Left: Lucien Wong, Right: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2007 where he defended the retention of 377a

I refer to the article “Government has not curbed public prosecutor’s discretion for Section 377A: A-G Lucien Wong” (Straits Times, Oct 3).

It states that “The Government has not removed or restricted prosecutorial discretion for Section 377A, Attorney-General Lucien Wong said in a statement released on Tuesday (Oct 2).

He noted that former A-Gs, Professor Walter Woon and Mr V. K. Rajah, “have recently suggested that it is not desirable for the Government and Parliament to direct the public prosecutor (PP) not to prosecute offences under Section 377A of the Penal Code, or to create the perception that they are doing so”.

“Such comments may give rise to the inaccurate impression that the exercise of the PP’s discretion has been removed or restricted in respect of Section 377A.”

In this connection, according to Mothership (Sep 9) –

“Janadas Devan, Chief of Government Communications and Director of Institute of Policy Studies on 8 Sep:“Till the majority changes, the “uneasy compromise” on 377A, as PM Lee described it, that we decided upon more than a decade ago, remains the only viable position: Given the majority view, the law remains on the books. But the Government does not and will not enforce 377A.”

But this does not mean that we have reached a broad social consensus, that this is a happy state of affairs, because there are still very different views amongst Singaporeans on whether homosexuality is acceptable or morally right.”

What Janadas is referring to is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s speech in 2007 where he said,

“There are gay bars and clubs. They exist. We know where they are. Everybody knows where they are. They do not have to go underground. We do not harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policemen. And we do not proactively enforce section 377A on them.”

PM Lee’s speech back in 2007, gave the impression that the Government will not use the 377a upon gay individuals despite open knowledge of their activities but what the AG is saying here is that he retains the discretion and power to prosecute those who are found to have committed the offence.

So can assurances given by Ministers in Parliamentary debates on our laws, be relied upon?

What are some other examples of this issue?

Well, for example –

The HDB “asset enhancement’ policy when banks were allowed to do HDB loans from 1 January 2003 –

“From 1st January 2003, HDB lessees who buy resale flats without any CPF Housing Grant and with bank loans will only need to occupy their flats for one year, instead of the current 21/2 years, before they can sell it in the open market.

Existing resale flats bought without any CPF Housing Grant will also qualify if the lessee re-finances his outstanding HDB market rate loan with banks or fully redeems his HDB market rate loan. The reduction in MOP will also apply to existing resale flats that are bought without CPF Housing Grant and without any loan from HDB” – extract from Parliamentary debate in October, 2002

Many Singaporeans who opted for HDB bank loans based on the above, were subsequently disappointed when the policies changed.

Given how the media licensing and expected online falsehoods’ laws, may be used to stifle freedom of expression, how much weight should we give to the speeches made by the PAP MPs and Ministers to justify the need for “fake news” laws which our neighboring country has sought to abolish?

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

营中银行卡被盗 宵小刑满还同营服役

在军营里偷窃、到营外消费赃款,该被军法还是刑事法制裁,又或者两者都能定罪? 一名国民服役营员,日前分享自己在军营里遭宵小的经历,同时也对小偷最后只被军事法庭判处监禁15周,却不会在警方档案留下犯罪记录,感到十分疑惑。最令他懊恼的是,小偷在军事扣留营期满后,还会和他同营服役。 这名不愿具名的营员,且以伟俊代称,向“网络公民”阐述事件缘由。去年6月,伟俊从外头回到他服役的军营,发现放在储物柜里的银行卡不见了, 原本他不以为然,以为是忘在家里了。 然而,他在晚上8.57分,却收到银行短信,指其户口在电动车专卖店消费了2千余元,伟俊才警觉自己的银行卡被盗用了。他随即透过网络登入自己的户口,发现有3千元被转入他人银行户口,以及被盗用35元付德士费。 在他人劝告下,伟俊决定报警,不过警方基于案件在军营内发生,于是将此案转交军警处处理。经调查,伟进才得知是自己的一位营友,乘自己忘了锁上柜子,偷走了银行卡。 “相信他猜中了我的银行卡密码是我的生日,才能盗款得逞。国威向警方坦承。包括我的现金,共盗走5千多元。” 未指示小偷归还赃款 伟俊曾询问军警调查官可否拿回他被盗的款项,被告知需静候军事法庭裁决。然而,军事法庭并没指示小偷归还伟俊的钱,而且,用赃款买的电动车,也已归还给有关店主。 宵小只被罚拘留在扣留营15周,也不会在警方档案留下案底。 伟俊询问其律师意见,律师认为,该宵小已触犯刑事盗窃罪第379项224章,也有足够证据带上法庭,对新加坡警方为何没有采取行动,律师也感到不解。 伟俊认为,有关宵小盗窃罪证确凿,即触犯刑事罪,除了军法,理应也受刑事法的制裁,被带到刑事法庭问罪,判定相应的刑罚。…

Covid-19 incubation period can be up to 24 days instead of 14, says new research from China

The incubation period for Covid-19 could be as long as 24 days,…

Nicole Seah hints at volunteering with WP in GE

Is Nicole Seah coming back to Singapore to volunteer with the Workers’…

【冠状病毒19】北京疫情拉警报! 全市中小学停课、小区封闭式管理

中国首都北京在过去五日内现逾100起冠状病毒19确诊病例,当局宣布将卫生应急级别由三级升至二级,全市即日起中小学停课。 北京市政府副秘书长陈蓓昨晚(16日)召开记者会表示,当局自上周四(11日)以来,连续接获多起同新发地批发市场有关的新病例,而且病例每日以双位数激增,疫情形势十分严峻。 因此,当局将采取措施,严格调整出入管控,中高风险街乡及新发地市场相关人员禁止离京。 与此同时,所有农贸市场、菜市场、餐饮店等将进行消毒和加强监测。而较潮湿阴冷的经营场所则需全部停业。 另一方面,当局也宣布,全市高校、中小学即日起停课,并关闭幼儿园。会展活动、体育赛事和演出活动也一律暂停,所有小区恢复封闭式管理。 中国首都北京连续五天出现多起确诊病例,据陆媒报道,此次疫情可能与北京新发地农产批发市场相关。该市场从切割进口三文鱼的案板中发现冠状病毒,目前已有多家超市将三文鱼下架。 中国疾病预防控制中心流行病学首席专家吴尊友曾表示,未来三天的北京报告病例数将会决定疫情的走向。