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

[Guest straw's swap]

Thanks for reminding us on her.

 

However, you forgot. She did not say "Go to hell" , "Burn in hell", "You are an evil sinner" or "Kill all gays".

You need to look what is "hate speech".

I don't think it was sufficient to conclude her speech was a "hate" speech even if the speech was disgusting:

 

POFMA only covers "hate speech" on the internet, MMS or SMS but not in public speech.

 

The Minister always referred to race and religion when discussing hate speech, but these provisions do not cover gays. Nobody dares to bring this to the Minister's attention. He is pretending "everything is fine" in Singapore.

 

The Straits Times Published Apr 1, 2019,

SINGAPORE - Hate speech is prohibited here and Singapore adopts a strict approach and takes quick action against it, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam.

 

Singapore recognises that race and religion are "fault lines" and "gut issues", which can be very emotive, and that the potential for violence increases when people feel their race or religion is under attack, he said.

 

It is only when a country is clear and has firm laws prohibiting hate speech, and deals fairly with all the communities, that it can start building a multi-religious and harmonious society, he said.

 

In Singapore, race and religion still play a large role in the personal decisions of Singaporeans, according to a survey conducted in 2016.

Hate speech is prohibited and quick action is taken against it, the minister said. The Internal Security Department (ISD) will also take action, depending on the severity of what was said and the possible consequences, Mr Shanmugam added.

 

This approach was conceptualised and crystallised by founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, who had said that "no amount of troops would be able to stop the trouble if there was real hatred between the different communities", said Mr Shanmugam.

"I think, I hope, there will be agreement in this House that hate speech, whatever form it takes... will be unacceptable. And that we should continue to prohibit hate speech and deal with it firmly, in the way we have done so far."

 

 

If you look at it: The focus is always religion and race.

There is no clear provision in any Act to act on hate speech against homosexuality, which means protection is not safeguarded. Any application on a discretionary basis with the authorities.

The second point is the broad concept of "different communities" .  Another flaw, what is a community.

Are a group of "strip pole dancers" or "lion dance groups" already forming a community?

Even POFMA doesn't know a definition of "community".

Then, even if you place the words "sexual orientation" into any existing law to create a clear statute protecting gays, then you come into conflict with 377A.

But who will dare to open Pandora's box???

 

The other point to note: In Singapore even MPs are not protected for their speeches in parliament.

In most other countries MPs have a privilege to free speech in the parliament and  are exempted from repercussions when they speak as a Member of Parliament.

Public backlash is something else. The limitations to free speech are specific laws protecting the internal peace like the Sedition Act (maybe others too).

 

One day, if it happens, Singapore's parliament must abolish all these restrictions and permitting the executive branch (government) to institute exceptions to the constitution. The real issue starts here.

 

Back on Thio Li Ann:

The smart thing was, at no point she ever mentioned "religion" or her view being based on her religious beliefs.

First she was a Nominated MP, wasn't the purpose to bring into parliament differing views? And now you want to curtail the differing views? (No worries, I found her disgusting).

 

The biggest problem was that there was no MP to rebut her directly with her nonsense.

 

As if rimming is different to licking a girl's pussy when it comes to the amount of bacteria present.

Spreading HPV within straight couples can cause vaginal cancer...  Are only gays liable for STDs?

Nobody just dared to pull her unscientific reasoning into the proper context and let her look like Donald Trump with his hydroxychloroquine proposal on Covid-19.

 

Nowadays with Covid-19 PRC tests, entering the swab into the nose, her silly argument on "like drinking through the nose with a straw" is simply outdated.

 

 

[Guest downshot]

53 minutes ago, upshot said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sorry, but I need to rebut on this.

 

The concept of hate speech in the West is not limiting freedom of speech, but enabling a discussion with differing views.

 

It is totally wrong to say, the concept of hate speech in the West is to shut up any discussion.

 

The free expression comes first in the West, then the potential backlash of certain groups. But still, people can express their opinion freely.

 

Don't confuse behaviour or societal reactions to inappropriate speeches with an "agenda" of the West to curtail expression. It is just the opposite: First there is free expression. 

The problem is more for certain groups to take such concepts as "hate speech" to create behavioural norms to society.

 

The last resort in the West would be the courts to find the blue line between unlawful "hate speech" and freedom of expression.

 

 

..............................................

Parliament: Hate speech may be handled differently elsewhere, but Singapore must be strict on it, says Shanmugam

Straits Times Published Apr 1, 2019,

 

....

 

During the speech, Mr Shanmugam cited the ways other countries have dealt with hate speech and its consequences.

 

The US, where hate speech is prohibited only if it is likely to lead to imminent lawless action, has a "high threshold", he said.

 

He noted that this has allowed inflammatory speeches that are anti-Semitic and denigrate certain groups and religions to be protected.

 

He cited the example of US Congressman Steve King, who had praised Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders. The latter had called for the closure of mosques in the Netherlands, insulted the Prophet Muhammad, and said the Quran is worse than the Mein Kampf, dictator Adolf Hitler's manifesto.

Over in Europe, some countries have broader prohibitions. However, the restrictions vary, said Mr Shanmugam.

 

He cited a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) last year that ruled that the conviction of an Austrian woman for calling the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile did not violate her freedom of expression.

 

The ECHR ruled that the Austrian court had balanced the applicant's right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.

 

In Germany, its Criminal Code prohibits the incitement of hatred against or insult of a racial or religious group. The same section also criminalises the glorification of Nazi rule.

 

In the UK, it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. However, it is permissible to ridicule, insult or abuse any religion, belief, practice and its followers.

......................................................

 

 

And?

With the open laws in the Western countries, do you see Catholics bashing Protestants with baseball bats on the roads or Jewish people fighting with Moslems around every corner of the cities?

 

The background  for the is in the Western countries is the bigger area of free speech and protection to free speech and being permitted for freely expressing your opinion in public.

 

Looking at Singapore, I see the requirement for the protection/ restrictions  on racial and religious in a more immature society being able to deal with any expression.

There is much faster the possibility for an uproar and violence here, if such areas are touched.

The laws shall ascertain peace and harmony in Singapore.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

My baby Pritam ❤️❤️

[Guest roses]

do you send your baby Pritam roses every day?

[Guest Chicken laid Duck Eggs]

Unlike Trump, Sillypore garment always talk and no action towards protecting the LGBT

[Guest Guest]

36 minutes ago, Guest Chicken laid Duck Eggs said:

Unlike Trump, Sillypore garment always talk and no action towards protecting the LGBT

 

Unlike Trump, Sillypore government is still in power with more than 60% voter support, and they are still talking and no action towards protecting the LGBT. For example, where is the very person for which this Parliamentary question was trigger? Is the person who threw the rainbow flag at the store helpers still walking around the country free and easy now? 

[Guest Guest]

11 hours ago, Guest roses said:

do you send your baby Pritam roses every day?

And flying kisses

[Guest Betrayed]

22 minutes ago, Guest Guest said:

 Is the person who threw the rainbow flag at the store helpers still walking around the country free and easy now? 

Absolutely.  What do you expect?  LGBT has no protection nor recongition and not under any priority on matters concerning our safety.  The Shame only used politically correct and mild words to entice LGBT votes.  I felt so betrayed by those who voted for Dictator.

[Guest eggy affair]

1 hour ago, Guest Chicken laid Duck Eggs said:

Unlike Trump, Sillypore garment always talk and no action towards protecting the LGBT

Your analogy is wrong..

 

If chicken laid duck eggs then it is something heavy.

Here it is more, chicken laid hummingbird eggs...

[Guest leave Trump out of SGP]

1 hour ago, Guest Chicken laid Duck Eggs said:

Unlike Trump, Sillypore garment always talk and no action towards protecting the LGBT

But Trump only talk load annoying voice and no action.

Big show with Kim Yong Un, the North Korean still build new atomic facility during Trump presidency. Result zero.

Only thing Trump got the numbers was most dead from Covid per country... (but here no action too...)

[upshot]

On 3/3/2021 at 1:44 PM, Guest downshot said:

 

Sorry, but I need to rebut on this.

 

The concept of hate speech in the West is not limiting freedom of speech, but enabling a discussion with differing views.

 

It is totally wrong to say, the concept of hate speech in the West is to shut up any discussion.

 

The free expression comes first in the West, then the potential backlash of certain groups. But still, people can express their opinion freely.

 

Don't confuse behaviour or societal reactions to inappropriate speeches with an "agenda" of the West to curtail expression. It is just the opposite: First there is free expression. 

