Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/tommy-koh-antiquated-law-377a-should-be-repealed-10755302
(Updated: )
Ricky Lim
Like · Reply · 10mmments Plugin
Veteran diplomat Tommy Koh called again for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay sex, in an opinion piece published by The Straits Times on Monday (Sep 24).
In Dr Koh's commentary published on Monday - Section 377A: There is a difference between a sin and a crime - he delved into the history of the legislation and scientific studies on homosexuality.
--
If this pandora box on homosexuality is open - to differentiate sin from crime - then it bring other moral issues into open and how to address it:-
Eg.
(1) Prostitution is it a sin or a crime?
(2) Polygamy is it a sin or a crime?
(3) Is sex with minor a sin or a crime?
(4) Is sex with animal a sin or a crime?
(5) Is incest a sin or a crime?
(6) Is sex with corpse a sin or a crime?
In Dr Koh's commentary published on Monday - Section 377A: There is a difference between a sin and a crime - he delved into the history of the legislation and scientific studies on homosexuality.
--
If this pandora box on homosexuality is open - to differentiate sin from crime - then it bring other moral issues into open and how to address it:-
Eg.
(1) Prostitution is it a sin or a crime?
(2) Polygamy is it a sin or a crime?
(3) Is sex with minor a sin or a crime?
(4) Is sex with animal a sin or a crime?
(5) Is incest a sin or a crime?
(6) Is sex with corpse a sin or a crime?
Ricky Lim
On the scientific evidence for repealing the law, Dr Koh wrote: "Scientific research has shown that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects."
--
There is scientific evidence to prove that humans are polygamous.
"Human carry the biological imprint of polygamy, the opposite of lifelong fidelity to one mate. Complicating matters further, polygamy is divided into two categories: Polygyny, in which a man has more than one wife, and polyandry, in which a woman has more than one husband. In a humorous aside, Professor Barash explains that the biological benefits of polyandry––one female, multiple males––is not clear, "but that has not dampened many women's enthusiasm."
Now the question is, if we carry the evolutionary imprint of polygamy, why does modern society, especially in the Western world, advocate monogamy, which goes against our animalistic predilection for multiple sexual partners? Not all animals are sexually indiscriminate, by the way. Although rare, a few species do mate for life and will even reject new alliances after the death of their original partners.
Given the fact that 80% of early human societies were polygamous, why did later populations become largely monogamous? Science has no answer to that, apparently, although there are theories, as you might expect. One of them has to do with the "two parent" advantage to monogamy in caring for the young."
Now if homosexual are allowed to legalise --- then someone will point to scientific evidence that humans are polygamous - and push for legality of polygamy.
When the pandora box of the homosexuality is open - does it mean to allow the pandora box of polygamy and other moral issue to be opened up as well?
Then where is the end?
--
There is scientific evidence to prove that humans are polygamous.
"Human carry the biological imprint of polygamy, the opposite of lifelong fidelity to one mate. Complicating matters further, polygamy is divided into two categories: Polygyny, in which a man has more than one wife, and polyandry, in which a woman has more than one husband. In a humorous aside, Professor Barash explains that the biological benefits of polyandry––one female, multiple males––is not clear, "but that has not dampened many women's enthusiasm."
Now the question is, if we carry the evolutionary imprint of polygamy, why does modern society, especially in the Western world, advocate monogamy, which goes against our animalistic predilection for multiple sexual partners? Not all animals are sexually indiscriminate, by the way. Although rare, a few species do mate for life and will even reject new alliances after the death of their original partners.
Given the fact that 80% of early human societies were polygamous, why did later populations become largely monogamous? Science has no answer to that, apparently, although there are theories, as you might expect. One of them has to do with the "two parent" advantage to monogamy in caring for the young."
Now if homosexual are allowed to legalise --- then someone will point to scientific evidence that humans are polygamous - and push for legality of polygamy.
When the pandora box of the homosexuality is open - does it mean to allow the pandora box of polygamy and other moral issue to be opened up as well?
Then where is the end?
Like · Reply · 1m
Ricky Lim
Former attorney-general Walter Woon was "unhappy" with the compromise of "retaining 377A and not enforcing it because it brings the law into disrepute", Prof Koh said.
--
Interesting statement.
But how about Prostitution?
"Prostitution in Singapore in itself is not illegal, but various prostitution-related activities are criminalized. This includes public solicitation, living on the earnings of a prostitute and maintaining a brothel. In practice, police unofficially tolerate and monitor a limited number of brothels. Prostitutes in such establishments are required to undergo periodic health checks and must carry a health card."
"Prostitution was seen by the colonial authorities as a necessary evil but a number of steps were taken to place restrictions on prostitution in the city. The registration of prostitutes and brothels was made compulsory in an attempt to prevent forced prostitution, and an Office to Protect Virtue was set up to help anyone unwillingly involved in prostitution."
Isn't legalising homosexuality - to be seen as the same lens as Prostitution?
--
Interesting statement.
But how about Prostitution?
"Prostitution in Singapore in itself is not illegal, but various prostitution-related activities are criminalized. This includes public solicitation, living on the earnings of a prostitute and maintaining a brothel. In practice, police unofficially tolerate and monitor a limited number of brothels. Prostitutes in such establishments are required to undergo periodic health checks and must carry a health card."
"Prostitution was seen by the colonial authorities as a necessary evil but a number of steps were taken to place restrictions on prostitution in the city. The registration of prostitutes and brothels was made compulsory in an attempt to prevent forced prostitution, and an Office to Protect Virtue was set up to help anyone unwillingly involved in prostitution."
Isn't legalising homosexuality - to be seen as the same lens as Prostitution?
Randall Chia
Ricky Lim it is not true that legalising gay marriage will lead to legalising polygamy
people assume a slippery slope effect as though it is a 'for sure to happen' conclusion and they use that as argument that 'we cannot do this or else got this bad consequence'
many countries that legalised gay marriage, such as Argentina or South Africa, they didnt open any floodgate to legalise everything
likewise look at the muslim countries that legalise polygamy, but they didnt legalise gay marriage
people assume a slippery slope effect as though it is a 'for sure to happen' conclusion and they use that as argument that 'we cannot do this or else got this bad consequence'
many countries that legalised gay marriage, such as Argentina or South Africa, they didnt open any floodgate to legalise everything
likewise look at the muslim countries that legalise polygamy, but they didnt legalise gay marriage
Reply · 50m
Ricky Lim
Randall Chia - I see legalising homosexuality as legalising prostitution, polygamy and other deviant sexual liaison.
They are all deviant sexual union that does not promote healthy family values, reproduction of offsprings to a Society.
If people argue on behalf of homo, but reject other deviant sexual liaison - it smack of crooked arguments - fringe on selective amnesia.
They are all deviant sexual union that does not promote healthy family values, reproduction of offsprings to a Society.
If people argue on behalf of homo, but reject other deviant sexual liaison - it smack of crooked arguments - fringe on selective amnesia.
Like · Reply · 1m
Randall Chia
just because theres many forms of deviant doesnt mean they have to be lumped together. its like trying to say that if you support death penalty for drug trafficking then it implies you also support death penalty for all other forms of trafficking crime
if you cannot take these things on a case by case basis then of course its easy to argue against homo. Just pick something covenient from your deviant combo package like pedophilia and you got yourself a compelling argument. Who knows maybe India already going to legalise pedophilia, man those guys over there sure are screwed arent they.
also its nice to see how your idea of a healthy family value equates to reproduction of offsprings, i should go remind my wife that she still owes 2 children to the singaporean society
if you cannot take these things on a case by case basis then of course its easy to argue against homo. Just pick something covenient from your deviant combo package like pedophilia and you got yourself a compelling argument. Who knows maybe India already going to legalise pedophilia, man those guys over there sure are screwed arent they.
also its nice to see how your idea of a healthy family value equates to reproduction of offsprings, i should go remind my wife that she still owes 2 children to the singaporean society
Ricky Lim
Randall Chia - you say that :-
(1) some countries allow polygamy marriage
(2) then you say some countries legalise gay
(3) in the same breath, you say a country allow marriage with minors
(4) i was surprised you did not quote some countries legalised prostitution and should do the same here
- you have demonstrated once you start allowing one perverted, deviant loose moral to come in - you are in fact opening up a pandora box of loose morality into Singapore Society - that are frown upon by the majority.
- as you mention that marriage between a male and female is not equal to reproduction of offspring - you must as well acccuse Nature of human reproduction as fake news and continuation of human civilisation as hoax - and human civilisation deserve extinction, and human should not reproduce future generation to continue suppporting the Economy, to serve National Service to protect the Country.
