Babe Blog - Insights on News Events

REACH 378 - How can we ensure a healthy discourse between groups when discussing important laws and policies?

(SK)

27 Jul 2022 (10am - 7pm)

REACH

[9:46 am, 27/07/2022] +REACH: Dear Contributors,

Welcome back! 😊

⏰ We will be opening the chat from 10am to 7pm today. ⏰

House Rules (short version of our Terms of Use) to keep in mind:

1. Be kind and respectful. We all want to be in a safe space to share our views.

2. Any and all threatening, abusive, vulgar or racially, religiously and ethnically objectionable content is prohibited.

3. Consider the quiet ones among us and give them a chance to comment.

4. No need to repeat your comment or in different forms (including caps) - we heard you loud and clear the first time.

5. Let’s protect each other’s privacy and keep contact details in this group what it should always be - confidential.

Full set of Terms of Use: https://go.gov.sg/reach-whatsapp-terms

We will strive to uphold these rules to ensure this is a safe space for all.

Please be assured that the points made by participants during the chat are aggregated and shared with relevant agencies.

The topic will be posted shortly.

Thank you

Megan 😊

[10:00 am, 27/07/2022] +REACH: 📢Topic📢

On 23 July, a group of people calling for Section 377A to be kept on the books held an event attended by more than 1,200 people.

Called the Protect Singapore Townhall, its organisers Jason Wong and Mohamed Khair Mohamed Noor said LGBTQ groups are pushing for changes to law, policy and society beyond 377A. They urged the Government to protect families, marriages and children in the event of repeal.

Police reports were lodged against the event under the Public Order Act. It was assessed to be a private event that did not require a permit, thus no criminal offence was disclosed.

LGBTQ groups expressed concern that this would lead to increased harassment against the community. One felt the event aimed to enshrine religious values in law.

💬 How can we ensure a healthy discourse between groups when discussing important laws and policies?

➡️ Section 377A of the Penal Code is not actively enforced, a position that has been reiterated by the authorities since it was discussed in Parliament in 2007.

➡️ In March, Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam said the Government would approach any changes to the law in a way that balances different viewpoints, and avoids a destabilising change in social norms and public expectations.

➡️ In February this year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the law was retained, but cannot be used to prosecute two consenting male adults engaged in a sexual act in a private place.

➡️ A school counsellor at HCI was recently suspended after showing inaccurate content about the LGBTQ+ community at a sex education talk.

👉🏻 https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/section-377a-review-no-criminal-offence-disclosed-organisers-anti-repeal-protect-singapore-town-hall-says-mha-1952856

👉🏻 https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/town-hall-urges-against-repealing-section-377a-without-safeguards-for-marriage-families

----

[10:25 am, 27/07/2022] +JC: I think it'll require moderate leaders from both sides + neutral parties (i.e. govt, civil society) to step in and consistently articulate a moderate position that

(1) acknowledges the perspectives from both sides

(2) correct any extreme rhetoric behavior

(3) contextualize the issue to Singapore

(4) propose/suggest a path forward

It is bad for healthy discourse when only the extreme perspectives are highlighted and conveyed over traditional and social media platforms. There needs to be some form of mediation... maybe govt can bring in leaders who are in the more extreme cap for kopi talk, like in the good ol days.

[10:33 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: 27 July, 2022

To: Our Distinguished Leaders and All Honorable Members

That's Life:

One important thing is human must learn to accept and adapt to fellow human especially known genetic issues in their DNAs that perhaps skewed out of the norm of being a male or a female?

All of these living voices (discussions & complaints & concerns) channel to one, we human are such a diverse species that stakeholders such as societies, policymakers, sociologists and geneticists have accepted the truth and reality, these alternate paths of life (or hidden life 隐藏的生活) !

Importantly, let's all coexist, behave civilly and do not create havoc or break laws. Three rules to consider- be non-extreme, be compassionate and think inclusively!

- - in progress - -

[10:42 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Anxiety and Emotion will escalate into anger and a bigger concern!

Let's cool things abit, all stakeholders. Not letting the human instinct of anxieties and emotions stir this 377A into a pot of hot soup!

[10:49 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Guess removal means green light for the LGBTQ?

When it is remove, they can official fight for more of their rights.

Like parenting leave, adoption, etc which previously they can’t even raise with this 377A still in effect

[10:50 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Are you against or are you in favor or are you neutral?

[10:50 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: I am against 😅

Since it is not enforced. But this will trigger a wider question for the other rights. Which I am not in favour.

