By Ghui

Law

“Why is that law on the books? Because it’s always been there and I think we just leave it,” adding that he had explained his decision in 2007 to retain Section 377A was PM Lee’s response when asked by a participant of the Singapore Perspective conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies if “this old and archaic law” which discriminates against a whole group of people could be reconciled with a secular country such as Singapore. http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lets-agree-disagree-gay-rights-pm-lee

This one answer perhaps best encapsulates the reason why people are increasingly turning to the opposition parties. People want well thought out answers and accountability from their leaders – not a dismissive and seemingly flippant reply.

It defies logic to suggest that just because something has always been there, it should remain as is. By that reasoning, Singapore should still remain a British Colony or that women should still be barred from voting or that slavery should remain in place! The list goes on but you catch my drift.

Laws are never static and have to be reassessed to suit changing viewpoints and needs. Just because he explained his decision in 2007 does not mean that his answer then suits the situation now – it being 5 years ago!

More worryingly, is this the attitude that the government is also taking towards other controversial issues such as the retention of the ISA or the death penalty?

Politicians are elected into government to lead our country. Leadership requires the desire and the ability to steer the country into the future. If something should be changed to reflect the direction a country should move towards, then opting for status quo displays a lack of willpower to genuinely engage with the people. It could also bring into question that leader’s foresight.

Perhaps PM Lee was quoted out of context and it is unfair to judge an entire party based on the statements of an individual. But when that individual is so inextricably linked to the PAP and is also the Prime Minister of Singapore, one cannot help but generalise and feel mildly disturbed.

I am personally for the repeal of Section 377A. As it is, it doesn’t serve any particular purpose. It has already been publicly stated that this Section will not be actively used to prosecute anyone. So, if that were the case, what is the point of it remaining on the statute books? Besides serving no purpose, it can have the added bane of causing confusion to many Singaporeans. Is it a crime or is it not?

Adolescence is a trying enough time for parents and teenagers alike. When you throw grappling with sexuality into the mix, you muddy the emotional trials that much more. Parents, teachers and caregivers will have to explain to children and teenagers that being gay might be a crime even though they might not get prosecuted for it? Not only is this a wishy washy answer, it also heightens the isolation that a gay teenager might feel.

This is a campaign that is gaining momentum and neither PM Lee nor the PAP can avoid taking a stand forever. In my private capacity, I want to see this law abolished for good but I recognise and respect that the majority of Singapore may not agree with me. But, I would still be heartened if the PM could take a genuine stand on the issue. Other leaders in the developed world have taken a stand so why not PM Lee? By evading a stand, this becomes even more needlessly controversial when it really is very simple – is it being applied? If the answer is no, then it is superfluous. End of.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

教育部兼人力部高级政务次长刘燕玲 感染骨痛热症

本地当前尽管面对冠状病毒19疫情,但民众也受促不能忽略另一威胁–骨痛热症。 教育部兼人力部高级政务次长刘燕玲,今日(11日)在脸书分享,自己感染骨痛热症。 她也指出,从今年1月以来,骨痛热症病例每周平均在300至400例,若这种趋势持续下去,2020年的全年累计骨痛热症病例,恐怕要达到1万6000例。 她表示,目前医生劝她这几日暂时在家静养。她不忘提醒民众必须合力确保骨痛热症不会威胁我们亲爱家属的安全。

Do the Police appear to prioritise VIPs over ordinary folk?

It is rather heartbreaking to have to see student Monica Baey (Baey)…

SAFRA poster criticised for being sexist and distasteful

A promotional poster by SAFRA – or SAFRA National Service Association –…

警可调用“合力追踪数据” 欧斯曼:关键在于部长有误导群众之嫌

本周一(4日),内政部政务部长陈国明证实,刑事程序法赋予警方权力,可获取任何数据,包括“合力追踪”便携器的数据,随后引发议论。 内政部兼律政部长尚穆根与外交部长维文均跳出来澄清,警方只有在追踪重大罪案时,才能动用“合力追踪”数据。 人民党党员欧斯曼(Khan Osman Sulaiman),则在脸书上发文,指根本问题并不在于,警方是否能够从“合力追踪”获取资讯,而是教育部长黄循财等人曾向人民保证,所有收集的数据将仅用于防疫追踪,这似乎有误导公众之嫌。 的确,去年在跨部门工作小组的记者会上,黄循财与维文均强调,合力追踪应用程式将仅限于防疫追踪。 黄循财表示,“目前无意将合力追踪程式内的数据供调查所用。该程式旨在及时向我们提供信息,以便我们快速和有效追踪接触者而已。” 维文也同声呼应,指程式内的数据单纯用于追踪接触者。 对此,欧斯曼也将该情况与公积金作比喻,即政府也曾承诺在55岁时将可提取公积金,却在后来一直增至65岁。 他直指,“没完没了的改变目的。” 欧斯曼续指,政府应将警方可用合力追踪的数据一事,早些向公众透露。 “就目前而言,它们造就了一种感觉,即(政府)并未坦白整件事。”