the US there was not a direct path to same-sex marriage.  One hurdle were the "sodomy laws" that existed in many states. They were rarely enforced, and lingered around with sufficient relevance to convince the public that there was some criminality in gay sex (like the 377A law).  In 1998 police by mistake broke into an apartment and found two adult gays having sex.  They were charged with the sodomy law, a misdemeanor, and fined.  They didn't submit but appealed.  After many legal turns, the US Supreme Court heard their case and in 2003 declared sodomy laws unconstitutional throughout the country.   AFTER this, public opinion started to shift and many predicted that the legal reasons for opposing same-sex marriage were on shaky ground,  and indeed in 2015 the Supreme Court struck down the obstacles to same-sex marriage by ONE vote.  Those TWO GAYS in Texas started the ball rolling that lead to this !!!

 

 

While this was a landmark case, this actually represents a case of going through established legal means to challenge constitution in the court of law - very much playing by the book, not so much a case of civil disobedience?

 

On 7/3/2019 at 3:14 AM, Steve5380 said:

 

In the battle of civil rights for Blacks,  ONE person, Rosa Parks, started the ball rolling by refusing to give her seat to a white man in her bus in 1955. Like she, Martin Luther King advanced his cause through pacific civil DISOBEDIENCE.  Of course they had public support, but this support really took off after the initial episodes.

 

I think that we both can conclude that BOTH organizing public opinion AND taking firm stands against unjust laws is what advances our rights and freedoms. :)

 

 

I agree that taking firm stands against unjust laws does bring awareness and discussion into the public limelight.

 

Rosa Parks was not the first to challenge racial segregation though. This had been challenged numerous times beforehand to little-to-no results. In fact, another person, Claudette Colvin did the very same thing nine months before Rosa Parks. What makes the actual difference is the collective public boycott which follows Rosa Parks' case, which sparks a series of protests and the eventual court decisions which abolished the segregation.

 

This, for me, is what makes public opinion a very powerful tool - as it amplifies the scale and magnitude of your case to an extent that it becomes an undeniable national issue, calling for a stern decision to an extent when people in position of power can no longer ignore and be forced to make change.

 

This is not to say that individuals should not stand up for themselves or other people on day-to-day basis (they should). Unjust laws should be challenged, and as you mentioned, it's through these day-to-day actions that can kickstart a chain of reactions. My only point is that we are in better position of challenging the actual laws when you have more people on your side vs. fighting a lone battle, in the very same way of the Rosa Parks vs. Claudette Colvin examples.

 

On 7/3/2019 at 3:41 PM, auri said:

Why should the rights of a minority group depend on "public opinion" shifting, and who exactly is monitoring and quantifying this shift?

  

It is not as if decriminalising gay sex is taking away someone else's rights!

 

Should and would are two very different things.

 

It's DUMB that the minority rights has to depend on the shift of public opinion, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. PM Lee pretty much said it himself: “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.”

 

In 2007, Ministry of Home Affairs were quoted in Straits Times that public feedback on the issue had been “emotional, divided and strongly expressed,” with the majority calling for the section to be retained; and that "we are generally a conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve".

 

This is not to debate whether public opinion should or should not matter, but I think it's clear that in Singapore's case, "the way the society is" determines a lot of public policy decision-making, however correct or incorrect this reasoning is. For many years, we have known how "social stability" guides a lot of Singapore government's decision-making, again, however correct or incorrect this is.

 

Thus, fighting this battle strategically requires a showcase which demonstrates there won't be public resistance against the appeal of 377A.

 

Public opinion on LGBTQ in Singapore is not as regularly studied as it should be, but the rare occurrences where they are, they get cited. Institute of Policy Studies is the latest to do a study on public opinion towards LGBTQ in Singapore, contrasting 2013 vs. 2018 views. There's a tide of change in the younger generation, but this has not outnumbered the total population, unfortunately.

 

new_online-190503_moral-issues.jpg

 

 

Edited by derryfawne

“Do not take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive.” — Elbert Hubbard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, derryfawne said:

 

While this was a landmark case, this actually represents a case of going through established legal means to challenge constitution in the court of law - very much playing by the book, not so much a case of civil disobedience?