The problem is more for certain groups to take such concepts as "hate speech" to create behavioural norms to society.

 

The last resort in the West would be the courts to find the blue line between unlawful "hate speech" and freedom of expression.

 

 

..............................................

Parliament: Hate speech may be handled differently elsewhere, but Singapore must be strict on it, says Shanmugam

Straits Times Published Apr 1, 2019,

 

....

 

During the speech, Mr Shanmugam cited the ways other countries have dealt with hate speech and its consequences.

 

The US, where hate speech is prohibited only if it is likely to lead to imminent lawless action, has a "high threshold", he said.

 

He noted that this has allowed inflammatory speeches that are anti-Semitic and denigrate certain groups and religions to be protected.

 

He cited the example of US Congressman Steve King, who had praised Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders. The latter had called for the closure of mosques in the Netherlands, insulted the Prophet Muhammad, and said the Quran is worse than the Mein Kampf, dictator Adolf Hitler's manifesto.

Over in Europe, some countries have broader prohibitions. However, the restrictions vary, said Mr Shanmugam.

 

He cited a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) last year that ruled that the conviction of an Austrian woman for calling the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile did not violate her freedom of expression.

 

The ECHR ruled that the Austrian court had balanced the applicant's right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.

 

In Germany, its Criminal Code prohibits the incitement of hatred against or insult of a racial or religious group. The same section also criminalises the glorification of Nazi rule.

 

In the UK, it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. However, it is permissible to ridicule, insult or abuse any religion, belief, practice and its followers.

......................................................

 

 

And?

With the open laws in the Western countries, do you see Catholics bashing Protestants with baseball bats on the roads or Jewish people fighting with Moslems around every corner of the cities?

 

The background  for the is in the Western countries is the bigger area of free speech and protection to free speech and being permitted for freely expressing your opinion in public.

 

Looking at Singapore, I see the requirement for the protection/ restrictions  on racial and religious in a more immature society being able to deal with any expression.

There is much faster the possibility for an uproar and violence here, if such areas are touched.

The laws shall ascertain peace and harmony in Singapore.

 

 

 

 

Agree to disagree but your scope of what hate speech is limited in scope and specific by my understanding. What I mean is wider and more diabolical used today by especially one particular group of people who understand it and use it. From the giant politicians to the 'KARENS' on the street. How it had been handled, indoctrinated, allowed and dealt with in conjunction and context that gave us 'SJW cancel culture'. It's mainstream now in the good old USA. Every day another example pops up and someone loses their job or business. You can choose to nitpick but in the general, use of the word 'HATE SPEECH', that definition is so abused that anyone holding the 'correct magical social status ranking' will be seen as right, MORE right  or wrong or MORE wrong. Feminist tells you how to do something, that is right. Man tell a woman how to so it even with best of intention, that is 'mansplaining'. He is a male misogynist for doing so.  THAT KIND OF HATE SPEECH is not acceptable. And there are tons of that happening. And it is being use irresponsibly (almost thick-skin fashion) in more ways to control, recondition, bully, takeover, make money and suppress another's ideology, power or subject.  I am NOT saying there is no such thing as true HATE SPEECH and those variants should be restricted and even protected with laws but in the way cultural war is happening in the west, that influence is and will start to make it way HERE. In tiny Singapore, I fully understand why that kind of USA 'freedom' can't FULLY be allowed here. Even I can see in a small country like this, fire spread very quickly and as we live so close to each other, being respectful is key to living peacefully. YES peace need to be enforced as it is in our nature to be human and having all the good and BAD attitudes as such. Some freedom comes with years of experience and live before you truly know how to use it and not abuse it. Which brings me to HATE SPEECH.

 

To me there is a clear distinction overtime what FREE SPEECH is and also what I define as truly HATE SPEECH and what it entails. I have read history out of interest locally and the world. If the right balance use of it is not clearly defined, open to discuss at length and fairly judged than society and truth are lost.

 

Want examples? You have plenty of fresh stories (Look at my 'Recent Status Updates' which I share daily links to all the mayhem happening) and every day, splashes of shit abuse by people and groups choosing to push their toxic cultural definitions NOT TO PROTECT but to harm, get ahead, stir shit for the sake of fame, demand change without working, bully or simply just itchy mouth. Shit remarks most of it but picked up enough news chatters, momentum and someone gets the wrong vibes on it and bad shit happens. And when it does these days, no people dare speak. A slow build to these point of fear to speak up but cower. This did not happen overnight mind you. And this is not even peak yet.