(1) some countries allow polygamy marriage
(2) then you say some countries legalise gay
(3) in the same breath, you say a country allow marriage with minors
(4) i was surprised you did not quote some countries legalised prostitution and should do the same here
- you have demonstrated once you start allowing one perverted, deviant loose moral to come in - you are in fact opening up a pandora box of loose morality into Singapore Society - that are frown upon by the majority.
- as you mention that marriage between a male and female is not equal to reproduction of offspring - you must as well acccuse Nature of human reproduction as fake news and continuation of human civilisation as hoax - and human civilisation deserve extinction, and human should not reproduce future generation to continue suppporting the Economy, to serve National Service to protect the Country.
Shaun Lim
Tommy Koh is trying to identify SG as Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jeyabalen Balasingam
This is offensive and under the belly. Is it wrong for him to persist in his beliefs? Show some civility.
Patrick Wong
377A has to be remained. Singapore cannot accept gays actually. Who on the right mind will accept this kind of behavior.
Angie Huang
...why did he speak for gays only...what about the poor, disabled, blind, dumb, deaf, mentally ill...why didn't tommy Koh speak up for these groups???!!!...
Patrick Wong
the poor, disabled, blind, dumb, deaf, mentally ill. should be the one who need the help the most
Reply · 49m
Unker Will
My question to many parents and especially to those supporters of homosexuality activities in particular sodomy - do you want your sons to be involved in these kind of activities? If your answer is "Yes I don't mind" then I have nothing to add on. If answer is a resounding "No I don't want" then make your stand clear...do not support repealing of Section 377A. What is being commented here is to try and mislead others to accept homosexual behaviours as normal lifestyle which from day one is unacceptable and that is why the law is there till today. Why do we in Singapore want to change all that just because many other countries have done so and look at their consequences, a nation that lost their values and gender identities, same sex marriages and so on and on...do we want the same to happen to our land?
Chua Lee Kheng
Welcome to PAP politics, which is very very sickening! Now you feel it, what I had said is the truth, nothing but the truth.
Lish Is Away
Is bringing kids to PinkDot events an act of child grooming?
Wiki has definition of child grooming, one portion mentioning:
... Commonly, they show pornography to the child, or talk about sexual topics with the child, hoping to make it easy for the child to accept such acts, thus normalizing the behaviour.
Isn’t this what PinkDot events have been doing? To talk about their sexual topics with kids until future generations accept such acts as normal? We may need more law enforcement here also.
Any age limit for kids attending such events? Why not?
Wiki has definition of child grooming, one portion mentioning:
... Commonly, they show pornography to the child, or talk about sexual topics with the child, hoping to make it easy for the child to accept such acts, thus normalizing the behaviour.
Isn’t this what PinkDot events have been doing? To talk about their sexual topics with kids until future generations accept such acts as normal? We may need more law enforcement here also.
Any age limit for kids attending such events? Why not?
Lish Is Away
It’s disappointing that a public figure initiates such a refresh challenging that divides the society. Public figures do not become one because their spokesman’s roles for such a topic. Obviously they forgot what they have been paid for and what they are supposed to Champaign for.
Lish Is Away
Rights come with responsibilities. For example, for tax, due to much smaller economy of scale, for public facilities such as separate toilets, prisons, Hospitals etc, gays and lesbians need to pay hundred times more tax than normal folks. Have they been doing this? This is just one example on tax. There are many other responsibilities coming with the rights they are currently asking for.
People in that community love to say that they are discriminated. Actually silent majority are the one discriminated and disadvantaged. Take tax as an example, it is politically incorrect to tax gays and lesbians the same as silent majority. Just talk about MediShield Life, they are among the high risk group and yet pay the same premium or tax for the same coverage as silent majority. Is this fair? Is this politically correct?
People in that community love to say that they are discriminated. Actually silent majority are the one discriminated and disadvantaged. Take tax as an example, it is politically incorrect to tax gays and lesbians the same as silent majority. Just talk about MediShield Life, they are among the high risk group and yet pay the same premium or tax for the same coverage as silent majority. Is this fair? Is this politically correct?
Vince Yong
It is difficult to reason with people when their positions are emotional ones advocated by religion. Logic and rationality cannot prevail against emotional positions, sadly. Professor Koh raises important questions on seperation of religion and state. Is our country a secular nation or a religious nation? Why should the religious values of a few religions have the criminal force over non believers? It is pure overreach
Tricia Lye
Just because many other countries permit it does not mean it is a good decision to make certain things lawful.
