jump to navigation

Here we go…Again June 26, 2007

Posted by Ned Stark in Uncategorized.

Just recently there was an uproar in the blogosphere regarding Alfian’s Saat dismissal from his position as a relief teacher in a secondary school. Basically there were three possibilities with regards to his dismissal:

 1) Alfian’s sexual orientation

2) Alfian’s political tendencies

3) All of the above

Of course since MOE was rather obscure in their reply it was difficult to conclude which of the above was applicable to the situation. However a recent incident could shed light on the matter; I refer to TOC’s latest post regarding the rejection of a homosexual by, surprise surprise the MOE!

While I do not  have the specific documents now, I believe that Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong did make an announcement, during NDP 2003 or thereabouts that the civil service was open to homosexuals. However it appears that such is not the case given the anecdotal evidence from both Alfian and now Francis’ situation. What is even more regretable is the fact that Francis may start university one year later due as the admissions have closed. And his situation is different from those dragon girls who did not get a place this year.

The sad thing is that the extent of such discrimination on the basis of orientation is relatively unknown. Is such discrimination merely isolated incidents or do the incidents bespeak the general intolerance for homosexuals and, extrapolating it further, the intolerance of people who do not conform to the societal norms, the so-called Asian Values or any other line which is espoused by the establishment?

Unfortunately the fact that the legislature’s refusal to repeal the infamous Section 377A does not help matters at all. In fact the retention of that ridiculous law  has emboldened some homophobes to begin ranting against homosexuals, on one hand saying that they are not against the people while at the same time making declarations that such people are immoral and anathema to society; in essence, dehumanising real people in the name of Divinity (a side note, I really wonder what Jesus or Buddha would have thought of such rantings in their name. But that could be bothering on the sedition act. )

By criminalising homosexual acts, the legislature is essentially taking an anti homosexual stance which would lead to such incidents as aforesaid. While it would be unreasonable to expect people’s beliefs to change, there is no compelling reason for the legislature to pander to the whims of bigotted homophobes. Unless they also share such views then it is an entirely different matter.

That said, Ned Stark is not a homosexual. However Ned has a few friends who are homosexual who are not the wanton sexual predators or sexual animals, contrary to the belief of some crazy homophobes (it is known however that there are a number of heterosexual men who visit Batam at times). Ned strongly believes in allowing people to do their own thing as long as there is no harm done to any party; in this instance as long as no one buggers Ned should he drop the soap while bathing.

*According to Mr Anon the current rape under the Penal Code does not deal with the rape of a male and that consent is not required in 377A. Nevertheless I still stand for the repeal of 377A; the law on rape should then be amended to give provision to the situation where a poor NSF is buggered after dropping his soap. In fact if what Anon says its true I find it rather weird that 377A lumps both consent and non-consent together. There is a distinction between rape and consensual sex and therefore equating to consensual homosexual sex with rape only serves to send the signal that such an act is wrong and immoral, which patently cannot be the case.



1. anonymous - June 26, 2007

Consent is not a requirement under 377A. And the “rape” of a male is not “rape” under the current Penal Code.

2. Ned Stark - June 26, 2007

Indeed. I did not know that rape of a male is not the rape under the Penal Code. Nevertheless this can be resolved with the repeal of 377A and the amendment of the section under rape to encompass rape of a male. The fact that this is not done will only serve to give strength to those who only desire a chance to vent their hate speech.

3. anonymous - June 27, 2007

things may change: there is a new “sexual assault by penetration” provision in the Penal Code Amendment Bill (http://www.agc.gov.sg/publications/docs/Draft_Penal_Code_Amendment_Bill.pdf) that is capable of dealing with the rape of a male (see the new section 376).

377A, however, looks set to stay.

4. Ned Stark - June 27, 2007

Which is rather unfortunate. But thanks for clarifying 377A.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: