Singapore Local Gay News [LGBT Related News] (Compiled)

[HendryTan]

I am not legal trained, thus I will not attempt to judge who is right.

However as Moderator I know something about this forum pretty well - We don't like Personal Attacks. Focus on the issue please, otherwise I will have to delete your posts.

Cheers !

[Guest Guest]

<< Unhelpful comments Deleted >>

Hendry Tan

Moderator

[Guest Guest]

I am not legal trained, thus I will not attempt to judge who is right.

However as Moderator I know something about this forum pretty well - We don't like Personal Attacks. Focus on the issue please, otherwise I will have to delete your posts.

Cheers !

Hendry, you need not be trained in legal matters to understand what some people are suggesting here.

Jazz is advocating a 15 years old be charged under 377 after he had been sodomised by an adult.

Sotong is advising people here how to avoid a longer jail sentence if they have sex with a minor.

Some others are suggesting kids are too smart nowadays and should be held accountable too when they had sex with adults.

Kids are kids. Whether they have developed and and matured sexually enough to know what they are doing is NOT for any adult to determine. Some adults want to take advantage of this by insinuating the kids are matured enough to know.

The law and its precedents in the courts in Singapore for such cases are clear on this. This forum itself had made a clear stand by imposing a 18 years old age limit for participation. Yet some people are allowed to post comments that suggest minors knew what they are doing when they have sex with adults.

It is not so important that minors knew what they were getting themselves into. More importantly is adults here MUST know, and responsible forummers must continue to emphasize, that sex with any minors are completely forbidden. Sex with any kids is a MAJOR criminal offence, it is totally reprehensible and the perpetrators should be locked away for a long long time.

[Guest Guest]

......now that is the clearest message ever need to be sent across. No jargons & "smart-assed" theories.

[HendryTan]

- I stated my stand when I initially translated the article that I advise people NOT to touch children. I believe I speak for all the Moderators that we will not tolerate exploitation of children and allow this forum as a vehicle for such.

- When the discussion evolved, Statues, Case Laws were quoted. Now instead of claiming that I am a "know-all", I declared that I am not legal train. I have no way to verify whether there were "Legal Precedences".

- Now should I delete all articles I perceived as "wrong". When I read the articles cursorily, I don't think they cross the line as inflammatory, encouraging pedophile etc, although I may not necessarily agree with them.

- Another point, I don't think I interpreted ALL the main points of the articles as you have summarised.

- Coming back, should I just press the "Delete" button whenever I disagree. Perhaps, but I prefer we debate it out and establish why it is "wrong" as long as the comments are not overly inflammatory.

- I state my stand again that I am against Guys involving themselves with children.

- "Guest", if we have personal grievances, I suggest we speak privately. I do not intend to shadow box in this public forum "again" using this thread.

Cheers !

[sotong_sg]

So for all the str8 guys out there, if you have sex with girl under 16, make sure only virginal... (I am not endorsing it, just pointing out the lower pumishment offense)

And if those str8 guys out there wanna have public sex, make sure only virginal, no others.. else the guy can kenna longer jail term than the gal.

Congratulations!! You get the prize for the most callous quote of the year.

Rather than warning readers about the serious consequences of having sex with an underage kid or the risks associated with public sex, you gotta make that ultra stupid remark.

Remarks like that show what a fxxking moron you really are.

If you do not understand or cannot tell what is a sarcastic remark aimed to poke fun at the seemingly unfair laws, then I suggest you go look for a doctor, instead of telling the whole world that others mirror you

(And I will quote you verbatim :

Remarks like that show what a fxxking moron you really are.)

I will add-on by :

!@#$@#^&@(#&%(@#*%)!(#$!

<< comments self-censored.. hahahaha >>

Also, other comments that some kids are out to take advantage is, from what I see, true, based on the incident I quoted about the 15yo girl asking her boyfriends to help her raise money by being her pimp.

We are all against police entrapment. I see no difference, if the kid herself knowingly entraps her boyfriend and his friends.

By saying that, it is not a sign that I am condoning child sex, nor am I saying that any child being involved seemingly-willingly should be charged too.. I don't think the original author meant that as well.. please, get it right and not just shoot off by calling names, shows how graceful and refined each one of us are....

Where is the intellectual discussion , or the "freedom of speech" ?

Freedom of speech doesn't just mean you can say whatever you want, it also means you have to listen to others too, and be respectful about that... Freedom of speech is 2-way street too..

[Guest Guest]

Hendry, first and foremost, I don't have any personal grievances against you. Lets make that clear and get it out of the way. I honestly feel you had been a very good and balanced admin/moderator.

For this post, I will concentrate on comments made by certain parties regarding sex bwteen an adult and a minor.

There are a couple of things here in this thread that worry me. Your original post describes a sexual relationship between an adult male and a 15 years old boy and you summarised by reminding readers not to have sex with children.

That is good and recommendable. The article should serve as a warning to those who contemplate fooling around with kids and totally in-line with the views of all the admin/moderators.

Then Jazz wade in and said this:

I do not think that the boy should be named as a victim., but rather more of a co-accused as he had part-take in the sexual activities knowingly......

If you read my post at all, I am not saying that the man should be acquitted just because the minor is a willing party. I am just saying that there is no reason why the minor is not being charged with the same offence.....

OK, we are all no legal experts here but warning bells should have sound out early. Reading between the lines of Jazz's comments, he is asking for a 15 years old boy to be charged under Section 377 after he had been sodomised by a grown up man. Some readers had questioned his motives for making that remark.

