SIngapore Justifies Anti-Gay Legislation to UN Body

[Guest fountainhall]

There is a Report on the fridae website about Singapore’s responses at the United Nations to questions regarding its law against homosexual activity. This was the city-state’s first-ever Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva – the only universal mechanism that reviews the human rights situation in all 192 UN Member States once every four years. A second hearing has been scheduled for September 2011. At the first hearing, only states have a right to question Singapore while civil societies can do so at the second hearing.

 

At the session on May 6, several countries including the UK, France and Canada amongst others queried Singapore's continuing criminalisation of male gay sex to which a Singapore delegate then responded, basically ducking every issue raised. The queries included -

 

- The UK asked, “Will Singapore maintain criminal sanctions against sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex?”

 

- Ireland noted “that there are some concerns that anti-discrimination laws do not provide adequate protection for . . . persons belonging to the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender community.”

 

- Canada stated, “Singapore does not provide protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and still criminalizes sexual relations between men under Section 377A of the Penal Code which includes a mandatory jail sentence for those convicted. While the Prime Minister has said Article 377A is not ‘proactively enforced’, what does this mean for homosexual men in practice? Furthermore, what non-discrimination protections, including in the area of employment, are in place for members of the LGBT community?”

 

The response? The usual SIngapore waffle!

 

"In Singapore, people are free to pursue their interests and lifestyles. Recognition and success is based on merit and not on factors such as sexual orientation. In the area of employment, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices promotes and educates employers and the general public on fair and responsible employment practices. Our legislation also allows those who feel that they have been unfairly dismissed including on grounds of sexual orientation to appeal to the Minister for Manpower to be reinstated. Yet we recognise that much of Singapore society retains conservative social mores and mindset cannot be changed by legislation alone. In recent times we had robust parliamentary debates in Singapore on whether to decriminalise certain homosexual acts. On this let me assure the UK and clarify in particular that what is being criminalised is not gay Singaporeans but homosexual acts between men. Now an extensive public consultation was held and the matter was considered at the highest political levels, it was not taken lightly and in the end it was decided to leave things be. The Singapore police has not been proactively enforcing the provision and will continue to take this stance.

 

"To answer the delegate from Canada . . . The reality is that LGBT people in Singapore do not have to hide their sexual orientation for fear of losing their jobs or for fear of prosecution by the state. They have a place in our society and are entitled to their private lives."

http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2011/05/11/10867.singapore-un-delegate-what-is-being-criminalised-is-not-gay-singaporeans-but-homosexual-acts

 

I see. So, "it was not taken lightly." Well, I have a lot of experience of such public consultation exercises run by the government in Hong Kong. They are essentially meaningless trifles with little real research amongst naysayers. They are merely a government ploy to justify its actions. I assume the same is equally true in Singapore.

 

SIngapore often complains of one-sided treatment given by outsiders to controversial issues. Perhaps a representative of the Singapore government will now join this community to provide a more convincing explanation!

[Guest thrillbill8]

I find the Singapore government "out of touch" with today's modern world. And ironically I would say the small city-state of Singapore has more gays per 100 males than in most open countries. Instead of 25 out of 100; it would be 40 out of 100

[TotallyOz]

I have never been to Bangkok on a holiday when I didn't meet Singapore guys in the bars. They love coming here.

 

I love visiting Singapore but their anti-gay stances is one reason I don't spend more time and money there!

[Guest fountainhall]

I find the Singapore government "out of touch" with today's modern world.

The recent election has clearly shaken the government and changes have already started. In most countries, being returned with 81 out of 87 seats in parliament would be a hugely crushing majority. Yet, under Singapore's strongly biased election rules, the party actually received only 60% of the vote - down from 67%. For the ruling PAP, this was its worst election result since 1965.

 

During the election, it was clear the effect of social networking sites like facebook and the fact that 600,000 people aged 21 to 34 were first-time voters were as crucial as rising prices and immigration.

 

That youth vote seems to have been largely responsible for the PAP's drop in support. Agreeing with this is Singapore's founding Prime Minister and Minister Mentor in the outgoing government, Lee Kwan Yew. Mr. Lee is now resigning completely from the government. Joining him in retirement will be his successor as Prime Minister, the Senior Minister, Goh Chok Tong.

 

In a joint-statement, Mr Lee and Mr Goh said the current prime minister and his team "should have a fresh clean slate".

 

"The time has come for a younger generation to carry Singapore forward in a more difficult and complex situation," they said.

 

"After a watershed general election, we have decided to leave the cabinet and have a completely younger team of ministers to connect to and engage with this young generation."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13305828

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13400296

 

Will this mean 'real' change' for gays in Singapore? Perhaps in the longer term, in my view. When Goh became Prime Minister in 1990, he announced he wanted a more open society and started loosening the reigns. He soon changed his mind, though, and restrictions were re-imposed. Singapore, he felt, was not then ready for such change.

 

Whilst Lee Kwan Yew may henceforth not hold any office, his son remains Prime Minister. To date, Lee Hsien Loong, has shown little inclination to be more flexible. That, though, may have been a result of having his two predecessors in the cabinet breathing down his neck.

 

The elder Lee recently told Charlie Rose in an interview that one of his biggest challenges in developing Singapore into one of the wealthiest nations on earth was to forge a national identity from its three completely separate societies

[Guest voldemar]

I lived in Singapore for a year and in my opinion it is a country which provides more freedom than so called developed ones. I mostly talk about economic freedom: minimal level of taxation, active encouragement of enterpreneurship, no taxation on offshore investments,

very efficient organization of the society, excellent education and health care, very high living standards. The government does not interfere with private life of its citizens. No censorship of internet. Prostitution is legal.

