Winter Is Coming

The ST editorial policy regarding the Strait Times has always been an unfathamoble mystery to me. This has been proven time and again by their consistent publishing (in print no less) of this fellow’s rants and diatribes. In fact it is shocking that his garbage seems to have been given prime position in the papers.

It might be true that there is some objectivity out there, but there are varying factual scenarios which lead to a varied application of morals. Unfortunately such men as the writer often sit on a moral high horse and seek to castigate without engaging in any intellectual endeavour. It is sad that the voice of the fundamentalist seems to be given space in a national newspaper while other voices are ignored. Therefore it is time that ST did the right thing by not printing such ridiculous diatribes which are devoid of any sense and more akin to the clarion call to slaughter by Crusaders of old.

As an aside, I do not purport to be an expert on Christianity, much less the denomination the writer is from. Nevertheless as a man of religion albeit of different persuasion I seriously doubt that Christianity imposes a duty to act like a prick, ie sitting on a moral high horse and condeming every single little thing. In fact I think this tale is particularly illuminating. But of course, such man as the writer will probably accuse me of using scripture for my own purposes, which is an irony and tinged with a bit of hypocrisy.

When Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyeratnam’s name was mentioned in the morning radio, I expected to hear news regarding the constitution application to call for a by-election. Imagine my shock when I heard that the “Lion of Anson” had passed away.

Mr Jeyeratnam’s passing leaves a void in Singapore; a void in this society where apathy and the dreaded “p” word pragmatism reign supreme. To the very end he stuck to his cause, braving “hatchets” from a powerful machinery, disdain and indifference from the very same people he fought for. It is sad that he passed on before his life’s task was achieved; joining historical luminaries like Zhuge Liang and Yue Fei (perhaps he is similar to Yue Fei who was knocked down by his own country). His dedication, courage, care for the littleman are all the more remarkable in a society where such traits are frowned upon unless they are utilised for purposes sanctioned by the powers that be. I only saw him once; at the MPH bookstore in Raffles City. If memory serves he was engaging in small talk with the cashier; something which most people rarely do, unless they want to complain.

Thus it is with disgust that I read the reports on Mr Jeyeratnam’s passing; more specifically I was peeved at the “condolence” letters, being of the opinion that such letters were more concerned with painting the ruling party in a better light; which is an irony given that most of Mr Jeyeratnam’s travails had their origins from the self same source. It is also with concern that Mr Jeyeratnam will be forgotten and marginalised by the machinery of the state and thus eventually by the people whose cause he championed and for which he sacrificed much. Indeed his life is a clear manifestation of the saying:” a prophet is never liked in his own country”. Nevertheless I hope that Mr Jeyeratnam’s contributions can be encapsulated within the new Media so that his life, ideals and struggle will not be drowned out by the self-congratulatory reports found in the Mainstream media. Yes the Lion of Anson has passed on; it is now up to those willing and able to ensure that his spirit lives on, and that his sacrifices will not be in vain.

*other bloggers have expressed their thoughts more eloquently here.

Vote MP = Vote PAP?

As expected, there will be no by-election in Jurong GRC, even though it appears that residents themselves would rather have such an election. Nevertheless Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s reported speech is illuminating for the deliberate conflation of two separate issues; namely voting for your MP and voting for a political party.  Indeed this also highlights the role the GRC has to play in entrenching the ruling party’s hegemony.

Mr Lee claim is this,

unlike other democracies like Britain in which MPs form the government, Singapore’s system emphasises on choosing political parties.

So when an MP is elected, it means voters are also giving the mandate to the party represented by the MP to form the government.

