"No sex on the plane!" - Singapore Airlines

[Dooey Jo]

Most people don't like to talk loudly when others can hear their private conversations, do they?

They do if they are talking into a cell-phone.

[ray245]

There is such a rule?

Although given that most people who fly in first class...I doubt there will be much people who will even have sex on the plane.

Regarding Singaporeans feelings towards more 'unnatural' sex law...it is basically ignored. I mean it's simply impossible for the government to really look into your room. The same goes to PAP's stand on gays currently.

They are standing in the neutral area and adopting a wait and see attitude for now.

The laws regarding sex is just as stupid as wearing a seatbelt if you are in the backseat. Yes...in the backseat...although no one gives a damn about that law at all...



Speaking of SIA...has anyone flown on SIA before?

[That NOS Guy]

The laws regarding sex is just as stupid as wearing a seatbelt if you are in the backseat. Yes...in the backseat...although no one gives a damn about that law at all...

There's something stupid about being buckled up in the backseat?

[Darth Wong]

The laws regarding sex is just as stupid as wearing a seatbelt if you are in the backseat. Yes...in the backseat...although no one gives a damn about that law at all...

There's something stupid about being buckled up in the backseat?

Apparently, ray245 is so fucking stupid that he thinks the laws of physics do not apply to people in the backseat of a car.

[aerius]

There's something stupid about being buckled up in the backseat?

Yes, because instead of flying headfirst through the windshield when you crash, your flight is gently cushioned by the back of the front seat leaving you totally unharmed.

(the above is clearly sarcasm)

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

There is such a rule?

Although given that most people who fly in first class...I doubt there will be much people who will even have sex on the plane.

Regarding Singaporeans feelings towards more 'unnatural' sex law...it is basically ignored. I mean it's simply impossible for the government to really look into your room. The same goes to PAP's stand on gays currently.

They are standing in the neutral area and adopting a wait and see attitude for now.

The laws regarding sex is just as stupid as wearing a seatbelt if you are in the backseat. Yes...in the backseat...although no one gives a damn about that law at all...



Speaking of SIA...has anyone flown on SIA before?

Have you been bloody reading the newspapers?!! It was in the news last week!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The laws regarding sex is just as stupid as wearing a seatbelt if you are in the backseat. Yes...in the backseat...although no one gives a damn about that law at all...

Okay that does it. You're not riding in the backseat of any hypothetical vehicle I'm also riding in. I don't feel like having you risk my death for your inconvenience, fucktard. I would then say that you could ride shotgun, but I wouldn't be worth a damn as a bombardier/navigator/front gunner if I'm in the fucking tailgun now, would I?

Yes, Dave and I function as a two-man crew on road trips...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Regarding Singaporeans feelings towards more 'unnatural' sex law...it is basically ignored. I mean it's simply impossible for the government to really look into your room. The same goes to PAP's stand on gays currently.

What's the bloody fucking point of the stupid law then if it's not going to be enforced? Is it one of those 'well we caught you doing something else that's not illegal per se but we're gonna punish you for it by charging you with this sex offense' like sodomy was used here in America before it was struck down by the Supremes?

They are standing in the neutral area and adopting a wait and see attitude for now.

That's bloody fucking stupid and a Golden Mean fallacy to boot. How do you adopt a 'lol wait-n-see' attitude toward an unenforced archaic law that's more trouble than it's worth and arguably a source of international embarrassment, unless the intent is specifically to not do anything about the law, ever, and just leave it on the books? Don't they teach you basic logic and cost-benefit analysis in high school there?

[ray245]

The laws regarding sex is just as stupid as wearing a seatbelt if you are in the backseat. Yes...in the backseat...although no one gives a damn about that law at all...

There's something stupid about being buckled up in the backseat?

Apparently, ray245 is so fucking stupid that he thinks the laws of physics do not apply to people in the backseat of a car.

I know damn well that the law of physics still apply if you are in the backseat...

Just that...the idea of being caught for not buckling up in the backseat is stupid, not the idea of buckling up. Like the police will be able to even see clearly if the person seating behind is wearing a seatbelt or not.

On the other hand...it might be just as hard for anyone to notice you wearing a seatbelt if you are seating at the front.


My main point is, the government doesn't give too much damn about your sexual acts at home or private areas. Nor will the government enforce it harshly.

Have you been bloody reading the newspapers?!! It was in the news last week!

I was rather distracted by games recently

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I know damn well that the law of physics still apply if you are in the backseat...

Just that...the idea of being caught for not buckling up in the backseat is stupid, not the idea of buckling up. Like the police will be able to even see clearly if the person seating behind is wearing a seatbelt or not.

On the other hand...it might be just as hard for anyone to notice you wearing a seatbelt if you are seating at the front.

Well then, what we have here is a failure to communicate. You should articulate yourself a bit better and more accurately.

My main point is, the government doesn't give too much damn about your sexual acts at home or private areas. Nor will the government enforce it harshly.

And I have a counterpoint: My experience in America (that's a disclaimer, you dope) is if there's a law on the books, some cop will arrest you for it, and then some fucktard powertripping authoritarian District Attorney up for reelection will punish you as harshly as he possibly can for it. You then get stupid blatantly draconian shit like Genarlow Wilson.

Have you been bloody reading the newspapers?!! It was in the news last week!

I was rather distracted by games recently

Bread and Circuses ftw!

[ray245]

What's the bloody fucking point of the stupid law then if it's not going to be enforced? Is it one of those 'well we caught you doing something else that's not illegal per se but we're gonna punish you for it by charging you with this sex offense' like sodomy was used here in America before it was struck down by the Supremes?

It is something like that. The population here is having a mixed view regarding gays but for 'unnatural' sexual acts like oral sex for example...most people are ok with it...

So OFFICALLY, the government is still viewing 'unnatural' sex as a crime. But UNOFFICALLY, the government will not send you to jail because of it.

That's bloody fucking stupid and a Golden Mean fallacy to boot. How do you adopt a 'lol wait-n-see' attitude toward an unenforced archaic law that's more trouble than it's worth and arguably a source of international embarrassment, unless the intent is specifically to not do anything about the law, ever, and just leave it on the books? Don't they teach you basic logic and cost-benefit analysis in high school there?

Well...the government is trying to wait for the conservatives( usually the older generation) to have a weaker say in the country politics and views...to let them 'die out' in a way.



I will try and find the article regarding the government stand in this 'law' [/quote]

[AniThyng]

Politially changing the law would not be tenable for the PAP - not enough gays to swing the vote, and too many people who will shrug and say "it's not being enforced right? So who cares?". And then there are the conservatives who aren't about to repeal the law or wish it was enforced.

I don't like the law either, but seeing as the bastion of freedom America hasn't managed to repeal a lot of it's own discrimatory laws despite being the world's formost liberal democracy, I'd like you to stop presuming to lecture us.

@Ray: You didn't just say that about backseat seatbelts right? Jesus.

[Darth Wong]

Politially changing the law would not be tenable for the PAP - not enough gays to swing the vote, and too many people who will shrug and say "it's not being enforced right? So who cares?". And then there are the conservatives who aren't about to repeal the law or wish it was enforced.

We've seen plenty of examples of dipshit public officials who suddenly decide to enforce an "unimportant" law. It is not acceptable to say that the law is OK if you think they won't bother enforcing it.

I don't like the law either, but seeing as the bastion of freedom America hasn't managed to repeal a lot of it's own discrimatory laws despite being the world's formost liberal democracy, I'd like you to stop presuming to lecture us.

Nice Tu Quoque fallacy, especially since not all of us are Americans.

@Ray: You didn't just say that about backseat seatbelts right? Jesus.

Unfortunately, he did. For some reason, he thinks it's a stupid law to make people wear seatbelts in the backseat of a car. He tried to cover for himself by saying it's stupid because cops will have trouble catching you, which is bullshit too; they might not always be able to see the seatbelt, but there are many cases where they can.

[ray245]