I would strongly prefer Singapore to US with its current Marxist regime in place. The available restrictions are mostly related to some very sensible issues and I have no problem with most of them. E.g. any kind of ethnic or religious discrimination is absolutely not tolerated and severely punished by law. You will hardly find illegal workers over there but government program of work visas is very efficient. There is essentially no corruption.

I brought several times Thai guys with me to Singapore. Not a single time anybody try to

resist their entry to the country (and they do not need a visa) or I ever had any problem while they are there.

For those who are productive Singapore is a blessing and I frankly do not care

what so called liberals (who fed all their lives from government trough) think about it.

[Guest]

I'm pretty much in agreement with Voldemar on this point. I would love to live & work in a well managed country like Singapore with sensible tax rates. I would swap their entire political establishment for that of the UK right now.

Of course the international community should keep the pressure up regarding laws on homosexuality, however Singapore still has an open gay scene.

 

I would go there just to see this....

Singapore street pic (See 8th May entry on blog)

[Guest fountainhall]

Is it perhaps true that in most countries you 'get what you pay for?' The city has always attracted people towards politics because the pay for Ministers is the highest in the world. Lee Kwan Yew famously said years ago that to attract the best people for the job, you have to pay them like CEOs in the private sector.

 

According to a blog about Singapore, in 2008/9 the top 30 politicians in the world in terms of pay were all from Singapore - from S$3.9 million for the President, to S$3.8 million for the Prime Minister, down to Ministers of State getting between S$1.5 and S$1.8 million - http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-30-highest-paid-politicians-in.html.

 

S$1 is presently worth approx. US$0.80

 

Just compare that with pay for politicians and ministers in other countries. Is it any wonder that corruption plays so little part in Singapore politics?

[Guest snapshot]

The response? The usual SIngapore waffle!

No, I think that's "Singapore speak" for "f--- off and we will do all this when we are good and ready ourselves thank you."

 

Society and government attitudes are gradually evolving and making good progress there. As much as we want all this to happen NOW, the people and country need time.

 

I agree with Voldemar's comments above.

[Guest]

Is it perhaps true that in most countries you 'get what you pay for?' The city has always attracted people towards politics because the pay for Ministers is the highest in the world. Lee Kwan Yew famously said years ago that to attract the best people for the job, you have to pay them like CEOs in the private sector.

 

A very enlightened policy.

I would like to see something similar in my country. However, rather than overpay the current crop of unprincipled incompetents, who frequently have no experience of wealth creation, I'd like to see a salary structure than can attract successful business leaders and technical experts into government.

If we can get people like Terry Leahy, Alan Sugar & James Dyson into the cabinet, why not pay them over a million each, even if only part time? The savings will be worth it.

As for all those law graduates who've never stepped outside the legal profession, they should get no more than current MPs.

[Guest fountainhall]

I'd like to see a salary structure than can attract successful business leaders and technical experts into government.

I entirely agree. Politics in too many countries is left to amateurs whose primary focus seems to be popularity and the next election. Anyone mention Greece? The politicians who created that country's massive debt by deliberately and knowingly spending way over budget and then equally deliberately manipulating figures, deserve a long time in jail in my book - not just a spell in the political wilderness. Just as the bankers who plunged the world into crisis do. And how many of them are behind bars???

 

But on the matter of business leaders in government, a slightly cynical question - does that not open the door to more Thaksins? Would paying Thaksin US$1 million a year rather the $32,000 he received in his first year have prevented his manipulating the law and further enriching himself? In a country where corruption is so endemic, do politiians' salaries in Thailand even matter?

 

Re SIngapore, it's interesting that the very high salaries of ministers was an issue in the recent election. As a result, the Prime Minster has instituted a new review whose guidelines seem to slightly reverse previous policy. For example,

 

"The committee should also take into account . . . the salary of ministers should have a significant discount to comparable private-sector salaries to signify the value and ethos of political service." . . . At the swearing-in ceremony for the new Cabinet on Saturday, Prime Minister Lee said that "politics is not a job or a career promotion" but "a calling to serve the larger good of Singapore".

http://coolingstar9.blogspot.com/2011/05/singapore-ministers-salaries-review.html

[Guest]

I don't think paying leaders CEO salaries will attract more Thaksins.

If the allegations are true, getting paid $1m a year would be almost irrelevant compared with the vast amount of money siphoned off via dubious means.

 

However, in a country with lower levels of corruption, attracting some proven CEO level talent into government and paying them properly should not increase corruption. Currently, it seems the best way for a UK leader to make money is via the lecture circuit and non-exec directorships AFTER they run the country.

That's the wrong way around. People should prove themselves in the private sector before being allowed anywhere near government. After all, governments spend way too much money to leave it to some amateurs with no management experience, as we currently do.

[Guest snapshot]

Re SIngapore, it's interesting that the very high salaries of ministers was an issue in the recent election. As a result, the Prime Minster has instituted a new review whose guidelines seem to slightly reverse previous policy.

The PAP need to make doubly sure to kill the opposition and keep them well away from power next election. If any of the opposition parties ever gets into power, they'll start implementing socialist policies and Singapore won't be Singapore anymore.

 

 

I'd like to see a salary structure than can attract successful business leaders and technical experts into government.

If we can get people like Terry Leahy, Alan Sugar & James Dyson into the cabinet, why not pay them over a million each, even if only part time?

A step in the right direction. However governments and government ministers already spend many millions of dollars on consultanting teams and expert advisors with similar credentials to the sort you suggest. Problem is, incompetent ministers are still the decision makers.

 

Plus, when good advice is delivered, the follow through process is far too polluted by politics and the need to fight and balance short-term issues.

 

 

People should prove themselves in the private sector before being allowed anywhere near government.

Yes.