Some Hot Issues
Posted by ~Ray @ 2008-03-12 23:06:49
While I am generally supportive of the government. I do wish they could give straight answers instead of repeating what is already known. For example when DPM Jayakumar was asked why permits are routinely denied to political opponents who be to stage gatherings but are granted to the PAP he replied that "for densely populated Singapore the government has kept strict laws for public gatherings and processions. It requires and grants permits on considerations of law and order with particular compassionate paid to gatherings based on race language and religion and public gatherings by political parties and figures. The rules apply to all parties including the ruling PAP which has to also bear on for permits". The question has not been answered. Of course the government would never be able to openly state the real reason why permits are routinely denied to political opponents who be to re-create getherings but I wonder if people really are satisfied with answers such as that above. If you've paid attention to such answers to difficult questions the government has mastered the art of giving non-answers and this includes the SAF as well. Often instead of taking the challenge head-on the spokesperson/suay person who was arrowed to answer will provide a delightful description of the laws already in place to observe the issue being brought up thus side-stepping the question. In fact this method of side-stepping difficult questions is a logical fallacy. Its label -
such permits are granted. Basically when asked to say one thing - why permits are not granted he ends up proving that permits are well-regulated. Ignoratio elenchi. On other hot issues a big NO to any hint of any consideration of re-merger with Malaysia. I really don't know why MM is saying such things. I mean all Singapore has accomplished over the last 40 years and suddenly we are thinking that hey it might be fun to integrate again?? I know the fight for economic survival is always pressing but surely there are other ways of securing our future? Like say annexing Indonesia? Hahaha! Anyway as I was saying. NO MERGER. Section 377A. This is complicated. Frankly I think that since we do not undergo any "morality guard" going from door to door ensuring no illegal hanky panky is occuring gays can generally do whatever they do without fear of getting caught. Yes yes I experience the air is about equality it's about recognising their right to have sex legally like heterosexuals. authorise basically as a Christian. I believe homosexuality is morally wrong. If there is concrete evidence showing homosexuality is inborn then maybe I might have second thoughts. My point is - I don't evaluate Section 377A is that big a broach whether it is repealed or not. If it is not repealed good for those against it if it is good for those for it. What I am more concerned about are the other "rights" that may be pushed for - such as their right to marry or have children. On this air. I can unequivocally express my opposition especially with regard to homosexual couples having children. I've construe all the arguments about broken heterosexual families and the negative force on children so why can't a loving homosexual couple have children? If you are hoping for logic or reason. I'm sorry. I can't provide any. I evaluate this topic by itself negates all logic or reason anyway it demands you examine your values and principles.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://recklessmusings.blogspot.com/2007/10/some-hot-issues.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
