Comments on: TOC Feature: 377A – To prevent what harm? http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/ a community of singaporeans Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:53:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Belated thoughts on Section 377A (Penal Code) « 崭新的开始 http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-23804 Belated thoughts on Section 377A (Penal Code) « 崭新的开始 Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:21:26 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-23804 [...] 11, 2008 at 12:21 pm · Filed under Uncategorized NUS Professor Michael Hor wrote an excellent piece on the issue in The Online Citizen. I was filled with great respect, not just for what he wrote, [...] [...] 11, 2008 at 12:21 pm · Filed under Uncategorized NUS Professor Michael Hor wrote an excellent piece on the issue in The Online Citizen. I was filled with great respect, not just for what he wrote, [...]

]]> By: Azmodeus http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-18134 Azmodeus Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:00:31 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-18134 A very nice read after been away from the country for awhile. Very interesting perspective to look at, the government's position to retain 377A and the questions that it raises from the aspect of law and its integrity, placed in the context of harm and culpability. I guess there are many ways to look at this issue, whether you are a social conservatist, liberal, libertarian, moralist, humanist, heterosexual or even a homosexual yourself, the issue will not just go away simply because it wasn't repealed in the parliament, whenever or wherever there are homosexuals within our borders, this penal code would still apply to them, and penalising them whether from a social or legal context in Singapore (Even if our law enforcement agency would not uphold them). From the legal aspect, should a law which would not be upheld be retained in the first place? That is the very question that Prof Michael Hor is trying to ask in the first place. Consider this, given that 377A is not upheld, what gives the future government, considering a particularly vile one is being elected, would stop them from not upholding other laws that might possibly grant them private economic gains? Such as not upholding our Anti-Corruption Law? By not upholding a written criminal code brings our law into disrepute, bordering upon travesty under such circumstances without proper legal writings that would provide law enforcement agencies the ambit to act under the right situation. And from that perspective, does that mean that conservative citizens of Singapore upon reporting their homosexual neighbours of an act of gross indecency in private, and our police would not act simply because our government says so? Or would the homosexual couple not be charged under 377A? What are the consequences given such circumstances, could the police, public prosecutors, or even our attorney general have the authority to say that they would not bring charges against them? That I believe is what we should consider under the sphere of discussion as proposed by the author of this article. Best Regards, Azmodeus A very nice read after been away from the country for awhile.

Very interesting perspective to look at, the government’s position to retain 377A and the questions that it raises from the aspect of law and its integrity, placed in the context of harm and culpability.

I guess there are many ways to look at this issue, whether you are a social conservatist, liberal, libertarian, moralist, humanist, heterosexual or even a homosexual yourself, the issue will not just go away simply because it wasn’t repealed in the parliament, whenever or wherever there are homosexuals within our borders, this penal code would still apply to them, and penalising them whether from a social or legal context in Singapore (Even if our law enforcement agency would not uphold them).

From the legal aspect, should a law which would not be upheld be retained in the first place? That is the very question that Prof Michael Hor is trying to ask in the first place. Consider this, given that 377A is not upheld, what gives the future government, considering a particularly vile one is being elected, would stop them from not upholding other laws that might possibly grant them private economic gains? Such as not upholding our Anti-Corruption Law?

By not upholding a written criminal code brings our law into disrepute, bordering upon travesty under such circumstances without proper legal writings that would provide law enforcement agencies the ambit to act under the right situation. And from that perspective, does that mean that conservative citizens of Singapore upon reporting their homosexual neighbours of an act of gross indecency in private, and our police would not act simply because our government says so? Or would the homosexual couple not be charged under 377A? What are the consequences given such circumstances, could the police, public prosecutors, or even our attorney general have the authority to say that they would not bring charges against them?

That I believe is what we should consider under the sphere of discussion as proposed by the author of this article.

Best Regards,
Azmodeus

]]> By: Repeal 377A Singapore Video on YouTube « Webs@Work http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16862 Repeal 377A Singapore Video on YouTube « Webs@Work Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:32:59 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16862 [...] Related read: To Prevent What Harm? [...] [...] Related read: To Prevent What Harm? [...]

]]> By: Brian http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16622 Brian Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:27:22 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16622 Gerald, May I ask if you are straight ? Are you attacj=hed to a girl or married with children ? Thanks. Gerald,

May I ask if you are straight ? Are you attacj=hed to a girl or married with children ?
Thanks.

]]> By: Hear ye! Hear ye! » Blog Archive » Of morals, rights and harm http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16529 Hear ye! Hear ye! » Blog Archive » Of morals, rights and harm Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:32:35 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16529 [...] of the best answers is probably the concept of harm. Michael Hor, a professor of law at NUS, wrote an excellent piece on the concept of harm in relation to s377A which was published at The Online [...] [...] of the best answers is probably the concept of harm. Michael Hor, a professor of law at NUS, wrote an excellent piece on the concept of harm in relation to s377A which was published at The Online [...]

]]> By: macktheknife http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16479 macktheknife Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:10:19 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16479 My views are similar to KeeN. Thank you for voicing out. Man-woman is the only combination that I perceive as PREFECT match. My views are similar to KeeN. Thank you for voicing out.

Man-woman is the only combination that I perceive as PREFECT match.

]]> By: psylence http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16469 psylence Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:06:15 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16469 Hmmmmm why is everyone ignoring me? I thought this is supposed to be an open forum? Can someone please give me a positive reply pls. <strong><em> *Psylence, this blog site is not for you to solicit information or recommendations on incest. If that is what you are interested in, please go somewhere else. An open forum is not a free for all. You will be under moderation from now on and your posts may never appear here. </em></strong> Hmmmmm why is everyone ignoring me? I thought this is supposed to be an open forum?

Can someone please give me a positive reply pls.

*Psylence, this blog site is not for you to solicit information or recommendations on incest. If that is what you are interested in, please go somewhere else. An open forum is not a free for all. You will be under moderation from now on and your posts may never appear here.

]]> By: If Ned were in Parliament… « Winter Is Coming http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16448 If Ned were in Parliament… « Winter Is Coming Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:54:51 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16448 [...] on to harm. Indeed I do not dispute that harm can be intangible or tangible. The question is what harm? If A and B engage in homosexual intercourse in the bed room, what harm can there be? Maybe they [...] [...] on to harm. Indeed I do not dispute that harm can be intangible or tangible. The question is what harm? If A and B engage in homosexual intercourse in the bed room, what harm can there be? Maybe they [...]

]]> By: The Irrational Section 377A. « a father thoughts http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16436 The Irrational Section 377A. « a father thoughts Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:36:58 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16436 [...] -377A - To prevent what harm? by Michael Hor [...] [...] -377A – To prevent what harm? by Michael Hor [...]

]]> By: Funnyhor http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16385 Funnyhor Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:15:16 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/#comment-16385 I am very surprised that many of the pro377A people have taken to the moral high ground when there was hardly a whimper on the moral and ethical implications of allowing not one but two casinos to appear. So there's nothing wrong with the evil of gambling (which by the way,I believe Jesus took personal action to upturn some of them which were operating close to the temple.) as opposed to the act of expressing your love for someone. I am very surprised that many of the pro377A people have taken to the moral high ground when there was hardly a whimper on the moral and ethical implications of allowing not one but two casinos to appear.

So there’s nothing wrong with the evil of gambling (which by the way,I believe Jesus took personal action to upturn some of them which were operating close to the temple.) as opposed to the act of expressing your love for someone.

]]>