Ok...I've found them

To ensure that laws here have the teeth to deal with the side-effects of transboundary globalisation and advances in technology.
.
To give judges a freer hand to mete out punishment that fits the crime. And to continue to reflect the still conservative pace of change in society's values.
.
These were key tenets driving the first overhaul of the Penal Code in 23 years. The amendments, introduced in Parliament yesterday, follow an extended public consultation exercise which saw some 250 responses as well as input from groups such as the Law Society, Aware and even the Workers' Party.
.
The final amendments do not veer much from the original proposals put up late last year, although one new element is to criminalise "sexual grooming" of minors to deter sexual predators prowling the Internet for victims.
.
The changes, if passed by Parliament next month, would also give greater protection to security forces who may be forced to take drastic action in the line of duty, such as shooting a suicide bomber or intercepting a hijacked vessel on a "suicide mission".
.
The authorities will also be empowered to prosecute those who abet crimes, even if it is done via cyberspace from abroad.
.
In similar vein, authorities will also be empowered to act against Singaporeans — not just men, but also women — who have sex with minors here or overseas, and even agents who organise and promote such sex tours.
.
Meanwhile, anal and oral sex will no longer be barred between consenting heterosexuals behind closed doors, but the Government is not budging on its ban of such acts by homosexual men under Section 377A.
.
The Law Society had recommended this section be repealed but, the Ministry of Home Affairs said, the majority of feedback called for its retention.
.
"MHA recognises that we are generally a conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve," said MHA.
.
As for those who stir up racial disharmony or hurl racial slurs over the Internet, the authorities were previously forced to turn to the Sedition Act to deal with racist bloggers.
.
The new laws will empower the police to act against anyone who seeks to cause racial or religious disharmony through "words or gestures", even online.
.
One perennial bugbear of some judges – who have spoken out publicly – has been having their hands tied by existing "double-limb" penalty provisions.
.
For instance, on finding someone guilty of manslaughter, judges must hand out up to 10 years' imprisonment or a life-term.
.
With the proposed changes, depending on the nature of the case, judges will be able to jail the offender for up to 20 years or life.
.
Similarly, fines in the Penal Code were last updated in 1952. In part to reflect people's greater purchasing power, fines will be raised three or five-fold -- so that imposing a fine alone, in certain cases, becomes a real option for a judge.
.
But former Judicial Commissioner, Senior Counsel K S Rajah, pointed out the inconsistency in the objective of giving judges wider sentencing options, especially when it comes to moving away from the mandatory death penalty.
.
Under the new laws, a person could be jailed for life for offences against the President, instead of being sent to the gallows.
.
"(This) shows that you see that there's merit in (providing life imprisonment as an alternative to mandatory death sentence). Why isn't this introduced to other offences?" asked SC Rajah.
.
Penalties for 360 offences were reviewed, and almost a third -- or 110 offences – saw an increase in the maximum jail term.
.
Caning was also introduced to five more offences. Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

To ensure that laws here have the teeth to deal with the side-effects of transboundary globalisation and advances in technology.
.
To give judges a freer hand to mete out punishment that fits the crime. And to continue to reflect the still conservative pace of change in society's values.
.
These were key tenets driving the first overhaul of the Penal Code in 23 years. The amendments, introduced in Parliament yesterday, follow an extended public consultation exercise which saw some 250 responses as well as input from groups such as the Law Society, Aware and even the Workers' Party.
.
The final amendments do not veer much from the original proposals put up late last year, although one new element is to criminalise "sexual grooming" of minors to deter sexual predators prowling the Internet for victims.
.
The changes, if passed by Parliament next month, would also give greater protection to security forces who may be forced to take drastic action in the line of duty, such as shooting a suicide bomber or intercepting a hijacked vessel on a "suicide mission".
.
The authorities will also be empowered to prosecute those who abet crimes, even if it is done via cyberspace from abroad.
.
In similar vein, authorities will also be empowered to act against Singaporeans — not just men, but also women — who have sex with minors here or overseas, and even agents who organise and promote such sex tours.
.
Meanwhile, anal and oral sex will no longer be barred between consenting heterosexuals behind closed doors, but the Government is not budging on its ban of such acts by homosexual men under Section 377A.
.
The Law Society had recommended this section be repealed but, the Ministry of Home Affairs said, the majority of feedback called for its retention.
.
"MHA recognises that we are generally a conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve," said MHA.
.
As for those who stir up racial disharmony or hurl racial slurs over the Internet, the authorities were previously forced to turn to the Sedition Act to deal with racist bloggers.
.
The new laws will empower the police to act against anyone who seeks to cause racial or religious disharmony through "words or gestures", even online.
.
One perennial bugbear of some judges – who have spoken out publicly – has been having their hands tied by existing "double-limb" penalty provisions.
.
For instance, on finding someone guilty of manslaughter, judges must hand out up to 10 years' imprisonment or a life-term.
.
With the proposed changes, depending on the nature of the case, judges will be able to jail the offender for up to 20 years or life.
.
Similarly, fines in the Penal Code were last updated in 1952. In part to reflect people's greater purchasing power, fines will be raised three or five-fold -- so that imposing a fine alone, in certain cases, becomes a real option for a judge.
.
But former Judicial Commissioner, Senior Counsel K S Rajah, pointed out the inconsistency in the objective of giving judges wider sentencing options, especially when it comes to moving away from the mandatory death penalty.
.
Under the new laws, a person could be jailed for life for offences against the President, instead of being sent to the gallows.
.
"(This) shows that you see that there's merit in (providing life imprisonment as an alternative to mandatory death sentence). Why isn't this introduced to other offences?" asked SC Rajah.
.
Penalties for 360 offences were reviewed, and almost a third -- or 110 offences – saw an increase in the maximum jail term.
.
Caning was also introduced to five more offences. Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

