377A is like an approaching train: K Shanmugam

 

There are 2 reasons for the repeal, Minister Shanmugam said.

The first reason is that there are no public order issues that are raised from such conduct, so it should not remain criminal.

"But I accept that MPs and others may disagree with that. Even though there are no public order issues, they may feel that there are other reasons for keeping the law. And I accept that people can and do legitimately have such views, and it is reasonable to hold such views."

There is a second reason and this second reason is NOT a matter of conscience. It is a policy question and 'requires each of us to THINK CAREFULLY, and APPLY OUR MINDS'.

"The second question is a matter of considering the consequences for Singapore, given that there is a clear legal risk that s 377A could be struck down.

And given that, having heard me, you know what the consequential legal risks are – in fact, this has been talked about in public – to the heterosexual family. Housing, education, other policies – they could all be at risk.

Knowing all these risks and refusing to take a position or be clear in how we will deal with it, is avoiding our responsibilities as MPs, basically passing it on to the Courts.

It is easier politically, but it is also worse for Singapore and Singaporeans.

To put it bluntly, that will be an abdication of duty. And it would be cynical if we, as MPs, did that. Because we would be putting, if we take this as a deliberate decision, political capital over doing what is good for Singaporeans."

Singaporeans who are opposed to the repeal because of the first reason must carefully consider the second reason for repeal. Herein are the things you hold dear and want to protect.

377A is indeed an approaching train. The Court of Appeal has said already that legal standard does exist (which is a good thing).

Upholding legal standard means that at some point in time in the future, it will have to rule that the law is unconstitutional if the Government chooses not to do anything about it.

Knowing that the risk of it being struck down in the future is real, and the consequences that will follow, do we really want the Government to do nothing, wait for the train to crash, and we become casualties?

The Court enforces laws without regard to social norms or value. This, we need to be clear.

We have seen in many places like India, Taiwan and the US, where challenges are brought before the court and same sex marriages legalised in this way.

The result is hostility and friction between opposing groups, and a deeply divided society.

If the Government does nothing and allow the same the thing that happened elsewhere happen in Singapore, our society will fray.

What many fear is that the character of our society will change after the repeal. This fear is addressed by the amendment to the Constitution to protect the definition of heterosexual marriage.

Some will be sad at the repeal. Some will be angry. Some will be disappointed. What you can do and must do is to channel your energy to build strong families in the traditional definition.

The WP had a debate among themselves but did not adopt a party position.

6 out of 9 WP MPs supported repeal. 2 of them who supported repeal, did not support the Amendments to the Constitution which would give Parliament the right to define marriage.

Excerpt from Minister K Shanmugam's speech:

Articles 156 (3)(b) and (4) are the operating provisions.

They protect the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies.

𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝟏𝟓𝟔 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬’ 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 (𝟏) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 (𝟐) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

Ms Lim’s and Ms He’s position would mean that they accept that the courts can strike down the heterosexual definition of marriage, or to curtail the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition, and for society to live with the consequences after that.

K Shanmugam on our drug laws

How can our laws change when it comes under pressure from a foreign country or government, right?

Our laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether you are a foreigner or Singaporean.

Minister Shanmugam said:

If we had a policy where we said that there will be no execution if a country campaigned, the policy won’t work, and the only people who would be executed would be Singaporeans. No country can apply its laws in that way. So, we make it absolutely clear to everyone that lobbying and pressure does not work with the Singapore Government. The law applies equally whether you are rich or poor, or whether you are a foreigner or local. The law applies, and that is the only way that it can work.

Activists against the death penalty love to use the argument that we are catching only the small fries and not the drug lords.

One thing is certain. Kingpins are deterred by the death penalty. Imagine the quantity of drugs that would be brought in if kingpins will come in themselves because of no threat?

The death penalty has reduced the quantities of drugs smuggled in because small fries do their calculations to ensure they do not exceed the amount that would kick in the death penalty. This act of calculation in itself, reduces the quantities of drugs smuggled in.

Some still choose to take the risk and exceed the amount. They will have to face the music with the same gut with which they made their deliberate choice to smuggle more drugs that destroy whole families.

Everyone is fixated on the death penalty. But no one takes about the violence and organised crimes brought about by the drug trade, the victims of the drug trade, or the millions who die from drug abuse each year, or the suffering of families of drug addicts.

If the EU has a better solution, Singapore will listen, says Minister Shanmugam.

Yup! That's right. Singapore decides on our own drug laws in the best interest of Singaporeans.

Recently, in a Facebook post, Minister Shanmugam said that there is a small group of anti-death penalty activists here who take foreign money to campaign against the death penalty. The minister didn't name them. Who could they be?