Sure, that is his opinion only. However should that mean anyone with any outrageous opinion should be allowed to post them here. Are Jazz's comments outrageous enough to warrant deletion? I refer you to this forum guidelines on age restrictions. It is so strict it will not allow any nicks with the words "boy" or "boi" in it. You had even highlighted an article about the tightening of laws for those who had sex with minors, AND reminding readers to stay clear of anyone under the age of 18.

It would seemed the moderators of this forum had set taken a hard stance against any kind of sex with minors.

I don't think they cross the line as inflammatory, encouraging pedophile etc, although I may not necessarily agree with them.

Sotong commented :

So for all the str8 guys out there, if you have sex with girl under 16, make sure only virginal... (I am not endorsing it, just pointing out the lower pumishment offense)

Lancer commented :

hmm hope those who look for kids know how to handle them carefully.. haha

Sotong is advising pedophiles how to avoid a greater punishment and Lancer is hoping pedophiles know how to "handle" kids carefully.

Now, I understand whether these two remarks could be taken as encouraging pedoplilia. But after having taken such a strong stance against any hint of pedophilia in this forum shouldn't this two comments be considered outrageous enough to warrant deletion?

I do not intend to shadow box in this public forum "again" using this thread.

Shadow boxing with you or any of the other moderators is not an intention. I have been reading this forum for years and have nothing personal against any of the moderators. However, the issue of pedophilia is an extremely serious one as acknowledged often enough by you and all the other moderators.

I respect your decision "not to delete" but to "debate." I don't necessarily agree.

Let me give you an example. This forum has taken a similarly strong stance against drug use. If someone were to come here and advise those taking drugs what to do to avoid a more serious sentence, or another person posting a comment hoping drug users know how to handle them carefully.... would these posts had remained undeleted?

I understand being an admin/moderator is a thankless job. I refer again to your "not to delete" but to "debate" position. In a thread involving the topic of pedophilia shouldn't the forum at least "err" on the side of caution? What is there to lose? Being accused of censorship? For goodness sake we are talking about pedophilia here.

[Guest Guest]

Sotong, first thing first. I re-state my opinion - you are still a moron.

Also, other comments that some kids are out to take advantage is, from what I see, true, based on the incident I quoted about the 15yo girl asking her boyfriends to help her raise money by being her pimp.

It does not matter what the minor ask any one to do. That is not important. More importantly is the ADULT SHOULD KNOW BETTER. PERIOD!! Get that through that thick head of yours!

By saying that, it is not a sign that I am condoning child sex, nor am I saying that any child being involved seemingly-willingly should be charged too.. I don't think the original author meant that as well..

When Jazz said:

I do not think that the boy should be named as a victim., but rather more of a co-accused as he had part-take in the sexual activities knowingly......

If you read my post at all, I am not saying that the man should be acquitted just because the minor is a willing party. I am just saying that there is no reason why the minor is not being charged with the same offence.....

What then do you think he was trying to say then? Enlighten us please. He surely is keeping his mouth shut now.

Freedom of speech doesn't just mean you can say whatever you want, it also means you have to listen to others too, and be respectful about that... Freedom of speech is 2-way street too..

What exactly do you know about freedom of speech and intellectual discussion? I know you are against 377 and 377A. So am I. But in the cases you have linked to in the Yawning Bread website, it is only used against people who had originally done something else that is terribly wrong against the victims. Did you read the details?

Minors were made to perform fellatio or sodomised. Women were violently beatened, raped and then forced to perform fellatio or sodomised. Boys as young as 5 years old were made to perform fellatio and as young as 8!!! were sodomised. Some victims in addition were robbed and blackmailed.

Reading this, any sensible and logical person would not have any sympathy if the heavier penalty of 377 were thrown at them.

You, me and other gays and even straight people have the fear that 377 and 377A could be used against them but the cases presented HAVE proven otherwise. Consenting adults having "unnatural" sex in private had never been prosecuted before. Remember, these are information obtained from your links!

So, how can you come here and advise people who want to have sex with young girls what to do so when kenna caught how to get a lighter sentence? Excuse me but I am going to get a little graphic. If your 13 years old sister had sex with a pedophile she met in a chatroom, wouldn't you wish the police had whatever power, including 377, they have in their hand to charge the bastard and put him away as long as possible? Jazz will probably want the police to charge your sister for 377 too but hey you are defending the guy.

I am the one commending you for your links but it look like the right tools in the hands of the wrong worker just doesn't get the job done.

Intellectual discussion mean opinions based on logical, thoughtful and meaningful arguments based on facts or theories. Ordinarily, this meant a cordial and respectful exchange of views.

Opinions based on prejudices, hidden motives, simple mindedness and idiotic assumptions are best ignored unless they are presented in a topic like this. These opinions need to be confronted head-on, gloves off.

Kids are kids regardless of how sexually and matured they are. The onus is on the adults to know not to meddle with them sexually.

[Guest Guest01]

HendryTan,i think you should consider to delete all articles or to lock this topic as i think this disussion lead to no where,same feed back repeated again & agiain,think most of the readers start to lost interest in it.

[jazz]

What then do you think he was trying to say then? Enlighten us please. He surely is keeping his mouth shut now.

To put the record straight. I am sure all of us, who have posted in this particular topic, are against adults having sex with a minor! It's sickening to take advantage of any minor. The very least, I am of that opinion.

I am keeping my mouth shut because it is pointless to say anything.

You, Guest, is the best person. :clap:

You, Guest, is the almighty. :clap:

You, Guest, is omnipotent. :clap:

You, Guest, is the smartest person alive. :clap:

My kudos to you.... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I admit defeat. Please leave me alone...... I am sick and tired of you!!!!!!!!

[jazz]

HendryTan,i think you should consider to delete all articles or to lock this topic as i think this disussion lead to no where,same feed back repeated again & agiain,think most of the readers start to lost interest in it.

I second the motion. :thumb:

[Guest Guest]

What then do you think he was trying to say then? Enlighten us please. He surely is keeping his mouth shut now.

To put the record straight. I am sure all of us, who have posted in this particular topic, are against adults having sex with a minor! It's sickening to take advantage of any minor. The very least, I am of that opinion.

I am keeping my mouth shut because it is pointless to say anything.

You, Guest, is the best person. :clap:

You, Guest, is the almighty. :clap:

You, Guest, is omnipotent. :clap:

You, Guest, is the smartest person alive. :clap:

My kudos to you.... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I admit defeat. Please leave me alone...... I am sick and tired of you!!!!!!!!

When Jazz said:

I do not think that the boy should be named as a victim., but rather more of a co-accused as he had part-take in the sexual activities knowingly......

If you read my post at all, I am not saying that the man should be acquitted just because the minor is a willing party. I am just saying that there is no reason why the minor is not being charged with the same offence.....

Explain the above remarks first. If you think it was made in a moment of madness then withdraw it. As much as you have the right to come here and spew your nonsense, I have the right to ask you to explain yourself.

The whole world is watching why are you pushing for a boy sodomised by an adult to be similarly charged under section 377 as well? WHY???

[Guest Guest]

HendryTan,i think you should consider to delete all articles or to lock this topic as i think this disussion lead to no where,same feed back repeated again & agiain,think most of the readers start to lost interest in it.

Or course you are asking Hendry to delete all the comments or lock the thread. Why should he? The debate is still on-going. I think you are trying to squirm away from your earlier posting.

You said in your earlier comment:

most people will say that 15 years old is young,i fully agree,but sorry i totally won't believe that they don't aware what they are doing especially sex etc,we keep saying that now those young kids are getting smater & smarter,they know how to look for sugar daddy,know how to go chat room & look for sex,are you going to say they are innocent?

I juat can say they are too smart & they know that they are fully proteted by laws,they don't need to bear any responsiblity if get caught,just like those gals,cos of money they can sell their bodies,how you want us to pity those people,i will only say serve them right,they so good at playing with the laws.

Just look at the above statement that you made. You are one of those who think that the young are too smart and knows what they are doing where sex is concerned. So? What are you suggesting? WTF are you actually saying?

The very insinuation that since "they" know, they are therefore similarly responsible if an adult have sex with them are arguments that pedophiles ALWAYS used.

Do not come here and blame the "smarter" kids for anybody failings as an adult. So what if the kids are fully aware? They are still kids! And the pedophiles are still sick ADULTS who should know better. If not, then let them be caught early and let them rot in jail.

[DragonRider]

HendryTan,i think you should consider to delete all articles or to lock this topic as i think this disussion lead to no where,same feed back repeated again & agiain,think most of the readers start to lost interest in it.

Or course you are asking Hendry to delete all the comments or lock the thread. Why should he? The debate is still on-going. I think you are trying to squirm away from your earlier posting.

You said in your earlier comment:

most people will say that 15 years old is young,i fully agree,but sorry i totally won't believe that they don't aware what they are doing especially sex etc,we keep saying that now those young kids are getting smater & smarter,they know how to look for sugar daddy,know how to go chat room & look for sex,are you going to say they are innocent?

I juat can say they are too smart & they know that they are fully proteted by laws,they don't need to bear any responsiblity if get caught,just like those gals,cos of money they can sell their bodies,how you want us to pity those people,i will only say serve them right,they so good at playing with the laws.

Just look at the above statement that you made. You are one of those who think that the young are too smart and knows what they are doing where sex is concerned. So? What are you suggesting? WTF are you actually saying?

The very insinuation that since "they" know, they are therefore similarly responsible if an adult have sex with them are arguments that pedophiles ALWAYS used.

Do not come here and blame the "smarter" kids for anybody failings as an adult. So what if the kids are fully aware? They are still kids! And the pedophiles are still sick ADULTS who should know better. If not, then let them be caught early and let them rot in jail.

Brudders and Sistas,

There are two fronts of argument here. One concerns the law and the legal age for sex, and the other on morality. If you mix the two up then the discussion gets messy.

As a layman, I understand that the law is the law. You break the law at your own peril. Laws do get revised from time to time but until they do so everyone has to obey them. You break them you bear the consequences. Period.

Second, the moral question: when is a child no longer a child and is deemed capable of engaging in "adult" activities. This is a very complicated issue. Depending on the cultures that one is in, the age can vary quite drastically. In the past, I have heard of 12 year old girls being married off (and bearing their first child at 13) in Chinese, Malay and Indian communities. Is this morally right or wrong? That entirely depends on the culture and its accompanying norms and mores that you are born in. In the same breath, boys (and girls) upon reaching puberty has all his hormones raging and it is not unheard of of these youths having sex with males and females. Do they know any better? One has to look at the statistics of teenage abortions/mothers to make an educated guess. It is a question of physical development running ahead of mental and emotional development. Being street wise doesn't quite mean the same as having wisdom. Wisdom is the accumulated knowledge of making mistakes and learning from them, as well as learning through observation, rationalisation and experience.

If you have ever spoken to a teenager you will know that many of them are rather "unstable" in their thinking and feelings. They are on the cusp between childhood and adulthood. Some may look physically developed but emotionally and mentally they are still child-like. Here is where society and the law takes their side and punish adults who knowingly "corrupt" and "lead them astray".