To ensure that laws here have the teeth to deal with the side-effects of transboundary globalisation and advances in technology.
.
To give judges a freer hand to mete out punishment that fits the crime. And to continue to reflect the still conservative pace of change in society's values.
.
These were key tenets driving the first overhaul of the Penal Code in 23 years. The amendments, introduced in Parliament yesterday, follow an extended public consultation exercise which saw some 250 responses as well as input from groups such as the Law Society, Aware and even the Workers' Party.
.
The final amendments do not veer much from the original proposals put up late last year, although one new element is to criminalise "sexual grooming" of minors to deter sexual predators prowling the Internet for victims.
.
The changes, if passed by Parliament next month, would also give greater protection to security forces who may be forced to take drastic action in the line of duty, such as shooting a suicide bomber or intercepting a hijacked vessel on a "suicide mission".
.
The authorities will also be empowered to prosecute those who abet crimes, even if it is done via cyberspace from abroad.
.
In similar vein, authorities will also be empowered to act against Singaporeans — not just men, but also women — who have sex with minors here or overseas, and even agents who organise and promote such sex tours.
.
Meanwhile, anal and oral sex will no longer be barred between consenting heterosexuals behind closed doors, but the Government is not budging on its ban of such acts by homosexual men under Section 377A.
.
The Law Society had recommended this section be repealed but, the Ministry of Home Affairs said, the majority of feedback called for its retention.
.
"MHA recognises that we are generally a conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve," said MHA.
.
As for those who stir up racial disharmony or hurl racial slurs over the Internet, the authorities were previously forced to turn to the Sedition Act to deal with racist bloggers.
.
The new laws will empower the police to act against anyone who seeks to cause racial or religious disharmony through "words or gestures", even online.
.
One perennial bugbear of some judges – who have spoken out publicly – has been having their hands tied by existing "double-limb" penalty provisions.
.
For instance, on finding someone guilty of manslaughter, judges must hand out up to 10 years' imprisonment or a life-term.
.
With the proposed changes, depending on the nature of the case, judges will be able to jail the offender for up to 20 years or life.
.
Similarly, fines in the Penal Code were last updated in 1952. In part to reflect people's greater purchasing power, fines will be raised three or five-fold -- so that imposing a fine alone, in certain cases, becomes a real option for a judge.
.
But former Judicial Commissioner, Senior Counsel K S Rajah, pointed out the inconsistency in the objective of giving judges wider sentencing options, especially when it comes to moving away from the mandatory death penalty.
.
Under the new laws, a person could be jailed for life for offences against the President, instead of being sent to the gallows.
.
"(This) shows that you see that there's merit in (providing life imprisonment as an alternative to mandatory death sentence). Why isn't this introduced to other offences?" asked SC Rajah.
.
Penalties for 360 offences were reviewed, and almost a third -- or 110 offences – saw an increase in the maximum jail term.
.
Caning was also introduced to five more offences. Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