[10:52 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Acknowledging this group doesn't need to BEND society backs?

Respecting this group doesn't need to be on the knees

(never like to "brand" this group, afterall they are human too and not so perfect-genetically wise?)

[10:54 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Oh well… some people are more vocal.

For me I am neutral, as long as they don’t affect the boarder society. Like the more complicated stuff in life other than their relationship being legalise or even marriage.

[10:56 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Respect, perhaps will be a good starting point in engaging everyone in society, that's tolerance and being inclusive thinking! Importantly, Deescalate negative sentiments on this sensitive 377A issue.

It can be small or it will bloom to a bigger issue! What's our tolerance and our social fabric is pretty thin these days....

Perhaps, it can be mean FACE too?

- - in progress - -

[10:57 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Good morning Ken,

It is healthy to voice out... Letting go some steam too.. Totally understand your concerns.

[10:59 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Like we all know of the 3O2 in army.. or the reason music and dance company exist in NS

[10:59 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Consequential and complexity....

That's how things lead things and evolve and turn into unfavorable outcomes or favorable?

[10:59 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: How you prove the person is LGBTQ? If they are can the serve in normal army?

[10:59 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: That's acknowledgement itself.

What a good observation, Ken, BINGO!

[11:00 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: I had experience in camp, during NS which a guy was reported to watch guys bathing… 😑

Yes I am in that unit at that time

[11:00 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Some guys are disgusted by it for me… see won’t die as long as you don’t do anything funny

[11:01 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: That becoming a grey area.... Infringing on others Privacy regardless of gender preferences!

[11:02 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: 🤷🏻‍♂️ too sensitive in the end what happen not sure, not interested in such issue. But the guy was definitely identified and reported

[11:02 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Simply, cannot stop human eyes from roving or roaming!

How wives feel when hubbies roam their eyes on PYL... "pretty young ladies"???

[11:02 am, 27/07/2022] +Timothy Low: I think most people are confused with 377A and LGBTQ rights. Section 377A only targets at men having sex with men, whereas LGBTQ rights consists of recognisation of same gender marriage (can be women and women as well)

My question is, why only targets at men having sex with men? Why women having sex with women is legal?

[11:03 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Bingo again!

Hi Timothy, good morning!

[11:03 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Cause very hard to prove for woman 🤣🤣

[11:04 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: 377A itself is already impossible to prove unless caught in the act

[11:04 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: But the association to the law, hence the rest cannot exist

[11:04 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: “Let’s not go around like this moral police ... barging into people’s rooms. That’s not our business,”

- - MM Lee Kuan Yew circa 2007

[11:07 am, 27/07/2022] +Timothy Low: My second question is: how does repeal of 377A affect the status of heterosexual marriage? Not as if after repealing the husbands will all turn gay 😅

[11:07 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: There is an presumptuous thing that perhaps this affected group within a society is feeling the heat?

The feeling of open discrimination and a constant fear of being criminalise too!

[11:07 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Don’t think affect marriage… but the associated law how it works not sure

[11:08 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Any lawyer here can share if remove and effects?

[11:09 am, 27/07/2022] +Timothy Low: My third concern/question will be how the religious are making use of their religion beliefs to affect government policy. This is quite concerning as we are a secular country. Remember years ago my church preached publicly against the building of integrated resorts in Singapore…

[11:09 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Sometimes, marriage broken due to either spouse discovered or confessed to be skew towards same gender...

[11:11 am, 27/07/2022] +Alwin: Here are a few principles I think should guide healthy public discourse:

1. Integrity - Facts should be verified and presented in a balanced manner (ie relevant facts are presented fairly). Opinions and hearsay should never be treated as facts.

2. Positive outcome - the aim of public discourse is to arrive at a positive outcome for the country. Individuals participating in public discourse should first listen to understand the opposing side, before explaining their views through debates. Say “NO” to condescension, insults or hate speech.

3. Moderation / enforcement - Moderation of public discourse is a necessity (as evident in this chat group). In the age of social media, extreme and sensationalistic views often spread faster and the views of balanced and sensible people are often overlooked. Govt has a key role to play to act against those who spread falsehoods and hate speech.

[11:11 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Hope that all major recognised religious leaders will converge and derive a consensus of acknowledging and the limitation of certain acceptable norms?

[11:11 am, 27/07/2022] +Timothy Low: All the more prove that sexuality is by nature (by birth) and not by choice?

[11:11 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: https://amp.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3182094/why-singapore-may-be-edging-closer-scrapping-section-377a

[11:11 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Yupp, genetic in play...

