I started blogging in February 2003 and have made it habit to blog almost everyday. This page is where I note down my thoughts, opinions and critique of almost everything. Please note that this is an adult blog and would require the reader to be thick-skinned. Oh, and some of the stuff here may be gay related so proceed at your own risk. No refund given for offence taken.
Some interesting legal questions posed by respected legal academics from NUS in a new book entitled "Lives in the Law" that honours three eminent (now retired) professors in Singapore's legal academia.
Hmmm... Someone's opinion seems to be missing though. :-)
Click the link below for some hypothetical situations and issues which may very well arise in the near future.
An 18-yr old student emailed organisers and pleaded to have the Sunday deadline extended by a day, as she wanted to get her schoolmates to sign when classes resumed on Monday. She brought in 70 signatures. A 53-yr old Eurasian woman, currently living in Johor Bahru, made her way through customs and immigration, just so she could make her submission. A Singaporean living in Hong Kong had his signed petition couriered to Singapore overnight. Law students from a local university canvassed over the weekend for signatures at popular nightspots.
All in all, 2,519 people from all walks of life regardless of sexual orientation signed in support of the Parliamentary Petition to urge the repeal of Penal Code Section 377A over 3 days...
I am sure by now most Singaporean bloggers or blog readers would have heard about Sir Ian McKellen's famous interview on Channel NewsAsia (see end of post). Unknown to some (including me), he had also said something "controversial" (to use his own words on Channel NewsAsia) on Class 95 FM (as reported on Fridae's feature) and on page 3 of Wednesday's Life! section of the Straits Times.
If you're still unsure, yes, Sir Ian McKellen is gay and a veteran activist who's involved with a few LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bi-Trans) organisations and charities in the UK. So it's natural that he's cued in to what's been happening here recently over the debate on repealing Section 377A - "those dreadful laws that we British left behind," says Sir Ian.
I think what's interesting about all this is the timing.
First, you have the statements made a few months ago (and also recently) by MM LKY on the need to progress and in time, decriminalise homosexuality in Singapore. Then you have the moving (as reported by friends and strangers who have seen it) new play by Alfian Sa'at entitled "Happy Endings - Asian Boys Vol 3" which also addresses some of these issues. And just last Sunday, the forum that was organised as part of the play to addressed the issue of repealing Section 377A where one PAP backbencher (Baey Yam Keng, MP for Tangjong Pagar GRC), one NMP (Siew Kum Hong) and a retired former Bishop of the Methodist Church for Malaysia and Singapore (Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao) sat as part of the panel (see previous post).
And now, we have Sir Ian adding his weight and fame to the issue in a very public way. Which I think is sorely needed as no one has either addressed these issues on the broadcast media or been allowed to do so.
Of course some smartass might have a fit and rebuke him for "daring" to meddle with local politics while forgetting that we have the proxies of American evangelical fundamentalists trying to hijack the local agenda here.
But you know what? The issue of public acceptance of homosexuality that has always been used as a reason by the government to retain that law has not changed much.
Of course the term "majority" or "public" is rather vague as no one has really quantified this segment of the population. It's up to different people to draw their own conclusions about the size of this group in a way that suits their agendas. To me, this seemingly "huge" segment of the population is just a very vocal Christian minority that makes the loudest noise. So who's right? That's another topic altogether.
Anyway, while I was having coffee with a friend in Jurong West just now, he brought up a very salient point about the artfulness or stupidity (depending on how you look at it) of this government.
On one hand, you have the "public" not being accepting. And on the other, you have the government (through MICA, home of the censorship board) refusing to allow anything that seemingly portrays "homosexuals" and the "homosexual lifestyle" in a positive light - I'm using the quotation marks here because these are the official terms used by the government and not something I necessarily agree with (especially the all-encompassing term of ignorance, "homosexual lifestyle").
So if all they allow are negative portrayals on broadcast media and ignorant generalisations by civil servants and their mouthpieces, how can the "public" (as if tax-paying and NS-serving gays exist outside this sphere) progress to a point where decriminalisation is not a controversial issue anymore.
Or perhaps repeal is not even part of the plan and the whole exercise of MM LKY's pronouncement and the attendance of MP Baey is just a public relations exercise to show the world that hey! Surprising Singapore is indeed moving forward after bar top dancing *yawn* and Integrated Resort (read: casino).
As long as this government refuses to allow any sort of positive portrayals of gays and allow the very vocal Christian fundamentalist minority to commandeer the debate and agenda, this society is never going to be ready for progress.
But then again, is society's readiness for progress and acceptance really the issue here? The integrated resorts (not one, but TWO casinos might I remind you) was unacceptable to the seemingly large and very vocal segment of the population. And regardless of that, construction works are progressing at full speed in Marina Bay and Sentosa despite our "unreadiness".
I guess it's all a very "chicken and egg" question. Which comes first? In the case of repealing Section 377A, you have the chicken waiting for the egg to be laid before it could be hatch and the egg waiting for the chicken to lay it.
But for the integrated resorts, one of them said "fuck it" and made the first move.
So really, is it all PR or is it the real McCoy?
The interview of Sir Ian McKellen (if you haven't seen it) below:
Yes, I was at the "Peculiar Legislation: 377(A)--Symbol or Statute?" forum organised by Wild Rice in conjunction with their latest play "Happy Endings: Asian Boys Vol. 3".
The panel was made up of the usual people like Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao, Stuart Koe and Alex Au. But what was surprising was the presence of a PAP backbencher Baey Yam Keng who is the MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC (probably kena arrowed by his senior parliamentary colleagues) and NMP Siew Kum Hong.
