Another person wrote in to talk about Section 377A again..Details as follows, quoted from the Straits Times:
NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause
I AM writing in response to the article, ‘NMP to submit Parliamentary Petition to repeal gay sex law’ (ST, Oct 12).
As a Nominated MP, Mr Siew Kum Hong is supposed to be non-partisan and should not be affiliated with any particular political group.
However, he has chosen to be the sponsor of a parliamentary petition to present the homosexual agenda.
While he is free to present his personal views on any issue, Mr Siew has overstepped the boundary as an NMP when he chose to represent the homosexual interest group.
MPs in Parliament have to run for election, look after their constituents’ interests and represent their views. As an NMP, Mr Siew bears no such burden.
He should not adulterate the NMP role further by becoming the proxy representative of the homosexual interest group.
This is especially so as the Government has already taken one year to review the Penal Code, with input from various consultation channels, and taken into consideration the views of the majority of Singaporeans who are for maintaining family values and preserving Section 377A of the Penal Code.
Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)
This letter criticizes our NMP for petitioning parliament to take away section 377A criminalizing gay sex.
I do not understand. What is our NMP’s job? Does an NMP sit down, talk cock, sing song and play mahjong? No they should not.They should take part in debates and raise issues that should be of concern to parliament.
If he feels that a cause is important, he should find out more, and exercise some leadership by doing something in parliament and making himself useful. I do not see why championing the cause for a minority group of people means that he has overstepped his boundary.
I quote, “not be affiliated with any political group”. Is homosexuality a political group? Weird huh.
I also find it weird that this person is suggesting that since the NMP does not have the burden of having a constituency, then he should not be doing this. Its a fallacy as I see it.
I hope people will be objective in this issue. This issue is about a law that isn’t enforced. Since it isn’t enforced, it means that there is no such damage to family values, whether the law is there or not. Since something that doesn’t theoretically exist, then we cannot say that removing it results in something.
Let us look at this issue with an open heart and see how parliament acts. Parliament will not change our decisions even if we write letters to the forum denouncing the NMP. So lets not waste time writing such letters because it doesn’t show anything.