It occurs to me that I am rather handicapped in Singaporean society. Perhaps it is the result of being weaned on the BBC World Service, courtesy of my father, or the constant drumming to speak proper English, also courtesy of my father. I have as such developed a taste and appreciation for the finer points of the English language, or perhaps more accurately British English. Yes, I freely admit it. The dry wit, the understatement, and the liberal use of sarcasm are all imprinted into the very soul of my command of English. I make no excuses for this. I did not even speak English until the age of 4. It was never necessary in Hong Kong. Naturally, being taught be expatriate kindergarten teachers did not help me acclimatise to the local scene.
It is a source of endless joy for me to be able to appreciate the finer things in life like poetry and The Economist. And surely a command of the English language brings with it manifold advantages in interviews and particularly a study of law.
Sadly though, it brings no predisposition in communicating with peers. It is not a mere issue of diction, and a tendency to use longer, if more precise, words. The crux of the matter seems to be style itself. Indeed, I would write and speak in a different form, often interspersing rhetorical questions into conversations. And it is occasionally doubtful if the appropriate message were conveyed at all.
At this fork on the road, I must confess I am not yet willing to surrender the thing that I love, the gentle caress of the English language in all its refinement and subtle charm, for a greater acceptance into everyday society.
While it seems that I have stepped out of my ivory tower into the crowd, I have clearly forgotten to change out of my sorcerer's robes.
P.S. The situation as regards to Chinese is even worse. Singaporeans must speak some of the worst Chinese in the world.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
377a, to repeal of to keep?
Just a quick bit on background. s377a of the penal code makes it an offence to have homosexual intercourse. It doesn't matter when or where.
Now on with the show. I caught part of the parliamentary debates on the news today, and before delving into the actual subject matter, I have to comment on the quality of the debate itself. I have watched (and judged) better debates at the secondary school level. Seriously, it was rather disappointing. To be fair, special kudos go out to A/P Ho Peng Kee and the NMP who proposed the repeal of 377a for actually sounding like they knew what they were doing.
Now on to the actual arguments proferred by both sides.
It has been said that 377a is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Personally, I will avoid the question of constitutionality for now, as I do not actual believe that Singapore has a de facto constitutional supremacy. For the record, I will state my opinion that the constitution has never truly been judicially interpreted in an objective manner. In fact, Singapore while being a state with de jure constitutional supremacy, did not have its own constitution till some time after independence. Strange how a a state with the constitution as the supreme law of the land can move on despite the lack of such a document. But enough on that and back to 377a.
As far as discrimination goes, the basic premise would seem to be that 377a criminalises something that is private in nature, and if we do not legislate against other activities in private, then we should not legislate against homosexual intercourse either.
The argument of discrimination however gives rise to certain rather odd problems. For one, discrimination must be against a certain identifiable and distinct class of people, such as a certain race or religion. It is illegal to do so in Singapore. It is however, a usually unexplained step of logic, to say that homosexuals are a distinct class in the same fashion. Do note at this point that in general, race is a matter of genetics at birth, and religion a matter of choice. As such, whether one believes that homosexuality is inborn or a conscious choice is immaterial on this point.
Now say we accept that homosexuals are a distinct class, and thus can actually be discriminated against. It is also a fact of life that certain forms of discrimination are legally enforceable and even desirable. Children are not allowed to vote, smoke, drink etc. This works on a justification that children need to be protected from themselves, being unable to make certain mature decisions, and to protect society as well.