That is an erroneous view. Undeniably there are instances where the person votes for the MP and votes for the party. There are however various other instances where a person votes for the MP NOTWITHSTANDING his political affilations and there are other instances where a person is voted in merely because he hides behind a political party. Therefore Mr Lee cannot conclude with great authority that voting for one MP means a vote for PAP in general. And if one considers the various arguments on whether Singaporeans actually have choice (a rather difficult question; but then questions of choice always are), then Mr Lee’s simple equation; vote for (insert name here)= vote for PAP fails. Another example is this; suppose A lives in a GRC and there is an election; 6 candidates from each side contest. A is a vociferous supporter of the opposition and does not shy away from Mr JBJ or Mr CSJ when he sees them along Orchard Rd. Nevertheless A finds that 1 of the 6 PAP candidates is a very nice man (for whatever reason) and feels obliged to vote because he does not want this man to lose his seat. So he casts his vote for the ENTIRE team just because he likes this one person. Can one say that he supports PAP? No; he is merely voting the way because of one member in the team.

Now moving the story along, what if nice MP suddenly retires from politics for whatever reason? Suddenly Mr A is left with a group of people he cares nothing about. His choice is gone, lost. He feels aggrieved and seeks to exercise once again his right to select his representatives. Of course in Singapore the story ends with the PM giving excuses and now and again engaging in abit of dooms day prophesying.

The Presumption of Innocence

This issue was first raised when the new AG, Walter Woon, gave a press statement whereby he introduced concepts such as legal innocence and factual innocence. This drew a stern rebuttal from the Honorable Justice of Appeal V K Rajah; just recently the new Law Minister K Shanmugam stepped into the fray in support of the AG.

As stated by E-Jay in his post, it is true that there is no full proof legal system. There will be miscarriages of justice; and thus there will be times when the guilty cannot be brought to justice while the innocent will suffer such a miscarriage. Nevertheless in my opinion the crux of the issue is this: what kind of system would we like to have? Would we want a system which derogates from the principle of innocent until proven guilty (the so called crime control system)? Such a system draws a wide net, and increases the risks of ensnaring the truly innocent (echoes of such a system can be found in the Drug provisions). Or do we seek to give effect to the presumption of innocence and crafting a system in pursuance of that goal? In such a system those who are guilty may sometimes escape.

The establishment’s stand is that the presumption of innocence is upheld. Which is well and good for I am a firm believer in the maxim “it is better to let 9 guilty people go then to allow 1 innocent to hang”. It is for this reason that I frown at the usual “deterrence” arguments commonly employed to support to derogation of the principle ( sometimes I do wonder if proponents of such arguments truly comprehend the stakes; perhaps they are of the impression that they will never be caught on the wrong side of such a system; well many people in the Western countries thought so too, yet they were convicted for crimes they did not do and some paid the highest penalty for it too; see The Innocent Man by John Grisham). Nevertheless in attempting to preserve the AGC’s reputation the AG and the Law minister are encouraging cynicism in the legal system;  such face saving exercises would have an adverse impact on those acquitted of crimes. In my opinion there is no reason why the AGC has to embark on this course; even the best institutions make mistakes; no one wins all the time.

I remember those days in Active Service, when I and a bunch of other guys, in what would normally be the most exciting period of our lives (if we had not been born here that is), were forced to learn a variety of songs designed to bolster morale and what have you. My personal favourite was the song which started with “here we go again” and ended with some lines regarding the time left to book out. Little did I know at that time that the phrase “here we go again” would be symptomatic of the goings on in Singapore society.

It was not too long ago that there were hikes in transport fares. TOC has done a good job of documenting the increases here. So imagine my disgust when I read this. To cut the long story short, SBS transit and SMRT Corp are once again planning to increase fares. And from past experience it appears that this is fait accompli; the fares will go up.  In fact my seemingly premature conclusion is bolstered by the wording used report; that “insiders are not holding their breath for any measurable increase this year. ” Therefore notwithstanding the lack of a so called measurable increase, the price is still going up…again.

Of course these companies have come up with the usual excuses; chief among which is that fuel and energy costs have “significantly increased” over the years. Nevertheless one must recall that just recently there were several drops in pump prices. Unless SMRT and SBS are under a different fuel regime from drivers and taxi drivers, then I fail to see why this significant increase necessitates a price increase.

