LTB Video

My first attempt at video editing - I did it on a new programme that I mastered in a few days.

Nice eh?

Comms Speech

I did a persuasive speech for a Communications module and thought it'd be nice to share it with others. I'm quite proud of it so here goes.

---------------------------------------------

We should support the repeal of s377A.

Introduction

*Rap and sing* Repeal it. Repeal it. Repeal 377a. Repeal it. Repeal it. Repeal 377a.

This was the message from a clip produced last year, by supporters of the repeal section 377a campaign.

A very good afternoon to one and all. I’m Winston and today, I’m here to tell you why you should support the repeal of section 377a of the Penal Code. To simplify things, I will henceforth refer to it as 377a.

In my speech, I will first give you some background to what 377a is and why it concerns you. I will then move on to argue that 377a should be repealed because firstly, it is irrelevant in today’s context; secondly, secondly, it’s a burden to retain it; and finally, that even if we want to signal society’s disapproval of homosexuality, there is no need to retain 377a.

So what is 377a and why does it make every homosexual male a liable criminal? It is neither 3771, a winning 4D combination; nor is it a HDB block number. In this speech, 377a refers to a law, a law that was inherited from our ex British colonial masters.

377a falls under Section 377 of the law which criminalises sexual acts 'against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals'. Specifically, 377a criminalises "gross indecency" between males, whether in public or in private. Anyone convicted faces up to two years’ imprisonment. One interesting is that the law does not provide a definition for “gross indecency”. Thus, technically, we can convict anyone for any form of “unacceptable male” conduct. I remember back at RI… *pause* I think I shall leave a discussion of the things that happened back then, for another time.

You may have been wondering what all the fuss surrounding 377a is about and why I’m talking about it right now. Well, it is because it concerns you. 377a impacts the people around us. It affects anyone you know, your best friend, your closest uncle, even your brother who may be gay. While 377a is said to be purely symbolic, it has been likened to a gun being put to the heads of homosexuals and not pulling the trigger.

Having said that, let us shift our focus to why we should support the repeal of 377a. As the debate often borders upon emotional irrationality, the arguments that I will serve to you are aimed to target the technical aspects of the law.

Now, the first reason why we should repeal it is because it is irrelevant.

Consider this: The intention of the law is to maintain a safe and secure society; to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct. This very principle is taught to first-year law students in their first few weeks. Professor Michael Hor, who teaches criminal law at the NUS Law Faculty explains that criminal activity must entail harm to others that is recognizable and tangible. In other words, if an act does not harm others, then it should not be a crime.

Private, consensual sexual acts between adult males does not impact the safety and security of society. Just like we do not know, and do not wish to know what goes on in the bedroom of our parents, whatever happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom. Thus, why should we have a law that criminalizes an act that does no harm to you or you or you? save for the disgust that plague homophobes?

In 2003, then prime minister Goh Chok Tong declared, “In the past, if we know you’re gay, we would not employ you. But we just changed this quietly.” The change in our government’s stance reflects a tacit acceptance that the sort of activity stated by 377A is not harmful at all. For why would the government employ wrong doers?

In line with this policy, PM Lee Hsien Loong stated that “We don't harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policeman. And we don't proactively enforce Section 377A on them.”

So the question lies: why retain a law that doesn’t serve its function?

And this brings me to my next point: that it is a burden to retain 377a.

Firstly, as asserted by the Singapore Law Society, 'retention of unprosecuted offences on the statute book runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute'. It undermines the significance of the Law just like having a head of State who has no power so evident in … (I’ll leave that to you to fill in the blanks).

Singapore needs to attract foreign talent in order to remain competitive. Its importance cannot be further emphasized. I quote the strong use of words by MP Vivien Balakrishnan, then part of the Remaking Singapore committee. In a Times Article he said “Singapore will do ‘whatever it takes’ to attract talent”. “Whatever it takes”.

377a mars Singapore’s aspirations to become a global city.

Kenneth Paul Tan, Assistant Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, feels the law will be another reason for talent not to come here. By retaining 377a we present to the world a Singapore which is culturally intolerant and sterile.

Carnegie Mellon academic Richard Florida, in a study published in 2002, coined the term "creative class" - comprising talented and innovative people who can choose to work anywhere in the world. The study showed that they are likely to be drawn to cities that show a tolerance for differences, and in turn, these cities perform well economically. Although no studies have been conducted to measure the actual loss that Singapore incurs due to its anti-gay laws, it is needless to say that 377a remains a barrier to attracting top talent.

Finally, even if we want to signal society’s disapproval of homosexuality, there is no need to retain 377a.

The repeal of 377a does not entail any view that homosexuality is morally acceptable, but follows instead from the separation of law and morals. It does not mean that society endorses or approves of it.

In noting this difference, we must therefore come to consensus that there is a distinction between disapproving and criminalizing homosexuality. By drawing a parallel between homosexuality and drinking or smoking, MP Baey Yam Keng noted that we can discourage homosexuality without criminalising it.

Today, I have told you that we should repeal 377a because firstly, it is irrelevant in today’s context; secondly, secondly, it’s a burden to retain it; and finally, that even if we want to signal society’s disapproval of homosexuality, there is no need to retain 377a.

I have an uncle who recently declared his homosexual orientation and it caused drama in the family that you only get to see in Hong Kong serials. But one thing I realized through the episode was this: If you know someone who’s gay, deal with his homosexuality as a person, not as a criminal. For it may be your best friend, your closest uncle, your brother, and who knows, in the future, even your own son.

So do your part.

Support the repeal of section 377a.

Thank you.

Spoilt Hair dryer

Bad hair days are here to stay. My maid spoilt the hair dryer and that does not help her approval ratings, which has been plunging like current STI since she arrived. Bad cooking, eating stuff without asking permission (my J-Co Donuts!) and sitting in front of me while I'm watching TV...

I need to go for a hair-cut, but there's no special occasion that warrants it. Meanwhile, that unruly turf on my head threatens to turn me into the next Medusa. That does not help in the fact that I ain't no Brad Pitt or whoever, whose looks could make everything ugly look beautiful.

Woe to me!

Darn, I'm sounding damn gay.