One can argue until the cow comes home on what is morally right to one person may be seen as wrong by another, since we all have different backgrounds, religions, cultures, education and morals. Here is where the law steps in. The law helps provide a level platform on acceptable behaviour for everyone. Sure, some laws can be alien to our Asian cultures because they were imposed by our former colonial masters. For example, homosexual acts were not considered taboo in Japan until the Americans defeated them in 1945 and then imposed their own rules.

The age of consensual sex is determined by the law. In some countries the age level has been lowered. But until that is done, having sex with a minor (as defined by the law) is punishable by law. You want the law changed you have to convince the ruling government that it is worth changing.

In short, the next time you see or get propositioned by someone who you suspect to be below the legal age for sex I would advise that you either demand to see his or her IC or just say "No" if none is produced. But if you are a paedophile, then it may be for your own good that you go seek professional help.

Oh yes, and don't forget "Blackmail". Some of these street wise kids will have their cake and eat it too. Meaning, they have fun with you and then blackmail you because they know that the law is on their side.

Take good care of yourself.

[sotong_sg]

Sotong, first thing first. I re-state my opinion - you are still a moron.

Also, other comments that some kids are out to take advantage is, from what I see, true, based on the incident I quoted about the 15yo girl asking her boyfriends to help her raise money by being her pimp.

It does not matter what the minor ask any one to do. That is not important. More importantly is the ADULT SHOULD KNOW BETTER. PERIOD!! Get that through that thick head of yours!

By saying that, it is not a sign that I am condoning child sex, nor am I saying that any child being involved seemingly-willingly should be charged too.. I don't think the original author meant that as well..

When Jazz said:

I do not think that the boy should be named as a victim., but rather more of a co-accused as he had part-take in the sexual activities knowingly......

If you read my post at all, I am not saying that the man should be acquitted just because the minor is a willing party. I am just saying that there is no reason why the minor is not being charged with the same offence.....

What then do you think he was trying to say then? Enlighten us please. He surely is keeping his mouth shut now.

Freedom of speech doesn't just mean you can say whatever you want, it also means you have to listen to others too, and be respectful about that... Freedom of speech is 2-way street too..

What exactly do you know about freedom of speech and intellectual discussion? I know you are against 377 and 377A. So am I. But in the cases you have linked to in the Yawning Bread website, it is only used against people who had originally done something else that is terribly wrong against the victims. Did you read the details?

Minors were made to perform fellatio or sodomised. Women were violently beatened, raped and then forced to perform fellatio or sodomised. Boys as young as 5 years old were made to perform fellatio and as young as 8!!! were sodomised. Some victims in addition were robbed and blackmailed.

Reading this, any sensible and logical person would not have any sympathy if the heavier penalty of 377 were thrown at them.

You, me and other gays and even straight people have the fear that 377 and 377A could be used against them but the cases presented HAVE proven otherwise. Consenting adults having "unnatural" sex in private had never been prosecuted before. Remember, these are information obtained from your links!

So, how can you come here and advise people who want to have sex with young girls what to do so when kenna caught how to get a lighter sentence? Excuse me but I am going to get a little graphic. If your 13 years old sister had sex with a pedophile she met in a chatroom, wouldn't you wish the police had whatever power, including 377, they have in their hand to charge the bastard and put him away as long as possible? Jazz will probably want the police to charge your sister for 377 too but hey you are defending the guy.

I am the one commending you for your links but it look like the right tools in the hands of the wrong worker just doesn't get the job done.

Intellectual discussion mean opinions based on logical, thoughtful and meaningful arguments based on facts or theories. Ordinarily, this meant a cordial and respectful exchange of views.

Opinions based on prejudices, hidden motives, simple mindedness and idiotic assumptions are best ignored unless they are presented in a topic like this. These opinions need to be confronted head-on, gloves off.

Kids are kids regardless of how sexually and matured they are. The onus is on the adults to know not to meddle with them sexually.

I can't be bothered anymore.

If you think I am promoting paedophilia, so be it.

If you think I am really teaching people how to go for lower penalty, so be it. (It is glaringly obvious that even a moron can take advantage, no need me to point it out to them)

If you cannot get any of my "dry humour", I cannot blame you, after all, words doesn't convey my "tone" & my body language during delivery of the 2 now-infamous sentances. You have no sense of sarcasm, I don't blame you. So be it.

If you do not get the point that, in my view :

(1) Having a prior offense (be it robbery, blackmail, public place, etc) means to be charged for the offence ONLY, and should not have ADDITIONAL charge for 377 , because the gay sex was consenting.

(Which the links I gave has proven that the sex was consenting, but just OTHER crimes were committed. So why not JUST BE CHARGED FOR THE OTHER CRIME and LEAVE THE BLOODY CONSENTED GAY SEX ALONE !!!!)

If this point of fairness, in my opinion, doesn't get through your thick head, then so be it.

(2) That having sex with a 17 girl is very unlikely to be considered an offence, if the girl was willing. So why is the 17yo boy's willingness not seen in the same light. (Again, my link)

If my point for having unfair "ratings" of maturity for girls and boys doesn't get to you, so be it.

If you are out to find people who are against you, even though we are not, and stuffing words into my mouth, and picking on issues that I never meant to put across, then so be it.

So what is the point or your argument ?

We are all agreeing that 377 is unfair.

We are all saying not to be paedophiles.

But some of us are just pointing out that there are possible risk, even if it is consenting gay adults.

Others are pointing out that it is also unfair that kids, getting smarter nowadays, are also going astray and taking advantage.

Look, not all adults are as smart or as legal-wise as you. So, if a 17yo boy goes and take advantage of him, it is blatatly unfair.