Furtheremore even if there is a significant increase, I hardly see why there is an urgent need for SBS and SMRT to raise fares. According to the abovementioned article, SMRT posted a net profit of $150million. Thus I fail to see the need for an increase. In fact the cynical me would say that these companies are merely using inflation as an excuse to drive up their not inconsiderable profits. It is true that these companies are eager to maximise profit; that is where associations like the PTC come in to control and regulate these people. Unfortunately (though I could be mistaken) it appears that the PTC has often taken the side of the big boys and thus at the end of the day, the only losers are the people who rely on public transport.

In an unsurprising move, the ST spin machine is at work again, to downplay the IBA report which was released just a few days ago. As expected, a writer extolling the virtues of the PAP and attacking the character of Dr Chee Soon Juan in the process; the proverbial killing two birds with one stone. In his letter, the writer has called Chee irresponsible and all other sorts of words; finally he goes on to reaffirm his loyalty to Singapore.

I must admit, when I began to follow the goings on of the political realm, I too was under the impression that Dr Chee was a fool and a joker; many years ago, it would not be inconceivable for me to author such a letter to the forum, if I were minded to do so. And yet as time passed and I began to gain more information I begin to realise that Dr Chee is not as irresponsible and irascible as he is made up to be.

For society to progress, there needs to be a variety of players; you have the academics and the commentators (sometimes derogatorily referred to as the armchair critics), you have the workers who oil the machinery, and then you have the leaders, the doers, entrepreneurs (I call them the movers). Among the movers you would need people who are not within the system, people who agitate for change in a manner different from that of the “armchair critic”. These movers will seek to show people, by their actions, the various issues which would never appear in the mainstream due to control by the establishment. These peopel are the reminder to us that sometimes, especially in Singapore, there is more to life then just commuting to the CBD area and trying to chase money (ironically, the nature of the money chase is such that one can spend one’s life in pursuit of money, but will always be one step behind). To cut to the chase, people like Dr Chee Soon Juan would be known as movers. Thus his actions which, to some people, bother on the flamboyant. Chee’s tactics are described in further detail here by Mr Alex Au.

Of course there are those who will begin parroting lines that “Chee is not credible” and so on. It is my fervent hope that such people who believe this believe in it because they have come to the conclusion and not because they have been influenced by the establishment’s narrative. Indeed it will be tragic that one professes to disagree with the establishment but is still influenced somewhat by the very same establishment.

Thus I most heartily disagree with the forum writer’s dismissal and character assassination of Chee. Indeed it seems rather ironic that on one hand, we have people lamenting that Singaporeans are apathetic and lack passion and are money minded… and at the same time, we will then turn around and condemn any Singaporean who show such traits. A more apt saying is that “a prophet is never liked in his home town”.

The writer also seems to confuse the concept of a nation with the concept of government, as seen from his declaration of loyalty to Singapore, his pride as a Singaporean. Furthermore he seems to suggest that a loyal Singaporean cannot be a “shambolic critic” which is a patently ridiculous statement. To be willing to stand up and be counted, and go against the ruling party is an act tantamount to suicide. A person willing to do so can be said to display loyalty to his country, which is more that one can say for others who merely act as parrots. It is instances like these, when the government turns against those people who merely mean well, and is accompanied by such people, that make me ashamed to call myself a Singaporean (that does not mean I accept the equation that PAP=Singapore, because I dont. However I also recognise that the concept of Singapore has been tied up with PAP by the powers that be that the above statement is to be expected).

The Singapore government must have felt like it had struck lottery when the International Bar Association chose to host its annual conference in Singapore after the International Monetary Fund had held its meeting in Singapore. This fact became part of the ammunition the government used against naysayers such as Dr Chee Soon Juan. Unfortunately as shown by this IBA report, the Singapore government has jumped the gun in patting themselves on the back. Suffice to say the report made the usual criticisms of Singapore’s record on Human Rights.

Naturally the Singapore government became defensive and issued a “rebuttal”; unfortunately this sudden “U-Turn” does not paint the government in a good light, though with the help of the Straits Times and people like Syu Ying Kwok I would opine that they will come out of it none the worse (if they can come out of all that policies which increase the cost of living without a scratch I fail to see why this slip up would have any more impact).