[11:12 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: If it is profitable or good for the country… I am sure Singapore will repeal it 🤣🤣

Like the casino… as you said

[11:13 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: How about same gender marriage?

How about surrogating a new born and legalised the existence and so on?

Are we ready as society, this evolving Asian norms?

[11:14 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Putting money vs Morality vs Social acceptance

[11:15 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: "Money never discriminates, people do? "

- - annoymous

[11:15 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ministries-will-have-to-work-through-impact-if-section-377a-is-repealed-shanmugam

[11:17 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Decide by the government mainly bah… like how we kill corals by reclaiming…

Morality is depends on the society acceptance there is no true right or wrong. It depends on which side you are on and the underlying decision to make it happen.

[11:18 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: How about bi-sexual?

[11:19 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: I don’t really discriminate them… some of LGBTQ friend I knew are quite nice people.

Is personal choice just like choice of being single.. as long you don’t affect anyone else but yourself…

[11:20 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: There are openly gay celebrities, which still can perform at national level performance. So technically we do accept them for who they are.

[11:21 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Perhaps, should the 377A be rewritten or be refreshed, one major change would be to deter the following behaviors

"coercion" and or "by force" regardless in private or public or overseas!

Next comes the complexity of proving such cases? What are the evidences recognise by the court of law?

[11:22 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: The idea of WILLING party into a contract, can be PRIVATELY arranged, this perhaps, the law can tolerate such cases!

Afterall it is a private affair?

[11:24 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: The tests of REASONABLENESS, CLARITY & ENFORCEABLE

[11:30 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Who are the MORALE AUTHORITY OR MORALE LEADERS?

Are judges, the keeper of laws and rules?

Are policymakers, the keeper of an equitable playing field?

Are religious leaders, the keeper of faith and beliefs?

Is society, the keeper of norms and rules, rights and wrongs?

Any else left out, pls add on... Thank you!

[11:31 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Parents, the keeper of nurturing?

[11:32 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Finally, unwillingly to brand it, is the LGBT, the keeper to themselves?

[11:39 am, 27/07/2022] +jimmy chew: Maids?

[11:41 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Ok, to include foreign talents and withers too.

Good idea, Jimmy!

[11:41 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Workers and foreign talents.

[11:48 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: England & Wales, the former British colony of Hong Kong, Australia have since repealed laws prohibiting sex between men in 1967, 1991, and 1997 (in the state of Tasmania; the last Australian state to do so) respectively. India's Supreme Court has also decriminalised consensual sex between two people of the same sex in 2018, which is significant as Section 377A of the Penal Code is similar to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.Elsewhere in East and South-east Asia, apart from Singapore, only Myanmar, Malaysia and Brunei, all former British colonies, and recently Indonesia's Aceh province (applicable only to Muslims), continue to criminalise sex between men.

[11:49 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Didn’t know that.. lol so I am still old fashion. 🤣

[11:50 am, 27/07/2022] +Ken Loh: Maybe over time it might be repeal as the society acceptance is higher

[11:51 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Where did 377A come from?

Section 377A was introduced into the Singapore Penal Code in 1938 to criminalise all other non-penetrative sexual acts. It is descended from the Labouchere Amendment.

[11:51 am, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: India:

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is a section of the Indian Penal Code introduced in 1861 during the British rule of India. Modeled on the Buggery Act of 1533, it makes sexual activities "against the order of nature" illegal.

[0:17 pm, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: 27 July, 2022

Should there be a rewrite or refresh of the 377A, the following are suggestions to consider:

(1) On Coercion-

Regardless of individual or a group. By means of verbal and or written that is (are) expressed via all devices such as digital and or visual and or physical constitute a violation of the "law "?

(2) By force-

Individual or a group. Besides physical acts, to include physical actions and or via digitally, any materials of obscene nature will constitute breaking the "law"?

(3) Soliciting-

An individual or a group or an entity for profit or non-profit. In the event of soliciting for sexual or intimate services via whatsoever ways, all of part of such acts shall fall under the above either one (1) or or two (2) or both laws?

[1:19 pm, 27/07/2022] ☸️ Danny 心:

How can we ensure a healthy discourse between groups when discussing important laws and policies?

To 1st address this question :-

1. Individuals and groups should be allow to express their viewpoints - anchor on facts and good judgement without prejudice.

2. Their viewpoints can be debated in a civilised dialogue - carry out in a civilised way - without resorting to abuse, intimidation, mocking or defamation.