(Note : I use "IF", I NEVER said that the quoted case in the link I gave belongs to this example. Need to clarify, in case I kenna twisted again.)

There is nothing wrong with pointing those UNFAIRNESS out !

By pointing these unfairness out, we are not saying that it is right to go after kids, even if they are smart.

Please, pointing out something as being risky and unfair, is NOT CONDONING IT !

And I have proven that consenting adults have been charged before. If you think having it in the privates of your room, is OK. Then so be it. Go ahead.

I am not saying that because 377 is there, we gays should stop having sex. We are just pointing out the DISADVANTAGES we are at, and just telling people to be careful, that even consenting adults can be charge. It is just HOW and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCNES and how pissed off they (the authorities) are, to justify for it. (Believe me, if they want to justify it, so that it seems like it is the accused fault, we will never know. Afterall, they control the papers too, dun they ?)

If you still wanna argue for the sake of arguing over moot points, and putting words in my mouth, I will not bother. Full Stop.

Thanks for the intellectual discourse.

[Plsdome]

Can't the BW readers be less mean?... And be more tolerant to others' comments?

The point is, we all know that children should not be touched. FULL STOP.

[sotong_sg]

Anyway, those who are interested can read :

http://www.oursafehaven.com/activities/gaylaw.htm

There is an explanation (emphasis are mine) :

--- Begin Quote ---

As for the incidence of enforcement, NUS sociologist Lawrence Leong notes in 'Socio-Legal Control of Homosexuality' (1997) that:

Section 377A has been used to convict same-sex acts in public settings such as a parked car, and open-space parks etc. In 1991/92 the sentencing norm was two to three months, but from 1993 onward it was set at 6 months.

My research indicates that s377A has not been used against any consensual homosexual conduct. The cases show that s377A has thus only been used against paedophiles or any non-consensual homosexual sex. But there is a possibility that gays could have been charged for unnatural sexual offences but instead chose to plead guilty. In such cases, there would not be any trial and hence no case law would have been formulated. The magistrate would just pass a sentence and no reason would be given to justify the sentence. The charge, conviction and sentencing would be recorded, but I have no access and my friend, a judicial officer in the Supreme Court, too would have no access.

--- End Quote ---

This is from an expert. So even he cannot be that conclusive and assured that by digging case files, no consenting adults have been charged.

I will trust that researcher's view over any "lack of confirmation cases in court" (read : there has not been any recorded cases that consenting adults in private are charged under 377 ) ANYTIME, ANYDAY !

[sotong_sg]

Not everyone has the legal-wiseness and the financial ability to fight the authorities in open court.

For all you know, they (the authorities) try to see who can be "makaned" lor..

and for all we know, probably some poor souls have been charged by 377, just that they dun have the legal powers within their reach to make it known public.. and they gave in too easily and pleaded guilty...

These people will NEVER show up in any case search !!!!

In light of new evidence, Guest, stop give people false sense of security that they will not be charged...Cannot see doesn't mean not there !

[2 can play at the game]

But I will stop here. No more from me.

Let everyone draw their own conclusions.

[Guest Guest]

Ok Sotong, now since we are back to the intellectual discourse mode...

(1) Having a prior offense (be it robbery, blackmail, public place, etc) means to be charged for the offence ONLY, and should not have ADDITIONAL charge for 377 , because the gay sex was consenting.

(Which the links I gave has proven that the sex was consenting, but just OTHER crimes were committed. So why not JUST BE CHARGED FOR THE OTHER CRIME and LEAVE THE BLOODY CONSENTED GAY SEX ALONE !!!!)

Let me just put what you said in plain language to those who prefer it plain. We are referring to the list of cases in this link.

Since you said "because gay sex" was consenting, we shall concentrate on this part only. Note that I am leaving out all the cases involving children, women and others where clearly there are no violence, threat or blackmail invovlved.

There are only 3 person charged with 377A (sex between males) although they are consensual. One was charged after he bj someone in a public children's pool! The other two were together charged (same case) for fellatio and masturbation in a public toilet.

Sotong, how can we read the same thing and arrived at two different conclusions?

The link is there for anyone to study.

Something graphic for readers to ponder? 1) John beat the crap out of you and forced you to perform bj on him. 2) John ask you for a bj, you agree and he took pics of you blowing him and then later blackmailed you threatening to report to the police what you did or informing your family or your company. 3) You and John had sex and he later rob you. Honestly, if the police in all these cases want to charge John with377 in addition to the other offences, you would say no? Almost all the cases listed in the link, excluding pedophilia ones, are such cases.

Sotong, you seriously cannot come here and say these are "consenting adults" cases and the police should stick to charging based on the original offences. Put yourself in the shoes of the victims if you can. Or can you?

[sotong_sg]

Ok Sotong, now since we are back to the intellectual discourse mode...

(1) Having a prior offense (be it robbery, blackmail, public place, etc) means to be charged for the offence ONLY, and should not have ADDITIONAL charge for 377 , because the gay sex was consenting.

(Which the links I gave has proven that the sex was consenting, but just OTHER crimes were committed. So why not JUST BE CHARGED FOR THE OTHER CRIME and LEAVE THE BLOODY CONSENTED GAY SEX ALONE !!!!)

Let me just put what you said in plain language to those who prefer it plain. We are referring to the list of cases in this link.

Since you said "because gay sex" was consenting, we shall concentrate on this part only. Note that I am leaving out all the cases involving children, women and others where clearly there are no violence, threat or blackmail invovlved.

Sotong, you seriously cannot come here and say these are "consenting adults" cases and the police should stick to charging based on the original offences. Put yourself in the shoes of the victims if you can. Or can you?