Chua Lee Kheng
Spare us the sickening politics, we are generous, whatever the homosexuals want, give to them. They want repeal of 337A, repeal it for them, that show our love for the homosexuals! By God's Grace.
Kh Tan
The issue at hand is NOT whether law 377A is antiquated or not. Neither is it about it being a sin or a crime. Repealing it sends a signal from Parliament that LGBTs is endorsed by the Government even if the legal act of repealing it does not. The sensitivities of the various religious communities and races have to be taken into consideration. The very fact that Singapore is a cosmopolitan city dynamically balanced with very diverse mixed of cultures and religion is because we are sensitive to their feelings and not the converse. Further afield, Singapore lies right smack in the middle of two populous Islamic Muslim nations. We have to be sensitive to the potential tensions that this issue could raise when blown out of proportion by the media or exploited by politicians. We are a sovereign state and we have always been proud to be capable of sovereign thinking without foreign interference. The impetus of repealing this act must therefore stem from sufferings that 377A has on our community and its ramifications when repealed.
Seeking to nullify the act by legally challenging it being unconstitutional seems to suggest that the burden could be borne by our courts instead of Parliament. However, this action itself undermines Parliament. I am against it. Repealing it should remain the prerogative of Parliament and not relegate this to a convoluted legal tangle that has the effect of confusing the public faith in our democratic system.
Seeking to nullify the act by legally challenging it being unconstitutional seems to suggest that the burden could be borne by our courts instead of Parliament. However, this action itself undermines Parliament. I am against it. Repealing it should remain the prerogative of Parliament and not relegate this to a convoluted legal tangle that has the effect of confusing the public faith in our democratic system.
Kien Hwee Lim
Antique law on rape and murder should be removed. It violates my moral values. How's that for logic argument. Have some common sense, prof.
Wu Jian Hao
So, in secular country only non-religious views matter. Religious views do not count.
Isn't that a discrimination against religion?
Isn't that a discrimination against religion?
Wu Jian Hao
What is the purpose of law?
To serve human and society, right?
If removing a law brings harm to the society and future generation, why should we do it?
Is it fair to remove something valued by the majority, with all the risks, just for the sake that the minority not feel offended and to please the west by licking their backside?
When did Tommy Koh's graduated? Has he forgotten the basic principles of law?
To serve human and society, right?
If removing a law brings harm to the society and future generation, why should we do it?
Is it fair to remove something valued by the majority, with all the risks, just for the sake that the minority not feel offended and to please the west by licking their backside?
When did Tommy Koh's graduated? Has he forgotten the basic principles of law?
Chua Lee Kheng
Welcome to PAP politics, which is very very sickening! Now you feel it, what I had said is the truth, nothing but the truth.
Lish Is Away
Is bringing kids to PinkDot events an act of child grooming?
Wiki has definition of child grooming, one portion mentioning:
... Commonly, they show pornography to the child, or talk about sexual topics with the child, hoping to make it easy for the child to accept such acts, thus normalizing the behaviour.
Isn’t this what PinkDot events have been doing? To talk about their sexual topics with kids until future generations accept such acts as normal? We may need more law enforcement here also.
Any age limit for kids attending such events? Why not?
Wiki has definition of child grooming, one portion mentioning:
... Commonly, they show pornography to the child, or talk about sexual topics with the child, hoping to make it easy for the child to accept such acts, thus normalizing the behaviour.
Isn’t this what PinkDot events have been doing? To talk about their sexual topics with kids until future generations accept such acts as normal? We may need more law enforcement here also.
Any age limit for kids attending such events? Why not?
Lish Is Away
It’s disappointing that a public figure initiates such a refresh challenging that divides the society. Public figures do not become one because their spokesman’s roles for such a topic. Obviously they forgot what they have been paid for and what they are supposed to Champaign for.
Lish Is Away
Rights come with responsibilities. For example, for tax, due to much smaller economy of scale, for public facilities such as separate toilets, prisons, Hospitals etc, gays and lesbians need to pay hundred times more tax than normal folks. Have they been doing this? This is just one example on tax. There are many other responsibilities coming with the rights they are currently asking for.
People in that community love to say that they are discriminated. Actually silent majority are the one discriminated and disadvantaged. Take tax as an example, it is politically incorrect to tax gays and lesbians the same as silent majority. Just talk about MediShield Life, they are among the high risk group and yet pay the same premium or tax for the same coverage as silent majority. Is this fair? Is this politically correct?
