Have you heard? The ERP went up again. The one at CTE went up to $5? Well, do not blame the government for this. In fact, this is actually a loving gesture by the government. According to our Transport Minister, increasing the ERP actually allowed more people to own cars! Thus, let us thank the LTA for being such nice guys and increasing our car pool.

The recent debate has had one side bring up an NTU survey stating that 7 in 10 Singaporeans feels that homosexuality is disgusting. Many people have pointed out its flaws, and it is in the hope that people will learn from it that I blog about this issue.

1. Use a survey only if it is really applicable
A survey should be comprehensive and relevant to your cause. The cause here for those people is to show that it should be illegal for homosexuals to have sex. It is not about criminalizing homosexuality entirely. Whether people feel it is disgusting or not does not matter. There may be people who feel disgusted, yet feel the other way in this debate. In such an instance, is it then credible to quote the NTU survey?

2. A survey should ask relevant and clear questions
What kinds of question should a survey ask to get a clearer picture? One with many options that are clearly different. For example, to find out people’s views on homosexuality, we can ask, “What do you think of homosexuality?”. The options can include “I feel that homosexuals are free to do whatever they want, provided that they do not compromise my own personal space.” or “I feel that liking a member of the same sex is something that I cannot accept.” Instead of asking if its plain disgusting, one can hope to find out more.

3. People can sit on the fence
Yes, the people can decide that they do not want to support the repeal, nor support the other camp. Yet, they might have contributed to the “disgusting” statistics. If we want to quote statistics, we should find out how many are in for the repeal, and how many are out. 7 in 10 may feel disgusting. If we generously assume that all 7 in 10 are not pro-repeal, there may be 4 who sit on the fence,making it a 3 v 3 situation of which it means that Singaporeans are divided. There is no majority to speak of.

Well, I always think that statistics are just empty figures and we cannot rely on it. For example, I have no idea why the Keep377A website must come up, and I guess its simply to show that there are more people who disagree with it? Yet, laws should not be dependent on such figures. The purpose of the repeal website is not to show that they have a large support base, but rather it is a requirement for their petition. The Keep377A website managed to show its numbers, but there is no real point in doing so. Have they submitted anything to parliament? Nobody discussed the Keep377A numbers in parliament.

P.S. Want to know who is the guy who sent that angry letter to NMP Thio? Read all about it here.

Anyone noticed another fixed advertising on the right? That’s right, advertlets has also linked me to 1 advertiser, for a whole month. I guess its my lucky month! I’ve been earning quite a good sum of money about an average of 30cents per day, in Singapore currency. You may think its quite low, but I thought, for the amount of traffic I have, its quite ok already. Haha.

Following the whole Thio Li-Ann’s speech, a fellow blogger has made several wallpapers in response to the straw and nose analogy. Check them out here.

I’ve been wondering, how does justice work? I’m not a lawyer, so I do not understand the law well. In fact, I do not know what normal citizens get for the same crime, but I felt that getting 7 months jail for causing someone’s death, and still showing no regret, is too much for me to stomach. Banned for 10 years? That’s no big deal.

The problem is not that he caused someone’s death with reckless driving, but that a few months back, he was seen on forums asking opinions on which fast car to buy. With this lawsuit pending, he still had the interest to buy a fast car knowing full well that he just killed someone with his lousy driving skills and huge ego. This shows that he has no repentance and has no guilt in his crime.

Someone who has no repentance should be suffer an harsher punishment.

By the way, if we let such people off with only 7 months of jail, are we encouraging speeding and killing of people in a motorcar accident? It does seem that whatever is done by the government, it is sending out a message. Is that fair? You tell me.

A check at Singaporedaily revealed many other blogs that commented on the Thio Li-Ann speech, with many point by point rebuttals which were quite excellent, although I can’t say that I agree on everything. However I learnt a new fallacy called “strawman”.