To ensure that laws here have the teeth to deal with the side-effects of transboundary globalisation and advances in technology.
.
To give judges a freer hand to mete out punishment that fits the crime. And to continue to reflect the still conservative pace of change in society's values.
.
These were key tenets driving the first overhaul of the Penal Code in 23 years. The amendments, introduced in Parliament yesterday, follow an extended public consultation exercise which saw some 250 responses as well as input from groups such as the Law Society, Aware and even the Workers' Party.
.
The final amendments do not veer much from the original proposals put up late last year, although one new element is to criminalise "sexual grooming" of minors to deter sexual predators prowling the Internet for victims.
.
The changes, if passed by Parliament next month, would also give greater protection to security forces who may be forced to take drastic action in the line of duty, such as shooting a suicide bomber or intercepting a hijacked vessel on a "suicide mission".
.
The authorities will also be empowered to prosecute those who abet crimes, even if it is done via cyberspace from abroad.
.
In similar vein, authorities will also be empowered to act against Singaporeans — not just men, but also women — who have sex with minors here or overseas, and even agents who organise and promote such sex tours.
.
Meanwhile, anal and oral sex will no longer be barred between consenting heterosexuals behind closed doors, but the Government is not budging on its ban of such acts by homosexual men under Section 377A.
.
The Law Society had recommended this section be repealed but, the Ministry of Home Affairs said, the majority of feedback called for its retention.
.
"MHA recognises that we are generally a conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve," said MHA.
.
As for those who stir up racial disharmony or hurl racial slurs over the Internet, the authorities were previously forced to turn to the Sedition Act to deal with racist bloggers.
.
The new laws will empower the police to act against anyone who seeks to cause racial or religious disharmony through "words or gestures", even online.
.
One perennial bugbear of some judges – who have spoken out publicly – has been having their hands tied by existing "double-limb" penalty provisions.
.
For instance, on finding someone guilty of manslaughter, judges must hand out up to 10 years' imprisonment or a life-term.
.
With the proposed changes, depending on the nature of the case, judges will be able to jail the offender for up to 20 years or life.
.
Similarly, fines in the Penal Code were last updated in 1952. In part to reflect people's greater purchasing power, fines will be raised three or five-fold -- so that imposing a fine alone, in certain cases, becomes a real option for a judge.
.
But former Judicial Commissioner, Senior Counsel K S Rajah, pointed out the inconsistency in the objective of giving judges wider sentencing options, especially when it comes to moving away from the mandatory death penalty.
.
Under the new laws, a person could be jailed for life for offences against the President, instead of being sent to the gallows.
.
"(This) shows that you see that there's merit in (providing life imprisonment as an alternative to mandatory death sentence). Why isn't this introduced to other offences?" asked SC Rajah.
.
Penalties for 360 offences were reviewed, and almost a third -- or 110 offences – saw an increase in the maximum jail term.
.
Caning was also introduced to five more offences. Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

To ensure that laws here have the teeth to deal with the side-effects of transboundary globalisation and advances in technology.
.
To give judges a freer hand to mete out punishment that fits the crime. And to continue to reflect the still conservative pace of change in society's values.
.
These were key tenets driving the first overhaul of the Penal Code in 23 years. The amendments, introduced in Parliament yesterday, follow an extended public consultation exercise which saw some 250 responses as well as input from groups such as the Law Society, Aware and even the Workers' Party.
.
The final amendments do not veer much from the original proposals put up late last year, although one new element is to criminalise "sexual grooming" of minors to deter sexual predators prowling the Internet for victims.
.
The changes, if passed by Parliament next month, would also give greater protection to security forces who may be forced to take drastic action in the line of duty, such as shooting a suicide bomber or intercepting a hijacked vessel on a "suicide mission".
.
The authorities will also be empowered to prosecute those who abet crimes, even if it is done via cyberspace from abroad.
.
In similar vein, authorities will also be empowered to act against Singaporeans — not just men, but also women — who have sex with minors here or overseas, and even agents who organise and promote such sex tours.
.
Meanwhile, anal and oral sex will no longer be barred between consenting heterosexuals behind closed doors, but the Government is not budging on its ban of such acts by homosexual men under Section 377A.
.
The Law Society had recommended this section be repealed but, the Ministry of Home Affairs said, the majority of feedback called for its retention.
.
"MHA recognises that we are generally a conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve," said MHA.
.
As for those who stir up racial disharmony or hurl racial slurs over the Internet, the authorities were previously forced to turn to the Sedition Act to deal with racist bloggers.
.
The new laws will empower the police to act against anyone who seeks to cause racial or religious disharmony through "words or gestures", even online.
.
One perennial bugbear of some judges – who have spoken out publicly – has been having their hands tied by existing "double-limb" penalty provisions.
.
For instance, on finding someone guilty of manslaughter, judges must hand out up to 10 years' imprisonment or a life-term.
.
With the proposed changes, depending on the nature of the case, judges will be able to jail the offender for up to 20 years or life.
.
Similarly, fines in the Penal Code were last updated in 1952. In part to reflect people's greater purchasing power, fines will be raised three or five-fold -- so that imposing a fine alone, in certain cases, becomes a real option for a judge.
.
But former Judicial Commissioner, Senior Counsel K S Rajah, pointed out the inconsistency in the objective of giving judges wider sentencing options, especially when it comes to moving away from the mandatory death penalty.
.
Under the new laws, a person could be jailed for life for offences against the President, instead of being sent to the gallows.
.
"(This) shows that you see that there's merit in (providing life imprisonment as an alternative to mandatory death sentence). Why isn't this introduced to other offences?" asked SC Rajah.
.
Penalties for 360 offences were reviewed, and almost a third -- or 110 offences – saw an increase in the maximum jail term.
.
Caning was also introduced to five more offences.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/211815.asp