People in that community love to say that they are discriminated. Actually silent majority are the one discriminated and disadvantaged. Take tax as an example, it is politically incorrect to tax gays and lesbians the same as silent majority. Just talk about MediShield Life, they are among the high risk group and yet pay the same premium or tax for the same coverage as silent majority. Is this fair? Is this politically correct?
Vince Yong
It is difficult to reason with people when their positions are emotional ones advocated by religion. Logic and rationality cannot prevail against emotional positions, sadly. Professor Koh raises important questions on seperation of religion and state. Is our country a secular nation or a religious nation? Why should the religious values of a few religions have the criminal force over non believers? It is pure overreach
Tricia Lye
Just because many other countries permit it does not mean it is a good decision to make certain things lawful.
Chua Lee Kheng
Spare us the sickening politics, we are generous, whatever the homosexuals want, give to them. They want repeal of 337A, repeal it for them, that show our love for the homosexuals! By God's Grace.
Kh Tan
The issue at hand is NOT whether law 377A is antiquated or not. Neither is it about it being a sin or a crime. Repealing it sends a signal from Parliament that LGBTs is endorsed by the Government even if the legal act of repealing it does not. The sensitivities of the various religious communities and races have to be taken into consideration. The very fact that Singapore is a cosmopolitan city dynamically balanced with very diverse mixed of cultures and religion is because we are sensitive to their feelings and not the converse. Further afield, Singapore lies right smack in the middle of two populous Islamic Muslim nations. We have to be sensitive to the potential tensions that this issue could raise when blown out of proportion by the media or exploited by politicians. We are a sovereign state and we have always been proud to be capable of sovereign thinking without foreign interference. The impetus of repealing this act must therefore stem from sufferings that 377A has on our community and its ramifications when repealed.
Seeking to nullify the act by legally challenging it being unconstitutional seems to suggest that the burden could be borne by our courts instead of Parliament. However, this action itself undermines Parliament. I am against it. Repealing it should remain the prerogative of Parliament and not relegate this to a convoluted legal tangle that has the effect of confusing the public faith in our democratic system.
Seeking to nullify the act by legally challenging it being unconstitutional seems to suggest that the burden could be borne by our courts instead of Parliament. However, this action itself undermines Parliament. I am against it. Repealing it should remain the prerogative of Parliament and not relegate this to a convoluted legal tangle that has the effect of confusing the public faith in our democratic system.
Kien Hwee Lim
Antique law on rape and murder should be removed. It violates my moral values. How's that for logic argument. Have some common sense, prof.
Josh CM Loke
Antiquated? Says who?
Andrew Wang
Don't you feel an overly antiquated person should have left the MFA and let others to have a chance to do the AAL job instead of stirring the controversy and upset the people ?
Reply · 9m
Wu Jian Hao
So, in secular country only non-religious views matter. Religious views do not count.
Isn't that a discrimination against religion?
Isn't that a discrimination against religion?
Chandrasekhar Chelseabluesforlife
Secularism has been used to justify bans on tudungs or turbans in some industries, restrictions on Thaipusam and Mawlid but not similar Chinese festivals and pouring far more resources into SAP schools than madrasahs.
Reply · 6m
Wu Jian Hao
What is the purpose of law?
To serve human and society, right?
If removing a law brings harm to the society and future generation, why should we do it?
Is it fair to remove something valued by the majority, with all the risks, just for the sake that the minority not feel offended and to please the west by licking their backside?
When did Tommy Koh's graduated? Has he forgotten the basic principles of law?
To serve human and society, right?
If removing a law brings harm to the society and future generation, why should we do it?
Is it fair to remove something valued by the majority, with all the risks, just for the sake that the minority not feel offended and to please the west by licking their backside?
When did Tommy Koh's graduated? Has he forgotten the basic principles of law?
Vince Baseley
Why is Tommy Koh so pro-sodomy recently ? Maybe he's found a nice little bumboy and seen the light? Whatever. The problem with sodomy is it's so damn messy & time-consuming. For clean anal intercourse the rectum, sigmoid colon & lower intestine must be well flushed out just prior to penetration or there will be shit EVERYWHERE. Not very sexy.
🐵🐵🐵
🐵🐵🐵
Andrew Wang
Why do we need an old man to tell us what to do? Didn't he have other meaningful things to do ?
Philip Tay
Homosexual lifestyle is so abnormal - why make it a normality. What is abnormal , don't make it acceptable for good moral sense sake !! Prof Koh is out of line here !!! Please...
No comments:
Post a Comment