For those not in the know, Siew has written quite a number of times in support of the repeal and has spoken about it in parliament. (See his conveniently unpublished by Straits Times reply to Andy Ho's article here)
But I was hoping for the likes of NMP and Prof Thio Li-Ann or maybe Asst Prof Yvonne Lee (both from NUS's law faculty), who are both known for their opposition to the repeal of section 377(a), to air their opinions on the issue. At least we would be able to hear both sides of the argument and especially that of religious conservatives (Li-Ann being one of the more out-spoken ones).
Actually I heard that apparently Yvonne was invited and seemed to be keen on attending till she said she had an overseas trip to make and hence could not be there.
Hmmm... fear of lynch mob? =)
Anyway, I was late so I didn't get to catch the earlier part of it but there were a lot of opinions voiced and some insights into how the government makes policy and legislative decisions. So since I was late and there have been quite a few write-ups on it, I will just point you to the various articles.
Again, let's be measured in our response and not get too excited and start bringing out the boas and rainbow flags way too early. As it is, I've heard that some Christian churches have started an email-your-MP campaign to denounce any move towards liberalisation.
In which case, why don't they start a campaign to criminalise sex outside of marriage, which is considered *gasp!* adultery! Leviticus 20:10 says that both parties involved are to be put to death. Remarrying after divorce? Also a no-no in the bible, see Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:8-9 and those who do are considered adulterers. And adulterers are supposed to be put to death (see above). Lying? God hates it too babe, see Proverbs 6:16-19. Etc. Etc.
Well I don't see them getting all worked up about the above in all their self-righteousness. Then again, maybe a lot of these church-going self-professed Christian members are guilty of that.
Of course the other theory as mentioned by my friend is that this whole thing is meant to be some sort of diversion from the ministerial pay raise issue. Give the people something to get worked up about and they will ignore the televised parliamentary debate and the bill will get passed quickly. As it is, you hardly read about it in the papers any more - it just stopped quietly with nary a squeak one fine day (I think two or more days ago).
So I decided to see what our local papers had to say about that topic. Turning to page H-4 in the Home Section of The Straits Times, my eyes quickly scanned down to the article in question.
It's interesting to note that the Reuters slant seems to be that the government may be considering decriminalising consensual sex between men, whereas the Straits Times version seems to reinforce the current practice of maintain the law but not proactively pursue enforcement.
So my take? Glacial pace to liberalisation lor. That's what I gathered from the Straits Times article which says a bit about LKY's idea and yet doesn't say that much either; a bit of LPPL here.
You can click on the picture above to read the full Straits Times article that I typed out.
I woke up today to a very interesting bit of news which I have just cut and paste to my "Stolen Goods" blog.
Of course I tend to view it with a bit of caution. I mean, things have been said to that effect before and we know how that went.
I think the most important part is to let it take its course within the hallowed halls of the governing party and we shouldn't make the mistake of pressing the issue too hard. Experience has taught that when we push, they resist. Politics in Singapore is played this way: outright opposition or championing of an issue will not work; you have to work with and through them as opposed to against them if you want progress.
Actually, I feel that things are quietly beginning to change in a positive way. Based on an interesting conversation I had last evening with someone who is in the middle management of... how should I put it... "the industry", things are also improving slowly in quite a few areas within crime and punishment and other social issues. But it's a bit hush hush at the moment so no one can really talk about it.
Do note the word "slowly". It's not going to be a revolution, that's too disruptive. It's going to be an evolution. But the question for me is will I see it to fruition within my lifetime?
What a sight. Lawyers on one side, riot police on the other. Both clashed and some were obviously injured.
It's quite unusual to see this as lawyers are generally known to be rather civil, and sometimes cooperative with the law. After all, they are law-yers.
But apparently, things got ugly in Pakistan when President (General) Pervez Musharraf decided to suspend the Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry on Friday, allegedly for misusing his authority. But many believe that he was suspended because he often took an independent stance from that of the executive (Musharraf) in pursuing high profile cases against the government.
Chief among these was a petition to recover missing persons, allegedly abducted by intelligence agencies. He also overturned the recent sale of Pakistan's state-run steel mills. *
One thing I can say, these Pakistani lawyers truly believe in their calling and in the separation of the executive and the judiciary. The obviously believe it enough that they are willing to put themselves on the line and protest this obvious interference of the judiciary by the executive.
As it stands, all lawyers are on strike.
I wonder if this will happen here, Singaporean lawyers striking if the government tries to muzzle the independence of our judiciary. Then again, the independence of our judiciary... err... never mind. I don't want to be hauled in for contempt of court.
Meanwhile over the seas, an important ally of Pakistan is starting to see the beginnings of a controversy over the decision to dismiss some federal prosecutors late last year, including some who had been criticised by Republican politicians. This was a decision which the White House was apparently deeply involved in.
Of course I am not surprised by it. After all, Bush and his ilk have tried to rein in or criticise "activist" judges for their independence in defending the constitutional separation of church and state. So what's new?
Religion and politics, a very dangerous and volatile mix. And the recent statement by the National Council of Churches of Singapore (representing Methodists, Anglicans and Presbyterians, among other mainstream denominations in Singapore) is strong evidence that the Christian establishment in Singapore is getting very influenced by their American brethren and is trying to influence politics here. I guess the IR is an acceptable evil then.
Hypocrites.
(* Text in italics are quoted from this BBC article)
CURRENT
TOP
