Tag: repeal 377A

  • Mohd Khair: Pinkdot Agendas Undermine Familial And Social Fabric Of Singapore

    Mohd Khair: Pinkdot Agendas Undermine Familial And Social Fabric Of Singapore

    Talking about intolerance, we Singaporeans have been a very tolerant society.

    When a Muslim goes to a non-halal eatery and ask for halal food but none could be served by the eatery, we don’t see Muslims in Singapore suing the owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. In fact, there’s no distress whatsoever.

    Likewise, when a non-Muslim goes to a halal eatery and ask for pork or liquor to be served, we don’t see non-Muslims in Singapore suing the Muslim owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. And really there’s no distress at all.

    Why?

    Because we respect each other’s beliefs and value systems.

    Alcohol drinkers don’t go around suing Muslims just because the latter believe and say that drinking alcohol is wrong based on their religious belief.

    Likewise, we don’t find Muslims in Singapore suing others who say that polygamy is wrong. We don’t. We simply don’t find that in Singapore.

    Why?

    Because this is Singapore, and we are Singaporeans who are very tolerant to different beliefs so long as they do not tear down our basic familial and social fabric. But the moment anyone or any activism is going all out to undermine that familial and social fabric, we Singaporeans will stand up and unite together to defend it at all costs. Defending that familial and social fabric that have been the bedrock of Singapore’s development and progress all these years cannot be deemed as intolerance, cannot be defined as bigotry and cannot be accused of propagating hate speech.

    Instead, those labels should be directed at those who undermine that familial and social fabric that we Singaporeans cherish and protect.

    Why?

    Because they are the ones that are intolerant. Any form of disagreement will be immediately labelled as bigotry and accused of propagating hate. And that is happening now even with the 377A still around. It is not hard to imagine the kind of absolute intolerance we can face if 377A is abolished from the Penal Code.

    How come?

    Well, just look at what is happening right now in the US. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage results in a legal suit. Refusing to solemnise gay marriages is now a crime. And yet lgbt activists here claim that legalising same-sex marriages will not affect anyone at all. It is instead absolutely clear from that legalising same-sex marriage will result in the absolute intolerance on the part of the lgbt activists. The slightest disagreement with them will result in lawsuits or even being charged in court for alleged crimes.

    So, to those lgbt activists and sympathisers, don’t go round saying that we are intolerant as a society in Singapore. Singaporeans have been and will continue to be tolerant so long as the familial and social fabric are not threatened. Once threatened, we will defend it. PERIOD.

    And Singaporeans are neither stupid nor illiterate. We know what the lgbt activism has done to other parts of the world once same-sex marriage is legalised.

    Same-sex marriage has become the demon that is out to destroy the institution of marriage and family in those countries. If ever 377A is abolished and same-sex marriage is legalised in Singapore, the same level of intolerance or more will also set foot. SSM will then be used to knock out anyone, any organisation, any religion and any law (including AMLA – Administration of Muslim Law Act) that is against same-sex marriage.

    So, don’t ever say that pinkdot is an innocent movement just for a group of lgbts and their supporters to celebrate diversity and the freedom to love. Pinkdot is a political movement that is intolerant of the familial and social values so dearly upheld by Singaporeans all these while. These are the very familial and social values that have seen us through the ups and downs of Singapore’s development and progress. Pinkdot wants us to abolish Section 377A and legalise same-sex marriage. And should that be allowed to happen, the pinkdot will transform itself into a demon that will be so intolerant to any form of disagreement to same-sex marriages and to its lifestyle choice of freedom to love anyone and anything at all.

    And by the way, Singaporeans have long been tolerant of lgbts living in our midst. They live, work and play together with all of us for as long as we can remember. The Government also acknowledges that they are in almost every sector of the economy, including the public sector and public service. And for the record too, no lgbts have been persecuted in Singapore by the Courts just because of them being lgbts. But the lgbt activism at the level we are seeing right now, especially in the form of pinkdot, is a recent phenomenon fuelled by external parties, and has now become brazen and emboldened with the recent US Supreme Court ruling. We Singaporeans have been a tolerant society all these while. The very existence of pinkdot now in our midst is testimony to that. But that does not negate our right to say that it is wrong and that we are against pinkdot in Singapore.

    And why are we against pinkdot in Singapore?

    Because pinkdot is pushing for the repeal of Section 377A and the legalisation of same-sex marriage. These two pinkdot agendas will undermine the very familial and social fabric that Singapore has been based on in its years of development and progress. And if we can sum up what PM Lee Hsien Loong has said in recent weeks, it would be this: The society in Singapore is deeply religious. The social sphere has developed taking into account the religious and ethnic beliefs of the multireligious and multiracial societies found in Singapore. So don’t push it.

     

    Mohd Khair

    Source: We Are Against Pink Dot

  • Top Lawyers Disagreeing Over Gay Sex Law

    Top Lawyers Disagreeing Over Gay Sex Law

    gay love 1

    The subject of universal human rights took a local turn at a university forum on Tuesday night, with two top lawyers disagreeing over whether an anti-gay sex law should be done away with.

    National University of Singapore (NUS) law don Walter Woon said he was in favour of repealing the law because of what he sees as a “constitutional problem”.

    The Government has said that the law will not be proactively enforced. But Prof Woon, a former attorney-general, cited Section 35(8) of the Constitution to make the point that the powers to prosecute lie with the Attorney-General.

    “So we have a very dangerous precedent here where the political authorities are saying to the Public Prosecutor – who is supposed to be independent – there are some laws that you don’t enforce,” he said at the 12th NUS Tembusu Forum attended by about 250 students.

    “I find that very uncomfortable,” he added.

    Section 377A makes it a crime for men to commit acts of gross indecency with other men, whether in private or public. It carries a jail term of up to two years. The law, enacted in 1938, has been in the spotlight in recent years following Parliament debates and constitutional challenges.

    Prof Woon said that homosexual sex was “absolutely impossible to prove” as a practical matter. He added: “As a matter of principle, if these are consenting adults, why should it carry a jail term?”

    While considered a sin by certain religions, it could be accorded similar treatment to adultery and fornication, which are not crimes under the law, he said, adding: “If it is a sin, it is between you and God.”

    NUS Centre for International Law chairman Tommy Koh agreed that the provision should in principle be done without, but said abolishing it was “not so simple” given potential political pushback.

    A majority of Singaporeans were against a repeal going by opinion polls, Prof Koh said.

    “The compromise is a law in the book, but Singapore will not enforce that law,” he said, adding that the Government’s difficulty in balancing opposing opinions “should not be underestimated”.

    The panel at the two-hour forum titled Are Human Rights Truly Universal? also included Ms Braema Mathi, president of human rights group Maruah, and Mr Bernhard Faustenhammer, who heads the political, press and information section of the European Union delegation to Singapore.

    They concurred that the idea of human rights is universal, but its application hinges on local contexts, such as culture and history.

    Ms Mathi cited the example of Brunei’s recent passing of the hudud law, an Islamic penal code that calls for death by stoning for adultery, which she said appears to contradict both regional and global human rights declarations.

     

    Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/walter-woon-tommy-koh-differ-377a-anti-gay-sex-law-nus-f#sthash.SlWstfl7.juoA4njc.dpuf