This “U-turn”  is not unprecedented, the government has oft played up any praise (actual or imagined) by foreign organisations, only to then turn around and use a mixture of fearmongering and arguments which evince some sort of “Eastern supremacism” once the said organisation begins to say anything displeasing to the ears of the government. (As an aside there is a chinese idiom which roughly translates to “bitter medicine cures the sickness, good advice however hard to hear cures the soul”… if we are indeed followers of Confucious we might do well to remember this… government included).

A Tale of the Privy Council

Long before the IBA decided to hold its conference in Singapore, the Singapore Judiciary had, at its apex, the Privy Council in Britain. The PC was once feted, by  then Minister of Law Jayakumar, as the litmus test of judicial independence in Singapore. Unfortunately the PC dug its own grave, so to speak, when they allowed Mr JBJ’s appeal (JBJ v Law Society [1988]) against Mr JBJ’s removal from the rolls of advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court in Singapore. Their Lordships then went on to expressed “deep disquiet” over the proceedings which resulted in JBJ’s conviction. With one stroke, the government deemed the PC to be one of them pesky Western Organisations and appeals to the PC from Singapore were eventually abolished. The PC was accused of playing politics, a questionable accusation given that the PC had allowed Mr Goh Chok Tong’s defence of fair comment against a suit launched by JBJ in JBJ v Goh Chok Tong [1989]. If the Council was indeed “playing politics” then there was no reason why they would have ruled in favour of Mr Goh.

Conclusion

I must say Mas Selamat’s escape from Whitley Detention was something of a shock for me; after all, it was this very same detention centre which which housed the so-called “Marxist Conspiracy” and the othere “undesirables” of Singapore society (though it appears that there are still many undesirables writing crap into the ST Forum, but this is merely an aside). This shock was further compounded by the fact that this very same Detention centre was run by the dreaded ISD and even guarded by gurkhas! (those who have served in the military may have encountered the gurkhas; suffice to say they put the SAF’s elite formations to shame). The COI findings to have surprised me; I must say I have never seen a cubicle with two urinals.

Nevertheless I was indeed hoping for something, some act of contrition or humility from the powers that be. Imagine my dismay when not only does that said act not materialise; to compound matters further, it appears that the mainstream media is revving up a spin offensive, heaping scorn against the online community, and turning their attention to Mr Low Thia Kiang’s silence, when in actual fact, Mr Low’s silence is merely tangential to the issue at hand: namely the government’s accountability towards the populace. And I must say I would expect either a further playing up of Mr Low’s silence, exhortations to move on which brings to mind the Gomez saga in GE 2006 (although admittedly it was the WP which was under attack; leading the charge was none other than Mr Wong Kan Seng himself). Of course it is also conceivable that the Father of Singapore would soon come and deliver a “stinging rebuke” decrying Singaporean’s “complacency”. Basically anything can happen, save for what should happen; namely a proper acknowledgement of fault and a change in the high-handed manner which the PAP is renowned for. Chua Lee Hong’s “reading the internet postings make [her] blood boil”* comment only shows the establishment’s commitment to turn the spot light away from this thorny issue (although perhaps she could be referring to the ST online Forum; then i would agree,some of their posts really make my blood boil:P).

Now don’t get me wrong. I personally am not advocating for Mr Wong’s resignation; though if he had ATTEMPTED to do so it would have raised my esteem of him by a wide margin. What i was hoping to see from this COI exercise was humble contrition for a mistake made. It is one of the tenets of leadership that the leader assumes responsibility for the follies of his subordinate, notwithstanding that he may or may not have had a direct link to the deplorable event. In spite of the editorials extolling the virtues of the ISA, in spite of the allusions that my complacency somehow led to MSK’s escape (though i never knew who he was before this incident), i was hoping that somehow, the PAP would do things differently. But of course at the end of the day, that was, at best, naive.

* I must say reading anything from the factories of the MSM doth make my blood boil. Especially this piece… I am rather disappointed at the outcome to say the least. Such incidents do make me wonder what would have happened if the person who slapped the victim was someone else?

