it's a catchy title no doubt. but the start of having a law that formally criminalised one minority from the majority signals the start of discrimination in singapore, regardless of how we define this word `minority'. for today, it's gays, what about tomorrow?...
the pledge has got no more meaning to me and henceforth, i will no longer recite the singapore pledge.
i am not against the status quo to respect the majority's view and the continuation of progressing as the society matures, but i am, for one, a strong advocate of equality. if we want to keep 377a, then, let's keep 377. and if we want to repeal 377, then let's repeal 377a. we should be gender neutral. the act of the cock penetrating the anus (or into someone's mouth) remains unchanged, regardless of whether the anus or mouth belongs to a male or female. and i am sure, everyone, regardless sexuality, education or religious background, practices it (for that matter, even professors - both males and females).
the whole issue, was, in the first place, started by some minister who made an issue out of 377. if this issue had not started, it wouldn't have have divided the society in the first place. it wouldn't have created such a stir in the first place. it tells me that when our law-makers review the penal code, it is not based on principles of what we have been told - principles of democracy, equality, justice and so on... but rather, it is based on the `whims and fancies' or who calls the shots and perhaps possible impact on their votes in the next general election. it was so obvious to me when this whole motion was initiated by an nmp in the first place. and that even the opposition had chosen to keep silent or at best maintain a `status quo' don't rock the boat position.
well, watever the case, we have come to where we are today. of cos the other way of looking at it is that the whole debate had created a huge, huge publicity and that it had educated the public abt the plight of gays. it has also unveiled a more frightening finding of our state of social integration and indicators of how some individuals of a particular religious group (read - christians) has made use of their god as an excuse to initiate verbal / hate abuse on their fellow human beings; or for that matter, openly declaring that singapore is a christian state (and that females are inferior to males and so on). there are more than enough hate actions and articulations in the internet by these individuals and for that matter, even quote their church leaders about their anti-sentiments towards gays. it would not be illogical to assume that the government monitored such postings in the internet closely during the period of the discourse on 377a.
with the closure of the penal code debate, i think the ball is in the government's court to apprehend these people who incite hate amongst singaporeans. it is no different from how the government would use the isa to arrest people who incite hate or disinformation on another religion or minority race. if there are no clear actions carried out, it would further reinforce this government's lack of courage to face the current state of affairs and they would have totally lose the moral integrity to look after all of its citizens (regardless of sexuality) equally.
the pledge has got no more meaning to me and henceforth, i will no longer recite the singapore pledge.
i am not against the status quo to respect the majority's view and the continuation of progressing as the society matures, but i am, for one, a strong advocate of equality. if we want to keep 377a, then, let's keep 377. and if we want to repeal 377, then let's repeal 377a. we should be gender neutral. the act of the cock penetrating the anus (or into someone's mouth) remains unchanged, regardless of whether the anus or mouth belongs to a male or female. and i am sure, everyone, regardless sexuality, education or religious background, practices it (for that matter, even professors - both males and females).
the whole issue, was, in the first place, started by some minister who made an issue out of 377. if this issue had not started, it wouldn't have have divided the society in the first place. it wouldn't have created such a stir in the first place. it tells me that when our law-makers review the penal code, it is not based on principles of what we have been told - principles of democracy, equality, justice and so on... but rather, it is based on the `whims and fancies' or who calls the shots and perhaps possible impact on their votes in the next general election. it was so obvious to me when this whole motion was initiated by an nmp in the first place. and that even the opposition had chosen to keep silent or at best maintain a `status quo' don't rock the boat position.
well, watever the case, we have come to where we are today. of cos the other way of looking at it is that the whole debate had created a huge, huge publicity and that it had educated the public abt the plight of gays. it has also unveiled a more frightening finding of our state of social integration and indicators of how some individuals of a particular religious group (read - christians) has made use of their god as an excuse to initiate verbal / hate abuse on their fellow human beings; or for that matter, openly declaring that singapore is a christian state (and that females are inferior to males and so on). there are more than enough hate actions and articulations in the internet by these individuals and for that matter, even quote their church leaders about their anti-sentiments towards gays. it would not be illogical to assume that the government monitored such postings in the internet closely during the period of the discourse on 377a.
with the closure of the penal code debate, i think the ball is in the government's court to apprehend these people who incite hate amongst singaporeans. it is no different from how the government would use the isa to arrest people who incite hate or disinformation on another religion or minority race. if there are no clear actions carried out, it would further reinforce this government's lack of courage to face the current state of affairs and they would have totally lose the moral integrity to look after all of its citizens (regardless of sexuality) equally.
No comments:
Post a Comment