TR EMERITUS

CNA article stated "A total of 245 cases have fully recovered and have been discharged" but the table shows only 240 recovered. Number of patients still hospitalised should be 461, not 457. And why did CNA suka suka leave out the number of patients "discharged to isolation"?   Phillip Ang * The author blogs at LikeDatOsoCanMeh.      Read More →

I’ve often said that one the best things about Singapore is the fact that we have a government that prides itself in being exceedingly rational and is willing to take a position contrary to popular opinion if it has the facts on its side. This wonderfully matter of fact approach to “tricky” and “difficult” matters has been on display in its handling of the Coronavirus. The government has been careful to follow the facts as they come out, they’ve restricted movements and been generous on the economic front. The government has avoided “Trump-like” messaging and avoided confusion and panic in the market place. Yet, there remains one topic in which this rational and pragmatic approach gets rolled into the proverbial shit-pot and flushed down the toilet. That is the issue of 377A, or the law which criminalises consensual sex between two adult men. I’ve blogged about this topic on countless occasions and I seem to be making the same point – there is no rational, logical or helpful reason as to why the State should intervene and criminalise private and consensual behavior. I’m not the only one to make that point. We’ve had a former senior diplomat (Professor Tommy Koh), a former Chief Justice (Justice Chan Sek Keong) and two former Attorney-Generals (Professor Walter Woon and Justice VK Rajah) come out and make exactly those points. None of these men can be accused of being stooges of “Western Liberalism.” All of them are highly respected members of society and all of them are regarded as being amongst the most brilliant minds that our society has produced. Yet, despite all these brilliant and respected men coming out to make the obvious points, our system remains entrenched in an almost childlike thinking when it comes to the topic of 377A. Today (30 March 2020), the High Court released its verdict on three constitutional challenges presented by three men. The news report can be read here: The only thing that seemed to make some logical sense was the statement - “The court is not the appropriate forum to seek a resolution of a scientific issue that remains controversial. This is in any event an extra-legal argument that does not come under the proper purview of the courts.” This statement by Justice See Kee Oon makes sense in the same way that a janitor in a hospital telling you that he’s not the appropriate person to talk to if you ask a question about a complex medical issue However, the rest of the verdict seemed to lack a logical and reasonable thought in its delivery. The most embarrassing moment came from the way in which the court had to defend the fact that while the law is set to remain on the statute books, the government has “promised” not to enforce it. Poor Justice See had to deliver these lines: “Statutory provisions serve an important role in reflecting public sentiment and beliefs. Section 377A, in particular, serves the purpose of safeguarding public morality by showing societal moral disapproval of male homosexual acts.” Unfortunately, the public morality argument has been long blown away. The public, for example, does not approve of prostitution or gambling. Yet, these vices are perfectly legal and until Covid-19 forced the government to shut down “entertainment,” were thriving industries. Both gambling and prostitution have been proven to cause social problems (there is such a medical condition called “gambling addiction,” and sleeping with prostitute’s does leave you open to venereal diseases – a warning that is well publicized in Singapore’s brothels). Yet, nobody seems too bothered by the presence of gambling and prostitution (a cynic might argue that there are more gamblers and customers of prostitutes among the well to do than there are homosexuals). Furthermore, the public disapproval argument does not stand when you consider that genuinely conservative societies like India (I repeat the place that gave you the caste system) and Taiwan (the China we don’t recognize) have done away with laws banning consensual sex between consenting adult men. A certain section of the “conservative” movement might argue that this argument holds because it enforces “approval” onto a disapproving majority. This is an ingenious argument. It seems to argue that if something is legal, it means that one has to accept it. It forgets that a certain portion of society had nothing more than the government’s promise that they would not be sent to jail for behaving like everyone else with the exception of their choice of consenting sexual partner. Since logic is unfashionable, I’ve always wondered if 377A proponents who made this argument were not repressed homosexuals themselves. I’m speaking as a heterosexual man with a normal sexual appetite. I like to have sex with women and as long as I have sex with a consenting woman, nobody is going to disturb me and nobody is going to care who I have sex with. So, if you look at this basic fact and apply it to a homosexual couple, why should anyone really care what they do in the bedroom as long as its in the bedroom. Homosexual sex (like any other form of sex) should only be a problem if its done onto someone who does not consent to it. The bout of cases of voyeurism in our universities is far more damaging to society than what the homosexual community does in its bedroom. Are we really easier with boys setting up spy cameras in the girls public showers than we are with two gay guys doing it in the privacy of the bedroom. In one of the challenges, experts (as in people with scientific knowledge) were brought in and just about everyone concluded that gay people are well…..gay. It’s not a lifestyle choice of something people do because its fashionable. If the science did not favour homosexuality as a genetic fact, “gay conversion” therapies would not be banned in most places. We are lauded around the world for being intelligent and rational. So, surely, it is time we showed some rationality and intelligence when it comes to this topic. Though having said that, I was once told that there is intelligence in this refusal to listen to rationality on the topic of 377A. I was once told at a party that the “LGBT” community contains the highest portion of opposition voters. Let’s be cynical here.     Tang Li *The author blogs at http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/      Read More →

In my Facebook commentary on 25 March 2020, I have singled out our old folks home as one potential Covid-19 infection cluster along with our many rental flats where most of the residents are seniors. True enough, Lee Ah Mooi Old Age Home (LAMOAH) scored a bull's eye yesterday. Senior infection is ominous for obvious reasons. Apart from LAMOAH, the taskforce must double down its efforts to prevent seniors in rental flats from being infected because any one infection case among rental flat seniors could very likely lead to an out of control situation. Those elderly people stay in close proximity to each other, mingle closely with each other daily, many have multiple health issues and last but not least, their living environments are dirty and unhygienic. Sam Tan, that useless pap mp for Radin Mas once admitted to me personally that the rental blocks in his constituency are the dirtiest estate in Singapore. I repeat. Pap mp, Sam Tan, once admitted to me personally in response to my complains about the very filthy and dirty conditions of those rental blocks in his estate that they are the dirtiest estate in the whole of Singapore! Just imagine. A pap constituency estate, no less! Contrary to what that useless son said about Covid-19 situation is severe but under control, the ever increasing numbers of local transmissions very, very convincingly debunk his hot-air lalala which are so sweet in the ears of his unthinking believers. I very urgently appeal to Lawrence Wong and his taskforce to really come down hard on people who flagrantly flout safe-distancing and to also strongly encourage our people to wear masks, especially when they are travelling on public transport. Now, incompetence and clever official rhetoric such as no need to wear mask if you are not sick must give way to the safety, live and death considerations of our citizens. If we cannot effectively control local transmission, Singapore will come to grief sooner rather than later. Dear LW and the Covid-19 taskforce, please act firmly and urgently. You have been warned. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →