publichouse.sg

By Andrew Loh

The behavior of the Law Society of Singapore (LSS) leaves very much to be desired indeed. After a series of bungles, which give the impression of a society seemingly acting like a headless chicken, it now wants lawyer M Ravi committed to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). This comes after a lawsuit has been lodged against the society and one Mr Wong Siew Hong, its chairman of its Member Care committee; and a motion filed with the society and backed up by “more than 50 members” for the society “to hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to explain what led to the recent debate between one of its officials, Mr Wong Siew Hong, and Mr Ravi.”

By Andrew Loh

“The WP is worse,” says a comment on Yawning Bread. The person was referring to the issue of section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises gay sex between men. “[At] least the PAP talked about it,” the comment says, referring to the People’s Action Party (PAP).

Alex Au, the writer and owner of Yawning Bread, himself said he is “more and more convinced that so long as either the People’s Action Party or the Workers’ Party dominate Parliament” he expects no legislative changes to s377A. “Neither party has courage on social issues that can in any way be classed as ‘liberal’”, he says.

One would tend to agree with Alex, given that both the PAP and the WP have chosen to support the status quo.

By Ng Jing Song

“The principle of access to justice calls for nothing less.”

Three judges from the highest court of the land refused to banish a constitutional challenge to s377A. Since that decision, the Internet has been abuzz with the following quote from the judgement: “… this provision affects the lives of a not insignificant portion of our community in a very real and intimate way.”

There are two weighty adjectives in this statement that deserves unpacking: “not insignificant” and “very real and intimate”.

The judges fleshed out the “very real and intimate” injuries begotten by s377A. First, this law “make criminals out of victims”. The looming threat of being prosecuted gags victims of crimes. The victim might fear that a truthful account of the crimes’ contexts, which include elements of prohibited sexual acts, would result in two years behind bars. This law therefore becomes a twisted tool abetting further injustice.

By Andrew Loh

In Singapore’s political arena, perhaps no one has been so vilified as Dr Chee Soon Juan, at least in the last 20 years. Jailed, fined, bankrupted, called names, accused of being “a cheat”, a ‘liar”, “a fraud”, “a political gangster”, his patriotism questioned, along with the state of his mental health, and even his very name was turned into something vulgar by those who would lynch him.

Come December, Dr Chee will mark his 20th year since his debut into electoral politics - his first foray was in the 1992 by-election in Marine Parade.

The assaults on his person and reputation have been unrelenting, chiefly led by former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who, incidentally, had pronounced the end of Dr Chee. “No, he is not a threat anymore, he’s finished, kaput,” Mr Lee once declared.

Yet, Dr Chee is still here and continues to stand up to the bully tactics – and he has and will gain more recognition and support (both locally and internationally), even as some may have dismissed him as a political force.