** the events up North may have had something to do with the myriad attempts to attack the Internet’s credibility; perhaps it had something to do with the talk of regulations (implicit sabber rattling). However I personally think fear on the part of the establishment is misconceived. Regretably my countryman have proven themselves to have a short memory and so there would be no “wake-up call” so to speak.

I refer to the letter hereby linked to here.

I must say i am rather surprised that such letters are often published in a newspaper that prides itself on a lot of professionalism. Indeed this letter calls to mind the chinese saying “ban men nong fu”, whereby someone with no knowledge attempts to pass himself of as an expert. But judging from the pattern of this writer’s letters i guess there is nothing new in such a self righteous tone. Indeed if such is the norm which is prevalent in Singapore then it comes to no surprise that Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s prediction that Singapore will not be a gracious society in his lifetime will come true.

Now lest i be accused of engaging in ad hominems ( i declare my stand up front, i have never liked this particular writer especially after he wrote such letters)i shall attempt in my own way to show why his letter is utter bollocks.

From his letters he seems to be stating a rather sweeping view that all these issues with En Blocs is due to the greed of buyers who wish out because they want a higher price. While that may indeed be true in some cases, it is by no means a situation in other cases. Anecdotal and personal evidence both show that there are many many funny things going on in En Bloc sales, in fact what seems to happen in some sales is that the sellers are forced to sell because the rules are used against the seller by buyers who are infinitely in a better bargaining position. In fact the only reason why there are suits now is because somehow, along the way sellers decided to actualy cough up money to fight it out for their own homes. The cost of litigation is high, and the burden is higher for a seller who only has his apartment to fall back on, while the developers often have loads of cash to throw into the litigation fray. Indeed it is precisely because of the lack of resources that sellers often “lan lan suck thumb” so to speak and just allow developers to get away. The fact of the matter is there are instances of the big guys bullying the little guys. And the little guys rarely, if ever, are able or willing to do something about it.

Furthermore i find the fact that he claims its crystal clear that sellers want a higher price presumptous to say the least. For one the writer is not a judge, so until such time as a judge or tribunal rules the facts are in doubt, notwithstanding ST’s constant focus on the fact that enbloc sales make profit (not all of them do). Indeed i do hope such man as he never sit on the high seat in court for that would mean miscarriages of justice galore. It would be rather sad day for the law if it destroys the very people it is meant to protect(this is a  layman definition).

Of course then one might ask, is there not a contract whereby obligations are binding? Indeed obligations are often binding but there are many doctrines of contract to deal with situations whereby to hold people to an obligation would be tantamount to injustice. Misrepresentation for one, voids the contract, and is one of the basis by which the Strata Title Board can deny an application for sale. Proof of bad faith can also result in rejection of an application. If one were to take the writers course of action, to wit,  if” the irresponsible party defaults on the terms of the contract so the aggrieved party takes the issue to court, the court should immediately arrive at a verdict. Penalties should be meted out swiftly against the wrongdoer“, then one would essentially be throwing due process out of the window, and in addition fairness and justice for BOTH parties. While contract law places the idea of certainty of a pedestal, it nevertheless has doctrines to deal with situations whereby people are misled, where there is a total imbalance of bargaining power (unit owner v big developer)and whereby  a result would be so absurd to place a great burden on one party. Furthermore the doctrines are not easy to establish, and it is rather interesting that the writer seems to think that everytime the contract is challenged the court will find for the seller; i doubt that the courts will be so foolish as to do that. Indeed such doctrines often operate in the backdrop of the idea of “sanctity of contract”, whereby contracts are set aside only on very narrow grounds. Furthermore, to touch on an earlier point…it is more likely that the seller needs the protection of the law then the buyer…for the buyer is oft a corporate entity with big pockets. Thus i fail to see why the writer harps on protecting the buyer, when it is evident that the seller is the one who is handicapped.

In view of such letters, perhaps someone should conduct a contract 101 course in school. In addition, one should also introduce lessons which teach the virtue of withholding prejudice and developing critical skills of analysis and knowledge acquisition. Tis appears that there is a need for such measures to achieve some measure of sanity in our forum page.

