What struck me about the debate is ministers describing this as a ‘political’ decision. Most times we hear about making the ‘right’ decision and how politics doesn’t come into it. But in this case, repealing 377a is a ‘political’ decision. Actually everything is ‘political’ – like whether to raise GST at this time or not. It’s not like closing a loophole or something.
Which brings me to the other phrase about ‘scoring political points’. Every politician must aim to score points or be rational robots. To me, it’s about being persuasive and bringing people to your POV. Not about being just ‘popular’. We should be careful not to deride political activity – and perceive ourselves as saints above the political fray.
Did PAP or WP ‘score points’ over the lifting or no lifting of the whip?
As I said, I am disconcerted that no PAP MP has spoken against repeal directly. Even though such a decision has a bearing on a person’s beliefs. But how can they when they have to vote along the party line? It would look hypocritical. If the whip is lifted for something like maintenance of parents which is about family life, then surely this would apply? Surely the PAP would be confident of mustering the two-thirds majority for change?
Now future generations reading Hansard would see the session as a near unanimous decision without a single dissenting voice in the majority party. That surely is not a reflection of the feelings of the people, going by the G’s own surveys. Parliament is a ‘safe space’ no? Let honest feelings be aired, not diplomatic language which obscures true sentiments. I am for repeal but I would also like to understand what the people who are against say. Or are they saying that they only support repeal because of the quid pro quo on marriage? And that exchange is good enough even if not embedded in the Constitution. If so, be clear about the decision. Educate US, the people who can’t talk in Parliament.
Just my one cent worth of thought
Source: Bertha Henson’s Facebook