Thursday, 25 October 2007

Section 377a vs. Section 498

While debate raged fiercely over whether Section 377A (Outrages on decency): It is an offence for any male person, who in public or private, commits an act of gross indecency with another male person. should be repealed, with the main views diverging on whether:

"Homosexuality is something you do"; vs. "Homosexuality is something you are."; and on whether the govt should "lead change" vs. "reflect the view of majority of society"...

the govt went ahead and repealed Section 498 (Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman): It is an offence to entice, take away or detain a married woman with the intention of having illicit intercourse with her. (i.e. adultery), on grounds that "it is an archaic offence which is no longer relevant in today’s context."

In contrast, as we all know by now, it was at the same time decided that Section 377A should be retained, with the key reasoning being that the repeal of 377A would run counter to the govt's stand on "the family (being) the basic building block of this society... and by family in Singapore we mean one man, one woman marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit." (PM Lee)...

The fact that one act (i.e. that covered under Section 498 - adultery), which in my opinion would clearly break down the "stable family unit, family values and social fabric," was repealed; while another (i.e. that covered under Section 377A - consensual, private sex between two adults) whose so-called adverse impact on the "stable family unit" is still under great debate and study was nonetheless retained, made the recent changes all the more difficult to comprehend, even for a fairly open-minded and somewhat intelligent person like myself....

i am all for good debate as it helps all of us to have a clearer picture of the diversity of views present... but i am also for consistency in the reasoning used to justify any actions carried out by those in power... and i'm afraid i had difficulty seeing it this time.... :(

No comments: