What is WP stand on 377A?

[wwabbit]

Your argument makes no sense.
Just because a referendum suits this one issue doesn't mean that everything must be decided by referendum.

 

[metalmickey]

Your argument makes no sense.
Just because a referendum suits this one issue doesn't mean that everything must be decided by referendum.

Yes but my example is relevant because it also concerns the rights between groups of people, specifically minority rights.

So what would happen if we were to hold a referendum on whether Malays and Indians were to have the same rights as Chinese?

 

[kingrant]

PAP's stand on 377A is you are free to subscribe to yr own beliefs and way of life, and they got 60% of the people's support.

If you believe in a secular govt, then there is no place for imposing religious opinions on the state.

Therefore, I advise WP to say the same thing, so that the 60% will swing to them.

 

[metalmickey]

PAP's stand on 377A is you are free to subscribe to yr own beliefs and way of life, and they got 60% of the people's support.

If you believe in a secular govt, then there is no place for imposing religious opinions on the state.

Therefore, I advise WP to say the same thing, so that the 60% will swing to them.

This is what people have argued about 377A.

There is a certain level of incoherence in simultaneously saying

1. You are free to subscribe to your own beliefs and your way of life
2. There is a law on the books that says "You will go to jail for having gay sex."

There is a certain level of incoherence in simultaneously saying

1. There is a law on the books that says "You will go to jail for having gay sex."
2. Laws are laws and they are meant to be followed.
3. 377A reflects the beliefs of people who are reticient about gay rights. It will never be used to persecute a gay person.

There is a certain level of incoherence in simultaneously saying

1. 377A reflects the beliefs of people who are reticient about gay rights. It will never be used to persecute a gay person.
2. Somebody right now being charged for violating 377A.

In fact the reason why 377A is in court right now is because somebody got charged with that law, breaking a promise that was made by somebody else in the government. He's arguing that 377A is unconstitutional and the case is being heard right now.

Anyway, for the record, I think that WP should be concentrating on a lot of other issues, like cost of living, AIM, immigration, population, Termasek, GIC. Let other people take care of 377A.

Referendums are for more serious things like constitutional amendments, like the existence of GRCs, the existence of people's association.

 

[wwabbit]

A few states in the US recently legalized same-sex marriages after holding referendums.

 

[metalmickey]

A few states in the US recently legalized same-sex marriages after holding referendums.

Well referendums are pretty common in the US. Almost anything can be decided by referendum in some parts of the states. In Singapore, by contrast, you almost never have a referendum.

 

[kingrant]

So the PAP govt is too cowardly to grab the bull by the horns for fear of losing the Catholic votes. If WP takes a stand for section 377A, it will be a booby trap which PAP is waiting to spring on WP.

So best way out is to say WP does not answer hypothetical questions because it is not the govt. Cross the bridge when you come to it.

This is what people have argued about 377A.

There is a certain level of incoherence in simultaneously saying

1. You are free to subscribe to your own beliefs and your way of life
2. There is a law on the books that says "You will go to jail for having gay sex."

There is a certain level of incoherence in simultaneously saying

1. There is a law on the books that says "You will go to jail for having gay sex."
2. Laws are laws and they are meant to be followed.
3. 377A reflects the beliefs of people who are reticient about gay rights. It will never be used to persecute a gay person.

There is a certain level of incoherence in simultaneously saying

1. 377A reflects the beliefs of people who are reticient about gay rights. It will never be used to persecute a gay person.
2. Somebody right now being charged for violating 377A.

In fact the reason why 377A is in court right now is because somebody got charged with that law, breaking a promise that was made by somebody else in the government. He's arguing that 377A is unconstitutional and the case is being heard right now.

Anyway, for the record, I think that WP should be concentrating on a lot of other issues, like cost of living, AIM, immigration, population, Termasek, GIC. Let other people take care of 377A.

Referendums are for more serious things like constitutional amendments, like the existence of GRCs, the existence of people's association.

 

[metalmickey]

So the PAP govt is too cowardly to grab the bull by the horns for fear of losing the Catholic votes. If WP takes a stand for section 377A, it will be a booby trap which PAP is waiting to spring on WP.

So best way out is to say WP does not answer hypothetical questions because it is not the govt. Cross the bridge when you come to it.

Yah, I agree that the PAP's stand on this issue is best characterised by cowardice.

 

[zhihau]

A few states in the US recently legalized same-sex marriages after holding referendums.

oh... and marijuana too! Hail Mary Jane!!! :p:p:p

 

[kingrant]

Alternatively, the WP can take a stand on the govt's stand, and say that since the govt has promised they will not prosecute, it should stand by its promise. It is the habit of this govt to leave things ambiguous and equivocal, so that they can exploit the wiggle room. This is of course bad, like standing with legs in two different boats.

Yah, I agree that the PAP's stand on this issue is best characterised by cowardice.