As an aside i must say i am relieved that the jury system is abolished. If ever there was a compelling reason for such a policy it would be justified on the basis of the general quality of forum letters being published. The thought of being judged (prejudged) by such people frighten me, to say the least.

I have not been blogging for some time, since I was and currently still am actively attempting to secure myself in view of the many increases that have assailed Singapore since the last General Election. (On an aside it is rather interesting that prices tend to increase after every election. Or so it seems.)

Nevertheless, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, or more specifically Mr Lee’s comments which can be found here  have made me decide to step backwards from the Singapore Race and say my two cents worth.

Personally I have never really thought much of the government’s proclamations on Singapore becoming a vibrant society and thus view the call for a renaissance in 10- 15 yrs the same way as I viewed Goal 2010. At the rate Singapore society has “progressed” I would be unoriginal and borrow MM Lee’s phrase “not in my life time” if people were to ask me whether Singapore would indeed have a renaissance on the scale of Italy. One need only look at the many examples of how Singapore restricts any form of expression to conclude, not unreasonably so, that despite the so called push for an Arts Hub, we are pulling away from the goal. Indeed there are a mulititude of justifications for such a situation; ranging from the doomsday scenario (that Singapore will become morally bankrupt or my mom will become a maid) to the oft cited but undefinable Asian Values of a Traditional Conservative Society. As long as people cannot (notwithstanding the relatively good education system: I’m not being satirical, the education system does have its good points) differentiate between art and pornography then Singapore Renaissance would become Goal 2010. Indeed Singapore refuses to make a baby step by repealing the infamous 377A, instead choosing to accept such arguments (and what worries me is that there was applause at the end of said speech). Thus this idea of a Renaissance will continue to remain a figment of the leader’s imagination unless the government choose to throw aside to concept of artificial dynamism and allow some “chaos” in society. As long as things remain the way they are, Singapore Renaissance will probably go the way of Goal 2010.

( This whole post is not meant to impugn on the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, that sacred and untouchable institution, by law said to be free from all fault, Mr Chiam, Mr Low and Ms Lim not included of course.)

Mr Speaker sir, I have had the benefit of reading my learned parliamentarian’s speech and shall now attempt to engage in such a discussion with as little emotion as ever, since I am of course extremely unwilling to subject my learned parliamentarian to the “harrassment” she was subjected to by rather “violent” people after her comments on homosexuality was made known. Of course I shall not comment on whether the article was well researched or not for I am but a simple faceless netizen without the impeccable credentials of a professor, what more a law professor. Nevertheless I find it rather strange that she should be surprised by such rancour; after all if you insinuate that a person is a sexually depraved monster you can’t expect him to come up to you with a smile and give u his other cheek for you to slap.

That aside I must say that as my learned friend Aaron has said, I am confused as to the idea of the “conservative” majority. In fact I must question just what makes a person a conservative majority? His homophobia? His desire to have three children? The fact that he goes to church? Indeed, Ned believes in ideals such as honor and justice, concepts dating back to the middle ages and beyond. So am I a conservative?

Moving on, my learned parliamentarian has said that the repeal camp is “marinated” with fallacies which obscure what is at stake. She claims that the repeal will subvert social morality, destroy the common good and undermine our liberties. Such a statement must receive a cautious reply. Regarding liberties one can respond with but one question, “What liberty?” But snide comments on Singapore aside, one must wonder what is the liberty and common good is she talking about. Furthermore what social morality is there to be safeguarded. Indeed I would also contend that social morality can be safeguarded by criminalising adultery, raiding Geylang, dispensing with Casinos (or if you would prefer IRs). Indeed, I find it rather weird that marital rape is still permissable under the law! So it is socially moral to rape your wife! Fascinating is it not?

Now on to harm. Indeed I do not dispute that harm can be intangible or tangible. The question is what harm? If A and B engage in homosexual intercourse in the bed room, what harm can there be? Maybe they made too much noise and woke their neighbours; the law relating to nuisance will deal with that. Maybe if they were in a hotel room and they broke the bed, then negligence will deal with that. Is there a need to impose criminal sanctions on people?