That is precisely my point. If it is not fair, then there is no justice.

Imagine, if a husband usually have oral and anal sex with wife.. then tomorrow, the husband physically abuses the wife.

Is it then fair, for the police to charge the man with 377, having beat the wife the following day for not ironing his clothes properly ?

Is it fair ? Is this justice ? Or just convenient revenge ?

Same thing for the 2 men having sex in public toilet. Charge them as you would a regular make/female having sex in toilet. Why slap 377 (and for all you know, probably the 2 poor guys kenna BOTH 377 AND 20)

And responding to your claims that Jazz made libelous statement that there has been consenting adults being charged in court, please, open your eyes and see that isn't the few cases (exclude those children) ARE actually consenting adults ?

I mean, for goodness sake, of course if nothing went wrong between the 2 guys, and they were not caught, nobody can charge them with 377. Definitely something else has been a crime, THEN there is also this 377 being involved.

The point is still, if they were consenting, they should have been charged. If they are charged together with other crimes, is it WRONG ?

I mean, say one day someone complained that you had p--n, and the police happened to say knock on the door, your mum opened the door, they have a warrant to search for p--n.. then caught you having sex with another gay man (say, your bf), consenting, AND found p--n in your computer.

You'd like it if they charge you for BOTH possession of p--nography AND 377 ?

And IF they did charge you for both, aren't you already a consenting adult being charge with 377 ?

Then I will say "You also have p--n mah.."

So then it is justified to charge you under 377 for having sex with your bf, in your own house ?

Say they take you down the station and tell you "Just plead guilty. We can talk to the DPP to just give you minimum sentence for both, otherwise, if you insist to fight, based on all older cases of 377, you will get xxx years of jail term. Plead guilty and DPP will probably just ask for minimal sentence of 3 to 6 months.. No point wasting your money and extra time in jail.. For the p--n, will at most just fine you $2000"

So will you plead guilty ?

And if you do, your case of being charged under 377 is not in public case files and nobody will know about it.

I really have no idea how many faceless GUEST I am talking to..But if the above example doesn't drive my point across.. nothing short of a bullet ever will.. so I will let this discussion rest here.

[Guest Guest]

Anyway, those who are interested can read :

http://www.oursafehaven.com/activities/gaylaw.htm

There is an explanation (emphasis are mine) :

--- Begin Quote ---

As for the incidence of enforcement, NUS sociologist Lawrence Leong notes in 'Socio-Legal Control of Homosexuality' (1997) that:

Section 377A has been used to convict same-sex acts in public settings such as a parked car, and open-space parks etc. In 1991/92 the sentencing norm was two to three months, but from 1993 onward it was set at 6 months.

My research indicates that s377A has not been used against any consensual homosexual conduct. The cases show that s377A has thus only been used against paedophiles or any non-consensual homosexual sex. But there is a possibility that gays could have been charged for unnatural sexual offences but instead chose to plead guilty. In such cases, there would not be any trial and hence no case law would have been formulated. The magistrate would just pass a sentence and no reason would be given to justify the sentence. The charge, conviction and sentencing would be recorded, but I have no access and my friend, a judicial officer in the Supreme Court, too would have no access.

--- End Quote ---

This is from an expert. So even he cannot be that conclusive and assured that by digging case files, no consenting adults have been charged.

I will trust that researcher's view over any "lack of confirmation cases in court" (read : there has not been any recorded cases that consenting adults in private are charged under 377 ) ANYTIME, ANYDAY !

Intellectual discussion mean opinions based on logical, thoughtful and meaningful arguments based on facts or theories.

I said this yesterday to Sotong.

Today he quoted from a study published in 1997 when he earlier on had ALREADY posted another study done in 2003 by another researcher.

Sotong choose to ignore the following statement from the 1997 study: "My research indicates that s377A has not been used against any consensual homosexual conduct."

Instead he went on and on about the possiblity that some consenting people could have been charged and pleaded guilty and the 1997 researcher do not have the resources to find them. He then tried to cast innuendoes that there could be consenting adults charged but they all pleaded guilty and no one knew what happened to these people.

However, the research done in 2003, list ALL cases charged and prosecuted under section 377 and 377A from August 1992 to February 2003. These cases included those that the defendents pleaded guilty. It is a complete list of those charged under 377A.

This list totally dispute what Sotong is hinting - that there are consenting cases charged under 377A no one knew about.

For whatever reasons, the 1997 researcher were not able to get details of cases that the defendants had pleaded guilty. Maybe the political environment at that time did not allow it. However in 2003, the researcher was able to get a complete list of ALL cases of 377 and 377A from 1992 to 2003. It shows no consenting adults having sex in a private place had been charged for 377 or 377A.

Sotong, god bless his soul, knew all this and yet he dare to come here and cast aspersions and doubts about our laws. With facts in hand, he choose to twist them into something that is full of lies. Why is he doing that?

Sotong, you have been exposed as a two-head tongue twisting fraud or worst still a certifiable idiot.

He said in his last post:

But I will stop here. No more from me.

Make that a promise!

[Guest Guest]

Ok Sotong, now since we are back to the intellectual discourse mode...

(1) Having a prior offense (be it robbery, blackmail, public place, etc) means to be charged for the offence ONLY, and should not have ADDITIONAL charge for 377 , because the gay sex was consenting.

(Which the links I gave has proven that the sex was consenting, but just OTHER crimes were committed. So why not JUST BE CHARGED FOR THE OTHER CRIME and LEAVE THE BLOODY CONSENTED GAY SEX ALONE !!!!)