Now, in part 2, I will talk about what my stand is and why I am pro-repeal and why I am disgusted with certain elements of “the majority”.

Let me first talk about why I am disgusted with “the majority”. The term “majority” should not be used. It evokes a sense of togetherness, and seems to sway mindsets into thinking that most people are like them. Weaker willed people will join them to be part of the “majority” because they do not want to be seen as in the other camp, or “the minority”.

However the reality is that we do not know whether the majority is, the majority. The “majority” quoted an NTU survey (look at this source) that they exploited to show that 7 in 10 Singaporeans are against homosexuality. It is interesting to note that the way the questions were phrased seems to be a little unprofessional. I quote:

For example, they were asked whether sex between two men or two women was ‘plain wrong’ and whether homosexuals or lesbians were ‘disgusting’.

The terms plain wrong and disgusting are vague terms but I won’t go into that deeply.

I think the right question, in this context, should be:

Do you feel that there is a need to criminalize homosexuals who have sex with each other in the privacy of their bedroom. I say this because I am disgusted with gay sex. I mean, I can’t fathom myself doing this intimacy thing with another guy. Yet, if I’m asked this question, I would say no, we should not criminalize it. There is a distinct difference between thinking that certain acts are disgusting, and supporting the retention of 377A. According to MP Hri Kumar, “Well, I can understand that, 70 per cent frown on it, but how many actually said that we are willing to criminalise it? That question was not even asked. And that is a serious question because that is the issue we face today.”

Another reason why I am disgusted with the majority is that they have been hiding behind their claims of moral values and family units, but, they have never formally met up the challenge of proving the claims of the pro-repeal camp wrong. In a debate, if you disagree, you should take down the opponents argument. They have not been able to do that, in fact, they have yet to take them head on. What they have been doing is to keep harping on family values and morals without really explaining why the repealing of 377A will, without doubt, cause family values and morals to change.

I am also disgusted that they cannot take insults of bigotry, but yet label pro-repealers as gay sympathizers, or even gays or faggots. Name calling is normal in such debates, but we should just take it and leave it. Harping on it does not show how holy or morally upright one is.

I will now talk about my own opinion on this issue:

1. How is it, that repealing 377A means that the government endorses homosexuality?
Let me begin with an example. If one day, we become more pro-life and decide to amend the punishment for murder from death to life-imprisonment, are we sending out the message that we encourage murder? No we don’t. Another point to note is that how can it be sending out a “wrong message”, when the government has already mentioned, time and again, that they will not actively prosecute gays who have sex in private?

So what is the message we are sending? Are we for or against it? What do we stand for? While this may be an uncomfortable issue, we should at least make our position clear. (MP Hri Kumar)

I agree. Let us make our stand clear. Are we against it, or are we not? The MHA’s stand leads me to believe ” that the government no longer believes, if indeed it did before, that the sort of activity contemplated by 377A is harmful at all.” (Professor Michael Hor, adapted from NMP Siew’s speech)

2. Repealing 377A will not necessarily lead to those undesirable situations many have claimed

I believe that “it is stretching logic to suggest that the repeal will lead to a sudden proliferation of homosexual activity” (MP Hri Kumar). The majority says that it threatens the family unit, and that gays will want to claim more rights like same sex marriages and right to adopt a child. However, has anyone considered that “But that involves the Government actively endorsing and passing legislation to recognise same sex marriages.” (MP Hri Kumar). If the gay camp ever decides to do that, we can have another debate in parliament? Or are we telling our citizens that we are afraid to debate on this policy?

I have another view: Why can’t the gay camp decide to lobby for the right to marry? In fact, in our traditional moral values, we marry, then we have sex. Isn’t it more logical to lobby for the right to marry and then the right to have sex first? To suggest that the repeal of 377A leads to more lobbying doesn’t seem to fit the whole puzzle. I do not see why this defeat to the gay community will make them less likely to lobby for the right to marry.