It is the second of these arguments raised that is usually applied against the case for repealling 377a. 2 arguments have surfaced in the parliamentary debates.
the first is about how repealling 377a would send a message that the government condones homosexuality, and that threatens the family unit. there seems a be a drastic lack of logic in this argument. firstly, government repeal of 377a does not necessarily send a message of acceptance. Prostitution is legal in Singapore. Are we then saying that the government accepts and even encourages prostitution? Secondly, there is the implicit floodgates argument that homosexuals are all suddenly going to emerge from the woodwork once 377a is repealled. Given the studies on Singaporean attitudes toward homosexuality that those against repealling 377a cite as support, this is hardly going to be the case.
the second argument raised was one that defied rational thinking. one MP raised the argument that where 2 camps were in opposition, like the camps to keep and repeal 377a, the solution would be to maintain the status quo. In essence, the MP was saying, when people debate, do nothing! it would be intellectually irresponsible to simply aribtrarily declare one side the winner , then say we'll keep the status quo. But at least, there is a reason for doing so. By stating that conflict of opnion leads to a maintenance of the status quo is to implcitly deny any possiblity of any progress whatsoever, and is patently ludicrous, even by conservative standards. No contested issue, or any issue at all, will ever get a 100% vote of confidence. By that singular statement, all progress grinds to a halt.
Also for the record, I would like to state that I believe homosexuality is immoral. Yes, you read correctly, I think homosexuality is morally wrong. However, there is a huge step to take from saying something is morally wrong to saying that we should legislate against it. Once again, back to prostitution. It is morally wrong. It damages the family unit. Its legal.
Also, it is far harder to take the position that allowing homosexual adults to have consenting intercourse will destroy family units, mostly because there won't be family units to destroy. And also no future family units to be torn about by skeletons in the closet.
It has of course been argued that the law serves to preserve a minimum standard of morality. The usual questions asked of this are whose morality, and why.
2 coutnerpoints to this. the first stems from the other school of though which states that the law is but a means of preserving society and continued development. it has no business in morality.
the second argument is perhaps more controversial, but in many ways stronger. there are many moral issues in life. we do not legislate on many of them, if not most, unless there is a clear social harm to be prevented. and most importantly, it may very well be immoral to take away someone's freedom to choose his or her sexual orientation, even though the choice is the immoral one. in essence, keeping 377a may very well be the greater evil.
on this note, it is important to keep separate the debates on gay marriage, gay adoption, and the rights for gays to have private consensual sex. the former 2 have clear social effects that may very well give a very different answer than that of 377a.
as it stands now, there are 2 clear conclusions from the events unfolding.
1. our MPs need a lot of debate practice, and possibly a course or two on logic
2. society has not matured to the point where we can be rational about emotional issues like 377a
so please, if you are a clear-thinking person, sign the petition to repeal 377a.
if you haven't matured enough for that, there's a similar petition to keep it to be signed.
also note that this writer does not think the petitions will affect the decision.
Now on with the show. I caught part of the parliamentary debates on the news today, and before delving into the actual subject matter, I have to comment on the quality of the debate itself. I have watched (and judged) better debates at the secondary school level. Seriously, it was rather disappointing. To be fair, special kudos go out to A/P Ho Peng Kee and the NMP who proposed the repeal of 377a for actually sounding like they knew what they were doing.
Now on to the actual arguments proferred by both sides.
It has been said that 377a is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Personally, I will avoid the question of constitutionality for now, as I do not actual believe that Singapore has a de facto constitutional supremacy. For the record, I will state my opinion that the constitution has never truly been judicially interpreted in an objective manner. In fact, Singapore while being a state with de jure constitutional supremacy, did not have its own constitution till some time after independence. Strange how a a state with the constitution as the supreme law of the land can move on despite the lack of such a document. But enough on that and back to 377a.
As far as discrimination goes, the basic premise would seem to be that 377a criminalises something that is private in nature, and if we do not legislate against other activities in private, then we should not legislate against homosexual intercourse either.
The argument of discrimination however gives rise to certain rather odd problems. For one, discrimination must be against a certain identifiable and distinct class of people, such as a certain race or religion. It is illegal to do so in Singapore. It is however, a usually unexplained step of logic, to say that homosexuals are a distinct class in the same fashion. Do note at this point that in general, race is a matter of genetics at birth, and religion a matter of choice. As such, whether one believes that homosexuality is inborn or a conscious choice is immaterial on this point.