Let me just put what you said in plain language to those who prefer it plain. We are referring to the list of cases in this link.

Since you said "because gay sex" was consenting, we shall concentrate on this part only. Note that I am leaving out all the cases involving children, women and others where clearly there are no violence, threat or blackmail invovlved.

Sotong, you seriously cannot come here and say these are "consenting adults" cases and the police should stick to charging based on the original offences. Put yourself in the shoes of the victims if you can. Or can you?

That is precisely my point. If it is not fair, then there is no justice.

Imagine, if a husband usually have oral and anal sex with wife.. then tomorrow, the husband physically abuses the wife.

Is it then fair, for the police to charge the man with 377, having beat the wife the following day for not ironing his clothes properly ?

Is it fair ? Is this justice ? Or just convenient revenge ?

Same thing for the 2 men having sex in public toilet. Charge them as you would a regular make/female having sex in toilet. Why slap 377 (and for all you know, probably the 2 poor guys kenna BOTH 377 AND 20)

And responding to your claims that Jazz made libelous statement that there has been consenting adults being charged in court, please, open your eyes and see that isn't the few cases (exclude those children) ARE actually consenting adults ?

I mean, for goodness sake, of course if nothing went wrong between the 2 guys, and they were not caught, nobody can charge them with 377. Definitely something else has been a crime, THEN there is also this 377 being involved.

The point is still, if they were consenting, they should have been charged. If they are charged together with other crimes, is it WRONG ?

I mean, say one day someone complained that you had p--n, and the police happened to say knock on the door, your mum opened the door, they have a warrant to search for p--n.. then caught you having sex with another gay man (say, your bf), consenting, AND found p--n in your computer.

You'd like it if they charge you for BOTH possession of p--nography AND 377 ?

And IF they did charge you for both, aren't you already a consenting adult being charge with 377 ?

Then I will say "You also have p--n mah.."

So then it is justified to charge you under 377 for having sex with your bf, in your own house ?

Say they take you down the station and tell you "Just plead guilty. We can talk to the DPP to just give you minimum sentence for both, otherwise, if you insist to fight, based on all older cases of 377, you will get xxx years of jail term. Plead guilty and DPP will probably just ask for minimal sentence of 3 to 6 months.. No point wasting your money and extra time in jail.. For the p--n, will at most just fine you $2000"

So will you plead guilty ?

And if you do, your case of being charged under 377 is not in public case files and nobody will know about it.

I really have no idea how many faceless GUEST I am talking to..But if the above example doesn't drive my point across.. nothing short of a bullet ever will.. so I will let this discussion rest here.

Enough of your "smart-assed" theories.

All the cases in the 2003 study totally dispute what you are yakking about.

And if you do, your case of being charged under 377 is not in public case files and nobody will know about it.

WTF are you talking about???? There is no such things. You are making up lies. The 2003 study proves it.

You had been exposed as a fraud trying to use outdated data to try and confuse the issues. Nothing like that had happened!!! as indicated by the 2003 study.

ALL ISSUES MADE BY YOU RELATING TO THE 1997 STUDY IS MOOT!!! Read that 2003 report again!!!

so I will let this discussion rest here

Stop making promises you can't keep!!!

[jazz]

You seemed to imply 15 years old is ok.  How about 14 or 13 or maybe 12 - the age of a primary six student?

In these kind of scenarios, at what age a boy must be before you consider him unaware of what he had done?

Do you like 15 years old boys?

For the Records,

I am NOT implying or commenting on the acceptable age a person can have sex. Rather, stating the seriousness.

Do you think the 15 yrs old didn't know what he was doing????

I would be more incline to think that the 15 yrs old was not aware of the consequences of his action. That is why, they should be informed correctly the extent of the law.

I also DO NOT condone adults taking advantage of minors and having sex with a child, juvenile or young person.

I would consider only an ADULT, who is at least above the legal age to watch a R(A) movie....

Don't ask me what I would consider those 16 years and below the age of 21.

Note the legal defiition:

"child" means a person who is below the age of 14 years;

"juvenile" means a male or female person who is 7 years of age or above and below the age of 16 years;

"young person" means a person who is 14 years of age or above and below the age of 16 years

[Guest Guest01]

Jazz, i really don't understand why u must defence yourself, thought you should let this matter rest ? I here cos of you my dear

Well, let us explain no more as i say b4, this lead to no where,just let those " Pure & unstable Innocent angel " be what they are, let them fully protect & can escape what they doing, since there are so many kind,understanding people naive with them together.

That's why can explain now why the kids problem all over the world, they getting more firece & daring then those past, ooopsss, sorry, not the kids but all those adult fault, lack giving them postive & right teaching, cos they dunno what they are doing, though they are 13 or 15 but their thinking stop at 3 years old, poor thing

[jazz]

...sorry, not the kids but all those adult fault, lack giving them postive & right teaching, cos they dunno what they are doing, though they are 13 or 15 but their thinking stop at 3 years old, poor thing  

A good one :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: I will heed your advice but just a parting point for those who may have only half the story that the Government is reviewing Section 377 and 377A...

Well, it is a fact that they are reviewing, however, .......

In response to Parliamentary Questions from Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair and Mr R Ravindran on whether Section 377 (and perhaps Section 377A) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) will be reviewed with a view to amending, repealing or clarifying by way of "Explanation", "Exception" or "Illustration"; and whether the Ministry for Home Affairs will appoint a committee to review the law on sexual offences in Singapore, in the light of the changed societal norms and values, the Snr Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, A/P Ho Peng Kee replied as follows:

" MHA is currently reviewing the Penal Code in consultation with the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General's Chambers. The aim of the review is to update the offences and penalties in the Penal Code to stay relevant in today's context.