 

And that is where you get the cancel culture, the rising of the mentally retarded losers and virtue signally addict voices that hide behind PCs and Smart Phones that we normally ignore as the school loser that hang about school days. These people suddenly get traction on their nonsense and guess who suffers when tiny voices get picked up in the internet wilderness? Typically, not work hard, lack direction, close minded, blame others for their inability to help themselves, waste time being jealous, day dream about famous stars, ...etc You know the type. We see some of them HERE too in BW with their nonsense interjection. Just say shit for shit sake.

 

Now in the age of the Internet and social media boom, suddenly they have this weaponized means to hit back and it gets reaction. The know the victim card game, your social standing in 'Oppression' Olympics chart as they call it PLUS a privileged snowflake mentality. The Problem is people like those FIND people like them online and build enough a critical group or perceived group that scare enough people or companies to make changes. Sometime for the better, I grant you BUT more times these days in the shadows, more harm then good. And yes, the irony? They ignite more HATE in the process. The use of the term HATE SPEECH (when they do not like something) these days are not about stopping things like racism, bigotry for example, they are pushing people to be hateful. But it does show how much they hate YOU instead. Ironic.

 

How you like it if someone keep shoving verbal shit at you 24/7 telling you how to do this and that. Your way is wrong and you better listen even if they change the rules every 5 mins. Do it or you are CANCELLED. You tell me, would anyone will turn the other cheek and let you hit it too and carry on obeying them? You show your HATE the moment you shout down, refuse to let the other side tell their side of the story all because you disagree with a life different from yours. Furthermore, you exert on them that you or your group are RIGHT and no discussion allowed. Why? Because you are white, yellow, former slave owner few generations back, love Trump instead of hating him, love man superheroes more than female ones...etc TAKE YOUR PICK I have see tons of it. And it is getting more and more crazy how they NITPICK every teeny weenie miniscule details in your past life even to break you, get you fired and fuck up your life. In cave man days, that is as good as calling it MURDER. Which is what is happening in the west and spreading outward. Why not? Good tactics in the hands of some thick skin despot. Might work so why not try. And it is mainstream and very well used as a weapon by the left, majority of the media and social media company to channel eyeballs and minds and play partisan politics and drive heaps of money and control their way. The recent US election was a hive of all that 'shittiness'. Both side but one side more than the other. And that is why it is bad if something like this hits nations like our being small and venerable geographically. Good google or yet use duckduckgo search keywords on hate speech abuse. I use the latter to avoid censorship online and yes news is very bias these days online.  Almost all the media are controlled by one party side. You think MDIS is bad? hehehe.. There are a lot worst and you all are using it everyday and not know how they shape your ideals and life bit by bit if not most it by now.

 

I do not believe in all this religious stuff being born first a Roman Catholic, then Methodist ...then Taoist Buddhist, no answer ever suffice nor answered all my universal truths and I see more shit people and bias things behind each closed door more than I see anyone caring about an Almighty GOD.

 

BUT that does not mean since I left, I go around talking bad about them now. The concept of God is between you and whatever. Not my business. BUT if a religious person or group does something totally OUT OF CONTEXT OF THEIR BELIEF DISHONEST AND/OR HARMFUL, should I have the right to point it out, make it known to expose them or report them. Why? Because all religion are good and pure? Stop being naive and simpleton. heheh. Another example, say my father commit a crime. I will report and expose out of my moral code. So you call that hate speech on my part if I tell people about it or tell them to avoid him? For reporting them and telling people of wrongdoing? And they use the cover of HATE SPEECH to cover it. If there are totally no evidences, yes. I am silly to go about accusing. But if I have proof but they have a bigger voice to shut me down and accuse me of HATE SPEECH, so do I shut up and act like nothing happening? Let them keep getting away with it? Am I too propagating hate speech BY TELLING YOU THESE? In the USA I AM. And my boss will likely fire me so he/she too will not catch my 'heat' from the outcrying mob. It's like that. Some people are so SENSITIVE and 'SMALL GAS' and thinks asking them what race they are or if they are a not local are also HATE SPEECH. Never occur to them, folks might simply just be curious and even striking up a friendly conversation. This kind of behaviour is NOT TRULY HELPING THE WORLD but destroying it from the INSIDE. Each of us will have to choose a position to stand on this. But paranoid as I might sound, I am not that far from the truth I saw coming and many of what I know was coming is already here. Truth is always somewhere in between as I always say.

 

Words like HATE SPEECH is so criminally raped these days, it is not even funny.

 

 

 

Also note, this is not something I or anyone can write to explain all our points.. it is too much typing and akin to writing a novel for sure. This is something if you really want to trash out, you have to verbally do this over coffee at length to truly understand it. So if you think this is a big concern to your heart and interest do what i do, DIG. Dig deep. Dig wide even if what you find does not sit well with you have been told. And yup, anal sex is not the only thing's  top on my mind. LOL

 

Sorry..... slow day. Just felt a rant that needs to cum out. LOL.  Back to my gaming.. Damn very addicted to SATISFACTORY.... .and still nude gaming..3 week coming...

Edited March 4, 2021 by upshot

[Guest Gas Star]

On 3/4/2021 at 11:39 AM, Guest Betrayed said:

Absolutely.  What do you expect?  LGBT has no protection nor recongition and not under any priority on matters concerning our safety.  The Shame only used politically correct and mild words to entice LGBT votes.  I felt so betrayed by those who voted for Dictator.

Not only that. In general, workers have no protection. Companies can suka suka fire someone on a whim. No ne will help you. If you leave your personal particulars on lucky draw forms and with other big companies. They say by filling up the form, you give consent to allow us to use your info as we see fit...

[Guest Gugu]

Pritam’s sexy as heck..kiss kiss...

[groyn88]

Singapore's third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) review, the 38th session of the UPR Working Group, took place virtually via a hybrid format of both Zoom and pre-recorded video statements on Wednesday, 12 May 2021 at the UN Office at Geneva, Switzerland. Singapore’s delegation was headed by Ambassador-at-large Professor Chan Heng Chee and took part in a three-hour dialogue where other UN members provided their recommendations on how Singapore could improve its human rights record.

 

 

 

Transcript:

Chan Heng Chee: "Finally, I will touch on the LGBT issue, which was raised by the United States, Sweden, countries from the European Union, Australia, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, and New Zealand, among others. Let me reiterate that for Singapore, the LGBT community are valuable members of our society. The Government does not tolerate violence, abuse, discrimination, and harassment against the community. An annual Pink Dot event in Singapore has been organised by the LGBT community for the past 12 years. While Section 377A of the Penal Code remains on the books, the Government has stated clearly that it is not enforced. In the context of Singapore, where attitudes towards homosexuality are still evolving, and various communities hold different views, any move by the Government must take into consideration the sentiments of all communities. We believe it is better to let the situation evolve gradually."

 

 

Transcript:

Ang Bee Lian: "LGBT persons are valuable members of our society. We want to assure delegates from Sweden and Spain, who asked about protection of LGBT persons, that just like other Singaporeans, LGBT persons have equal access to opportunities and support, such as in education, jobs and healthcare - social services accessible to all without discrimination. We oppose violence, abuse, discrimination and harassment of all individuals, including those who are LGBT. Laws are in place to protect victims from domestic violence regardless of their sexual orientation. Madam President, we will continue to provide equal opportunities for all Singaporeans to flourish in their chosen fields. Thank you."

 

 

Links: https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Universal_Periodic_Review:_Singapore_LGBT_issues

Edited May 13, 2021 by groyn88

[Guest Heng heng]

That woman sure knows how to act assertive and play taichi when the occasion calls for it.

[Guest Citizen]

Retention of the law for "symbolic" purpose is abuse of human rights by demarcating, delineating, signaling, signifying, marking out, discriminating against an entire class of humans as social pariah, criminals and "offenders", exposing and risking them to vigilante behaviours from the community.

 

It's like disapproving a certain skin color. Very despicable!

 

 

[Guest What?]

If minds do not evolve, situation will not evolve. What is PAP delegate talking about?

[Guest Has it has it not?]

Someone up there said it is just symbolic right?

 

Is it true?

 

Has there been any report in the past it has been used before to charge people in Singapore?

 

Or any evidence it has never been invoked?