Another one

http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest+News ... 60321.html

Views divided, so gay sex law stays
By Jeremy Au Yong

THE decision on whether or not to decriminalise gay sex is a very divisive one and until there is a broader consensus on the matter, Singapore will stick to the status quo.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was explaining the Government's decision not to repeal section 377(A) of the Penal Code, even as it introduced to Parliament recently a raft of proposed changes to that law.

He was responding to a question from a Law undergraduate, who said she was concerned about the kind of image Singapore's stand on this issue left on foreigners, including the talent that it wished to draw here.

Mr Lee said in reply: 'If everybody felt like you in Singapore...we could change 377A and we would de-criminalise gay sex.

'But the fact is many people in Singapore feel passionately to the contrary to the point of view which you have argued. And you have to take cognizance of that.'

He said that the Government's view was that it should not push forward on this issue but follow along as societal views shifted.

'And as of today my judgment is the society is comfortable with our position. Leave the clause' he said.

Sharing his own views on homosexuality, he said it seemed to him that it was a trait people were born with.

He stressed, however, that that did not mean gays should set the tone here.

'My view is that gayness is something which is mostly inborn, some people are like that, some people are not. How they live their own lives is really for them to decide. It's a personal matter,' he said.

'I think the tone of the society should really be set by the heterosexuals and that's the way many Singaporeans feel.'

He also made clear that the issue was something Singapore would deal with on its own. It did not need foreign speakers coming here to 'add sugar and spice' to the debate.

He was referring to a recent decision by the Police to cancel the permit for Canadian academic Douglas Sanders to speak in Singapore on the subject.

'Within Singapore, we will have to work this out in our society, and I think that's what we will do,' he said.

[ray245]

Unfortunately, he did. For some reason, he thinks it's a stupid law to make people wear seatbelts in the backseat of a car. He tried to cover for himself by saying it's stupid because cops will have trouble catching you, which is bullshit too; they might not always be able to see the seatbelt, but there are many cases where they can.

Regarding that...I have to say it is still a stupid law in the first place. Mainly because the law is only enforced for a few weeks before it was forgotten or ignored by many.

Other than that...given that the government stance in respect to gays, you think the police will care less about a seatbelt in the backseat?

And I DID not say wearing seatbelt is a stupid idea...I said the law was the stupid idea...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Politially changing the law would not be tenable for the PAP - not enough gays to swing the vote, and too many people who will shrug and say "it's not being enforced right? So who cares?". And then there are the conservatives who aren't about to repeal the law or wish it was enforced.

Erm, seeing you don't know Singapore news too much, it was a few years ago that people got charged in court for oral sex. So yes, it is enforced, so long as you are stupid enough to broadcast it to the world.

I don't like the law either, but seeing as the bastion of freedom America hasn't managed to repeal a lot of it's own discrimatory laws despite being the world's formost liberal democracy, I'd like you to stop presuming to lecture us.

Tell me now, since when is someone else's stupidity an excuse for allowing stupidity? Don't like to told when one is wrong do you?

[ray245]

Erm, seeing you don't know Singapore news too much, it was a few years ago that people got charged in court for oral sex. So yes, it is enforced, so long as you are stupid enough to broadcast it to the world.

To the best of my knowledge...the law is enforced as strongly as last time. Especially after a more 'active' opposition as well as more liberals being more out spoken about the issue.

The issue about gay is a big issue in the last election, which I think may be change PAP's views regarding gays and etc.