3. I believe that laws should be rational and justice should prevail. There should not be any majority – minority thing

In fact, by claiming themselves to be the majority, the majority have, in fact, created a imaginary situation where they have discriminated against those that are different from them, or, the minority.

I quote: “Ultimately laws should be passed and repealed not only because the majority wants it that way but because it makes sense and ultimately it’s in the interest of Singapore as a whole and that includes the interest of all minority groups.” (MP Hri Kumar)

And repealing 377A, or amending it, makes perfect sense to me.

4. Where is the harm in repealing 377A?

Opponents to the repeal agenda claims that there is a harm in repealing 377A. NMP Thio claims that “victims include both the immediate parties and third parties. What is done in ‘private’ can have public repercussions.”

However, the reality is this: Homosexuals are already having sex, maybe in the bedroom beside yours. The MHA has already said that they will not actively enforce 377A, so the sex is there. The harm is there. The problem now is, is repealing 377A going to create more of such harm? Those families that were hurt are hurt and will continue to be hurt. Since there is no change, then surely this argument cannot be used against the repeal of 377A.

Some may say, the abolishment of 377A would lead to more homosexual activity. People may suddenly decide to have sex since the law is changed. However, the current law is not enforced. There is no need to fear that law. As such, the number of people who may decide to start having sex (and thus hurt their family members) is minimal.

5. I do not like selective sign-posting

Sign-posting was brought up in NMP Siew’s speech, and I agree. How can we selectively sign-post moral issues? What about the public morality on prostitution, or gambling?

6. I do not believe that it is up to us to judge others in this manner

NMP Siew read out this passage:

Madam K, a civil servant, wrote:
“my son is gay. He came out to me when he was 22. And I was upset and i blamed myself why is my son gay… i blamed myself all the time. But he is my son. He has not changed since the first day i gave birth to him or the person he is today. I love him for who he is, for what he is. It sickens me that people think suggests that just because he is gay, our family isnt what it is. We are a family. what people do in their private lives shouldnt be an issue to anyone as long as it doesnt harm anyone else. He doesnt know i am doing this but I support this repeal. he is my son and he is not a criminal. if i can accept him, his mother who gave birth to him, who these people who so quickly judge him and condemn him?”

Why should we cast our eyes and mouths on others when the mother doesn’t even do that? The mother, who has found in herself the capacity to accept and forgive, should be in a better position to judge. We may think its disgusting, and if we believe that there is hope to change them, then we should work on it. However, we should not criminalize them.

I am not going to go into the opponent’s arguments and talk about how illogical they sound. Many blogs have done just that. I am just merely stating my own opinions. I do not agree entirely with the pro-repeal camp, but I do agree with many parts, and what I feel is exactly what MP Hri Kumar said in his speech. Go read it if you all are interested.

Theonlinecitizen is a wonderful site. Do check it out and participate in discussions!

References:
MP Hri Kumar Section 377A is inconsistent

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/23/section-377a-is-inconsistent-pap-mp-hri-kumar/

Thio Li-Ann 377A serves public morality. Taken from http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/23/377a-serves-public-morality-nmp-thio-li-ann/#more-556
Siew Kum Hong Turn our backs on prejudice, discrimination, intolerance and hatred

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/23/nmp-siew-kum-hong-turn-our-backs-on-prejudice-discrimination-intolerance-and-hatred/

I have always been interested in lively debates, and I do not deny that I have been taking in a healthy interest in the whole 377A debate, having written 2 posts regarding the forum letters that were written to The Straits Times. In this part 1 of 2 posts, I will examine a popular notorious speech that was read out by our NMP Thio Li-Ann.

There have been many opinions and posts that were written in response to NMP Thio’s speech, and in fact, I read her speech at The Online Citizen. I found it amusing that members of parliament actually applauded this speech, which I feel is a little too flowery for my liking.