2 Both Sections 377 and 377A are being examined as part of this review. Current societal norms will be taken into account in examining these sections. For Section 377, one option being considered is to decriminalise consensual oral sex between a male and female so long as it is done in private and both of them are above 16 years of age. The fact is there has not been any prosecution for consensual oral sex in private between a male and female for many years, except in cases involving minors or those who are physically or mentally vulnerable.

So, don't put hope into thinking that situation will change for consenting sexual activities between men.

[Guest Anonymous]

This time the offender is a school teaher in his later twenties. His picture is printed on the Lianhe Zao Bao (22nd Aug Edition). Seem Straits Times have not reported it yet but I am sure ST and Newpaper too will do the same in the next few days. Also sure that either Newpaper or kaypoh Lianhe Wan Bao or Xin-Min will have an "expose" on this fella. According to the Chinese news, he is already sacked from his job and his defending lawyer claimed he has depression (the usual excuse). Like the doctor earlier, he was supposed to meet someone for taking drugs (delivered by him) and sex in Hotel81.

[beach1597]

Oh ... poor thing !!!!

Why like that leh?

[skylancer]

omg... any1 got the link of it...

Poor teacher... hughug.... how i wish singapore can be open abit more.. to us?

hmmm....

[oralb]

yes it is indeed sad case

Here's the zaobao link

it was reported that the teacher bought the pills to hotel.

rem during the last case there were many debates in this forum on entrapment.

my point is this is NOT against PLU (though the papers will sure make a big who ha out of it) this is against drugs.

skylancer: it will take time for the society to open to us, but IMO we should never be open to drug abuser, regardless of sexual orientation.

[TopChinese]

People, please don't be so stupid....

IGNORE THE IDIOTS ONLINE WHO WANT YOU TO BRING DRUGS TO MEET!!!

[skylancer]

i agree... hmm....

but sometimes when ppl seems to be horny .. they dont bring their brain along..

[beach1597]

so ... can bring popper not? is popper also call Drugs?

[oralb]

yes popper is a drug, popper is a chemical compound and there are people that are allergic to popper.

i have said before, if you need popper to relax to get fcuk, maybe you shouldnt at all.

TopChinese

i think we should IGNORE drug in the 1st place.

dont touch

dont touch

dont touch

[Guest Guest]

the worrying thing now is the authority are actually going into PLU sites to actually trap their victims.

[oralb]

from my point of view, i realised that PLU with drugs are easier to entrap.

show them a hunky pic, involved in heavy sex talk online, and in no time, the PLU will follow the authority's instruction to bring drugs to the hotel room.

come on, you barely know someone online, and you actually agreed to bring drugs online? that's sucidial.

change the scenario a little, this time the authority is pretending to be hot babe waiting in a hetro chatline, hoping to catch some str8 guys with drugs.

[Guest Guest]

poor thing is now splashed all over today's New Paper.....

[Guest Sigh]

He looks cute ...... poor thing, dunno what will happen to him in the prison especially if the inmates know that he is gay. Cham lar.

[skylancer]

He looks cute ...... poor thing, dunno what will happen to him in the prison especially if the inmates know that he is gay.  Cham lar. 

hmm.. that why, dont think of poppers or drugs or etc... why think so much for..? i prefer to think to find a bf who is faithful to u.

like me.. i get back to him again haha

[Guest Guest]

Yah.

Not it seems like people have this impression that all gays do drugs which is not true. I mean there are more straight drug offenders than gay. Why they keep highlighting gays?

Still dun agree to them using this kind of entrapment methods. How come they never pretend as gals in straight sex channels to entrap those straight guys who will want to meet chio bus? This is like so unfair. Using sex to lure people into an offence.

Anyway, both offenders pictures are all over the news. What future will they have? Will the gays even want to hang out with them? Will that create an impression that we are drugs takers as well?

*sigh* Hate all these.

[Guest Guest]

****Deleted by BW Moderator******

Utterly offensive post. Wishing somebody's children to get cancer?

[fmen]

He looks cute ......

yea... definitely my type

[Guest Guest]

where is the pic?

i wan to see also.... :smokin:

[musclechub]

It seems like we gay people in Singapore have continuous of bad reputation cause by black sheeps among us and through the anti-gay media.1st the aids case,2nd the young doctor drug case,now another drug case by this young teacher.Who to blame, i guess all of us know the answer.

So i don't have any pity for these people at all,they deserve the punishment.

[Guest Guest]

Lawbreaker, don't act so innocent!

Each time you have gay sex in Singapore, you break the law.

[TopChinese]

And everything you throw something on the floor, or spit, or get one of your prostitutes to suck you off, you're breaking the law.

Fuggit it..

[chub btm]

wat i dun like is tat they actually put out their faces on all newspapaer!!!

how are they going to face the world...

poor thing...

[worldangel]

He looks cute ......

yea... definitely my type

I also think that his face on page 2 of Newpaper looks quite decent and cute ..

[jazz]

Sigh.....

[Guest a former student of his]

i feel very bad for him.. he is my teacher in school.. a very nice guy. no matter how his life turn out to be, i hope he stays strong.

[Guest Guest]

i feel very bad for him.. he is my teacher in school.. a very nice guy. no matter how his life turn out to be, i hope he stays strong.

As a teacher,i guess he should know what can be done and what can't be done since his job is to teach what is right and what is wrong.Taking drugs is not the right thing to do,so i don't really pity on him.But if he will change for a better person when he is out,i will be the first to bless him well.I just wonder who will be the next gay who will get caught for drugs case again...hopefully not.