50 Years of PAP : Homo Homologous

Singapore won't repeal homosexual sex law

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/storie...

SINGAPORE: Law Minister K Shanmugam has said Singapore will not decriminalise gay sex but the courts have the power to decide how the law, Section 377, is applied. Section 377A of the Penal Code deems sex between men a crime. A recent ruling by the New Delhi High Court legalising gay sex between consenting adults in India raised questions on whether Singapore might go the same way. Both countries share the same Penal Code, inherited from the colonial British. In a dialogue with Punggol residents on Sunday, Mr Shanmugam said Section 377 will remain as homosexuality is still not accepted by most Singaporeans.

“In a dialogue with Punggol residents on Sunday, Mr Shanmugam said Section 377 will remain as homosexuality is still not accepted by most Singaporeans.”

This issue is specifically about homosexuality, but generically, about the rule of learnt biases over the rule of reason. 

I suppose, given this tendency to cater to the (constructed?) whims and fancies of ‘the majority’, if the government here ruled the U.S. of A. in the 60s, schools, amongst others, will still be ‘color segregated’ and Obama would probably be pumping gas somewhere.

Just as Singapore ‘not being ready’ for a non-Chinese PM – which basically implies that the 'majority' 'aren't ready' for a non-Chinese PM;

Just as the bigoted editors of Singaporedaily.net featuring only Chinese or Chinese-looking girls in their ‘Daily Chiobu’ section;

Just as a couple of ‘opposition’ parties giving preference to the ‘majority’ when it comes to the order of languages;

Just as there were about a thousand supporters of the local ‘gays’ hypocritical ‘freedom to love’ turning up for the, um, gay event at the Speakers Corner, whilst not even 10% of the crowd turned up for the individual rights event – Abolish Internal Security Act – a couple of weeks later because the latter did not affect the interests of 'the majority', be it t'he majority' of Singaporeans or 'the majority' of homosexuals…

...now it is stated that section 377 will remain as homosexuality is still not accepted by most Singaporeans.

All of them, as evidenced in the above amongst a host of others, are ruled by the ‘rule of the majority’, ‘rule of learnt biases’, and rules of thought and thoughtless emanating from self-absorption, as opposed to the Rule of Reason, and laughably whinny about the consequences of a pervasive mentality they are indubitably a part of.  Remember mate, a subscription to one of the above, amongst many others, reinforces the foundation for the emergence of all.  Now, even though Shanmugam has basically implied that the maintenance of this law is quite the formality, what is being maintained informally is the rule that the biases of the 'majority' outweighs or defines the content of the rule of reason.  Such a perspective is very potent as a political tool as all that has to then be done to maintain the perpetual rule of an authority is to tweak the definition of 'majority' and do whatever it takes to manipulate its mindset. 

Given this, I think it is high-time Singapore had an Indian PM who hails from a culture that tends to create Kennedys  or Gandhis out of a significant number of those who practice their perspectives.  Oh, by the way, you don’t have to be an Indian to be an Indian PM.  You just have to allow the rule of reason to dictate your thoughts and actions as opposed to the biases of any ‘majority’.  Whilst singapore and India share the same penal code (no pun intended), the horizontally-imposed cultural instability of India vs. the top-down imposed cultural stability of China leads to what can very well be, at significant times, a diametrically opposite appreciation, interpretation and application of it.  That is why India is the greatest democracy in the world in more ways than just numbers.  If we can get IT professionals from them, I don't see any reason why the perspectives underlying India, and which did much in amplifying the logical mindset that founds their IT industry amongst a host of intellectual and democratic ones, cannot be similarly imported where it bodes well for the egalitarian development of society.

Let me put it this way, if Confucius formulated the 'ti' (brotherly love and respect, or 'cultivated feelings' towards one's contemporaries) and 'chung' (loyalty, or 'cultivated feelings' towards one's superiors), India, from the lessons learnt from its history, fulfills it by defining its clauses in a way that leads to the elevation of all whilst aiding our thus-enhanced appreciation of 'chung' in this context.

By the way, my Indian friend, Shan, in his late 40s and who was a very astute observer of  the sinews comprising social reality, mentioned to me some years ago, ‘You know, it’s funny, whenever they come up with unpopular perspectives that can be viewed as discriminatory, they tend to use a minority to do it.’  Interesting, I thought.  ‘Perhaps’, I said, ‘when the valleys speak up for the mountains, it makes a plateau out of a hierarchical plane of existence.’  In other words, when the least stand up for the perspective that makes them the least, the perspective is reinforced and its all round application is justified.

On a final note, whenever we say that such and such a tradition ought to be maintained because the ‘majority’ are used to it, we should, besides asking ourselves if that is assumed as opposed to being true, ask ourselves if steps ought to be taken to wean them off the tradition of thought or thoughtlessness with affirmative action.  And in this, ’affirmative action’ does not only benefit the marginalised group or idea, but also affirms the potential of the traditionalists to be more than they can otherwise imagine themselves to be.

Amen to that.

Ed