There are plenty of bombastic words, and words that I cannot understand, nor will I seek to understand. I always thought a debate is meant for others to hear your views so it would be great to make them easier to understand, and use less flowery terms like “Switzerland of Ambivalence”.

I do make some sense of whatever has been said, and certain issues are pretty interesting. However, I question many parts:

These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake – repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties.

This paragraph speaks of fallacies within the pro-repeal camp, yet the following sentence is not a proven fact. In fact, many pro-repeal citizens are not part of the radical, political group. For example, I am pro-amendment of 377A, but I am not part of this group with any political agenda. It is a slippery slope, and an appeal to fear when it is concluded that it will subvert social morality, as well as the common good and undermine our liberties. This is a fallacy isn’t it?

The real question today is not “if” we should repeal 377A now, or wait until people are ready to move. This assumes too much, as though we need an adjustment period before the inevitable.

I thought that was what we have been doing, waiting till people are ready to move. HOTA was like that. When it first started, it only carries accidental deaths. Now, HOTA is expanding due to citizens becoming more open about the concept of organ donation. It is not an assumption, but rather, a proven fact, that mindsets need to be changed gradually.

It rests precariously on an idiosyncratic notion of “harm” – but “harm” can be both physical and intangible; victims include both the immediate parties and third parties. What is done in ‘private’ can have public repercussions.

This sentence says that there is much more to harm. That the pro-repeal camp’s version of harm is narrow. That the harm is greater since there are 3rd parties involved. Then may I know, by sending out a message of non-enforcement, is this harm reduced? Since this harm is there whether S377A is present or not, then the repealing of S377A does not and will not change matters. This argument does not target our problem here.

not to take a stand, is to take a stand!

Since when by not taking a stand means we are taking a stand? If someone asks you if you would like 377A to be repealed, and you say “no comments”, what kind of stand is that? In an election, does the government count those no votes slips as a stand? No. Those slips without votes are considered void.

The issues surrounding s377A are about morality, not modernity or being cosmopolitan. What will foreigners think if we retain 377A? Depends on which foreigner you ask. Many would applaud us! Such issues divide other societies as well! The debate is not closed. A group of Canadians1 were grieved enough to issue an online apology to the world “for harm done through Canada’s legalization of homosexual marriage”, urging us not to repeat their mistakes.

I would like to question, is it an assumption that many foreigners would applaud us? By the way, what has what foreigners think got to do with the present debate? Or are we wasting time? A group of Canadians were grieved enough to issue an online apology? Yet its only a group and not a majority. There can be a group of Singaporeans (maybe 5 in total) that issue an online apology to gays in Singapore, but can that be taken as a proof that Singapore is pro-gay? Nope.

Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this. Just this year, two high profile US activists left the homosexual lifestyle, the publisher of Venus, a lesbian magazine, and an editor of Young Gay America. Their stories are available on the net. An article by an ex-gay in the New Statesmen this July identified the roots of his emotional hurts, like a distant father, overbearing mother and sexual abuse by a family friend; after working through his pain, his unwanted same-sex attractions left. While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfill their heterosexual potential. There is hope.

Whether homosexuality is a gender identity disorder or not, we cannot say for sure. The science is relatively unknown. Yet this paragraph seems to mislead. What is the purpose here? Are we debating on whether 377A should be repealed, or are we debating if gays have hope of becoming hetrosexual again? Yes, they may have a chance, but no matter what, they were criminals and they will continue to be criminals when they become heterosexual.

To those who say that 377A penalizes only gays not lesbians, note there have been calls to criminalize lesbianism too.

However, reality is that lesbianism is not criminalized under 377A, so no matter how many calls there is, it is not right to imply that lesbianism is not tolerated under the law.

Ideas, embodied in laws, have consequences. Don’t send the wrong message.

This is true. Yet it is highly ironic that the MHA speaks of non-enforcement, effectively sending the message that its all right to have anal and oral sex between homosexuals in private because they will not actively enforce. In fact, as long as its between consensual adults, how would it be proven that there is sex involved?