[ray245]

Shit...I mean isn't.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Erm, seeing you don't know Singapore news too much, it was a few years ago that people got charged in court for oral sex. So yes, it is enforced, so long as you are stupid enough to broadcast it to the world.

To the best of my knowledge...the law is enforced as strongly as last time. Especially after a more 'active' opposition as well as more liberals being more out spoken about the issue.

The issue about gay is a big issue in the last election, which I think may be change PAP's views regarding gays and etc.

The PAP isn't too different from the Republicans, so far as I can tell.

Just so they are better at keeping their skeletons in their closet.

[ray245]

Erm, seeing you don't know Singapore news too much, it was a few years ago that people got charged in court for oral sex. So yes, it is enforced, so long as you are stupid enough to broadcast it to the world.

To the best of my knowledge...the law is enforced as strongly as last time. Especially after a more 'active' opposition as well as more liberals being more out spoken about the issue.

The issue about gay is a big issue in the last election, which I think may be change PAP's views regarding gays and etc.

The PAP isn't too different from the Republicans, so far as I can tell.

Just so they are better at keeping their skeletons in their closet.

Just that the PAP is much much smarter the the current Republicans. And a lack of intelligent opposition until recently.

Seriously...the next general election should be much more fun...as the younger generation may not be that 'loyal' to PAP.

[Darth Wong]

Don't you love the way ray245's apologist argument is constructed in such a way that it doesn't require a shred of evidence? "Oh, it's against the law, and the government isn't budging on this, and there are recent cases where they enforced it, but ... they'll go easy on it! I know because I just KNOW!"

Regarding that...I have to say [the seatbelt law] is still a stupid law in the first place. Mainly because the law is only enforced for a few weeks before it was forgotten or ignored by many.

So your position is that a law is "stupid" if the police are too lazy to enforce it? The police are also shitty at enforcing the law about tailgating or improper lane changes; does this mean those laws are "stupid" too? You're a fucking imbecile.

And I DID not say wearing seatbelt is a stupid idea...I said the law was the stupid idea...

I'm aware of that, you fucking idiot. You're still full of shit.

[Darth Wong]

By the way, I'd bet real money that you're lying anyway. You said earlier that everyone ignores the law about buckling up in the backseat of a car, which means that they are not buckling up. Which, in turn, means that there is a pervasive attitude of rank stupidity in your social circle. You only reverted to this pathetic "it's a stupid law because they don't bother enforcing" it argument as a fallback, when you realized that nobody else here agrees with you about refusing to buckle up in the backseat of a car.

[ray245]

Don't you love the way ray245's apologist argument is constructed in such a way that it doesn't require a shred of evidence? "Oh, it's against the law, and the government isn't budging on this, and there are recent cases where they enforced it, but ... they'll go easy on it! I know because I just KNOW!"

Read my article Mike...sure, we may not know how well enforced the law is, but how does the government know if you are gay in the first place? Unless you announced them loudly...

Regarding that...I have to say [the seatbelt law] is still a stupid law in the first place. Mainly because the law is only enforced for a few weeks before it was forgotten or ignored by many.

So your position is that a law is "stupid" if the police are too lazy to enforce it? The police are also shitty at enforcing the law about tailgating or improper lane changes; does this mean those laws are "stupid" too? You're a fucking imbecile.

Well what is the use of a law if so many people never follow the law in the first place? At least with improper lane change...you can at the least see it from a distance. Police cars or bikes can at the least notice it and ask you to pull over.

Tell me...how on earth can the police notice if you are wearing a seatbelt while driving? Especially at night! The police have to drive next to you and take a look to their left or right to even notice about your seatbelt. And that action by itself would have endangered even more people.

And I DID not say wearing seatbelt is a stupid idea...I said the law was the stupid idea...

I'm aware of that, you fucking idiot. You're still full of shit.[/quote]

By the way, I'd bet real money that you're lying anyway. You said earlier that everyone ignores the law about buckling up in the backseat of a car, which means that they are not buckling up. Which, in turn, means that there is a pervasive attitude of rank stupidity in your social circle. You only reverted to this pathetic "it's a stupid law because they don't bother enforcing" it argument as a fallback, when you realized that nobody else here agrees with you about refusing to buckle up in the backseat of a car.

Oh please! When did I ever said that the act of buckling up is a stupid and illogical move? Isn't the reason why the police want people to buckle up in the back seat is because that action can save your life? Are you assuming that I don't understand the purpose of such a law mike?