 

 

I agree that taking firm stands against unjust laws does bring awareness and discussion into the public limelight.

 

Rosa Parks was not the first to challenge racial segregation though. This had been challenged numerous times beforehand to little-to-no results. In fact, another person, Claudette Colvin did the very same thing nine months before Rosa Parks. What makes the actual difference is the collective public boycott which follows Rosa Parks' case, which sparks a series of protests and the eventual court decisions which abolished the segregation.

 

 

 

You are right that the landmark case which lead to the repeal of the sodomy laws did not originate from civil disobedience.  But it was an unusual confrontation.  Other gays would have tried to pay the fine and hush it up, ashamed that people would know that they were caught having gay sex. 

 

In the case of Rosa Parks,  those who boycotted the public buses were mostly Blacks like Rosa.  They were 75% of the ridership of buses in Montgomery.   It was the economic toll on the bus system rather than a majority of public opinion which lead to the compromise that changed to rules, plus the decision of the Supreme Court that the rules violated the Constitution.

 

Should an action of self defense against unjust laws succeed in spite of the opinion of the majority?  Of course.  A Judicial System should not be guided by census.  Isn't this how 377A was repealed by supreme courts in other countries?  Based on claims of equality, which many constitutions include?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

 

Should an action of self defense against unjust laws succeed in spite of the opinion of the majority?  Of course.  A Judicial System should not be guided by census.  Isn't this how 377A was repealed by supreme courts in other countries?  Based on claims of equality, which many constitutions include?

 

 

This, I actually very much agree.

It's very frustrating that such basic fundamental human rights have to be fought for.

 

377A had been argued to be unconstitutional in Supreme Court before, unfortunately not to positive result. What we can reasonably infer is that "equality" forms only one part of the argument (despite that it should be the sole and most important one).

 

I'm just being a realist here, knowing well that Singapore is a nation that has always put national and community values over the self, emphasis on "family values" (a very outdated definition of it, unfortunately) and harmony over "taking a stance" which could alienate some groups (which is really annoying as these people aren't even the ones who are most affected by the 377A).

 

It's a flawed view, but unfortunately one which will have a bearing on LGBTQ rights.
Acknowledging that these "flawed views" form parts of the puzzles is key to being able to successfully topple the law on whichever flawed foundation it is based on.

“Do not take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive.” — Elbert Hubbard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Yellow ducky by the Ocean
11 minutes ago, derryfawne said:

 

 

It's very frustrating that such basic fundamental human rights have to be fought for.

 

377A had been argued to be unconstitutional in Supreme Court before, unfortunately not to positive result. What we can reasonably infer is that "equality" forms only one part of the argument (despite that it should be the sole and most important one).

 

LHL ever spoke publicly, that when it comes to POLITICS, nothing is equal.  LGBT has been used as political scapegoat and religion as political card.  The whole ideal of equality in Singapore society is hifalutin, merely rhethorics to hang on to power.  Only the goon will constantly  buy into those political lies and believed them as gospel at the ballot box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, derryfawne said:

 

It's very frustrating that such basic fundamental human rights have to be fought for.

 

You have explained it very convincingly.  I will leave it at that.

 

3 minutes ago, Guest Yellow ducky by the Ocean said:

LHL ever spoke publicly, that when it comes to POLITICS, nothing is equal.  LGBT has been used as political scapegoat and religion as political card.  The whole ideal of equality in Singapore society is hifalutin, merely rhethorics to hang on to power.  Only the goon will constantly  buy into those political lies and believed them as gospel at the ballot box.

 

I understand that the PAP is held very highly by Singaporeans.

Maybe it needs to lose the elections once and be replaced, so that it can recapitulate and put justice and common people over its politics.

After that, people may re-elect them if it become more reasonable,  and people can continue enjoying their gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest7

It looks like S377A will  the last remaining sacred cow to be sacrificed at the altar muwahahahahaha......

 

Once its gone , all pretense of sanctity will be gone...

 

Gone....

 

Gone....

 

 

Goneeeeee....

 

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...