377A

I really wanted to take some time off from mugging to write about this because I find it to be the most interesting (albeit not very exciting) topic of debate involving the law that ever caught my attention. But unfortunately, I don't think I can really afford the time, so till next time (whenever that might be) I'll just ramble on about a few things that have intrigued me.

"Singapore is a conservative society"
Yes, so a survey by NTU that was published in The Straits Times a while ago said that about 70% of Singaporeans were not ready to accept gays or something like that. But since we've all learnt sampling, I can't help but ask: What was the distribution of the responses? How was the survey conducted?

I find it extremely curious that in this day and age where we have been trying to become a more open and inclusive society that we are sidelining people based on their sexuality (which has neither been proven nor disproved to be a result of choice or genetics), and that such an overwhelming majority are apprehensive of them.

"Removing Section 377A threatens family unit"(This slope here is so slippery that I just had to provide a link..)

Slippery slope aside, how does decriminalising homosexual acts lead to such an outcome? It's not like these people would otherwise lead straight lives does it? Furthermore, if it's simply because they are unable to reproduce, then why allow consensual oral and anal sex between heterosexuals?

"A public education system that teaches acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle under the banner of "tolerance""
Erm.. What is wrong with tolerating the private lifestyles of others that have nothing to do with us as individuals? Even if we might one day see men holdings hands with each other, how much more repulsive can that be when compared to the more blatant public displays of affection between heterosexuals that we are already subjected to?

"Posts that contain racist, sexist, .... will be removed." - Found on The Straits Times online forum pages, below the user comments.

Isn't the underlying principle not to be biased against people for what they are rather than who they are? Yet the whole discussion is on whether the lifestyles of these people should or should not remain a criminal act.

"WE the Majority"

...To this I can only say, Tyranny of the majority"

But alas something I liked: "Employment of criminal law to prohibit activity which the Government does not really think ought to be prohibited, on the sole basis that 'the majority' wants it to be prohibited, is fraught with danger." - Professor Michael Hor, NUS Law Professor, commenting in his personal capacity (The Straits Times, Insight page S8, 20^th October 2007)

"Keep377a.com vs Repeal377a.com"

Haha, this is just amusing. Read more at the link from the Today newspaper. and if you're quite free, a 30 second video has been made too.

Eugene remembered @ 6:31 PM