Now say we accept that homosexuals are a distinct class, and thus can actually be discriminated against. It is also a fact of life that certain forms of discrimination are legally enforceable and even desirable. Children are not allowed to vote, smoke, drink etc. This works on a justification that children need to be protected from themselves, being unable to make certain mature decisions, and to protect society as well.
It is the second of these arguments raised that is usually applied against the case for repealling 377a. 2 arguments have surfaced in the parliamentary debates.
the first is about how repealling 377a would send a message that the government condones homosexuality, and that threatens the family unit. there seems a be a drastic lack of logic in this argument. firstly, government repeal of 377a does not necessarily send a message of acceptance. Prostitution is legal in Singapore. Are we then saying that the government accepts and even encourages prostitution? Secondly, there is the implicit floodgates argument that homosexuals are all suddenly going to emerge from the woodwork once 377a is repealled. Given the studies on Singaporean attitudes toward homosexuality that those against repealling 377a cite as support, this is hardly going to be the case.
the second argument raised was one that defied rational thinking. one MP raised the argument that where 2 camps were in opposition, like the camps to keep and repeal 377a, the solution would be to maintain the status quo. In essence, the MP was saying, when people debate, do nothing! it would be intellectually irresponsible to simply aribtrarily declare one side the winner , then say we'll keep the status quo. But at least, there is a reason for doing so. By stating that conflict of opnion leads to a maintenance of the status quo is to implcitly deny any possiblity of any progress whatsoever, and is patently ludicrous, even by conservative standards. No contested issue, or any issue at all, will ever get a 100% vote of confidence. By that singular statement, all progress grinds to a halt.
Also for the record, I would like to state that I believe homosexuality is immoral. Yes, you read correctly, I think homosexuality is morally wrong. However, there is a huge step to take from saying something is morally wrong to saying that we should legislate against it. Once again, back to prostitution. It is morally wrong. It damages the family unit. Its legal.
Also, it is far harder to take the position that allowing homosexual adults to have consenting intercourse will destroy family units, mostly because there won't be family units to destroy. And also no future family units to be torn about by skeletons in the closet.
It has of course been argued that the law serves to preserve a minimum standard of morality. The usual questions asked of this are whose morality, and why.
2 coutnerpoints to this. the first stems from the other school of though which states that the law is but a means of preserving society and continued development. it has no business in morality.
the second argument is perhaps more controversial, but in many ways stronger. there are many moral issues in life. we do not legislate on many of them, if not most, unless there is a clear social harm to be prevented. and most importantly, it may very well be immoral to take away someone's freedom to choose his or her sexual orientation, even though the choice is the immoral one. in essence, keeping 377a may very well be the greater evil.
on this note, it is important to keep separate the debates on gay marriage, gay adoption, and the rights for gays to have private consensual sex. the former 2 have clear social effects that may very well give a very different answer than that of 377a.
as it stands now, there are 2 clear conclusions from the events unfolding.
1. our MPs need a lot of debate practice, and possibly a course or two on logic
2. society has not matured to the point where we can be rational about emotional issues like 377a
so please, if you are a clear-thinking person, sign the petition to repeal 377a.
if you haven't matured enough for that, there's a similar petition to keep it to be signed.
also note that this writer does not think the petitions will affect the decision.
Fixed!
Well its been a bloody long hiatus for me for a bloody simple reason. Somewhere along the way, for some obscure reason, my posting template code was no longer acceptable, and caused some unknown error.
Now, I've been a lot of things in this relatively short life: gymnast, debater, economist, lawyer, philosopher ... but I have never been a software engineer, so forgive me for not getting something like that right sooner.
But now I'm back, and I'm better (or badder) than ever. So watch out!
Now, I've been a lot of things in this relatively short life: gymnast, debater, economist, lawyer, philosopher ... but I have never been a software engineer, so forgive me for not getting something like that right sooner.
But now I'm back, and I'm better (or badder) than ever. So watch out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)