Some people have called me out on my last post by defending Pritam and WP for allowing free expression on the matter of 377A repeal, commending them for such a "bold" move.
And what I've been trying to say all this while, that it's just politicking - and, as I made a point time and time again in the past, I hate career politicians because they only care about the spectacle.
Politics is a means to an end not the end in itself.
Just look around the world. The biggest problem with democracies everywhere (or nearly) is that vast majority of participants treat it as a show, a competition whose aim is to outwit, out-talk the rivals by any means necessary - even if it leads you to contradict yourself at what you believe is an opportune time.
But what is it about, really? Effecting meaningful change to improve the lives of people and performance of the country in a responsible, sustainable manner. Does it matter WHO gets that done?
All the people praising Pritam have clearly missed the part when he said that under normal circumstances he would not have lifted the whip.
In other words - when it's not politically expedient to show that WP is different from PAP by emphasizing diversity of opinions, there will be top-down party discipline.
While doing so, as I wrote earlier, he managed to backtrack on his opposition to the repeal, proving he didn't *really* mean it all these years, while - at the same time! - throwing gay people under the bus by literally saying that "would not have served the interests of the LGBTQ+ community" (again, Pink Dot folks are probably going "wat?" at this very moment).
He's effectively saying that today he, personally, is supporting the repeal even though he has never thought it would be good for LGBT crowd. What?
This is what happens when your mind has sank too deep into politics and you stop saying what you mean but rather only what you think looks good at any given time. You end up arguing with yourself.
Finally, the argument that the 377A repeal is a matter of conscience to many people is completely comical in the view of the solution proposed by the PAP - which is to enshrine the definition of marriage in law (making it stronger, not weaker as a result).
Even before the repeal 377A has been dead for years - as promised by the government.
So, if you want to keep it then, I assume, you want it to be enforced - because why support keeping something that is not applied anyway?
And 377A, in its literal, legal meaning, penalizes sexual intercourse between men with up to 2 years in prison.
So, if it's a matter of conscience to you, then it must mean that - according to your religious beliefs - gay men should be sent to jail for sleeping together.
Now, if that's your personal view then, well, whatever (some people believe Elvis was abducted by aliens and is still alive) - but is that really what the Workers' Party is encouraging here?
This is some fundamentalist level of bigotry that we typically hear of from parts of Africa or the Middle East.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the alphabet people myself, given all that's going on with mass indoctrination in America, rewriting of science and human biology to fit a demented ideology.
But I really don't care what two adult human beings do with each other and why whatever they engage in in their bedroom should be a matter of interest to anybody else - let alone have them sent to Changi for that.
Let's be reasonable here.
Of course we all know why WP has cornered itself on the matter - because it's politicking.
Because, in the minds of its leaders, it could not possibly be seen to agree with the PAP on this particular matter (which, let's be honest, is a good compromise), so they felt they had to conjure some story explaining their mental gymnastics on the issue only to appear different from the government.
It's like those ladies doing plastic surgeries thinking it makes them look forever young and attractive, when everybody else sees a ridiculous Koons-esque caricature in the making.
It's OK to have different ideas about how the country is run but there's nothing to debate about in a repeal of a dead, colonial law.
And if some ultra-conservatives in WP have better ideas for what should supersede it then, by all means, they should present them. That's what parliament is for, no? But these are two different things.
The reason there's no talk of that is because their every action is merely a reaction to what the PAP does, rather than a constructive effort to present a reasonable alternative.
If you want to see where that leads just look at other countries.