I am amused by the fact that such a law can act as a deterrence to ensure people in the backseat wear belts.

My view is that although the act and purpose of such law is created with good intention, but the fact that it has failed to serve as deterrence only shows how stupid and useless the law is.

Just MY social circle Wong? Well maybe I cannot say a majority of Singaporeans ignore that law...but neither can you say it limits to my social circle. I got a whole bunch of friends who has never buckled up in the backseat of the taxi, and they have never been told by any driver to do so for a long time.

By right, any taxi driver caught with passenger not wearing the seatbelt in the backseat will be heavily fined as well...but yet all the taxi driver I’ve met so far will only instruct people seating at the front to buckle up.

[Darth Wong]

Read my article Mike...sure, we may not know how well enforced the law is, but how does the government know if you are gay in the first place? Unless you announced them loudly...

So you're saying the law is OK as long as gays are smart enough to skulk around in the shadows, never revealing themselves in public? What kind of fucking asshole are you?

Regarding that...I have to say [the seatbelt law] is still a stupid law in the first place. Mainly because the law is only enforced for a few weeks before it was forgotten or ignored by many.

So your position is that a law is "stupid" if the police are too lazy to enforce it? The police are also shitty at enforcing the law about tailgating or improper lane changes; does this mean those laws are "stupid" too? You're a fucking imbecile.

Well what is the use of a law if so many people never follow the law in the first place? At least with improper lane change...you can at the least see it from a distance. Police cars or bikes can at the least notice it and ask you to pull over.

Stop changing your argument, asshole. First you said the police can't enforce it, then you changed your story to say that they did enforce it initially but then got lazy and stopped, and now you're back to saying that they can't enforce it again.

Tell me...how on earth can the police notice if you are wearing a seatbelt while driving? Especially at night! The police have to drive next to you and take a look to their left or right to even notice about your seatbelt. And that action by itself would have endangered even more people.

Since I've seen people pulled over for seatbelt violations, I will discard this idiotic argument for the denial of reality that it is.

Oh please! When did I ever said that the act of buckling up is a stupid and illogical move?

STOP DISTORTING MY ARGUMENT OR I'LL BAN YOUR WORTHLESS ASS RIGHT NOW, FUCKTARD. Not once did I ever accuse you of saying that it's stupid to buckle up. I'm accusing you of thinking that it's stupid to make people buckle up, which is precisely what you said. I've already pointed this out to you before, asshole. If you do that one more time, you're history.

Isn't the reason why the police want people to buckle up in the back seat is because that action can save your life? Are you assuming that I don't understand the purpose of such a law mike?

I am amused by the fact that such a law can act as a deterrence to ensure people in the backseat wear belts.

My view is that although the act and purpose of such law is created with good intention, but the fact that it has failed to serve as deterrence only shows how stupid and useless the law is.

Yes yes, that's your fallback position. But you said that everyone you know is IGNORING that law, which means they're not buckling up. Which, in turn, means they're idiots.

Just MY social circle Wong? Well maybe I cannot say a majority of Singaporeans ignore that law...but neither can you say it limits to my social circle. I got a whole bunch of friends who has never buckled up in the backseat of the taxi, and they have never been told by any driver to do so for a long time.

So if the taxi driver doesn't tell you to buckle up, you don't? You're a fucking moron.

By right, any taxi driver caught with passenger not wearing the seatbelt in the backseat will be heavily fined as well...but yet all the taxi driver I’ve met so far will only instruct people seating at the front to buckle up.

You honestly don't get this, do you? It's not enough to say that you don't think it's stupid to buckle up in the backseat of a car, you goddamned idiot. You have to realize that it's stupid not to buckle up in the backseat of a car.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Don't you love the way ray245's apologist argument is constructed in such a way that it doesn't require a shred of evidence? "Oh, it's against the law, and the government isn't budging on this, and there are recent cases where they enforced it, but ... they'll go easy on it! I know because I just KNOW!"

Read my article Mike...sure, we may not know how well enforced the law is, but how does the government know if you are gay in the first place? Unless you announced them loudly...

So I guess we should just go back in the closet just to avoid getting arrested for something more harmful than normal sex only in the eyes of some bigoted bluehaired old biddies whose time has passed, you fuckhead?

FUCK OFF AND DIE, FUCKTARD!