[Guest Citizen]

OMG this is like sooo damn important don't tell me nobody knows for sure??????

[Guest Wtf]

On 10/30/2021 at 12:05 AM, Guest Citizen said:

OMG this is like sooo damn important don't tell me nobody knows for sure??????

there is a search engine called Google - why not try it and share your findings?

[Guest L'Oréal 辣阴]

On 10/30/2021 at 12:29 PM, Guest Wtf said:

there is a search engine called Google - why not try it and share your findings?

You all are so apathetic. No wonder Singapore still stuck with 377A. If I were the ministers I also won't bother repealing it. Cos you guys are not worth it!

[Guest Wtf]

On 10/30/2021 at 2:20 PM, Guest L'Oréal 辣阴 said:

You all are so apathetic. No wonder Singapore still stuck with 377A. If I were the ministers I also won't bother repealing it. Cos you guys are not worth it!

so what is the answer from your non-apathetic self to the question guest citizen says is ‘so damn important’ that they can’t even google the answer? 

[Guest Citizen]

On 10/30/2021 at 12:29 PM, Guest Wtf said:

 

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

Section 377A actively enforced again

In an apparent reneging of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's word and the government's promise never to apply Section 377A again, the police employed a decoy to entrap an ethnic Indian Malaysian man allegedly cruising for gay sex around the disused cemetary at Jalan Kubor in 2010. This episode of the police entrapment of gay men occurred after almost a decade of cessation of the operations.

Section 377A was again used to charge two men having for having oral sex in a toilet cubicle at Mustafa Centre. The gay community was indignant because the non-gay discriminatory Section 294(a), which criminalises "any obscene act in any public place" irrespective of gender (see below) could have easily been used instead.

 

 

185 convictions under 377A from 1997 to 2006

See also: Archive of "A heftier list of s.377A cases", Mohan Gopalan, May 2007

In May 2007, Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong queried the Minister for Home Affairs in Parliament about the number of men prosecuted and convicted under Section 377A over the past decade:

Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, in each of the last ten years, (a) how many prosecutions and convictions have there been under section 377A of the Penal Code; (b) how many of these prosecutions were police prosecutions; and (c) how many of these police prosecutions were the result of proactive police enforcement.

Wong Kan Seng: The statistics on the number of persons convicted under section 377A (Outrages on decency) of the Penal Code, between 1997 and 2006 is shown below. Prosecution statistics are not available. Police does not proactively enforce the provision.

1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
25	16	31	30	23	25	11	13	4	7

 

[Guest Scare Monger]

S377A, is like a signage that screamed "poultry murderer",  hung above the supermarket fresh meat department. Very unnecessary and absolutely redundant.  How to invoke a crime with controversial legislation?

[Guest Citizen]

You guys are too naive. The authorities kept it there so that they can invoke it to terrorise gay people as and when they like it, because they do not like gay people. This is called bullying. The police force is made up of ITE graduates - the cradle of hateful and ignorant bullies who grow up to become scoundrels of society.

[Guest Citizen]

The Singapore Police Force is also disproportionately made up of Malays, who really hate gay people with a passion.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/abs/homophobic-muslims-emerging-trends-in-multireligious-singapore/2B06C99F6DB951C400B24AC82C5BF2A9#

[Guest Citizen]

The SPF can cherry pick who they want to charge with 377A. 

 

This is bullying and MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE RULE OF LAW at the same time.

 

You think they will not do it again, with the high number of Malays and ITE graduates in their midst which has something to do religious hatred towards gays, homophobia, backwardness, lack of grace, ignorance and stupidity?

[Guest Citizen]

Religious hatred towards gays, homophobia, backwardness, lack of grace, ignorance and stupidity will give rise to sanctimoniousness which manifests in judgemental and abusive attitude towards gay people, including cherry picking who to intimidate and who to charge.

[Guest Citizen]

In the first place, why so many ITE graduates with bad school results end up becoming police officers?

 

Has it got something to do with having some disposable power to play around with daily in the line of their job?

 

These unsavoury, uncultured and lowy educated people unfortunately makes up the bulk of our SPF! 

[Guest Citizen]

The worse thing is many of these police officers have only studied until 'O' levels.

 

The most ignorant and homophobic people of the population, and most of them are poorly educated Malays, with added religious passion against gay people.

