This cartoon is my latest clapback at the pro-LGBT propagandist/cartoonist Heckin' Unicorn.
When it comes to homosexuality and the LGBT agenda, the slippery slope is real.
Repeal of 377a is the first step in a much larger, destructive agenda.
How could the Singapore government not see this?
What the heck, unicorn?!
First, the Singapore government announces that they will repeal Section 377a, the section of the criminal code which sanctions indecent acts between men.
Then, in order to safeguard long-standing concerns about the protection of natural marriage, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced during the 2022 National Day Parade speech:
Hence even as we repeal s377A, we will uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage. Under the law, only marriages between one man and one woman are recognised in Singapore. Many national policies rely upon this definition of marriage – including public housing, education, adoption rules, advertising standards, film classification. The Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor these policies.
This measure does not inspire confidence. If homosexual conduct is acceptable, why shouldn't those individual actors agitate for the right to get married, to host a parade, and flaunt their gayness, as well? The notion that the Singapore government can "split the baby" so to speak, allowing for the repeal of Section 377a but at the same retain the natural definition of marriage, is asking for nothing but trouble.
However, as the law stands, this definition of marriage can be challenged on constitutional grounds in the courts, just like s377A has been challenged. This has indeed happened elsewhere. If one day such a challenge succeeds here, it could cause same sex marriages to become recognised in Singapore, and this would happen not because Parliament passed any such law, but as the result of a court judgement. Then, even if the majority of MPs opposed same sex marriage, Parliament may not be able to simply change the law to restore the status quo ante. Because to reverse the position, Parliament may have to amend the Constitution, and that would require a two-thirds majority.
It seems rather strange how judicial activism has become so prevalent throughout the Common Law, English-speaking world. Courts did not wield such outrageous authority in the past, yet jurisprudence in the Western World has stretched civil rights litigation to unfounded limits, and now judges are just creating new rights out of thin air.
The Singapore government should amend the Constitution to recognize marriage between one man and one woman, just as the Hungarian government had done a few years back.
But is that what the PAP-run government intends to do?
Minister of Law K Shanmugam appeared to throw cold water on that bold move:
In line with the move to repeal Section 377A (S377A) of the Penal Code, the law that criminalises gay sex, Singapore’s Constitution will be amended to ensure the right of Parliament to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said on Monday (22 August).
The Parliament will move not to ensure the natural definition of marriage, but rather to ensure that only parliament can define marriage. That is not the same thing at all.
The Prime Minister said that the government would move to protect the natural definition of marriage. The Minister of Law moves away from the measure right away. What do we see here? More caving. The slipperly slope to normalize sexual perversion is real. This whole LGBT agenda does not stop with the decriminalizing of gross indecent acts between men. Inevitably, they will demand false marriage, fake adoption, and sexualized propaganda onto students and adults alike. This move will not end will for the Republic of Singapore.
The move is to guard against challenges in court on the definition of marriage, and is different from enshrining it in the Constitution, said Shanmugam in an interview with The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao.
It's really distressing how the government went from announcing the repeal of Section 377a to backing away from a full-force definition protecting the institution of marriage. What a shame. I fear that false marriage will become the law of the land in two years time, should the people of Singapore not push back on the government's misguided, inappropriate measure to repeal 377a.
 |
| Lee Kuan Yew during his "Moment of Anguish" |
When Malaysia expelled Singapore from the Malaysian Confederation in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew wept publicly on live television, decrying the sad day as "A moment of anguish." As Lee's son and successor Hsien Loong declares his government's intention for the full repeal of Section 377a, the general citizenry should declare a greater moment of anguish as well as mourning.
The repeal of Section 377a is but the first step toward a slow and steady dissolution of the entire country. I have met a number of Singaporeans ... outside of the country. They are leaving. They don't want to live there anymore. Those expatriates feel that the country has reached its zenith and is now embracing a slow decline. Repealing 377a is hastening that decline.
Singapore aspired to be a Red Dot with great power and influence in a blue sea of competition, the Antioch of Southeast Asia for a growing, thriving Christian community as well. Now, as the Singapore government caves to the globalist LGBT movement, one has to wonder how much longer the glories of that little island nation will last.
Section 377a of the Singapore criminal code criminalizes gross, indecent acts between men, i.e. sodomy, homosexual acts, etc. Yes, the British colonial governments had enacted this law during their rule over the Malaysian peninsula, but ever after independence, many of the Commonwealth countries retained these statutes, as the local populations still found those behaviors (rightfully) reprehensible and worthy of sanction.
The British brought many welcome reforms to Southeast Asia (as well as other countries around the globe). Eliminating the tolerance and promotion of sexual perversion was one of those well-founded developments. Many remain unaware of this, but even in Mainland China, before the British showed up, homosexuality was rampant and compromising for the general culture. It was a destructive vice prevalent among the higher political classes. Better governance, strong rule ensued throughout Southeast Asia when homosexuality was criminalized.
Following Singapore's independence in 1965, the new republic's criminal code retained this contentious yet necessary statute. Based on a number of reports throughout the next forty years, this code indeed served many purposes. Some haunts in the island Republic became oft-frequented cruising spots for homosexual trysts. The ongoing abuses in public toilets and metro stations also affirmed the need to protect boys and girls from predatory behavior.
In 2007, there was a petition to repeal 377a, as gay activists contended that it is cruel, arbitrary, and unnecessary to criminalize sexual acts between two consenting adults of the same sex. However, members of the Singapore parliament were paying close attention to the cultural and political ravages which afflicted countries throughout the world when they allowed for so-called "same-sex marriage" as well as the full decriminalization of homosexuality (and transgenderism).
Those warnings were well-said and well-put. Dr. Thio Li-Ann, a nominated member of the Singapore parliament at the time, gave the strongest defense for Section 377a. Her statements helped ensure the retention of the statute for 15 more years, and her thorough logical, historical, cultural, and political analysis ensured that other pro-family activists could make strong remarks to defend natural marriage and reject the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism.
Sadly, fifteen years later, and following multiple court cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 377a, the Singapore government has caved. Mostly likely heeding globalist pressures, especially de to rising economic downturns and greater competition in the Southeast Asian markets, the Singapore government has announced that there is no longer a need to retain the statute criminalizing indecent acts between men.
Prime Minister LHL shared during the 2022 National Day Parade speech:
A major issue for gay Singaporeans is Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes sex between men a criminal offence. It was originally introduced in the 1930s by the British colonial government. It reflected moral attitudes and social norms that prevailed back then. But over the decades, homosexuality has become better understood, scientifically and medically. In many societies, including Singapore, gay people have become more accepted for who they are, instead of being shunned and stigmatised.
The implication of this statement is that everyone else in society has learned to stop being so "bigoted." The problem with homosexuality is not the individuals who engage in the practice, but rather the people who refuse to accept the lie that people are "born that way."
Many countries that used to have laws against sex between men have since repealed them. They include several Asian countries, but so far not Singapore.
I find this tag particularly offensive. "Singapore is behind the times" is the subtle pretext for this statement. Has it ever occured to the government that perhaps the other countries are wrong for normalizing a perversion which harms the public square?
Parliament last debated whether or not to repeal Section 377A in 2007. MPs expressed strong views on both sides. I joined in the debate to advise restraint and caution. I acknowledged that what consenting adults do in private is their personal affair, and the Government should not intervene. But I pointed out that not everyone was equally accepting of homosexuality. Quite a few had considerable reservations, particularly within certain religious groups, including the Muslims, Catholics and many Protestant denominations.
Actually, the "Retain 377a" side gave the strongest arguments. The "Repeal 377a" side relied on emotional arguments fraught with legal and cultural fallacies. They hoped to shame proponents of 377a, and yet such emotional wrangling failed.
Sadly, emotion has won over reason, more importantly fear of global pressures and fear of losing potential investment and economic capital.
Prime Minister LHL continued:
Now, 15 years later, attitudes have shifted appreciably. While we remain a broadly conservative society, gay people are now better accepted in Singapore, especially among younger Singaporeans. It is timely to ask ourselves again the fundamental question: should sex between men in private be a criminal offence?
"Gay people are now better accepted in Singapore ..." In other words: "All you backward Singaporeans have finally stop being so hateful." Again, the general import of this remark is quite offensive. It is necessary and proper to oppose the normalization of homosexuality. These behaviors are rooted in trauma and abuse. The behaviors themselves are harmful and self-demeaning. The spread of venereal disease and the assault on marital and family life cannot be ignored, either.
Why has such a widespread attitude toward pro-family elements proliferated in Singapore? Foreign influence and Internet promotion certainly has changed attitude. Much of the propaganda on homosexuality promotes the conduct as benign and natural. Liberal mockery has also contributed to disdain for pro-family efforts, as well, like the skits produced by the Ministry of Funny (MOF). These actors have poked fun and demeaned the pro-family movement for a long time. In their 2018 skit producing a sequel to the 2018 NDP video celebration (see photo above), the MOF portrayed pro-family "Wear White" activists as violent, hateful extremists. This false impression has made a sadder impression on the greater public, certainly.
In particularly disturbing fashion, LHL makes the case for normalizing homosexuality because of "younger Singaporeans." One has to wonder what Lee Kuan Yew would have said to such an argument. Very likely Singapore as a strict yet well-governed nation would not have existed if the Founder cared more about what the younger generation thought. Younger people want to abolish the death penalty, allow for widespread recreational use of controlled substances. Most young people have a host of issues, not the least of which is that they are, well, immature! Why would any serious government care what the younger generation thinks about ANY issue?
Yet here we are. Singapore is caving. This is another Day of Anguish for the island Republic.