3. As important laws and policies will shape the landscape, social fabric, our ways of lives, economic well beings, social interaction, safety and health of Singapore Society comprising of citizens and residents - hence individuals should have the right to bring forward their viewpoints, facts, or opinion with good judgement without fear or favor for peer discussion and for the Government consideration.

4. REACH Administrator will play an important role as moderator - to ensure REACH discussion is carried out in a manner that is able to gather feedback from participants that will be useful in helping to shape important laws and policies - and benefit the Nation and the population.

[1:19 pm, 27/07/2022] +BL: It does help providing the public with a means to offer their thoughts. Perhaps done in a 'private' way so that we avoid spontaneous emotional reactions. Maybe a public survey that can target specific concerns and help people think about their responses through examples. ie Ask people how they feel about LGBTQ issues; and then a follow up question to ask if they are directly affected by LGBTQ issues; and if they have examples of that.

[1:20 pm, 27/07/2022] +BL: People often respond emotionally to a subject initially, but on questioning and being required to think it through might often find that it's not a topic that impacts their lives.

[1:21 pm, 27/07/2022] +BL: Values are important on all sides, but perhaps those peoples whose lives are affected by an issue should have their values prioritised, providing those values do not negatively impact others.

[1:23 pm, 27/07/2022] +BL: In the UK a 'civil partnership' was introduced to enable people to effectively marry, but without the full rights of marriage. Perhaps Singapore could look at that option, since Marriage here does impact an ability to buy HDB for example, and some might abuse that privilige. I'm not saying I'm for or against these rules, but I respect them.

[1:26 pm, 27/07/2022] +BL: Yes, although I think the intention is not to introduce a new law, whilst trying to remove an old one, in order to bring balance. It was an odd decision those years ago to target only men. Throw back to UK law?

[1:27 pm, 27/07/2022] +BL: Does make Singapore look a bit backward by having a law like this, but the clear statement is that it's private business and the law won't get involved. It's a good compromise at the moment, but need to keep moving in the right direction.

[1:28 pm, 27/07/2022] +BL: Yes, very important to welcome and enable religion as a private matter, and not impose on society. In the same way people say LGBTQ is a private thing and shouldn't be imposed on society.

[1:32 pm, 27/07/2022] +BL: Interesting! Doesn't look good for Singapore when written like these. No mention that it is not enforced here....

[1:34 pm, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/section-377A-does-not-criminalise-gay-sex-purpose-no-longer-exists-argues-former-chief-justice

[1:38 pm, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Section 377A was intended to stop British civil servants visiting male prostitutes: Lawyers

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/section-377a-was-intended-to-stop-british-civil-servants-visiting-male-prostitutes-lawyers

[1:44 pm, 27/07/2022] ☸️ Danny 心:

Next I will want to bring forward my viewpoints on the debate of Section 377A.

1. Firstly, I received alot of feedback on this topic from my private chatgroups and want me to help them to bring their viewpoints to REACH for the Government consideration.

My private chatgroups comprise of relatively large groups as they also bring forth the viewpoints from their relatives, friends, colleagues and ex--colleagues - as they felt this issue has a far-reaching impact on the social fabric of our Society.

To note, majority of the viewpoints are secular in nature and based on logical deduction while some are religious in nature.

As our laws and policies are formulated based on secular considerations, hence I will summarise their feedback based on secular logical viewpoints.

2. Man-Woman marriage and union are by the order of Nature - for the purpose of procreation - so as to ensure continuation of Human Civilisation.

Any order contrary to Man-Woman marriage and reproduction - will threaten the existence of Human Civilisation.

3. Hence the townhall discussion on ensuring and guarantee Man-Woman marriage and union to be enshrined in our Constitution the order of Nature - do carry a very strong valid point for the Government consideration.

4. Ultimately, Singapore is a small country with a small population - about 5.65 million people - and our birth rate are declining year after year below replacement rate to carry and run our Economy and the Country - such as producing workforce, National Service to protect our Nation, to look after aging parents etc.

Hence protecting the traditional Man-Woman marriage to produce offsprings - must be encourage and never be compromised - in considering the Order of Nature, raising a healthy family of Grand Parents, Parents, Children and Grand Children, to contribute as Workforce, National Service to protect our Nation, managing our Economy and run our Country.

[1:59 pm, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1639_2010-01-31.html

[1:59 pm, 27/07/2022] +Smiley face: Ideally and purposefully, yes, that's correct...

[2:02 pm, 27/07/2022] +REACH: 📢Topic📢