Sir, it is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalized; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterors know they done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.

Does it mean that it is only wrong if you lobby for toleration? We are comparing moral wrongs and their criminalization here, not whether there is any lobby action performed or not. Moral wrongs are wrong, lobbying does not make them more wrong or more right. It should not matter whether there is any lobbying or not. By saying this, its like saying I’m punishing you more because you lobby. Its sending the WRONG message.

She proceeds to list 5 steps for a sexual revolution. However, she fails to consider that for all the steps to be passed through, parliament will have to debate it over,and it will most likely be overthrown. You can repeal 377A yet send out a message that homosexuality is not tolerant.

She then proceeds to talk about democracy and debate, and that no one should call names such as bigots. She is talking mainly on her own emotional trauma that she went through. The point is, those anti-repeal people are calling pro-repeal people names too. They call them gays. I’m pro-repeal, but I’m not a gay or a gay lover. Both sides have called each other names, why the need to address them in parliament? Is it to make people have a sense of pity whilst creating disgust at the pro camp? This is really unethical isn’t it?

However I question the need to talk about all of that. There is nothing in that part that contributes to the discussion on whether 377A should be repealed or not. The whole point seems to be an appeal to pity,rather than a contribution to the discussion.

Well, these are my comments. I may have misintepreted them, so if you have alternative comments, please do tell me and we can have a healthy discussion. No name calling please!

In part 2, I will look at the good arguments in the pro-repeal camp, and set my stand on this issue straight.

Something for all of you to look and ponder about. The moral of the story is that there is no such thing as a candy mountain. If you are greedy, you get screwed.

This Stomp article led me to ponder about this issue: When should we stand up and offer our seat on public transports? Public transports includes the MRT and the bus, but I think it is more applicable to the MRT since there is a greater chance that there is no space for sitting on the MRT.

The article is simple. This lady and her mum went into the MRT. Her mum is carrying the baby (her grandchild). This lady saw a selfish woman who signalled to her husband to tell him not to give up his seat. The lady felt that the woman and husband are both selfish and the worst thing is that they only sat for one more stop before alighting.

It sparked an interesting debate in Stomp that made me wonder, who is right and who is wrong? I guess it is pretty clear cut that the woman who was sitting down is wrong. She is entitled to decide not to give up her seat, yet her gesture to her husband is totally uncalled for. If her husband so decides that the baby carrying grandmum needs a seat, then he should give up his seat.

Yet, on the other hand I wonder, if the lady feels so indignant for her mum who was carrying her child, shouldn’t the lady carry her OWN child instead? Instead of making her mum suffer (if her mum wasn’t suffering then there is no need for a seat isn’t it), she should just carry her own baby instead. Maybe this way her mum would not need a seat.

But the central issue is, who should get a seat? It makes me angry when some people think that they should be given a seat. Once it happened to me. This Caucasian woman woke me up from my day dream and pointed to the sign above me that says “Give your seat to people who need it more”. I assumed that she needs it more, so I nodded and stood up. She sat down and her husband, who is in crutches, is leaning on the glass beside her seat. So who’s the needy one? The husband or her?

There are some times when I feel that the recipent is not too old. Probably in their fifties. Do I need to stand up and give up my seat? I think not. They should still be fit to stand isn’t it? I do not support the notion that younger people have to give up their seat to older ones. I feel that we should give up our seat to needy people, not old people. I feel that old people who are frail (I guess you can see how old they are?) should be given seats.

Pregnant woman should be given seats too.

However another issue is this: Is it nice of one to submit a photo of a selfish person to Stomp? This is an interesting issue because the selfishness is subjective to the photographer. That person may not be selfish, for example, when you take photos of some people sleeping on trains and claim that they are pretending,when they could be genuinely sleeping.

I do not support such photos and I never will. Give me a reason why such photos, which flames others, should be allowed.