[Guest BoyBoy]

What’s wrong with o levels only?

Nowadays graduates also hard to find job or get shit pay

Might as well not study, slack, and get shit pay too

They are smart to join police force as o levels because they get decent pay and stable career

 

[auscent]

To be fair, ppl of any sexuality can be charged under public decency. No need for one specifying gay people.

[Guest Citizen]

On 11/1/2021 at 5:23 PM, auscent said:

To be fair, ppl of any sexuality can be charged under public decency. No need for one specifying gay people.

Those losers just want to pick on gay people. If you have seen them, 99.9% of these losers are borned with a fuckface or are obscenely obese.

[Guest Roy Tan]

The Tan Seng Kee v. AG Section 377A Constitutional challenge has just established a historical legal precedent in that our courts now recognise the doctrine of substantive legal expectation (SLE) in constitutional law, a difficult concept that was not fleshed out in detail before because the appropriate and particular circumstances never arose prior to my challenge. In simple terms, it means that when the Government makes certain representations to citizens, the latter can reasonably expect these conditions to hold true. If they are contradicted, citizens can enforce their rights through the courts via judicial reviews and mandatory orders. This is a far-reaching development in the field of constitutional law in Singapore. The judicial principles in the case give guidance as to how these rights are enforced. This is a bonus in addition to the landmark ruling it achieved that Section 377A is "unenforceable" which paves the way for its eventual repeal by Parliament. Tan Seng Kee v. AG is now going to be cited in numerous cases both locally and around the world as lawyers attempt to apply the legal principles in the challenge to their own clients' predicaments. 

[Guest Roy Tan]

On Wednesday, 29 June 2022, Shanmugam explained the Government's stance on Section 377A, among other issues, to British journalist and presenter Stephen Sackur in a 24-minute podcast episode of the BBC's HardTalk, billed as a programme where interviewees are asked hard-hitting questions.

Transcript:

Sackur: Now, let's move on from drugs. Another aspect of your social policy, and that is the fact that in Singapore, homosexuality is still defined as a criminal act. Now that's not saving lives. So, what on earth is the justification for that?

Shanmugam: The position in Singapore is that people engaging in gay sex will not be prosecuted. Even though there is this old piece of law which makes gay sex among males an offence, the Attorney-General has confirmed their position, and the Supreme Court has said that the Government's position has legal force. Why are we taking this approach? Because a significant proportion of our population, the middle ground as it were, don't want that law repealed. Attitudes are shifting somewhat, but still, governments cannot, the Singapore Government cannot ignore those views. So, we have arrived at this sort of messy compromise the last 15 years and we have taken this path because these issues are difficult. They are not easily settled. And we have made clear, LGBTQ+ (lesbians, gays, bisexual, transgender and queer) individuals are entitled to live peacefully without being attacked or threatened. We have in fact laws that protect the community.

Sackur: What is the message sent? What is the message sent to gay men in Singapore that you are not prepared to remove that section 377A of your criminal code, which quite explicitly says that gay sex between men is illegal? That simply encourages, does it not, a culture of shame and homophobia?

Shanmugam: As I said, you know, this is a compromise that we have arrived at, because of where our society is. And if you believe in a democracy, you've got to take into account where your main ground is. And let's face it, it's not as if others have solved the issue. A Supreme Court judge from the US suggested a few days ago that court decisions on legality of gay sex and same sex marriage may have to be reconsidered. But our approach (is) to deal with these issues in Parliament, and I've said earlier this year that we are relooking our laws, and our laws have to change and keep pace with the times. And in a Singaporean way, we are engaging in a wide set of consultations to try to arrive at some sort of landing.

Sackur: Minister, I'm listening very carefully to your words. They're very interesting. And if I say to you, say you know public mood and public opinion matters, I say to you that one of the leading polling agencies, Ipsos, in Singapore has found “a steady shift in societal attitudes led by younger adult Singaporeans, who are more ready to see the country now properly embrace same-sex relationships”. So, if that's the reality, are you saying to me that we can expect, in the near future, your government to actually strike off Section 377A and make it clear to gay men in Singapore that they can be open about their sexuality with no fear that anybody is going to regard them as criminal?