On the issue of science, one must wonder on what basis does the learned parliamentarian diss science, it is undeniable that scientists do have certain subjectivity (as do judges and all of us) but one cannot deny that research is in itself an objective enterprise. Indeed if one would like to rubbish science then one would have to do better rather than dissing science using rather doubtful examples of homosexuals who have turned straight (see this post for more information on that).

Furthermore, having a law and not enforcing it (or claiming to anyway) makes a person confused. As the late Lord Denning once so eloquently said, ” it tends to the discredit of a legal system in a country if its Parliament makes laws or its courts make orders which they cannot enforce“ Indeed what happens if A hears his neighbours getting it on, and knows that his neighbours are definitely both male? If A calls the police, would the police say, “Sorry but we are forbidden to enforce the law!” Indeed it would be a mockery of the law if there is no desire to enforce it. I do agree however that the retention of 377A does send a strong signal; to the inquisitors, this is a sign that the government does look favourably on them; this is in essence a tacit approval for them to commence their hate campaign against fellow human beings. This law is a signpost, that the law considers homosexuals to be no better than rapists; true from a strict literal interpretation it says nothing of that sort but from a broader perspective it does suggest that homosexuals are criminal or criminally inclined.

Furthermore I fail to see why the call to repeal a law which is discriminatory is tantamount to hijacking human rights. Indeed calling for the repeal of 377A is an action which shows great respect for this idea of human rights. Those calling for repeal are not limited to homosexuals; in fact NMP Siew is himself a heterosexual. Mr Hri to is most definitely not homosexual. I myself, last i heard am as homosexual as Aaron is homosexual. Indeed the composition of people calling for repeal is more varied than what is suggested by the learned parliamentarian; I know Christians who seek to repeal the law but do not approve of homosexuality, and Aaron has at times said he was slight homophobic. All those seeking repeal seek these things: That religion be kept out of the picture and that people be treated as equal as possible. Its a matter of human rights and attempting to fudge around with concepts such as equality and fairness cannot change the fact.

I now turn to the matter of the petition to Keep 377A. It maybe that there were 15 000 rather concerned people who signed. However one must question whether this is a good indicator of anything if “Jesus” himself signed the petition. Furthermore, just because many people say its right does not make it right. In National Service it is common for people to be tekaned, does this make it any more right? What about the murder of Jews? What of the prejudice against the african americans or africans? Did the fact that society deemed it right make it anymore right? There was also a time not too long ago when Christians were fed to lions in the Roman Arena.

Unfortunately not only is my time short, I must admit I lack the eloquence of my learned parliamentarian. Therefore I shall end off by addressing her use of history. While I must admit I do not know much about homosexuality in China, save that there were Emperors who were homosexual, I must say that I find it interesting that she talks about how there were the “bad old days” in Greece where homosexuality was allowed. Indeed it is rather interesting that she talks about the bad old days. I would like to highlight this salient fact to this august assembly, that the very institution, nay the very place, nay the very act, to wit, of debating now, indeed our very idea of government stemmed from those bad old days. These bad old days also gave us the Hippocratic Oath sworn by doctors, and philosphers such as Aristotle. In fact the bad old days of Ancient Greece gave rise to heroic men such as the 300 Spartans who chose to stand and die at Thermopylae. One must wonder whether one can find 300 NS men willing to do the same in morally upright Singapore. And with regards to Sodom may I highlight this interesting piece done by Mr Wang, it provides a rather interesting perspective.

But I have said too much, and fear that I would be subject to a rigorous analysis which would tear my argument apart. Indeed I fear that will be burnt at the stake by the Inquisition like Joan of Arc and thus shall say no more. Save this, I too was raised to believe, stand up and to speak for a cause. To speak up for what is right. And I say now that retaining 377A serves only to bolster those who seek to spread fear, hatred among members of society and that is stands, not as argued for morals, but for sheer prejudice, sheer disregard for the feelings of fellow human beings.

Sir, I long to be a member of a compassionate society, a city of possibilities; a place where men practise what they preach. But for 377A, this would forever be a way distant fantasy.