The Sunday Times today (Page 3) has a report on the PSLE math complaints by parents. Every year, parents keep complaining that their child “cried” after the maths paper due to the sheer difficulty. Parents then questioned the use of “tough” exam questions to discern the standard of the student. I decided to blog about it after I read my friend’s post.

Page 3 has 3 questions that were provided by the pupils who sat by the paper.

I quote:

“Retired Teacher Ho Kong Loon, 60, who taught at the Primary 6 level for 40 years, thought the questions are difficult for the average pupil. “I took 19 minutes, or 14 percent of the total time, to complete the three questions. Unlike pupils who took the exam, I was not under any pressure and worked… with a calculator”"

This makes one wonder what kind of standard our teachers are at. A primary 5 pupil is quoted to complete the 3 questions in less than 20 minutes. Are our p5 pupils as competent as the teachers? I doubt so.

For me, i took 5 minutes to complete the 3 questions without a calculator. Upon reading the entire question, I took less than 15 seconds before I knew what method I wanted to use to solve the question. Is it that hard? No. Perhaps Primary school students need more time and effort to complete, but a teacher of 40 years of experience should do much better than that. I have a feeling I know why he is retired. Perhaps he was sacked due to his level of competency in his specialized field.

Since a primary school teacher is of a higher standard than me, I suppose he should be able to finish the question in the same, if not less, time as me. I suppose he has a relative who is studying at that level and couldn’t do the question. Thus, he used himself as an authority to make the public feel that the math questions is incredibly difficult, to sway people’s opinion. That is really unethical of him.

With a calculator, I should be able to solve 3 triple integral questions within 19 minutes. NOT 3 primary school level math questions in 19 minutes. It just makes the whole teaching profession seem lousy. Well, I guess I just pwned a teacher.

Another person wrote in to talk about Section 377A again..Details as follows, quoted from the Straits Times:

NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause
I AM writing in response to the article, ‘NMP to submit Parliamentary Petition to repeal gay sex law’ (ST, Oct 12).

As a Nominated MP, Mr Siew Kum Hong is supposed to be non-partisan and should not be affiliated with any particular political group.

However, he has chosen to be the sponsor of a parliamentary petition to present the homosexual agenda.

While he is free to present his personal views on any issue, Mr Siew has overstepped the boundary as an NMP when he chose to represent the homosexual interest group.

MPs in Parliament have to run for election, look after their constituents’ interests and represent their views. As an NMP, Mr Siew bears no such burden.

He should not adulterate the NMP role further by becoming the proxy representative of the homosexual interest group.

This is especially so as the Government has already taken one year to review the Penal Code, with input from various consultation channels, and taken into consideration the views of the majority of Singaporeans who are for maintaining family values and preserving Section 377A of the Penal Code.

Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

This letter criticizes our NMP for petitioning parliament to take away section 377A criminalizing gay sex.

I do not understand. What is our NMP’s job? Does an NMP sit down, talk cock, sing song and play mahjong? No they should not.They should take part in debates and raise issues that should be of concern to parliament.

If he feels that a cause is important, he should find out more, and exercise some leadership by doing something in parliament and making himself useful. I do not see why championing the cause for a minority group of people means that he has overstepped his boundary.

I quote, “not be affiliated with any political group”. Is homosexuality a political group? Weird huh.

I also find it weird that this person is suggesting that since the NMP does not have the burden of having a constituency, then he should not be doing this. Its a fallacy as I see it.

I hope people will be objective in this issue. This issue is about a law that isn’t enforced. Since it isn’t enforced, it means that there is no such damage to family values, whether the law is there or not. Since something that doesn’t theoretically exist, then we cannot say that removing it results in something.

Let us look at this issue with an open heart and see how parliament acts. Parliament will not change our decisions even if we write letters to the forum denouncing the NMP. So lets not waste time writing such letters because it doesn’t show anything.