Shanmugam: There are two points. First of all, the Ipsos survey seems to us a little bit of an outlier in the context of other surveys, internal and public, that we have. At the same time, I did say to you that attitudes are shifting, but I'm not quite sure they are shifting as much as what Ipsos has said. The second point is, I said that we are in deep consultations with stakeholders, including LGBTQ+ community, as well as others. And you know, in a system of Cabinet responsibility, what we are going to do can only be announced once a decision is reached. I'm in no position to answer that question with finality at this point.

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/K_Shanmugam's_views_on_homosexuality

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

[yogateacher]

On 6/30/2022 at 12:36 AM, Guest Roy Tan said:

Shanmugam: As I said, you know, this is a compromise that we have arrived at, because of where our society is.

Compromise? 🤣

[StockBottom]

Same old same old lah, "society is not ready", "compromise", "consultations", "status quo", "conservative", ...

[lonelyglobe]

Yeap,  just another usual talk cock wayang show,  blame it on society, nothing new.

[fab]

Quote

Because a significant proportion of our population, the middle ground as it were, don't want that law repealed.

 

I wonder who are they.

[Spugnatura]

More likely it is christian cabinet ministers who want the law retained to preserve the status quo for Christian members of their wards.

 

Political manipulation of law!

[MadMan]

I was told almost 55% of ministers are Xtians, some are even elders in church. Our past two and current PM all have no known religious affiliations, not so sure about Lawrence Wong though

[Spugnatura]

On 6/30/2022 at 4:31 PM, MadMan said:

I was told almost 55% of ministers are Xtians, some are even elders in church. Our past two and current PM all have no known religious affiliations, not so sure about Lawrence Wong though

I thought the percentage of Christian MP is more than 90%?

[Spugnatura]

On 6/30/2022 at 6:27 PM, Since u r here said:

is that so? so many? 

 

I'm not surprised even if it is 98%

[Spugnatura]

If Buddhism is the dominant religion in England, 98% of our MPs will have been Buddhists.

 

It's herd mentality and the western educated, connected and affluent connotations of Christianity that compelled them to be Christians.

[auscent]

Some of the BBC interviewer's questions revealed lack of depth/ preparation.

 

He could have asked if certain policies might change faster in line with The Pledge "...pledge ourselves as 1 united people...".

[Why?]

Shamugam needs to go around the neighborhood and inquire of every elder whether they are familiar with S377A. He and I can wager that nobody is aware. It's very ridiculous to put words in these elderly people's mouths to defend preserving S377A.. The Freedom without Border Index ranking was also brought up by the host, but Sham dismissed it as not "credible."  The take away for international listeners, Singapore remain an authoritarium regime. 

[Why?]

On 6/30/2022 at 9:12 PM, auscent said:

Some of the BBC interviewer's questions revealed lack of depth/ preparation.

 

He could have asked if certain policies might change faster in line with The Pledge "...pledge ourselves as 1 united people...".

They are time-bound. If you've listened to the entire interview, as I did, you'll see that the host covers a lot of ground on discrimination. Shamugam argued, however, that the UK fared much worse in terms of skin color prejudice

[Guest Get real]

Once S377A is repealed, the natural next step is to fight for same-sex marriage. Unless the bulk of the older generation are gone, it is highly unlikely that will be appoved, as there is a chain reaction of major impact to life in Singapore: housing/BTO, flood of gay men marrying locals to be PR/citizens, etc.

[Why?]

On 7/1/2022 at 8:53 AM, Guest Get real said:

Once S377A is repealed, the natural next step is to fight for same-sex marriage. Unless the bulk of the older generation are gone, it is highly unlikely that will be appoved, as there is a chain reaction of major impact to life in Singapore: housing/BTO, flood of gay men marrying locals to be PR/citizens, etc.

Singapore is a Buddhist nation, so it doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is legal or not. The approbation of either the elder or younger generations is irrelevant. They will maintain S377A as long as there is a small percentage of conservative Muslim or Christian votes that can be purchased. The promotion of traditional values in Singapore? Come and kiss my Ass!

[lonelyglobe]

"Because a significant proportion of our population"

 

How significant? 500, 5000, 50000 or 5 million? 

 

no figure = sweeping statement

 

i can also say a lot supported it.

 

i believe the consideration is not only within SG,  dont forget SG is sandwiched between 2 very religious neighbour and if we make them unhappy, cut off water and food supply,  we will die.