08 November 2006

Pseudo repeal under cover of smoke?

The government proposes to amend various parts of the Penal Code including some sections pertaining to sexual offences. Any effect on homosexual sex? Full essay.

9 comments:

Wolfgang said...

Amazing isn't it, in this day and age, that the state still wants to 'regulate' what goes on between 2 consenting adults.

So like USA, trying to please people instead of doing what is right.

Jordan said...

Read this link.
I am ever more confused.
2 hetros could ALSO MEAN 2 'straight' guys?
Ever heard of the word: "experimentation?"
How does one prove "hetro" n "gay"?

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=qw11629839609B252

All this is to further confuse gays n hetros re; sex.

What couples do behind closed doors is their business, this includes men n women. HOWEVER.. this law will come 22 years later???
What is the Singapore Govt trying to say to Singaporeans?
"if we catch a man n a woman engaging anal sex, that is illegal?"
Well, what if it is 2 hetro men engaging in anal sex? Is that OK?
Or do they tell the arresting officers "We are really gay"
or a man n a woman- "we are gay, she is a lesbian n I am gay, n we were just experimenting?'
or a woman n a woman; "we are lesbians, but do dildos count?"
What if a man n a woman used a dildo?- does that count as illegal sex?
All those who are gay- do we have to carry Singapore IDs with SEX ORIENTATION- FILL IN THE BLANK?
This is ludicrous.I do not think that the legal idiots know what they are writing down as law?.
In 22 years?
If Singapore is still around?

Jordan said...

I stand corrected on the '22 years'.

'On sex between homosexuals, the Ministry has plans to keep the status quo."If you are a homosexual or a lesbian, I think you can get into trouble.'-CNA

What is the difference? Who knows who is 'hetro' n who is 'gay' is the grey area here.
Is this a legal entrapment?

If the govt wants to protect young children, then they should clearly state it.
It is very ambigious with 'consenting hetro adults'.
All very confusing, and discrimation against gays!

Anonymous said...

the day that shocked me most was when the current government was sworne in:

they all had their bibles!

I have always been shocked with the way the PAP handles "multi-racial" and "multi-religious":

it always makes sure to segregate people into different groups.

The Bible people are very strong here in Singapore, and Singaporeans are fond of religion/superstition. Yet every time I hear a Bible preacher (in the train, at fastfoods, I realize he/she has absolutely no understanding on the Bible, and is merely trying to recite what he/she has been told.

The PAP should look at religions as water and oil: without beating there is no mayonnaise.

YCK said...

MHA explanatory notes has it :

"Singapore remains, by and large, a conservative society. Many do not tolerate homosexuality, and consider such acts abhorrent and deviant."

If that means that the majority is against decriminalizing homosexulaity then it should be put in no uncertain terms. But if this were true, it would be wrong to say that the government is pandering just to the Christian fundalmentalists.

But Christians are just a minority in Singapore, which is to say that the fundamentalists are even less significant! Surely for any minority group to be much maligned is not good for our reputation as an inclusive multiracial and multireligious country.

For this greater good, they should back their statement with numbers or they would be suspected of doublespeaking. You are right that it would be improper of the government to "feint and hide".

Jordan said...

You know the saying:
'Those who live in glass houses should not throw rocks...at others who also live in glass houses.

teck soon said...

The reply that Alex got from Ms. Sia Yoke Leng is a typical response from a Singapore beaurocrat. Alex, did you write back to her, express your dissatisfaction with her reply, and ask for a clear answer? Taxpayers are paying her salary, and she isn't doing her job. She should be faithfully answering citizens' questions, instead of writing back rubbish. Unfortunately, there is no useful feedback mechanism in Singapore on the performance of Singapore government beaurocrats. That's the kind of feedback unit we could all use.

Anonymous said...

Yawningbread said:
"Anomaly
... Under the retained Section 377A, a handjob (mutual masturbation) will remain, theoretically, an offence, but without Section 377, fullblown penetrative sex will be legal."

I see things in a far different light.

It appears to me that 377A, alone, could cover handjob as well as any other kinds of sexual acts including full penetration. If a handjob is seen as a suitable interpretation of the term "gross indecency", then it's not so hard to also apply the same interpretation to anal penetration. So there is no anomaly at all.

---------------------------

What is perhaps more important, although I could well be wrong, is that 377A alone covers only the male gender, it leaves out the female gender. Hence without 377, sex between females is left decriminalised. This is the small step in the forward direction that is hinted at in the press statements. I must admit that I don't fault our civil servants for sneaking this change in without putting too much spotlight for the general public to see.

One can imagine that it's just a slip-up, that they did not have such an intention. However, I can expound a good case where female-female sex is considered more acceptable to the Singapore "conservative society".

Ask any hetero male if he would enjoy watching porn which feature female-female sex. If you discount replies from the ultra-religious or the ultra-puritan, and I daresay the vast majority of Singaporean males are as raunchy as males all over the world, I would suggest that more than 50% would say yes. So this would be a small change of the laws that the authorities may believe Singaporeans are ready for.

I should also imagine that the government is acutely conscious of the financial implications of even such a small change. Our IRs (Integrated Resorts) are totally dependent on foreign visitors and this small change to catch up with foreign laws could have a high impact on the entertainment aspects of the IRs.

So although I could be wrong, I'm favouring a conclusion that it's not a slip-up by our civil servants, and that they really intended to decriminalise female-female sex, on the grounds that they think Singaporeans are ready for this small step and that it has an important impact on our entertainment industry.

And if this small step is taken, then it makes it that much easier to take the other corresponding step.

Robert L

gen x-i said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, there's no direct mention of the lesbians in any media coverage so far nor the previous statute.

Can someone please enlighten me where two consenting females figure in this latest update in an antiquated statute?