In many countries, popular culture has taken over scientific truths. Many now think little of the use of Cannabis, for example. The latest UN Drug Report 2021 says that cannabis potency in cannabis products has increased by 4 times making them riskier than ever. YET, the perception of young people is that cannabis is harmless. There is a big gap between perception and reality.

Hopefully, young people in Singapore are more sensible and not easily influence by popular culture.

In Singapore too, Wake Up Singapore campaigns fiercely against the death penalty, each time working overdrive to paint a drug trafficker due to hang as a victim, someone's honourable son etc. In various posts in the past, they had also promoted the use of drugs like Cannabis. This makes you wonder. Why do they do that? What will they do if there is no death penalty?

Rule of law and separation of powers: Shanmugam

The Workers' Party came to give a lecture on rule of law and separation of powers and this is what Law Minister Shanmugam said in his response.

Rule of law and separation of powers are fundamental to Singapore's success, and indeed, survival as well.

But it also takes courage and political will to deal with real problems instead of offering soaring rhetoric.

Shanmugam tells PSP Leong Mun Wai to put up a motion on CECA for debate

Singapore has been going down the path of racism and xenophobia. Let's see which opposition politician will stand up and consistently speak against racism and xenophobia and not pay lip service in Parliament.

In Parliament, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that if Singapore continues to fan the flames of racism, we will get to an uncomfortable position.

He said:

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐰𝐞𝐛𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐤𝐚𝐲, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞.

Comments on these sites have Indians being called “cockroaches”, “rapists” and so on. 𝐖𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡, 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 – 𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐧.

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭, 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠, “𝐎𝐡, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭’𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬”, 𝐨𝐫 “𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐄𝐂𝐀”, 𝐨𝐫 “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐚𝐝𝐥𝐲”, 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐱𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬.

Just ask whether racism and xenophobia can ever be justified on these grounds.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐂𝐄𝐂𝐀, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐚 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧. If anyone here believes that CECA is a problem, put it up for a Motion, debate it openly and let’s hear whether Singaporeans benefit or lose from it.

I am looking at you, Mr Leong. I invite you to put up a Motion to debate CECA. You know that most of what is said about CECA is false.

And, what is happening on the ground? We are picking up from different coffeeshops. This morning, a friend of mine overheard in a coffeeshop, a conversation between five elderly gentlemen. They discussed the incident covered in the media of an Indian expatriate family.

We don’t know the facts. Several highly racist comments targeting Indians. So, it’s getting to the ground, and being repeated.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐟 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥.

𝐈 𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐱𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮.

Singapore is 725 square kilometers of rock. We have to make a living by being open to the world. We will fail if we allow racism and xenophobia to become prevalent, and it is contrary to everything that has made us successful and proud to be Singaporean.

We will fail if we allow racism and xenophobia to become prevalent: Shanmugam

We are not 3.6 billion people with a large market to offer the world.

We are a tiny rock with 3.6 million Singaporeans whose government has managed to negotiate trade agreements with countries much larger than us through good governance, good policies, and by making ourselves relevant to the world.

Law Minister Shanmugam has issued the challenge to PSP Leong Mun Wai to move a motion to debate on CECA if he thinks it does not benefit Singaporeans.

Stop the xenophobia. Have a debate in Parliament instead and let every falsehood be put to rest.

Likewise, if WP supporters think the same on the CECA, they should ask WP to move a motion to debate on CECA. After all, they voted them to be their voice in Parliament. What's stopping them?

Singapore's success is built on multiracialism. If we do not treasure multiracialism, we will lose it.

𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 "𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭" 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚.

 

𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 "𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭" 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚.

We wouldn't have been able to manage the pandemic the way we did if there was no trust.

Trust is of vital importance, not just for the media but governments and institutions.

“In Singapore, we take great pains — if you look at the Government — to retain, maintain the trust of the people because, if there is no trust, we can't govern well, we won’t be able to take long-term measures.

"𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝-𝟏𝟗 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝… (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐟) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝, it would inevitably lead to a government and political leadership that is not trusted, and we are all finished if that happens.”

Wearing of tudung - Not Faisal Manap's credit

SIX MONTHS AGO in August last year, Law and Home Affairs Minister Shanmugam met with Muslim religious leaders in a closed door dialogue and told them that the government was considering allowing nurses to wear the tudung at work.

At that time, he told them that the government was discussing the matter internally as it could see good reasons to make this change, he disclosed on Tuesday evening. He added that the Government would announce the outcome after consulting the community and other groups.

Discussion on the wearing of tudung has been an ongoing one held behind closed doors, not a recent conversation, But of course, we can expect the crowing from the opposition. No surprise.